Document ID: EPA_FRDOC_0001-21748
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Production of Confidential Business Information in Pending Litigation: Transfer of Information Claimed or Determined to Potentially Contain Confidential Business Information to the United States Department of Justice and Parties to Certain Litigation
Posted Date: 2017-12-26T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60984-60985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27814]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9971-91-OCSPP]

Production of Confidential Business Information in Pending 
Litigation; Transfer of Information Claimed or Determined to 
Potentially Contain Confidential Business Information to the United 
States Department of Justice and Parties to Certain Litigation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is providing 
notice, of disclosure of potential confidential business information in 
litigation.

DATES: Access by U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') and the parties 
to litigation to material, including CBI, discussed in this Notice, is 
ongoing and expected to continue during the litigation discussed in 
this Notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Registration 
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is being provided, pursuant to 
40 CFR 2.209(d), to inform affected businesses that the EPA, via the 
DOJ, has recently disclosed documents to the parties and the Court in 
the matter of National Family Farm Coalition, et al. v. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency and Scott Pruitt, Case No. 17-70196 
(9th Cir.) (the ``Dicamba Litigation''), and in the consolidated 
matters of National Family Farm Coalition, et al. v. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency and Scott Pruitt, Case No. 17-70810 (9th Cir.) and 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Scott Pruitt and U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 17-70817 (9th Cir.) (the 
``Enlist Duo Litigation''), that have been submitted to EPA by 
pesticide registrants or other data-submitters and that have been 
claimed to be, or have been determined to potentially contain, 
confidential business information (collectively ``CBI'').
    In the ``Dicamba Litigation,'' Petitioners seek judicial review of 
EPA's order granting a conditional pesticide registration under the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA'') for the 
new uses of the herbicide dicamba on genetically engineered cotton and 
soybean. In the ``Enlist Duo Litigation,'' Petitioners seek judicial 
review of EPA's order granting a conditional pesticide registration 
under FIFRA of the herbicide ``Enlist Duo,'' containing the active 
ingredients 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid choline salt (``2,4-D'') and 
glyphosate dimethylammonium salt (``glyphosate'').
    The documents are being produced as part of the Administrative 
Records of the decisions at issue and include documents that 
registrants or other data-submitters may have submitted to EPA 
regarding the pesticides dicamba, 2,4-D, and/or glyphosate, and that 
may be subject to various release restrictions under federal law. The 
information includes documents submitted with pesticide registration 
applications and may include CBI as well as scientific studies subject 
to the disclosure restrictions of section 10(g) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 
136h(d).
    All documents that may be subject to release restrictions under 
federal law are designated as ``Confidential or Restricted 
Information'' under Protective Orders that the Court entered on 
November 8, 2017 in both cases (Dkt. 61-2 in the Dicamba Litigation; 
Dkt. 55-2 in the Enlist Duo Litigation). The Protective Orders preclude 
public disclosure of any such documents by the parties in this action 
who have received the information from EPA, unless a party successfully 
obtains a de-designation as Confidential or Restricted Information of 
any portion of the Administrative Record via the procedure described in 
paragraph 6 of the Protective Orders, and limits the use of such 
documents to litigation

[[Page 60985]]

purposes only. Further, paragraph 6(h) of the Protective Orders states: 
``At any time, the court may de-designate any portion of the 
administrative record without advanced notice to the parties.'' If 
filed with the Court, such documents would be filed under seal and 
would not be available for public review, unless the information 
contained in the document has been determined to not be subject to 
section 10(g) of FIFRA and all CBI has been redacted. At the conclusion 
of the litigation, the Protective Orders require that record material 
EPA designates as ``Confidential or Restricted Information'' be 
destroyed or returned to EPA.

    Dated: December 7, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-27814 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P