2 On June 4, 2014, EPA opened a 60

- day public comment period on the Registration Review Proposed Interim Decision s (PID s ) for Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite, Carbon and Carbon Dioxide,
and Sulfur (79 FR 32284 ( FRL

- 9911

- 16) (EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2014

- 0278). The comment period ended on August 4, 2014. During the public comment period, EPA received comments from the Center for Biological Div ersity, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Agricultural Commissioner of San Luis Obispo County, California. The Agency has responded
below to the in dividual comments by category and source for the comment.

The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS) submitted comments on the Proposed Interim Registration Review Dockets: Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrit e EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2007

- 1118; Carbon and Carbo n Dioxide
EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2007

- 0705

.

Points of agreement with EPA :

• Sub

- /separate label approach would integrate APHIS consultations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for strategic use of gas cartridges and allow rare use of the products on other species as allowed under FIFRA 2(ee) in addition to being protective of threatened and endangered species under ESA.

• The use of sub

- county range maps for threatened and endangered species and locations where gas cartridge use is permitted in Bulletins Live! is an improvement over county

level Bulletins.

Points needing further clarification with EPA :
Comment 1 : USDA APHIS states that there were 9 proposed interim Bulletins.

EPA Response 1 : The Agency would like to clarify the number of Bulletins that were proposed. The Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision included county Bulletins for a number of

co unties in each of the 9 states:

1) Alabama (7 counties) 2) Arizona (2 counties)
3) C alifornia (6 counties) 4) Louisiana (6 counties) 5) Mississippi (27 counties) 6) North Carolina (19 counties) 7) Tennessee (9 counties) 8) Utah (10 counties) 9) Virginia (5 counties)3 Comment 1 A : The informal consultation process used to draft the 9 proposed interim Bulletins is unclear and needs to be explicitly stated. Furthermore, APHIS notes inconsistencies with
county

- level habitat designations found in the Bulletins compared with those found on FWS’ website and in the FWS published recovery plan s.

EPA Response 1 A : On April 8, 2010, EPA initiated informal consultation with FWS on the preliminary risk assessment for the gas cartridges. As a part of ongoing discussions from March 2012 through January 2013, FWS provided species range maps ( i.e., shapefiles) for over 50 listed species. EPA then shared these maps with the registrants for the gas cartridges, including APHIS, and asked if the registrants would be willing to off

- label the use of gas cartridges in any of the areas with listed species. The registrants agreed to off

- label the use of gas cartridges in the ranges of 12 listed species. Between these initial discussions and the inclusion of the draft Bulletins in the PIDs, one of the 12 species, the Island Night lizard, was delisted and re moved
from the draft Bulletins. Therefore, Bulletins for 11 species were proposed in the PID

.

EPA defers to FWS to provide the best source of authoritative information on species range data. The shapefiles used in the draft Bulletins were received from FWS and are considered by FWS
to be the best available information on the range of the species, although this information may not agree with the information they provide on their website or in t heir recovery plans. If APHIS has concerns regarding these shapefiles, they may contact the FWS. If EPA receives a revised shapefile from FWS, this revised shapefile will be used in the Bulletins.

Comment 1 B : The complete Pesticide Limitation Code syste m used in the proposed interim Bulletins is not identified. APHIS would like further information on this coding system.

EPA Response 1 B : Pesticide Limitation Codes are developed between EPA and the chemical registrant. APHIS can view the Pesticide Limitation Codes for existing Bulletins online at: http://www.epa.gov/espp.

Comment 1 C : The map images in the proposed interim Bulletins are too small and APHIS recommends that EPA provide finer resolution maps.

EPA Response 1 C : When the PIDs were issued, EPA was still using the first version of
Bulletins Live! which used static, county

- level maps with limited resolution. However, a newly updated geospatial tool

, Bulletins Live! Two, is now available and allows the user to zoom in and out, thus providing finer resolution.

Comment 1 D : The proposed interim Bulletins do not contain an issue date and APHIS
recommends that EPA number and date each version to avoid confusion among applicators.

EPA Response 1 D : All final Bulletins have a “Valid For” date with a month and year. This is because the user must select the month and year in which they will apply the pesticide to obtain a valid Bulletin. The “Valid For” dates were specifically removed from the draft Bulletins issued
with the PIDs because the final date for Bulletins to become enforceable was unknown at the4 issuance of the PID . Once the final Bulletins are issued, they will have a “Valid For” date (month and year).

Comment 1 E : APHIS indicated the ne ed for additional time to evaluate the impact to operational programs of the proposed limitations in Bulletins Live! for the Coachella Valley fringe

- toed lizard and Morro Bay kangaroo rat.

EPA Response 1 E : Due to comments from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) and discussions with CDPR and FWS, EPA is no longer proposing Bulletins for the Coachella Valley fringe

- toed lizard and Morro Bay kangaroo rat prior to formal consultation. These species will be evaluated by the FWS during the formal consultation process.

Comment 1 F : Aside from the proposed Bulletin restrictions for the Channel Island foxes in California, APHIS cannot agree at this time to any of the other proposed geographic restrictions for the Mount Graham red squirrel (Ar izona), Carolina northern flying squirrel (Tennessee and North Carolina), the desert slender salamander (California), because the resolution of the maps does not allow them to determine whether or not the habitat delineations are in agreement with
boundari es of Federal lands.

EPA Response 1 F : Due to the comments received from CDPR, and discussions with CDPR and FWS, EPA is no longer proposing Bulletins for the species in California, including the Channel Island foxes and the desert slender salamander, prior to formal consultation. Upon furthe r review of the range for the Carolina northern flying squirrel, only 79% of the species range occurs within Federal land boundaries. As a result, the Agency is no longer proposing Bulletins for this species prior to formal consultation. These species wi ll be evaluated by the FWS during the formal consultation process.

The initial shapefile received from the FWS for the Mount Graham red squirrel was completely within Federal land boundaries. However, when EPA asked FWS to confirm that the shapefile
for this species was still accurate, FWS provided a revised shapefile that was no longer completely with in Federal land boundaries. The Agency proposed, and the registrants , including APHIS, agreed to prohibit gas cartridge use in the revised range of the Mount Graham red squirrel. However, Bulletins for the gas cartridge products that will be amended to be used only by APHIS Wildlife Services personnel will include language that would allow use of the product within the range of the species prohibited by gas cartridge Bulletins if certain conditions are met.

Co mment 2 : APHIS inquires about the process for issuing future Bulletins and updating maps. Specifically, if a new Bulletin is issued, will there be an opportunity to review and comment on draft Bulletins to ensure accuracy before they are incorporated in Bulletins Live! ? A lso

, what is the review process for potentially affected registrants and users? APHIS would like more information o n how EPA plans to accomplish the addition of new and/or updated threatened and endangered species information, including delisting of species, within each Bulletin.5 EPA Response 2 : Information on EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP), of which Bulletins are a part, can be found in the Federal Register (70 FR 66392). EPA intends to update Bulle tins as regulatory decisions are made, or when a new body of data becomes available. As with any potential change to a pesticide product label for which it has been
determined th at pesticide use limitations are necessary to protect endangered species , the registrant of the product will have an opportunity to review the specific use limitations and the Bulletins prior to issuance. Further, registrants retain the rights they have under FIFRA, regarding EPA’s determination that use of the product needs to be modified.

Comment 3 : APHIS would like to know how gas cartridge users/applicators with no cell phone or internet access to Bulletins Live! in the field can obtain information regarding threatened and endangered species use restrictions.

EPA Response 3 : Users must visit http://www.epa.gov/espp or call 1

- 800

- 447

- 3813 prior to using the pesticide in an area where there is no internet or cell phone coverage. EPA can mail or email the Bulletin to users, if necessary. Bulletins can be obtained up to 6 months prior to using
the chemical.

Comment 4 : APHIS inquires about the process of referencing Bulletins Live! on pesticide labels and requests the opportunity to review and comment on any additional language that is inte nded to be incorporated on product labels.

EPA Response 4 : EPA intends to incorporate the following language which is similar to other pesticide product labels with Bulletins:

“It is a Federal offense to use any pesticide in a manner that results in the death of an endangered species. Use of this product may pose a hazard to endangered or threatened species. When using this product, you must follow the measures contained in the Endangered Species Protection Bulletin for the area in which you are applying the product. To obtain Bulletins, no more than six months before using this product, consult http://www.epa.gov/espp / or call 1

- 800

- 447

- 38 13. You must use the Bulletin valid for the month in which you will apply the product.”

Comment 5 : APHIS is concerned that there are inconsistencies, for some threatened and endangered species, between the Bulletins and the Endangered Species Considera tions section of existing APHIS labels. As a result, APHIS wants to know how the EPA intends to address the transition from the current threatened and endangered species language on the label to a dynamic Bulletins Live! system that is updated as new effec ts determinations are issued

.

EPA Response 5 : As is sta t ed in the gas cartridge Interim Decisions (IDs)

, Section IV Interim Registration Review Decision

, registrants must submit revised labeling incorporating the mitigation measures and appropriate label language as listed in Appendix C within 60

- days of
the IDs being issued . As a registrant for gas cartridge products (EPA Registration Numbers
56228

- 2 and 56228

- 21 ), USDA/ APHIS must submit proposed amendments to their existing product labels and applications for new products as described in the IDs. Revised labels will6 have the prescribed threatened and endangered species language a nd i nformation directing users to visit the Bulletins Live! Two website, as indicated in the IDs. As new effects determinations are made in the future, instructions will be given to regis trants at the time on the procedures to follow for submission of updated labels as needed

.

Comment 6 : APHIS would like information on the process that EPA will use to initiate ESA Section 7 consultation with the FWS. Specifically, APHIS would like additional information on the timeframe (start date, etc.) of the consultation process, what information will be used during

co nsultation, and how existing local consultations with FWS undertaken by APHIS will be incorporated into deliberations. APHIS requests copies of documentation, including the Biological Assessment and any corresponding analyses for review prior to EPA conta cting FWS to initiate formal consultation. APHIS would also like EPA to specify how APHIS will be involved in the consultation process.

EPA Response 6 : EPA initiates consultation with the Services by sending a letter requesting consultation. EPA expects to initiate formal consultation with FWS after the Interim Decision is
issued.

EPA has initiated informal consultation with the Services in this case, and intends to continue to provide documentation in the public docket as part of r egistration r eview, including the risk assessment, addenda/refinements to the risk assessment, the letter to FWS initiating formal consultation, and the PID.

Regarding local consultations with FWS undertaken by APHIS, EPA suggested, and APHIS agreed to the following langu age for the APHIS Wildlife Service users in Bulletins: “Use of the gas cartridge products by USDA/APHIS personnel is prohibited in this area, unless USDA/APHIS has consulted with the U.S. FWS on the use of these products within the specified
area and follo ws all U.S. FWS specifications for use.”

The role of the applicant, or registrant, in the consultation process is outlined in the Final ESA
Section 7 Consultation Han dbook, dated March 1998 . It states:

“If the Federal agency identifies an applicant, the Services and the action agency meet their obligations to that party as outlined in 50 CFR §402 through the following:

o The action agency provides the applicant an opportunity to submit information for consideration during the consultation;

o The applicant must be informed by the action agency of the estimated length of any
extension of the 180

- day timeframe for preparing a biological assessment, along with
a written s tatement of the reasons for the extension;

o The timeframes for concluding formal consultation cannot be extended beyond 60 days without the applicant’s concurrence;

o The applicant is entitled to review draft biological opinions obtained through the action ag ency, and to provide comments through the action agency;7 o The Services will discuss the basis of their biological determination with the applicant and seek the applicant’s expertise in identifying reasonable and prudent alternative to the action if likely j eopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat is determined;
and

o The Services provide the applicant with a copy of the final biological opinion.

The Services do not work directly with or take comments directly from the applicant without the knowledg e or consent of the action agency [50 CFR 402.14(g)(5)].”

Comment 7 : In the instance where a habitat map may not be available for a species, APHIS seeks clarification on how any restrictions on these species will be articulated on the APHIS
labels until t he ESA Section 7 process is completed.

EPA Response 7 : Without a habitat map, Bulletins cannot be drafted, and therefore, the label restrictions will remain until formal consultation is completed.

Comment 8 : APHIS asks EPA to elaborate on how the FWS des ignation of “Experimental Populations” for threatened and endangered species will be considered in Bulletins Live!

. Since these populations are considered non

- essential by FWS, APHIS suggests that EPA not include restrictions on product use for these areas in Bulletins Live!

EPA Response 8 : Regarding species that are subject to Section 7 consultation under the ESA, each member of an essential experimental population is treated like a threatened species. Non

essential experimental populations, not in a National Park or refuge, are treated like a proposed species , and those members of non

- essential populations occurring in a National Park or refuge

are treated as threate ned species.

Comment 9 : APHIS noted that FWS is actively trying to develop agreements with private landowners to allow landowners to use gas cartridges to control pest species when there is some risk of impacting listed species on adjacent land (e.g., Sa fe Harbor or border baiting). APHIS feels that the benefit provided to the listed species outweighs the risk, because it makes landowners more accepting of listed species. This is exemplified by FWS’ efforts to re

- establish populations of black

- footed ferrets. FWS is working with APHIS Wildlife Services to control prairie dogs on property adjacent to black

- footed ferret reintroduction sites. APHIS feels that gas cartridges are a low risk option for prairie dog con trol, and that the black

- footed ferret reintroduction projects could fail if the border control provision is not considered in mitigation options. APHIS seeks confirmation regarding EPA’s consideration/approval of the proposed approach that EPA make allowa nces in Bulletins Live! for border control efforts designed to enhance listed species recovery.

EPA Response 9 : EPA is aware of the border control issue, has considered it in previous consultations with FWS (i.e., Rozol and Kaput

- D Prairie Dog Bait consul tations) and will also consider it during formal consultations with FWS for the gas cartridges.8 Comment 10 : APHIS seeks confirmation regarding EPA’s consideration/approval of the proposed approach that EPA make allowances for gas cartridge use in urban e nvironments and
take into consideration local Section 7 consultations.

EPA Response 10 : Please see Response 6 above. Regarding local consultations with FWS undertaken by APHIS, EPA suggested, and APHIS agreed to the following language for the
APHIS Wildlife Service users: “Use of the gas cartridge products by USDA/APHIS personnel is prohibited in this area, unless USDA/APHIS has consulted with the U.S. FWS on the use of these products within the specified area and follows all U.S. FWS specifications for use.”

Comment 11 : APHIS requests more information regarding the ESA Section 7 consultation process with the CDPR and FWS. APHIS requests information on the scope of the consultation, such as which species and gas cartridge uses are included in the con sultation, and the timeline of the consultation process. APHIS expresses concern that given the use restrictions based on the threatened and endangered species range maps, a considerable amount of land in the Central Valley would become unavailable for the APHIS gas cartridge products and that, as a result, alternatives could potentially pose a greater risk to human health and non

- target species.

EPA Response 1 1 : Due to the comments received from CDPR, and discussions with CDPR and FWS, EPA is no longer proposing Bulletins for the species in California prior to formal consultation with FWS. These species will be evaluated by the FWS during the formal
consultation process. However, in regard to the question about the consultation process, EPA engages impacted stakeholders and the FWS during consultation in an effort to develop mitigation measures that are protective of listed species while not placing undue burdens on stakeholders.

Comment 1 2 : APHIS seeks confirmation from EPA regarding the sub

- label approach, that the
sub

- label would integrate the APHIS consultations with FWS for strategic uses of gas cartridges, and allow the rare use of the products on other species as allowed under FIFRA 2(e e). More specifically, APHIS would like to know how the EPA will distinguish consumer sub

- labels from
APHIS sub

- labels: 1) how will the labels be written (e.g., rodent uses versus other uses); 2) how
will the sub

- labels be maintained (e.g., annual maintena nce fees and state registration fee requirements) and managed logistically for storage and distribution; and, 3) how will the sub

labels be enforced (e.g., restricted use versus general use)?

EPA Response 12 : Based on discussions between EPA and State Lea d Agency representatives,
the sub

- label approach is not feasible due to difficulty with enforcement. On September 17, 2014, EPA met with APHIS and explained the problems associated with the sub

- label approach and proposed an alternative approach. EPA pro posed separate registrations for the APHIS Wildlife Service uses and the general uses. APHIS agreed that the existing two gas cartridge registrations (EPA Reg. No. 56228

- 2, “Gas Cartridge” and 56228

- 21, “Large Gas Cartridge”) would be divided into four reg istrations:9 1) “Large Gas Cartridge” for APHIS Wildlife Service use
2) “Large Gas Cartridge” for consumer use 3) “Gas Cartridge” for APHIS Wildlife Service use 4) “Gas Cartridge” for consumer use

Both consumer use products will restrict use only to target species listed on the labels, and will
include a reference to Bulletins Live! Two with the following language:

“Use of gas cartridges (containing some or all of the following active ingredients: carb on dioxide, carbon, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, and sulfur) is prohibited in this area.”

The APHIS Wildlife Service labels will not include the restriction to allow use only on target species listed on the label. These labels will also include a reference to Bulletins Live! Two ; however, regarding local consultations with FWS undertaken by APHIS, EPA suggested, and APHIS agreed to the following language for the APHIS Wildlif e Service users:

“Use of the gas cartridge products by USDA/APHIS personnel is prohibited in this area, unless USDA/APHIS has consulted with the U.S. FWS on the use of these products within the specified area and follows all U.S. FWS specifications for u se.”

The products will not be considered Restricted Use Pesticides. Regarding maintenance fees, storage, and distribution logistics, the EPA’s Registration D ivision (RD) will work with
USDA/APHIS to resolve these issues once the new product applications have been submitted.

Comment 13 : APHIS asks that EPA evaluate the different risk profiles for threatened and endangered species presented by gas cartridge products used to control rodents versus g as cartridge products used to control predators, and that EPA consider mitigation measures that are targeted to the unique risks of each product.

EPA Response 13 : EPA determined in its June 28, 2013, Revision to the environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for carbon dioxide, and for carbon, sawdust, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate and sulfur containing cartridges , that both rodent control and predator control ( i.e., large) gas cartridges may pose risks of concern to the listed species, with the exception of the gray and red wolf, for which EPA only determined a risk from the large gas cartridge. Any further refinements of the risk picture will occur as part of the fo rmal consultation process.

Comment 14 : APHIS requests that EPA provide the list of 7 species for which “No Effect” determinations were made for the consumer

- use Gas Cartridge product sub

- label and for which EPA will seek concurrence on “May Effect, NLAA” determinations with FWS for the APHIS Wildlife Services

- use sub

- label. Once APHIS receives the list of 7 species, they may have additional species

- specific comments on which to follow up with EPA.10 EPA Response 14 : EPA’s most recent revision/addendum to the risk assessment, entitled, Revision to the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Carbon Dioxide and for Carbon, Sawdust, Sodium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate and Sulfur Containing Cartridges, June 28

, 2013 , states on page 25 that if the label(s) are clarified to limit the use of the gas cartridges to only those species currently listed on the labels that:

“ T hese label changes would ensure that no exposure would occur for seven species, and consequently a “No Effect” determination could be made for these seven species :
1. Bog turtle
2. St. Andrew beach mouse
3. Perdido Key beach mouse
4. Alabama beach mouse
5. Southeastern beach mouse
6. Anastasia Island beach mouse
7. Choctawhatchee beach mouse ”

Comment 15 : APHIS requests that the sub

- label language for the APHIS

- registered pesticide products b e changed so that ‘USDA APHIS Wildlife Services applicators’ are listed as users and not ‘FWS applicators’.

EPA Response 15 : APHIS should submit revised labels with th e desired language change ; they
will be reviewed by RD.

Comment 16 : APHIS requests that EPA explicitly state how they are going to handle any threatened and endangered species restrictions on the label for APHIS Gas Cartridge products within the ranges of the 7 “NLAA” species for which EPA will soon seek concurrence from FWS. Will threatened and endangered species language on product labels be revised before EPA seeks concurrence from FWS?

EPA Response 16 : The APHIS Wildlife Service’s gas cartridge labels will not specifically address the 7 species listed abo ve in the response to comment 14 . They will be considered
NLAA on the basis that APHIS W ildlife S ervices personnel are trained to identify target pest burrows, and will not use gas cartridges in burrows that contain the 7 species listed above.

Comment 17 : APHIS seeks clarification on EPA’s plan for consultation on indirect effects with
FWS. APHIS would like to be involved in discussions on indirect effects species prior to and during any consultation process with FWS to ensure accuracy of that list.

EPA Response 17 : The EPA welcomes APHIS to join the conversation on potential indirect effects of gas cartri dges to threatened and endangered species impacts during consultation. As a registrant, APHIS will be included in the consultation process.11 Comments on Species

- Specific Issues

Comment 18 : APHIS expresses concern regarding the use of species maps in formal
consultations with FWS under Section 7.

EPA Response 18 : The shapefiles used to develop the species maps provided to APHIS were received from FWS and are considered by FWS to be the range of the species. If APHIS has concerns regarding these shapefi les, they may contact the FWS. If EPA receives a revised shapefile from FWS, the revised shapefile will be used in the Bulletins.

Comment 19 : APHIS Wildlife Services has consulted with the local FWS on APHIS Wildlife
Services use of the Large Ga s Cartridge. Through this consultation FWS determined that Large Gas Cartridge use would not likely adversely impact 37 listed threatened and endangered species.

EPA Response 19 : EPA is interested in seeing the results of the consultation between APHIS
W ildlife Services and FWS regarding the 37 species that FWS determined would not likely be adversely impacted by Large Gas Cartridge use. USDA/APHIS is expected to provide the results
of these local consultatio ns to EPA so that they can be considered and shared with FWS as EPA

move s forward with formal consultation

.

Comment 20 : APHIS suggests that ground squirrel control operations at airports and efforts to control zoonotic disease outbreaks might be severely impacted throughout California due to

geograp hic use restrictions.

EPA Respons e 20 : Due to the comments received from CDPR, and discussions with CDPR and FWS, EPA is no longer proposing Bulletins for the species in California prior to formal consultation. These species will be addressed in formal consultation with FWS.

Comment 21 : APHI S is interested in EPA’s mitigation or labeling plans for the red wolf as well as for the gray wolf in areas where it has not been delisted. APHIS is concerned over the range maps EPA previously provided for these two species and would like to see the Bio logical
A ssessment (BA) or other underlying data used by EPA prior to the FWS consultation process.

EPA Response 21 : There are currently no shapefiles available on the gray or red wolf from the FWS. As a result, these species will be covered in formal consultation with the FWS.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) submitted comments on the Proposed Interim Decision Document found in the Registration Review Dockets: Inorganic
Nitrate/Nitrite EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2007

- 1118; Carbon and Carbon Dioxide EPA

- HQ

- OPP

2007

- 0705; and Sulfur EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176.

Comment 22 : C DPR requests that the EPA adopt the existing protection measures for gas cartridges described in the PRESCRIBE system

. FWS has already concurred that the Grain Bait12 and Pelletized Rodenticide and Burrow Fumigant Bulletins upon which the PRESCRIBE measures are based, adequately protect feder ally listed species.

EPA Response 22 : The Agency thanks CDPR for bringing to our attention the existing measures in California for protecting listed species. The Agency reviewed the existing protection measures
in PRESCRIBE and considered incorporating these measures into the Agency’s Bulletins Live! approach. However, FWS has informed the Agency and CDPR, that it would need to re

- evaluate the existing measures in PRESCRIBE to see if they are still adequate to support the 1996 “ Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA)” determination concurrence 1 . Therefore, the Agency cannot rely on California’s existing mitigation measures to make a NLAA determination for those species. The Agency will request, through Section 7 Endangered Species consultation, that FWS determine what mitigation measures are necessary.

Comment 23 : C DPR is concerned that the proposed Bulletin maps for four California counties (Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara) are too broad in describing the species habitat. DPR believes the maps located in the California Department of Fi sh and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) are more specific with data to the nearest section (square mile) of the areas. CDPR comments that generalization of the habitat dissipates efforts to protect the species and may diminish credibility with stakeholders.

EPA Response 23 : For Section 7 ESA consultations, EPA relies on the best available species range data which is provided by the Federal agency that oversees the recovery of a given listed species. In the case of gas cartridges, EPA has rel ied on range data submitted by listed species experts within the Field Offices of the FWS. EPA has requested that CDPR and FWS work together to ensure th at th e best available data are used to determine the geographic range of the species. However, EPA is no longer proposing mitigation in the form of Bulletins for the listed species in California prior to formal consultation with FWS

.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Defenders of Wildlife submitted comments on the Proposed Interim Registrati on Review Dockets: Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite EPA

- HQ

OPP

- 2007

- 1118; Carbon and Carbon Dioxide EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2007

- 0705; and Sulfur EPA

– HQ

– OPP

– 2008

– 0176.

Comment 24 : The commenters identified a number of species that have been listed since 2010 that may require geographically

- targeted restrictions to avoid jeopardy and other species that may be listed in the next several years.

1 United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Services. “Approval of Two EPA Pesticide Bulletins For Grain Bait and Pelletized Rodenticides and Burrow Fumigants.” November 1, 1996. This document can be found in the EPA’s public docket (EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2007

- 1118

- 0045) at www.regulations.gov.13 EPA Response 24 : The Agency thanks CBD and the Defenders of Wildlife for bringing the additional listed species to our attention and will address t hese additional species in the formal
consultation with FWS.

Comment 25 : In its 2010 environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for gas cartridges, the EPA “identified potential direct effects for listed terrestrial mammals, terr estrial birds (including amphibians and reptiles for which birds serve as a surrogate) and terrestrial invertebrates, based on 100% mortality assumed at the application site from asphyxiation.” As a result, the EPA engaged in informal consultations with th e Service regarding potential impacts to listed species. Through this process 56 species were identified which were likely to be adversely affected by the use of gas cartridges. Through the consultation process, RPAs and RPMs were developed requiring a qua lified applicator when the products are applied in the range of the Fresno kangaroo rat, giant kangaroo rat, Stephen’s kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, Point Arena mountain beaver, San Joaquin kit fox, and desert tortoise. For other species, specific geo graphic use restrictions in the ranges of endangered species were required for the Hualapai Mexican vole, Morro Bay kangaroo rat, Utah prairie dog, Coachella Valley fringe

toed lizard, Island night lizard, blunt

- nosed leopard lizard, San Francisco garter s nake, Eastern Indigo snake, gopher tortoise, and black

- footed ferret. For other species, between 1993 and 2007, the EPA and the Service have consulted to identify RPAs and RPMs to protect listed species from gas cartridge use, including specific restrictio ns and requirements for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services agency.

EPA Response 25 : The history described above is not completely accurate. RPAs and RPMs have not yet been developed as a result of the 2010 risk assessment and subsequen t
revisions/addenda to the risk assessment. The RPAs and RPMs described above were the result of a 1993 consultation with FWS on vertebrate control pesticides. The 2010 risk assessment made “May Affect” effects determinations for 56 listed species. The Ag ency then considered options for risk mitigation in the Proposed Interim Decisions (PIDs) and after considering comments and further discussion with USDA/APHIS and FWS, is now specifying mitigation measure that include Bulletins for 4 species. EPA will en ter into formal consultation with FWS for all listed species with “May Affect” and NLAA determinations

.

Comment 26 : These labels must be enforceable under FIFRA. Thus, as a mechanism to implement conservation measures from the informal and formal consultation process, the EPA must use the Bulletins Live! system to incorporate these measures. Accordingly, all product labels for gas cartridges must contain the following language: This product may have effects on federally listed threatened or endange red species or their critical habitat in some locations. When using this product, you must follow the measures contained in the Endangered Species Protection Bulletin for the county or parish in which you are applying the pesticide. To determine whether yo ur county or parish has a Bulletin, and to obtain that Bulletin, consult http://www.epa.gov/espp/, or call 1

- 800

- 447

- 3813 no more than 6 months before using this product. Applicators must use Bulletins that are in effect in the month in which the pesticide will14 be applied. New Bulletins will generally be available from the above sources 6 months prior to their effective dates.

EPA Response 26 : The Agency thanks CBD and Defenders of Wildlife for the suggested language. Below is the language that the Agency will request the registrants to add to their labels

to reference the Bulletins Live! Two system:

“Endangered Species: It is a Federal offense to use any pesticide in a manner that results in the death of an endangered species. Use of this product may pose a hazard to endangered or threatened species. When using this product, you must follow the measures contained in the Endangered Specie s Protection Bulletin for the area in which you are applying the product. To obtain Bulletins, no more than six months before using this product, consult http://www.epa.gov/espp/ or call 1

- 800

- 447

- 3813. You must use the Bulletin valid for the month
in whic h you will apply the product.”

The San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner (the County Ag Commissioner) submitted comments on the Proposed Interim Decision Document found in the Registration Review Dockets: Inorganic Nitrate/Nitrite EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2007

- 1118; Carbon and Carbon
Dioxi de EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2007

- 0705; and Sulfur EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0176.

Comment 27 : The County Ag Commissioner requested that the EPA incorporate the existing use restrictions in the county specific Interim Measures Bulletins that the FWS has already
concurred is NLA A three of the listed species, Morro Bay kangaroo rat, San Joaquin Kit fox, and
blunt

- nosed l eopard lizard. The recommended limitations can be found on CDPR’s website for endangered species and is accessed by using their online database application: PRESC RIBE. Additionally, the County Ag Commissioner mentions the Morro Bay kangaroo rat’s habitat range only involves nine specific sections.

EPA Response 27 : Please see Response 2 2 above.

Comment 28 : The County recommends that the EPA adopt the existing CDPR use restriction in CDPR’s Interim Measures Bulletin for the California red

- legged frog. CDPR determined that the gas cartridges are NLAA the California red

- legged frog, as well as analogous reptil es and amphibians (e.g., the blunt nosed leopard lizard). The current CDPR limitations in the Interim Measures Bulletin specify that use of gas cartridges is limited to a person supervised by someone in distinguishing the dens and burrows of target and no t

- target species and prohibits uses within 500 ft of water courses, except in cultivated areas.

EPA Response 28 : Please see Response 2 2 above.