71549
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
(
DBPR)
to
provide
greater
protection
against
risks
associated
with
microbial
pathogens
and
disinfection
byproducts
in
drinking
water.
The
Committee
provided
consensus
recommendations
for
the
LT2ESWTR
and
Stage
2
DBPR
in
September
2000,
as
stated
in
an
Agreement
in
Principle
(
65
FR
83015,
December
29,
2000).
In
this
meeting,
EPA
will
inform
the
Committee
regarding
the
status
of
development
of
the
LT2ESWTR
and
Stage
2
DBPR.

Dated:
November
25,
2002.
Cynthia
C.
Dougherty,
Director,
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water.
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
30461
Filed
11
 
29
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
FRL
 
7414
 
9]

Meeting
of
the
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice
of
public
meeting.

SUMMARY:
In
accordance
with
section
10(
a)(
2)
of
Public
Law
92
 
423,
``
The
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act,''
notice
is
hereby
given
of
the
forthcoming
conference
call
meeting
of
the
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council
(
Council),
established
under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act,
as
amended
(
42
U.
S.
C.
300f
et
seq.).
The
Council
will
discuss
underground
injection
control
with
respect
to
the
practice
of
hydraulic
fracturing
for
coal­
bed
methane
production.
DATES:
The
meeting
will
be
held
on
December
12,
2002,
from
10
a.
m.
to
1
p.
m.,
Eastern
Standard
Time.
ADDRESSES:
Council
members
will
teleconference
into
Room
2123
of
the
EPA
East
building,
which
is
physically
located
at
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
A
limited
number
of
additional
phone
lines
may
be
available
for
members
of
the
public
who
are
outside
of
the
Washington
DC
metropolitan
commuting
area
and
are
unable
to
attend
in
person.
Any
additional
teleconferencing
lines
that
are
available
will
be
reserved
on
a
firstcome
first­
serve
basis
by
the
Designated
Federal
Officer.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
attend
the
meeting,
present
an
oral
statement,
submit
a
written
statement
in
advance,
or
make
arrangements
to
teleconference
into
the
meeting
should
contact
Brenda
Johnson,
Designated
Federal
Officer,
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council,
by
December
6,
2002.
Ms.
Johnson
can
be
reached
at
(
202)
564
 
3791;
by
e­
mail
at
johnson.
brendap@
epa.
gov,
or
by
regular
mail
at
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
(
M/
C
4601M),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
Council
encourages
the
public's
input
and
will
allocate
a
portion
of
the
meeting
for
this
purpose.
To
ensure
adequate
time
for
public
involvement,
oral
statements
will
be
limited
to
five
minutes,
and
it
is
preferred
that
only
one
person
present
the
statement
on
behalf
of
a
group
or
organization.
Any
person
who
wishes
to
file
a
written
statement
can
do
so
before
or
after
a
Council
meeting.
Written
statements
received
prior
to
the
meeting
will
be
distributed
to
all
members
of
the
Council
before
any
final
discussion
or
vote
is
completed.
Any
statements
received
after
the
meeting
will
become
part
of
the
permanent
meeting
file
and
will
be
forwarded
to
the
Council
members
for
their
information.

Dated:
November
25,
2002.
Cynthia
C.
Dougherty,
Director,
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water.
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
30462
Filed
11
 
29
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
OPP
 
2002
 
0311;
FRL
 
7283
 
7]

Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
Field
Implementation
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA
or
Agency).
ACTION:
Notice
of
proposed
field
implementation
approach
and
request
for
comment.

SUMMARY:
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
is
describing,
and
requesting
comment
on,
implementation
of
its
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
(
ESPP,
or
the
Program).
The
goal
of
the
ESPP
is
to
carry
out
responsibilities
under
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
in
compliance
with
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA),
while
at
the
same
time
not
placing
unnecessary
burden
on
agriculture
and
other
pesticide
users.
This
Notice
describes
how
EPA
proposes
to
implement
its
responsibilities
under
section
7(
a)(
2)
of
ESA
by
completing
and
upgrading
County
Bulletins,
amending
pesticide
labels
to
reference
County
Bulletins,
and
enhancing
monitoring
programs.
Regulations
found
at
50
CFR
part
402
acknowledge
that
there
may
be
Federal
programs
for
which
revisions
to
standard
regulatory
processes
could
result
in
more
effective
and
efficient
coordination
among
Federal
agencies
and
thus,
more
effective
and
efficient
protection
of
listed
species.
As
such,
those
regulations
(
50
CFR
part
402)
allow
Federal
agencies
to
establish
alternate
procedures,
applicable
to
specific
Federal
programs,
for
satisfying
the
provisions
of
ESA
section
7(
a)(
2).
Those
alternate
procedures
are
known
as
counterpart
regulations.
Through
a
separate
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
ANPR)
to
be
issued
on
or
about
the
same
date
as
this
Notice,
EPA,
the
Department
of
the
Interior
(
DOI),
and
the
Department
of
Commerce
(
DOC)
are
seeking
public
input
on
ways
that
such
counterpart
regulations
could
improve
the
ESA
consultation
process
with
respect
to
pesticide
registrations.
Similarly,
implementing
regulations
under
FIFRA
may
be
revised
to
ensure
a
more
effective
program.
The
docket
for
this
Notice
(
docket
identification
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0311)
includes
a
summary
of
the
current
technical
review
and
consultation
approaches
employed
by
the
Agency,
and
the
standard
evaluation
procedure
used
for
ecological
risk
assessments.
That
information
has
been
subject
to
public
comment
in
the
past,
has
been
used
during
EPA's
Interim
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program,
and
will
continue
to
be
used
until
the
Agency,
DOI
and
DOC
take
comment
on
these
aspects
of
the
Program
through
the
ANPR
and
modify
them
as
appropriate.
DATES:
Comments,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0311,
must
be
received
on
or
before
March
3,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
I.
of
this
Notice.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mary
Powell,
Field
and
External
Affairs
Division
(
7506C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
telephone
number:
(
703)
305
 
7384;
fax
number:
(
703)
308
 
3259;
e­
mail
address:
powell.
mary@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
Notice
is
organized
into
four
units.
Unit
I.
provides
general
information
about
applicability
of
this
Notice,
availability
of
additional
information,
and
how
to
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71550
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
comment
on
the
Notice.
Unit
II.
provides
background
information,
including
the
Agency's
legal
authority
for
taking
this
action,
the
Interim
ESPP,
and
EPA's
efforts
to
develop
this
proposed
field
implementation
approach.
Unit
III.
describes
the
proposed
field
implementation
of
the
ESPP,
and
Unit
IV.
provides
the
references
cited
throughout
this
Notice.
While
the
Agency
seeks
comments
on
any
aspect
of
this
Notice,
it
also
is
hoping
to
obtain
input
on
certain
specific
aspects.
Within
the
various
units
of
this
Notice,
EPA
has
indicated
specific
issues
on
which
the
Agency
is
particularly
interested
in
obtaining
comment.
These
issues
are
noted
within
the
appropriate
units
under
a
subheading
of
``
Specific
Input
Requested.''
Further,
the
Agency
seeks
comment
on
whether
any
aspect
of
this
field
implementation
proposal
is
more
appropriately
addressed
through
the
counterpart
regulations
that
are
the
subject
of
a
separate
ANPR,
to
be
published
by
the
Agency,
DOI,
and
DOC
on
or
about
the
same
date
as
this
Notice.

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
farmers;
pesticide
registrants;
pesticide
users;
agricultural
trade
associations;
public
interest
groups;
groups
involved
in
or
interested
in
endangered
species
protection;
and
local,
State,
Tribal,
U.
S.
Territory,
and
Federal
government
agencies.
Because
other
entities
may
also
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
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
identification
(
ID)
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0311.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
This
docket
facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
docket
telephone
number
is
(
703)
305
 
5805.
2.
Electronic
access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

C.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number
(
in
this
case,
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0311)
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
Unit
I.
D.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.
1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
in
this
unit,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
email
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
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.
i.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71551
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0311.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
ii.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
e­
mail
to
opp­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2002
 
0311.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
iii.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
Unit
I.
C.
2.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
2.
By
mail.
Send
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
7502C),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2002
 
0311.
3.
By
hand
delivery
or
courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2002
 
0311.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.

D.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
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
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
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
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

E.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
these
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
6.
Offer
alternatives.
7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.
8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number
(
in
this
case,
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0311)
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.

II.
Background
Information
on
the
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
A.
Authority
and
Responsibility
under
FIFRA
and
ESA
Since
1970,
EPA
has
had
responsibility
for
regulating
the
sale,
distribution
and
use
of
pesticides
under
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA).
EPA
has
granted
registrations,
or
licenses,
to
thousands
of
pesticides
containing
hundreds
of
active
ingredients
and
has
continuing
oversight
over
such
actions.
These
registrations
encompass
thousands
of
different
use
sites
and
practices
across
the
United
States.
FIFRA
as
amended
(
7
U.
S.
C.
135
et
seq.)
governs
the
regulation
of
pesticides
in
the
United
States.
Under
FIFRA,
a
pesticide
product
may
be
sold
or
distributed
in
the
United
States
only
if
it
is
registered
or
exempted
from
registration
by
EPA.
Before
a
product
can
be
registered
unconditionally,
it
must
be
shown,
among
other
things,
that
the
pesticide,
when
used
in
accordance
with
widespread
and
commonly
recognized
practice,
will
not
generally
cause
``
unreasonable
adverse
effects
on
the
environment''
(
section
3(
c)(
5)).
FIFRA
defines
this
standard
to
include
``
any
unreasonable
risk
to
man
or
the
environment,
taking
into
account
the
economic,
social,
and
environmental
costs
and
benefits
of
the
use
of''
the
pesticide
(
FIFRA
section
(
2)(
bb)(
1)).
This
is
known
as
the
FIFRA
risk/
benefit
standard.
Amendments
to
FIFRA
in
1988
required
that
in
addition
to
the
original
registration
decision,
all
pesticides
first
registered
before
November
1984
be
reviewed
against
more
up­
to­
date
data
requirements
and
standards,
and
decisions
made
about
whether
these
pesticides
should
be
``
reregistered''
(
FIFRA
section
4(
a)).
FIFRA
was
amended
again
in
1996
with
enactment
of
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act.
FQPA
put
into
place
a
new
standard
for
assessing
human
dietary
risk
(
FIFRA
section
2(
bb)(
2)),
but
it
did
not
alter
the
risk
benefit­
standard
of
section
2(
bb)(
1)
for
assessing
ecological
risk.
It
also
required
that
EPA
periodically
review
pesticide
registrations
(
establishing
a
goal
of
such
review
every
15
years)
to
determine
whether
such
registrations
meets
the
requirements
of
the
Act
(
FIFRA
section
3(
g)(
1)(
A)).
Congress
enacted
the
ESA
(
16
U.
S.
C.
1531
et
seq.)
to
protect
and
promote
the
recovery
of
animal
and
plant
species
that
are
threatened
or
in
danger
of
becoming
extinct
and
to
ensure
that
the
critical
habitat
upon
which
they
depend
is
not
destroyed
or
adversely
modified.
The
ESA
institutes
certain
prohibitions
against
``
taking''
threatened
or
endangered
(
listed)
species.
Section
7(
a)(
1)
of
the
ESA,
16
U.
S.
C.
1536(
a)(
1),
requires
Federal
agencies
use
their
authorities
in
furtherance
of
the
purposes
of
the
Act,
by
carrying
out
programs
for
the
conservation
of
listed
species.
Public
Law
100
 
478,
October
7,
1988,
amended
the
ESA
and
states
that
EPA
should
fulfill
its
obligation
to
conserve
listed
species,
while
at
the
same
time
considering
the
needs
of
agriculture
and
other
pesticide
users.
Section
7(
a)(
2)
of
the
ESA,
16
U.
S.
C.
1536,
and
the
implementing
regulations
at
50
CFR
part
402,
further
require
Federal
agencies
to
ensure
that
their
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71552
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
actions
are
not
likely
to
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
any
endangered
or
threatened
species
or
result
in
the
destruction
or
adverse
modification
of
critical
habitat.
This
duty
extends
to
licensing
activities
such
as
the
registration
of
pesticides
by
EPA.
In
meeting
the
section
7(
a)(
2)
requirement,
EPA
must
consult
with
the
Services
regarding
the
effects
of
Agency
actions
on
listed
species.
In
fulfilling
this
requirement,
Federal
agencies
must
use
the
best
scientific
and
commercial
data
available.
The
Secretary
of
the
Interior
has
delegated
the
interagency
consultation
responsibilities
to
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service;
the
Secretary
of
Commerce
has
delegated
the
interagency
consultation
responsibilities
to
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration.
EPA
and
the
Services
are
currently
engaged
in
a
number
of
separate,
but
related
activities
relative
to
EPA's
responsibilities
under
the
ESA.
First,
under
ESA
section
7(
a)(
1),
EPA
and
the
Services
are
engaged
in
an
ongoing
Proactive
Conservation
Review.
This
review
of
EPA's
ESPP,
is
intended
to
clarify
for
the
Federal
agencies,
EPA's
approach
to
risk
assessment,
criteria
that
indicate
a
listed
species
may
be
at
risk,
and
the
requirements
imposed
on
EPA
by
the
ESA
regulations
governing
consultation.
The
review
will
also
identify
areas
or
issues
relative
to
risk
assessment,
criteria
and
consultations
that
may
require
modification
to
ensure
an
effective
and
efficient
process
of
consultation
among
EPA
and
the
Services.
While
this
review
is
conducted
under
ESA
section
7(
a)(
1),
the
outcomes
of
the
review
will
likely
be
used
to
help
focus
discussions
on
technical
and
science
policy
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed
in
order
to
effectively
carry
out
responsibilities
under
ESA
section
7(
a)(
2).
As
noted
in
the
SUMMARY
section
of
this
Notice,
EPA
and
the
Services
are
also
publishing
an
ANPR,
at
or
about
the
same
time
as
publication
of
this
Notice.
The
purpose
of
the
ANPR
is
to
gain
public
input
relative
to
the
consultation,
technical,
and
science
policy
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed
in
order
to
effectively
carry
out
responsibilities
under
ESA
section
7(
a)(
2).
As
part
of
the
ESPP,
this
Federal
Register
Notice
proposes
a
field
implementation
plan
for
putting
in
place
any
protection
measures
necessary
to
ensure
EPA's
compliance
with
ESA
section
7(
a)(
2).
This
plan,
once
final,
will
be
used
to
put
in
place
protection
measures
identified
through
consultations
with
the
Services.
EPA
may
also
use
this
implementation
approach
as
appropriate,
to
put
measures
in
place
necessary
to
protect
listed
species,
even
in
the
absence
of
a
Biological
Opinion
from
the
Services.

B.
EPA's
Role
1.
ESA
section
7(
a)(
1)
obligations.
As
noted
in
Unit
II.
A.
above,
EPA
has
responsibilities
under
both
section
7(
a)(
1)
and
7(
a)(
2)
of
the
ESA.
Under
section
7(
a)(
1),
EPA
uses
its
authorities
to
conserve
listed
species,
in
consultation
with
the
Services.
The
Proactive
Conservation
Review
discussed
in
Unit
II.
F.
2.
is
being
carried
out
under
section
7(
a)(
1)
of
ESA.
In
addition,
EPA
has
carried
out
a
number
of
other
activities
intended
to
conserve
listed
species
including:
Hosting
a
Wb
site
that
contains
listed
species
fact
sheets
and
a
county­
scale
data
base
of
listed
species
occurrences;
maintaining
a
toll­
free
telephone
number
for
public
inquiries
relative
to
pesticide
use
and
listed
species
protection;
and
producing
and
disseminating
educational
materials
for
students.
Additionally,
EPA
has
worked
with
State
agencies
responsible
for
pesticide
programs,
to
ensure
that
pesticide
applicators
certified
by
the
States,
receive
information
during
their
certification
training,
relative
to
endangered
species
protection
needs.
2.
ESA
section
7(
a)(
2)
obligations.
Under
section
7(
a)(
2)
of
ESA,
EPA
must
ensure
that
its
actions
are
``
not
likely
to
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
any''
listed
species
or
``
result
in
the
destruction
or
adverse
modification
of''
their
designated
critical
habitat.
In
carrying
out
its
responsibilities,
EPA's
challenge
is
how
to
implement
FIFRA,
a
risk/
benefit
statute,
in
a
way
that
ensures
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
ESA
mandate
to
protect
listed
species
and
to
do
so
at
use
sites
that
are
geographically,
ecologically,
agronomically,
and
economically
diverse
and
changeable.
EPA
seeks
to
carry
out
these
protections
for
thousands
of
pesticide
products
in
ways
that
users
can
be
expected
to
implement
reliably
and
routinely
without
unnecessary
burden.
The
Agency
is
responsible
for
reviewing
information
and
data
to
determine
whether
a
pesticide
product
may
be
registered
for
a
particular
use.
As
part
of
that
determination,
the
Agency
assesses
whether
listed
species
or
their
designated
critical
habitat
may
be
affected
by
the
use
of
the
product.
If
EPA
determines
that
the
action
may
affect
a
listed
species,
the
interagency
coordination
regulations
require
the
Agency
to
enter
into
a
process
with
the
Services
called
``
consultation''
(
50
CFR
402.14).
The
consultation
process
is
designed
to
ensure
that
the
Agency
action
is
not
likely
to
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
a
listed
species
or
result
in
destruction
or
adverse
modification
of
its
designated
critical
habitat
(
ESA
section
7(
a)(
2)).
Following
consultation,
the
Agency
is
responsible
for
implementing
protections,
if
necessary,
through
its
available
authority.
More
information
on
``
may
affect
determinations''
and
consultations
may
be
found
in
Unit
II.
D.
EPA
must
also
``
confer''
with
the
Services
if
its
actions
may
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
species
proposed
for
listing
or
result
in
destruction
or
adverse
modification
of
habitat
proposed
for
designation
as
critical
habitat.
Consultation
is
not
necessary
if
EPA
determines
that
a
particular
action
will
have
``
no
effect''
on
listed
species
or
designated
critical
habitat.
(
See
Unit
II.
D.
1.
c.
for
a
discusssion
of
``
no
effect
determinations.''

C.
The
Roles
of
FWS
and
NOAA
Fisheries
DOI's
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
FWS)
administers
the
ESA
for
most
species.
DOC's
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NOAA
Fisheries)
administers
the
ESA
for
certain
listed
marine
and
anadromous
species.
Both
FWS
and
NOAA
Fisheries
(
jointly,
the
Services)
enter
into
formal
or
informal
consultation
or
conference
with
EPA
concerning
effects
to
listed
species
and
species
proposed
for
listing
as
well
as
effects
on
critical
habitat.
The
consultation
process
is
described
in
Unit
II.
D.
3.
below.
The
Services
may
determine
whether
an
EPA
action
is
likely
to
cause
jeopardy
to
the
continued
existence
of
a
species
and
if
so,
the
Services
may
propose
reasonable
and
prudent
alternatives
to
the
action
to
avoid
jeopardy.
The
Services
may
also
issue
incidental
take
statements
that
authorize
takings
of
listed
species
incidental
to
certain
Federal
actions.

D.
Effects
Determinations
and
Consultations
In
the
past,
EPA
has
conducted
a
number
of
consultations
with
the
Services.
The
Agency's
experience
with
those
has
demonstrated
that
the
agencies
need
to
reexamine
their
programs
to
improve
both
the
efficiency
and
effectiveness
of
consultation.
EPA
and
the
Services
are
currently
participating
in
a
joint
Proactive
Conservation
Review
(
see
Unit
II.
F.
2.)
to
explore
potential
modifications
for
better
integrating
the
FIFRA
and
ESA
processes.
The
Agency,
DOI
and
DOC
are
seeking
public
input
on
the
consultation
process
and
EPA's
endangered
species
assessment
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71553
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
processes
through
a
separate
ANPR,
to
be
published
on
or
about
the
same
date
as
this
Notice,
and
intend
to
address
these
provisions
through
counterpart
regulations.
Similarly,
subsequent
to
the
ANPR,
certain
FIFRA
regulatory
processes
may
be
reviewed
for
possible
revisions
that
could
make
the
program
more
efficient
or
effective.
While
the
Agency
is
not
seeking
comment
on
these
aspects
of
its
protection
efforts
through
this
Notice,
it
is
including
a
summary
of
its
current
process
for
making
effects
determinations
and
consulting
with
the
Services
in
Unit
II.
D.
2.
below,
for
purposes
of
providing
context
to
the
reader.
1.
Effects
determinations.
To
the
degree
possible,
endangered
species
issues
are
and
will
be
addressed
within
the
Agency's
existing
processes
of
registration
and
reregistration.
Concurrently,
the
Agency
will
review
those
pesticides
that
have
been
through
reregistration
and
that
may
affect
listed
species,
or
did
not
undergo
ESA
review
during
reregistration.
EPA
has
no
standard
data
requirements
for
endangered
species
effects
determinations,
beyond
those
normally
required
during
registration
and
reregistration.
However,
in
making
such
effects
determinations
in
the
past,
the
Agency
has
requested
data
for
specific
listed
species
concerns,
and
may
continue
to
do
so
in
the
future.
As
the
Proactive
Conservation
Review
and
ANPR
move
forward
(
see
Unit
II.
F.
2.),
and
as
EPA
begins
to
meld
the
process
for
making
these
determinations
into
existing
registration
and
reregistration
activities,
the
Agency
may
revisit
the
necessity
for
identifying
data
requirements
specific
to
listed
species.
The
potential
of
a
pesticide
to
directly
affect
any
particular
species
is
based
on
two
factors:
The
toxicity
of
the
chemical
to
the
species,
and
exposure.
The
latter
includes
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
that
would
result
from
labeled
use
of
a
pesticide
and
the
potential
for
actual
exposure
of
the
species
of
concern
to
those
EECs.
Direct
effects
may
be
in
either
of
two
broad
categories:
Acute
effects
or
chronic
effects,
including
both
lethal
and
sublethal
effects.
Species
may
also
be
affected
indirectly
through
modification
of
their
habitat
or
through
effects
on
their
food
supply.
EPA
relies
on
a
wide
range
of
environmental
data
to
assess
the
potential
effects
of
pesticides
on
listed
species.
These
data
include
toxicological
studies,
laboratory
and
field
studies
of
the
fate
and
transport
of
pesticides,
mathematical
fate
and
transport
models,
and
field
studies
monitoring
pesticide
concentrations
and
adverse
effects
to
non­
target
organisms.
a.
Acute
lethal
and
sublethal
effects.
Acute
data
are
derived
from
toxicity
tests
with
lethality
as
the
primary
endpoint.
The
standard
acute
tests
submitted
for
pesticide
registration
also
include
analysis
of
observable
sublethal
effects.
For
example,
a
typical
acute
test
for
a
fish
will
include
concentrations
that
cause
no
mortality
and
often
no
observable
sublethal
effects,
as
well
as
concentrations
that
would
cause
100%
mortality.
Sublethal
effects
may
or
may
not
be
observed
at
concentrations
below
that
which
cause
100%
mortality.
Where
sublethal
effects
are
observed,
the
Agency
includes
such
information
in
its
assessment
of
whether
a
pesticide
may
affect
a
listed
species.
The
effects
at
test
concentrations
can
be
used
to
statistically
predict
the
effects
likely
to
occur
at
various
pesticide
concentrations;
a
well­
done
test
can
even
be
extrapolated
to
concentrations
below
those
tested
(
or
above
the
test
concentrations,
if
the
highest
concentration
did
not
produce
100%
mortality).
b.
Chronic
lethal
and
sublethal
effects.
Potential
chronic
effects
of
a
pesticide
can
be
evaluated
based
on
several
types
of
tests
and
conducted
on
one
of
several
possible
species,
depending
on
the
listed
species
of
interest.
For
example,
chronic
tests
for
a
listed
bird
could
be
conducted
on
the
mallard
or
bobwhite
quail,
whereas
such
tests
for
a
listed
estuarine
species
would
be
conducted
on
mysid
shrimp.
Chronic
tests
primarily
evaluate
the
potential
for
reproductive
effects
and
effects
on
the
offspring.
Other
observed
sublethal
effects
are
also
required
to
be
reported.
An
abbreviated
chronic
test
is
usually
the
first
chronic
test
conducted
and
will
indicate
the
likelihood
of
reproductive
or
chronic
effects
at
relevant
concentrations.
If
such
effects
are
found,
then
a
full
life­
cycle
test
will
generally
be
required.
If
the
nature
of
the
chemical
is
such
that
reproductive
effects
are
expected,
the
abbreviated
test
may
be
skipped
in
favor
of
the
full
lifecycle
test.
These
chronic
tests
are
designed
to
determine
a
``
no
observable
effect
level''
(
NOEL)
and
a
``
lowest
observable
effect
level''
(
LOEL).
c.
Assessment.
EPA
typically
evaluates
the
potential
of
a
pesticide
to
affect
listed
species
by
conducting
a
screening
level
assessment
and,
if
necessary,
a
species­
specific
assessment.
During
the
screening
level
assessment
process,
the
Agency
generally
does
not
determine
whether
in
fact
any
specific
threatened
or
endangered
species
may
be
affected
by
the
pesticide,
but
merely
whether
a
concern
would
exist
if
a
threatened
or
endangered
species
were
exposed
to
the
EECs,
given
the
toxicity
of
the
specific
pesticide
to
the
species.
The
screening
steps
start
out
very
conservative
and
become
more
refined
with
each
step.
EPA
determines
that
there
is
``
no
effect''
on
listed
species
if,
at
any
step
in
the
screening
level
assessment,
no
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
are
exceeded.
After
EPA
performs
all
the
available
steps
in
the
screening
level
assessment,
a
pesticide
may
still
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs
for
listed
species
(
see
Unit
II.
D.
1.
d.).
The
Agency
will
then
conduct
a
speciesspecific
assessment
to
make
effects
determinations
for
individual
listed
species
and
their
designated
critical
habitat.
Units
II.
D.
1.
d.
through
II.
D.
1.
g.
provide
an
example
of
this
process
for
aquatic
species.
Similar
steps
are
undertaken
for
terrestrial
species.
d.
Screening
level
assessment.
EPA
begins
its
screening
level
assessments
by
conducting
a
basic
ecological
risk
assessment
that
uses
available
data
and
generally
conservative
assumptions
to
establish
the
EEC.
EPA
then
uses
increasingly
specific
methods
and
data
and
more
refined
exposure
models
to
refine
the
EEC
of
the
pesticide.
Where
available,
EPA
may
also
use
field
monitoring
data
for
a
variety
of
purposes.
At
each
screening
step,
the
more
refined
EEC
is
compared
to
the
toxicity
of
the
pesticide
active
ingredient
to
determine
whether
the
pesticide
exceeds
LOCs
established
for
listed
aquatic
and
terrestrial
species.
EPA's
Standard
Evaluation
Procedure
for
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
(
June,
1986.
EPA­
540/
9­
85­
001)
provides
that
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
acute
effects
on
listed
species
when
the
EEC
of
a
pesticide
is
greater
than
1/
20th
the
LC50
for
appropriate
aquatic
species
or
1/
10th
the
LC50
or
LD50
for
appropriate
terrestrial
species.
Thus,
under
current
practices,
the
LOCs
for
listed
species
incorporate
an
extra
level
of
protection
that
is
not
used
in
the
LOCs
for
other
non­
target
species.
(
LC50
is
the
statistically
derived
estimate
of
concentration
expected
to
cause
50%
lethality.
LD50
is
the
statistically
derived
estimate
of
oral
dose
expected
to
result
in
50%
lethality.)
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
chronic
and/
or
reproductive
effects
when
the
EEC
exceeds
the
NOEL
in
appropriate
studies.
In
the
first
step
of
EPA's
screening
level
assessment,
the
Agency
uses
a
quantitative
comparison
between
the
default
EEC
and
the
toxicity
of
the
chemical.
A
default
EEC
is
based
on
application
rates
from
pesticide
labels
and
on
extremely
conservative
assumptions
of
movement
of
the
pesticide
to
water
rather
than
on
actual
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71554
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
chemical
fate
and
transport
data.
Toxicity
values
for
the
pesticide
are
taken
from
data
submitted
by
pesticide
registrants
to
support
their
registration
request.
The
application
rate
is
determined
from
pesticide
labels.
EPA
then
compares
the
toxicity
values
with
the
default
EEC
to
determine
whether
the
pesticide
exceeds
EPA's
endangered
species
LOCs.
If
no
LOCs
are
exceeded,
the
pesticide
has
``
no
effect''
on
listed
species
and
the
analysis
ends.
However,
if
an
LOC
is
exceeded,
EPA
may
proceed
to
the
next
screening
step
to
refine
its
assessment.
In
this
next
step,
the
Agency
refines
its
ecological
risk
assessment
by
running
the
GENEEC
(
generic
EEC)
model
with
a
variety
of
inputs
on
application
methods
and
rates,
and
chemical
fate
and
transport
data
to
calculate
the
EEC.
Running
this
model
provides
a
more
refined
EEC
for
comparison
with
the
toxicity
data.
Again,
if
an
endangered
species'
LOC
is
exceeded
at
this
step,
EPA
may
proceed
to
the
next
step
to
further
refine
its
assessment.
If
the
model
described
below
is
not
available
for
the
particular
use
scenario
being
evaluated,
EPA
would
typically
move
to
a
speciesspecific
assessment
as
described
in
Unit
II.
D.
1.
e.
below.
In
the
next
step,
the
Agency
uses
a
much
more
sophisticated
model
the
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model­
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(
PRZM/
EXAMS)
to
calculate
more
refined
EECs.
This
model
includes
more
chemical
fate
and
transport
data,
and
it
involves
selecting
a
use
site
(
e.
g.,
wheat
or
apples)
scenario
and
modifying
the
scenario
to
reflect
the
nature
of
the
pesticide
use.
These
scenarios
are
based
upon
actual
field
data
on
crop
location,
extent
to
which
the
crop
is
grown,
soil
characteristics,
climate,
etc.
Use
site
scenarios
exist
only
for
major
and
a
few
minor
crops,
and
would
need
to
be
developed
to
run
this
model
for
other
crops.
If
an
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
at
this
step,
a
species­
specific
assessment
is
conducted.
e.
Species­
specific
assessment.
To
conduct
a
species­
specific
assessment,
EPA
takes
the
basic
quantitative
information
from
its
screening
level
assessment
developed
for
all
non­
target
organisms
and
puts
that
information
in
context
for
individual
listed
species
and
their
locations.
Important
ecological
parameters
such
as
stream
flow
rates
and
soil
types,
pesticide
use
information,
the
geographic
relationship
between
specific
pesticide
uses
and
species
locations,
and
biological
requirements
and
behavioral
aspects
of
the
particular
species
are
typically
considered.
Where
reliable,
published
data
are
not
available,
information
for
such
parameters
is
typically
obtained
through
contacts
with
knowledgeable
experts,
including
extension
agents,
crop
advisors,
resource
specialists,
and
watershed
experts.
These
steps
enable
the
Agency
to
refine
its
generic
assessment
into
one
specific
to
individual
listed
species
and
their
designated
critical
habitat.
If
LOCs
are
exceeded
after
this
analysis,
the
Agency
may
work
with
the
registrant
to
determine
whether
sufficient
protection
measures
can
be
incorporated
into
the
registration
or
reregistration
to
achieve
a
no­
effect
determination.
Only
if
those
efforts
are
unsuccessful
will
EPA
declare
a
``
may
affect
determination.''
f.
Use
of
field
monitoring
in
assessing
risks.
Field
monitoring
data
can
supplement
modeling
and
provide
a
more
direct
means
to
assess
whether
species
may
be
exposed
to
the
pesticide
at
a
level
sufficient
to
cause
an
effect,
if
the
monitoring
program
was
designed
or
is
appropriate
for
this
purpose.
For
example,
using
monitoring
data
where
water
samples
are
obtained
one
time
per
quarter
year
does
not
necessarily
provide
information
from
which
exposure
levels
can
be
determined,
although
data
can
alert
EPA
to
locations
where
pesticide
exposure
may
be
occurring
to
trigger
further
assessment
or
analysis.
However,
even
in
cases
where
appropriately
designed
monitoring
was
conducted,
EPA
would
still
typically
conduct
exposure
modeling
when
field
monitoring
data
do
not
exist
for
all
species
locations,
and
EPA
would
still
typically
conduct
a
species­
specific
assessment,
as
described
in
Unit
II.
D.
1.
e.
above,
to
determine
whether
a
particular
species
may
be
exposed
to
the
monitored
levels
of
the
pesticide.
In
summary,
EPA
typically
evaluates
the
potential
of
a
pesticide
to
affect
listed
species
by
conducting
increasingly
refined
screening
level
assessments,
and,
if
necessary,
a
final
species­
specific
assessment.
2.
Consultation
procedures.
Service
regulations
provide
for
two
types
of
consultations
once
a
``
may
affect
determination''
has
been
made.
a.
Informal
consultation.
Informal
consultation
is
an
option
available
to
an
action
agency
(
in
this
case
EPA)
to
assist
the
action
agency
in
determining
whether
formal
consultation
is
required.
During
this
process,
the
Services
can
suggest
modifications
to
an
EPA
action
to
avoid
the
likelihood
of
adverse
effects
to
a
listed
species
or
its
designated
critical
habitat.
The
informal
consultation
process
is
completed
with
a
written
concurrence
by
the
Services
with
EPA's
determination
that
its
action
is
``
not
likely
to
adversely
affect''
listed
species
or
designated
critical
habitat.
If
the
Services
do
not
concur
with
EPA's
finding
of
``
not
likely
to
adversely
affect,''
then
formal
consultation
must
be
initiated.
b.
Formal
consultation.
Formal
consultation
is
required
if
the
Agency
determines
that
a
pesticide
may
affect
or
is
likely
to
adversely
affect
a
listed
species
or
critical
habitat.
In
this
case,
EPA
makes
a
written
request
for
formal
consultation
with
the
Services
on
a
particular
Agency
action
(
i.
e.,
a
pesticide
registered
for
a
specific
use).
Basically,
a
consultation
package
consists
of
EPA's
assessment
of
the
potential
for
a
listed
species
or
designated
critical
habitat
to
be
adversely
affected
by
the
registration
of
a
particular
pesticide.
More
specifically,
the
package
includes
a
description
of
the
action
under
consideration,
areas
that
may
be
affected,
listed
species
or
critical
habitats
at
issue,
a
description
of
the
manner
in
which
the
action
may
affect
any
listed
species
or
critical
habitat,
and
an
analysis
of
cumulative
effects
and
any
relevant
reports.
The
consultation
package
must
use
the
best
scientific
and
commercial
data
available.
In
response,
the
Services
develop
and
provide
to
EPA
a
Biological
Opinion,
which
provides
the
Services'
opinion
on
whether
the
use
of
the
pesticide
in
question
is
``
likely
to
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
a
listed
species
or
result
in
the
destruction
or
adverse
modification
of
designated
critical
habitat''
(
50
CFR
402.14(
g)).
If
a
Biological
Opinion
concludes
that
an
action
is
likely
to
jeopardize
a
listed
species
or
adversely
modify
its
designated
critical
habitat,
then
the
Biological
Opinion
will
include
``
reasonable
and
prudent
alternatives,''
if
any,
that
EPA
may
undertake
to
avoid
the
likelihood
of
jeopardy
to
the
species
or
destruction
or
adverse
modification
of
critical
habitat.
Reasonable
and
prudent
alternatives
(
50
CFR
402.02)
are
actions
that:
(
1)
The
consulting
agency
is
capable
of
implementing
under
its
authority
and
jurisdiction.
(
2)
Allow
the
agency
action
to
be
implemented
in
a
manner
consistent
with
its
intended
purpose.
(
3)
Are
economically
and
technologically
feasible.
(
4)
Are
not
likely
to
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
any
listed
species
or
result
in
the
destruction
or
adverse
modification
of
critical
habitat.
Biological
Opinions
will
frequently
include
information
for
use
in
implementing
protections.
For
those
few
species
that
the
Services
determine
are
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71555
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
subject
to
collection
threats,
the
Services
generally
will
encourage
development
of
alternative
protections,
such
as
landowner
agreements
(
see
Unit
II.
E.
3.
b.
for
more
information
on
landowner
agreements).
Biological
Opinions
may
also
include
an
``
incidental
take
statement.''
For
listed
species,
to
``
take''
means
``
to
harass,
harm,
pursue,
hunt,
shoot,
wound,
kill,
trap,
capture,
or
collect,
or
to
attempt
to
engage
in
any
such
conduct''
(
ESA
section
3).
Incidental
take
refers
to
takings
that
result
from,
but
are
not
the
purpose
of,
carrying
out
an
otherwise
lawful
activity
(
50
CFR
402.02).
Incidental
take
statements
specify,
among
other
things,
the
amount
or
extent
of
any
anticipated
incidental
taking
(
e.
g.,
the
number
of
individuals)
and
the
``
reasonable
and
prudent
measures''
needed
to
minimize
the
impact
of
such
a
taking.
The
Biological
Opinion
may
contain
reasonable
and
prudent
measures
to
reduce
the
impact
of
incidental
take,
even
if
no
jeopardy
to
the
listed
species
is
found.
If
the
amount
or
extent
of
taking
specified
in
the
incidental
take
statement
is
exceeded,
EPA
must
reinitiate
formal
consultation
(
50
CFR
402.16(
a)).
The
incidental
take
statement
also
conveys
to
the
action
agency,
any
applicant
to
the
agency,
and
any
users
of
the
product
an
exemption
from
the
take
prohibitions
of
the
ESA,
provided
that
the
action
is
implemented
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
reasonable
and
prudent
measures
included
with
the
incidental
take
statement
(
ESA
section
7(
o)(
2)).
Reinitiation
of
consultation
must
occur
if
new
information
reveals
effects
of
the
action
that
may
affect
listed
species
or
critical
habitat
in
a
manner
or
extent
not
previously
considered;
if
the
identified
action
is
subsequently
modified
in
a
manner
that
causes
an
effect
to
the
listed
species
or
critical
habitat
that
was
not
considered
in
the
Biological
Opinion;
or
if
a
new
species
is
listed
or
critical
habitat
designated
that
may
be
affected
by
the
identified
action
(
50
CFR
402.16).

E.
Initial
Efforts
at
Program
Implementation
EPA's
past
efforts
to
carry
out
its
responsibilities
under
FIFRA
and
ESA
fall
into
three
areas:
Assessment
and
consultation;
implementation
of
protections;
and
an
interim
Program
that
relies
on
education,
cooperation
and
public
outreach.
1.
Assessment
and
consultation.
EPA
has
been
consulting
with
FWS
on
endangered
species
issues
since
1977,
and
has
used
a
variety
of
approaches
to
these
consultations.
The
various
approaches
yielded
variable
results
in
terms
of
efficiency,
effectiveness
at
addressing
potential
risk
to
a
given
species,
and
equity
among
pesticide
registrants
and
equity
among
pesticide
users.
a.
``
Case­
by­
case''
consultations.
In
more
than
80
instances,
the
Agency
has
assessed
the
potential
effects
of
a
pesticide
on
all
listed
species,
across
all
proposed
uses
of
a
single
pesticide.
The
benefit
to
this
approach
to
consultation
(
one
pesticide,
all
proposed
uses)
is
that
it
is
comprehensive
as
to
the
agency
action
and
manageable
since
it
involves
a
single
pesticide.
The
major
drawbacks
to
this
approach
resulted
from
use
limitations
being
proposed
for
a
specific
pesticide
while
competing
pesticides
that
may
also
pose
risks
to
species
had
not
yet
been
reviewed.
b.
``
Cluster''
consultations.
In
order
to
mitigate
the
potential
inequity
to
competing
registrants
from
the
case­
bycase
approach,
the
Agency
engaged
the
FWS
in
several
``
cluster''
consultations.
These
consultations
were
based
on
an
assessment
of
all
pesticides
registered
for
use
on
certain
crops.
For
example,
in
the
``
cotton
cluster''
EPA
assessed
and
consulted
as
appropriate
on
any
pesticide
registered
for
use
on
cotton.
By
approaching
assessment
and
consultation
in
this
manner,
the
Agency
alleviated
the
potential
inequity
of
caseby
case
consultations
since
competitive
products
for
the
same
use
were
assessed
at
the
same
time.
However,
this
approach
carried
with
it
certain
other
problems.
The
consultations
resulting
from
this
approach
were
much
larger
and
more
complex.
At
the
request
of
the
FWS,
EPA
reinitiated
consultation
on
portions
of
these
``
clusters''
to
address
newly
listed
species
and
obtain
``
incidental
take''
statements.
The
resulting
reinitiation
encompassed
certain
uses
of
112
pesticides
that
had
the
potential
to
affect
one
or
more
of
165
different
listed
species.
For
both
the
original
consultations
and
the
reinitiation,
the
statutory
time
frame
provided
for
the
Services
to
complete
a
Biological
Opinion
proved
difficult
to
meet.
This
approach,
while
eliminating
the
inequity
among
pesticide
registrants,
created
a
potential
inequity
among
pesticide
users.
In
these
cluster
consultations,
a
pesticide
was
assessed
for
one
crop,
but
not
for
other
crops
for
which
it
was
registered.
If
the
assessed
crop
was
grown
adjacent
to
the
unassessed
crop,
growers
of
the
one
crop
could
face
use
limitations
while
growers
of
the
other
did
not.
c.
``
Species­
based''
consultations.
A
third
approach
to
assessment
and
consultation
was
intended
to
ensure
that
a
species
was
completely
addressed
at
once.
This
``
species­
based''
approach
was
used
to
request
formal
consultation
for
31
pesticides.
Under
this
approach,
the
Agency
and
the
Services
identified
the
species
most
vulnerable
to
effects
from
exposure
to
pesticides;
identified
all
the
pesticides
to
which
that
species
might
be
exposed;
and
identified
all
other
species
that
might
be
exposed
to
those
uses
of
these
pesticides.
The
Agency's
consultation
would
encompass
any
combination
of
these
factors
that
produced
a
``
may
affect
determination.''
Because
of
the
diversity
of
uses
of
these
pesticides
and
the
large
number
of
species
potentially
affected,
it
was
necessary
to
divide
the
consultation
into
two
parts.
FWS
has
completed
part
I.
EPA
asked
FWS
to
suspend
work
on
part
II
while
EPA
and
the
Services
undertake
the
ESA
Section
7(
a)(
1)
Proactive
Conservation
Review
to
facilitate
the
overall
consultation
process
(
see
Unit
II.
F.
2.
for
more
information
on
the
Proactive
Conservation
Review).
The
benefits
of
this
approach
appear
to
be
that
a
particular
species
would
be
protected
from
all
pesticide
exposures
with
a
potential
to
harm
the
species,
at
one
time.
However,
because
of
the
complexity
of
these
assessments,
the
time
necessary
to
identify
protections
is
protracted
significantly.
2.
Implementation
of
protections.
In
the
past,
EPA
has
proposed
several
approaches
for
implementing
an
endangered
species
protection
program
(
53
FR
7716,
March
9,
1988;
54
FR
27984,
July
3,
1989).
Under
these
previous
proposals,
product
labels
would
have
been
amended,
where
necessary,
to
instruct
users
to
follow
specific
use
limitations.
These
limitations
would
have
been
described
in
County
Bulletins
developed
by
EPA
to
protect
listed
species
in
their
area.
Bulletins
would
contain
general
information
about
the
ESPP,
a
map
of
the
county
depicting
areas
in
which
limitations
applied,
and
a
table
indicating
the
particular
use
limitations
for
specific
pesticides
in
specific
areas
of
the
county.
States
and
Tribes
would
have
had
the
option
to
initiate
and
propose
to
EPA
alternative
plans
for
protecting
listed
species
in
their
area.
If
EPA
deemed
these
plans
to
be
feasible,
and
the
Services
deemed
them
protective
of
the
species,
EPA
would
adopt
the
provisions
of
the
plan
as
the
Federal
requirements
for
that
State
or
Tribe.
Other
elements
of
implementation
would
have
included
public
participation,
to
include
the
opportunity
for
comment
on
the
maps
and
County
Bulletins
and
State­
initiated
plans
(
Unit
III.
F.).

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71556
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
Moving
forward
with
a
final
program
implementation
scheme
did
not
seem
feasible
at
those
earlier
points
in
the
history
of
the
program's
development.
There
remained
significant
issues
with
potential
resulting
inequities
and
resource
implications
created
by
the
variety
of
priority
setting
schemes
for
assessment
and
consultation.
There
also
was
concern
that
County
Bulletins,
enforceable
under
FIFRA
misuse
provisions,
did
not
provide
sufficient
flexibility
for
pesticide
applicators
to
exercise
judgement
based
on
local
conditions,
to
protect
listed
species
in
ways
that
posed
the
least
burden.
Consequently,
EPA
decided,
for
the
interim,
to
maintain
its
case­
by­
case
approach
to
assessment
and
consultation
and
to
conduct
a
voluntary
ESPP
to
protect
listed
species
and
their
habitats.
As
part
of
this
interim
program,
EPA
has
undertaken
a
number
of
activities
designed
to
address
efficiency,
effectiveness
and
equity
issues
and
to
develop
an
improved
ESPP
implementation
plan.
3.
Interim
program.
The
interim
ESPP
relies
on
education,
cooperation
and
public
outreach
to
achieve
its
goals.
The
interim
ESPP
involves
the
voluntary
participation
of
States
and
pesticide
users,
typically
through
the
use
of
Interim
Pamphlets
as
described
below.
Some
States
also
have
participated
in
the
program
by
developing
and
piloting
State­
initiated
plans
to
protect
listed
species
within
that
State.
Key
components
of
the
interim
ESPP
include:
a.
Distributing
Interim
Pamphlets.
These
Pamphlets,
which
are
precursors
to
the
County
Bulletins,
were
developed
for
voluntary
use
during
the
Interim
ESPP
to
encourage
the
protection
of
listed
species.
Based
largely
on
Biological
Opinions,
the
Pamphlets
include
the
name
of
the
species
of
concern,
a
table
of
the
pesticides
that
may
harm
that
species,
a
description
of
the
use
limitations
necessary
to
protect
the
species,
and
a
county­
level
map
showing
the
geographic
areas
associated
with
these
use
limitations.
The
type
of
map
and
level
of
detail
depends
in
part
on
the
sensitivity
of
the
listed
species
to
other
factors,
such
as
collection.
(
See
Unit
III.
B.
for
distribution
procedures
and
more
information
on
County
Bulletins.)
b.
Developing
State­
and
Tribespecific
approaches.
Several
States
have
developed
alternative
approaches
to
protecting
certain
listed
species
during
the
Interim
Program.
For
example,
Minnesota
and
Wisconsin
have
succeeded
in
protecting
listed
plants
by
developing
landowner
agreements
with
private
individuals.
These
agreements
identify
protective
measures
specific
to
the
geographic
area
involved
in
the
agreement
and
are
made
with
FWS
and
the
appropriate
State
agencies.
California
has
put
a
program
in
place
whereby
use
of
particular
pesticides
requires
a
State
permit,
the
provisions
of
which
take
into
account
the
proximity
of
use
to
a
listed
species.
Still
others
have
proceeded
under
the
general
direction
of
the
Agency's
Interim
Program
but
have
developed
alternatives
to
county
mapping
that
better
communicate
protection
measures
to
their
citizens.

F.
Development
of
this
Implementation
Proposal
In
developing
this
implementation
proposal,
EPA
considered
information
and
comments
from
a
number
of
sources.
Those
sources
included
public
comments
submitted
in
response
to
past
proposals
and
other
information
described
below.
1.
EPA
initiatives.
EPA
has
been
working
on
the
technical
aspects
of
the
ESPP.
These
efforts
include
collecting
additional
data
on
species
biology
and
habitat
locations,
agricultural
crop
and
other
pesticide
use
locations,
and
pesticide
toxicity
and
exposure.
In
certain
cases,
additional
research
was
conducted
that
specifically
provided
data
needed
to
address
risks
to
listed
species.
Examples
include
studies
on
herbicide
effects
on
cacti,
and
effects
of
insecticide
use
on
terrestrial
snails.
As
required
by
Public
Law
100
 
478,
October
7,
1988,
EPA
completed
and
submitted
a
report
to
Congress
titled
``
Report
to
Congress
on
the
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
as
it
Relates
to
Pesticide
Regulatory
Activities.''
The
report
describes
the
joint
efforts
by
EPA,
USDA,
and
FWS
to
determine
the
effects
of
pesticide
use
on
listed
species.
It
also
summarizes
EPA's
efforts
to
communicate
use
limitations
to
pesticide
users,
to
determine
alternatives
to
outright
prohibitions,
to
develop
and
distribute
accurate
maps
of
use
limitation
areas
related
to
listed
species,
and
to
improve
communications
among
EPA,
USDA,
and
FWS.
2.
Proactive
Conservation
Review.
In
a
joint
effort
with
the
Services,
the
Agency
has
undertaken
a
Proactive
Conservation
Review,
authorized
under
ESA
section
7(
a)(
1).
EPA
and
the
Services
are
analyzing
the
processes
EPA
uses
to
determine
whether
a
pesticide
may
affect
a
listed
species
and
to
assess
generic
mitigation
measures.
The
Services
and
EPA
have
agreed
to
explore
issues
relative
to
five
specific
areas:
(
1)
EPA's
test
methodologies,
(
2)
environmental
exposure
assessment
processes,
(
3)
risk
assessments,
(
4)
conservation
measures,
and
(
5)
followup
to
EPA
action
to
ensure
continuing
protection
and
conservation
of
listed
species.
One
product
of
the
Proactive
Conservation
Review
will
be
a
handbook
setting
forth
the
processes
and
procedures
that
will
be
followed
by
EPA,
NOAA
Fisheries
and
FWS
relative
to
species
conservation,
pesticide
consultations,
and
protection
measures
for
listed
species
deemed
to
be
potentially
affected
by
pesticide
exposure.
3.
EPA
Regional
programs.
EPA
Regional
offices
continue
to
act
as
liaisons
with
State
lead
agencies
(
SLAs)
for
pesticide
regulatory
activities,
Tribes
and
U.
S.
territories;
train
State
representatives
in
the
ESPP;
distribute
program
materials;
contribute
to
the
development
of
educational
and
outreach
materials;
and
work
closely
with
States
in
developing
State­
initiated
plans.
4.
State
efforts.
To
ensure
that
the
county
maps
delineating
the
pesticide
use
limitation
areas
are
precise
and
reflect
the
result
of
assessments
that
were
based
on
currently
occupied
habitat,
EPA
has
continued
to
work
with
the
States,
FWS,
and
USDA
in
developing,
reviewing
and
revising
the
maps.
Opportunity
also
has
been
provided
for
their
comment
on
the
specific
pesticide
use
limitations
for
individual
species.
State
involvement
varies,
but
review
usually
includes
participation
by
the
SLA
responsible
for
pesticide
programs
at
the
State
level
(
usually
the
State
Department
of
Agriculture),
State
heritage
and
conservation
agencies,
the
pesticide
coordinator
for
pesticide
applicator
certification
and
training,
and
others.
EPA
has
encouraged
the
States
to
include
a
balanced
role
for
representatives
of
non­
government
environmental
groups
and
the
pesticide
user
community
as
well.
States
continue
to
play
an
active
role
in
other
aspects
of
the
ESPP.
Their
efforts
include
developing
Stateinitiated
plans,
incorporating
endangered
species
modules
into
pesticide
applicator
certification
and
training
programs,
refining
species
location
information,
and
providing
input
on
the
future
directions
of
the
ESPP
and
ways
to
achieve
program
goals
more
effectively.
5.
National
partners'
workshops.
As
EPA
began
to
revitalize
the
ESPP,
three
national
workshops
were
held
(
in
1997,
1999
and
2001).
The
purpose
of
these
workshops
was
to
seek
input
on
future
directions
of
the
ESPP
and
on
ways
to
achieve
goals
more
effectively.
These
workshops
resulted
in
the
formulation
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71557
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
of
the
framework
for
this
final
program
proposal.
At
the
heart
of
each
of
these
workshops
was
the
discussion
of
a
range
of
practical,
nuts­
and­
bolts
solutions
for
furthering
endangered
species
protection
consistent
with
the
ESA.
A
few
dominant
themes
were
apparent
throughout:
To
better
protect
threatened
and
endangered
species,
everyone
involved
needs
to
communicate
better;
to
share
information,
data
and
resources;
and
to
identify
and
focus
on
priorities
to
make
better
use
of
limited
resources.
While
the
use
of
technology
to
foster
endangered
species
protection
is
crucial,
consideration
must
also
be
given
to
non­
technological
alternatives
and
innovative
practices
(
see
Unit
III.
E.
3.
b.
for
some
examples).

III.
The
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
­
Field
Implementation
Proposal
EPA's
implementation
proposal
is
based
on
two
goals.
The
first
is
to
provide
appropriate
protection
to
listed
species
and
their
habitats
from
potential
harm
due
to
pesticide
use.
The
second
is
to
avoid
placing
unnecessary
burden
on
pesticide
users
and
agriculture.
The
following
sections
describe
the
elements
of
EPA's
proposed
approach
to
implementing
endangered
species
protections
under
existing
ESA
regulations.
These
elements
include:
Scope,
approach
to
reviewing
pesticides,
completing
and
upgrading
County
Bulletins,
amending
pesticide
labels
to
reference
County
Bulletins,
enhancing
monitoring
programs,
compliance
and
enforcement,
and
public
participation.
Finally,
this
section
describes
the
role
of
States
and
Tribes
in
the
Program,
implementation
timing,
and
program
maintenance.

A.
Scope
of
the
ESPP
All
pesticide
products
for
which
EPA
makes
a
``
may
affect''
determination
may
be
subject
to
the
ESPP.
1.
Indoor
products
determination.
EPA
has
determined
that
pesticide
products
bearing
label
directions
only
for
use
indoors,
and
where
the
applied
pesticide
remains
indoors,
will
not
result
in
exposure
to
listed
species.
Therefore,
these
products
will
have
``
no
effect''
on
listed
species
and
generally
would
not
be
subject
to
the
ESPP.
Indoor
use
includes
application
within
transport
vehicles
and
within
any
structure
with
enclosed
walls
and
a
roof,
such
as
buildings,
greenhouses,
outbuildings,
etc.
This
``
no
effect''
determination
would
not
apply
to
a
pesticide
that
is
applied
indoors,
but
could
expose
outdoor
environments
(
such
as
pesticides
applied
in
cooling
towers
or
used
as
cattle
dips).
Whether
these
products
result
in
a
``
may
affect''
determination
will
be
assessed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
If
a
``
may
affect''
determination
is
made
for
these
products,
they
would
be
subject
to
the
ESPP.
2.
Public
health
emergencies.
Under
section
18
of
FIFRA
(
40
CFR
part
166),
a
State
or
Federal
public
health
agency
may
request
that
EPA
grant
an
emergency
exemption
from
pesticide
registration
requirements
for
a
public
health
emergency
if
the
State
or
Federal
agency
can
demonstrate
that:
a.
An
emergency,
non­
routine
condition
exists
that
requires
the
use
of
a
pesticide.
b.
Effective
registered
pesticides
or
alternative
practices
are
not
available
or
economically
or
environmentally
feasible.
c.
The
situation
will
present
significant
risks
to
human
health.
Public
health
emergencies,
verified
by
State
or
Federal
public
health
authorities,
include
situations
in
which:
(
1)
A
pest
outbreak
poses
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
in
which
the
elements
for
disease
outbreak
(
i.
e.,
virus
activity,
large
population
of
disease
vectors
either
present
or
pending,
or
others)
are
demonstrated
to
be
in
place
and
prompt
action
is
required
to
avert
an
actual
disease
outbreak,
and
(
2)
An
actual
disease
outbreak
is
in
progress
and
immediate
action
is
essential
to
arrest
the
outbreak.
In
the
latter
case,
a
crisis
exemption
under
section
18
may
be
appropriate,
which
allows
a
Federal
or
State
agency
to
authorize
the
emergency
use
of
a
pesticide
if
its
use
is
critical
and
enough
time
is
not
available
for
EPA
to
receive
and
complete
a
review
of
the
specific
request
for
a
public
health
exemption.
Consultations
on
emergency
actions
are
conducted
in
accordance
with
Service
regulations
found
at
50
CFR
402.05.
Generally,
in
accordance
with
the
ESA,
EPA
does
not
authorize
use
of
a
pesticide
under
section
18
if
that
pesticide
will
jeopardize
a
listed
species
or
adversely
modify
critical
habitat.
However,
if
no
practical
alternative
control
measures
are
available,
during
a
public
health
emergency,
a
public
health
exemption
under
section
18
may
be
sought
for
the
use
of
a
pesticide
that
was
found
to
jeopardize
listed
species
or
adversely
modify
its
critical
habitat.
Specific
Input
Requested
­
Public
Health
Emergencies
 
Is
the
above
section
18
approach
the
appropriate
mechanism
to
address
potential
intersections
of
public
health
and
listed
species
protections?
 
Should
actions
relative
to
public
health
emergencies
require
consultation
with
the
Services,
and
if
so,
should
it
be
an
emergency
consultation?
 
What
specific
alternatives
might
be
appropriate?
How
do
these
alternatives
allow
the
appropriate
weighing
and
balancing
of
public
health
and
listed
species
protection?
3.
Review
of
pesticides.
To
the
degree
possible,
endangered
species
issues
will
be
addressed
within
the
Agency's
existing
review
processes
of
registration
and
reregistration
so
that
when
a
registration
or
reregistration
decision
is
made,
it
fully
addresses
issues
relative
to
listed
species
protection.
Concurrently,
the
Agency
will
begin
a
process
to
review
those
pesticides
that
have
been
through
reregistration
review
and
were
found
potentially
to
affect
listed
species
or
their
critical
habitat,
or
where
the
potential
for
effects
on
listed
species
or
their
critical
habitat
was
not
considered.
This
does
not
limit
EPA's
ability
to
make
changes
in
its
technical
approach
nor
in
its
data
requirements.
EPA
and
the
Services
are
seeking
input
relative
to
the
technical
and
consultation
aspects
of
the
program
through
an
ANPR.
EPA
attempted
several
different
approaches
to
prioritizing
reviews
in
the
past
(
see
Unit
II.
E.
a.
through
II.
E.
c.),
each
resulting
in
a
different
set
of
issues
and
each
more
or
less
effective
in
differing
ways.
EPA's
proposed
approach
of
addressing
potential
effect
to
listed
species
on
a
chemical­
bychemical
basis,
is
not
without
issues.
With
any
approach,
EPA
believes
the
best
way
to
address
the
issues
is
to
develop
a
technical
and
consultation
process
that
allows
the
Federal
Government
to
make
appropriate
decisions
in
a
timely
manner.
By
focusing
our
internal
processes
to
address
listed
species
concerns
during
registration
and
reregistration
where
possible,
and
by
identifying
and
implementing
improvements
in
the
technical
aspects
of
review
and
in
the
consultation
processes,
EPA
believes
many
of
the
issues
resulting
from
a
chemical­
by­
chemical
approach
to
review
will
be
resolved.
4.
Effect
determinations
and
consultations.
EPA's
technical
review
policies
(
Unit
II.
D.)
and
the
Services'
technical
information
and
analysis
requirements
under
the
ESA
section
7
consultation
regulations
currently
form
the
analytical
and
procedural
bases
of
EPA's
Interim
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program.
As
noted
in
Unit
II.
F.
2.,
EPA
is
engaged
in
a
Proactive
Conservation
Review
with
the
Services
under
ESA
section
7(
a)(
1)
to
analyze,
among
other
things,
the
processes
EPA
uses
to
determine
whether
a
pesticide
may
affect
a
listed
species.
Further,
EPA
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71558
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
and
the
Services
will
be
taking
comment
through
an
ANPR
on
options
for
counterpart
regulations
that
could
amend
the
existing
ESA
and
FIFRA
regulatory
regimes
in
a
manner
that
improves
consultations
on
pesticide
actions.
Until
these
efforts
are
finalized,
EPA's
current
procedures
and
the
Services'
existing
regulations
at
50
CFR
part
402
will
continue
to
form
the
analytical
and
procedural
bases
of
the
ESPP.

B.
Completing
and
Upgrading
County
Bulletins
The
Interim
Pamphlets
(
Unit
II.
E.
3.)
have
been
the
centerpiece
of
the
ESPP.
As
a
top
priority,
EPA
will
update
existing
Pamphlets
to
reflect
all
current
Biological
Opinions,
including
the
identified
species
of
concern,
a
table
of
pesticides
that
may
harm
those
species,
and
current
use
limitations
to
protect
listed
species.
EPA
will
then
convert
these
Pamphlets
to
County
Bulletins.
The
Agency
will
continue
to
provide
access
to
the
Bulletins
through
its
home
page
on
the
Internet
(
www.
epa.
gov/
espp)
and
improve
the
distribution
network.
The
Bulletins
will
be
developed
by
EPA
in
cooperation
with
the
Services,
USDA,
States
and
Tribes.
EPA
will
generally
determine
appropriate
use
limitations
and
recommendations
in
the
Bulletins
by
reviewing
results
of
ESA
section
7
consultations
and
any
other
relevant
information
that
addresses
the
needs
of
the
listed
species.
The
Bulletins
will
only
be
maintained
and
issued
for
counties
for
which
protection
measures
have
been
deemed
necessary.
Bulletins
will:
1.
Identify
the
species
of
concern.
2.
Name
the
pesticides
that
may
harm
the
listed
species.
3.
Provide
a
description
of
the
protection
measures
necessary
to
protect
the
species.
Where
species
or
habitat
descriptions
are
helpful
or
necessary
to
identify
use
limitations,
EPA
will
also
include
this
information.
4.
Contain
a
county
map
showing
the
geographic
area
associated
with
the
protection
measures,
depending
on
the
sensitivity
of
the
species
to
other
factors
such
as
collection.
Typically,
maps
will
show
a
shaded
area
indicating
the
area
where
pesticide
use
should
be
modified
to
protect
that
species.
Within
shaded
areas
on
the
maps,
the
specific
protection
measures
will
be
identified
for
the
pesticide
and
the
species
being
protected.
To
ensure
precision,
EPA
has
been
working
with
other
Federal
agencies
and
the
States
in
revising
the
maps
and
the
tables
of
pesticide
use.
EPA
will
develop
draft
maps
and
tables
of
pesticide
use
limitations
and
send
them
to
the
States,
Services,
and
USDA
for
review
as
EPA
updates
the
information
for
the
County
Bulletins,
or
as
completion
of
consultations
results
in
EPA's
decision
to
include
additional
pesticides
or
species,
or
delete
currently
included
pesticides
or
species.
Based
on
comments
from
Federal
agencies,
States
and
Tribes
during
the
review
process,
EPA
will
work
with
the
commenters
to
resolve
any
problems
and
to
make
any
necessary
revisions
to
the
Bulletins.
EPA
also
is
working
on
making
the
maps
easier
to
use.
For
example,
EPA
has
been
exploring
various
mapping
formats
in
attempting
to
convey
information
to
pesticide
users
most
effectively.
In
some
cases,
townshiprange
section
designation
may
be
the
best
way
to
delineate
the
habitat
of
a
species,
while
in
other
situations,
local
landmarks
such
as
roads
or
streams
may
work
more
effectively.
The
Bulletins
also
will
contain
a
printing
date
to
indicate
the
date
the
Bulletin
was
issued.
As
new
information
becomes
available
and
a
Bulletin
is
revised,
EPA
will
issue
a
new,
revised
Bulletin
with
a
new
printing
date.
This
Bulletin
will
supersede
the
Bulletin
previously
issued,
as
identified
by
the
new
printing
date.
EPA
will
review
the
County
Bulletins
as
necessary,
but
generally
will
not
update
them
more
than
once
annually.
Specific
Input
Requested
­
County
Bulletins
County
Bulletins
will
be
the
main
basis
for
conveying
information
to
pesticide
users.
The
Agency
is
particularly
interested
in
comment
on
various
aspects
of
these
documents
as
detailed
below.
(
To
facilitate
comment,
an
Interim
Pamphlet
may
be
printed
from
the
Web
site
at
www.
epa.
gov/
espp/
usa­
map.
htm.)
 
Are
there
ways
to
make
the
instructions
for
use
easier
to
understand?
 
Is
the
mapped
information
depicted
in
a
way
that
is
understandable?
For
example,
is
the
use
of
township­
range­
section
designations
appropriate?
 
Is
the
use
of
natural
and
man­
made
landmarks
appropriate?
 
Is
it
clear
what
pesticides
are
subject
to
what
use
modifications
to
protect
listed
species?
 
Are
there
ways
to
make
the
protection
measures
easier
to
understand?
 
Are
the
narrative
descriptions
of
habitat
or
of
species
as
a
map
supplement
helpful?
 
How
can
the
Agency
make
protection
areas
as
specific
as
possible
without
infringing
on
the
privacy
of
individual
landowners,
who
may
be
the
sole
custodians
of
a
species
on
their
property,
while
still
protecting
the
species
and
not
subjecting
the
species
to
potential
harm
by
revealing
its
specific
location?
 
How
can
EPA
ensure
that
growers
know
they
have
the
most
recent
Bulletins?
 
Is
annual
updating
of
the
Bulletins
the
right
frequency?
If
not,
how
often
should
EPA
update
them?
 
How
can
EPA
work
with
States
to
improve
the
development
of
Bulletins?

C.
Bulletin
Distribution
Procedures
EPA
has
been
developing
its
distribution
plan
for
Bulletins
and
other
ESPP
information.
A
key
factor
in
developing
this
plan
is
to
make
sources
of
Bulletins
and
other
information
convenient
to
pesticide
users.
In
addition,
different
mechanisms
may
be
appropriate
for
different
States
and
Tribes.
As
a
result,
distribution
mechanisms
could
include
several
or
all
of
the
following
methods,
depending
on
the
State
or
Tribe:
1.
Mechanisms
identified
by
SLAs.
2.
Direct
mailing
to
pesticide
applicators
within
an
affected
county.
3.
Pesticide
dealers
and
distributors.
Ideally,
Bulletins
will
be
available
when
and
where
pesticide
applicators
buy
or
obtain
their
pesticides.
4.
Cooperative
Extension
Service,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service,
Agricultural
Stabilization
and
Conservation
offices,
and
USDA
county
offices
in
the
vicinity
of
affected
counties.
5.
The
Services'
regional
and
field
offices,
where
appropriate.
6.
EPA
Headquarters,
Regional
offices,
EPA's
toll­
free
number
and
Web
site.
EPA
plans
to
evaluate
these
mechanisms
continually
and
to
modify
any
part
of
the
distribution
process
as
the
need
arises
and
as
more
is
learned
about
the
effectiveness
of
the
various
mechanisms.
Specific
Input
Requested
­
Bulletin
Distribution
 
Are
the
mechanisms
identified
for
Bulletin
distribution
appropriate?
 
What
other
mechanisms
would
be
of
value?

D.
Amending
Pesticide
Labels
to
Reference
County
Bulletins
EPA
proposes
to
request
label
amendments
of
pesticide
products
for
which
protection
measures
have
been
identified.
This
amendment
would
generally
include
a
statement
directing
the
user
to
follow
the
information
in
the
County
Bulletin.
The
label
also
would
include
a
statement
regarding
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71559
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
potential
for
effects
to
listed
species.
Finally,
the
label
would
include
information
on
how
the
user
can
obtain
the
County
Bulletin.
The
County
Bulletins,
in
turn,
would
contain
specific
information
on
species
and
areas
where
protection
measures
were
necessary.
Such
a
system
would
help
ensure
that
pesticide
users
are
aware,
before
applying
pesticides,
of
both
the
potential
harm
to
listed
species
and
how
they
can
obtain
information
necessary
to
protect
listed
species.
The
Agency
has
several
approaches
to
requesting
label
amendments
for
currently
registered
pesticides.
In
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decisions
(
REDs),
the
Agency
can
make
clear
its
regulatory
position
on
listed
species
protection
and
indicate
the
labeling
that
would
be
necessary
for
products
to
be
considered
eligible
for
reregistration.
The
Agency
also
could
issue
a
Pesticide
Registration
(
PR)
Notice
requesting
amendments
of
pesticide
labels
for
which
limitations
have
been
identified
to
protect
listed
species
or
critical
habitat.
The
Agency
also
could
determine
that
in
the
absence
of
the
amended
label
language,
the
pesticide
would
no
longer
meet
the
risk/
benefit
standard
of
FIFRA
and
would,
therefore,
be
subject
to
cancellation.
The
Agency
intends
to
use
the
first
approach
when
completion
of
a
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
assessment
and
the
identification
of
use
limitations
coincides
with
completion
of
a
RED.
However,
this
approach
will
not
work
in
those
instances
where
these
two
activities
are
not
coincidental
(
i.
e.,
the
RED
is
completed
ahead
of
the
listed
species
determinations
or
vice
versa).
To
facilitate
label
changes
in
these
situations,
the
Agency
would
first
review
the
existing
Interim
Pamphlets
to
determine
that
the
information
is
current.
The
Agency
then
intends
to
prepare
a
PR
Notice
that
will
generally
request
registrants
of
products
in
those
Pamphlets
to
make
label
changes
relative
to
listed
species.
Specific
suggested
label
language
would
be
articulated
in
the
PR
Notice.
After
passage
of
the
time
frames
that
would
be
articulated
in
that
Notice,
products
for
which
revised
label
statements
are
requested,
and
which
do
not
bear
that
statement,
may
be
considered
misbranded
under
FIFRA
section
12(
a)(
1)(
E)
and
may
be
subject
to
a
Notice
of
Intent
to
Cancel.
If
necessary,
subsequent
PR
Notices
would
generally
be
issued
annually
to
request
label
changes
for
additional
products.
These
Notices
will
also
indicate
any
products
that
have
been
removed
from
the
Program.
Because
the
label
statements
would
not
be
county­
specific
or
use­
site
specific,
registrants
would
not
need
to
change
their
product
label
once
the
appropriate
changes
have
been
made,
if
protection
measures
are
extended
to
new
locations
or
new
species
need
protection.
Label
changes
would
be
necessary
only
if
the
protective
measures
specified
in
the
Bulletin
are
rescinded
for
all
uses
of
the
product.
As
noted
in
Unit
III.
H.,
the
Agency
intends
to
take
public
input
on
several
phases
of
listed
species
assessment
before
implementing
new
measures.
The
Agency
proposes
the
following
generic
label
statement
be
adopted
for
instructing
pesticide
users
about
listed
species
protection:
This
product
may
have
effects
on
federally
listed
threatened
and
endangered
species
or
critical
habitat
in
some
counties.
When
using
this
product,
you
must
follow
the
measures
contained
in
the
County
Bulletin
for
the
county
in
which
you
are
applying
the
pesticide.
To
determine
whether
your
County
has
a
Bulletin
consult
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
espp/
usa­
map.
htm.
Bulletins
also
may
be
available
from
local
pesticide
dealers,
extension
offices,
or
State
pesticide
agencies.

Specific
Input
Requested
­
Labels
The
Agency
specifically
requests
comment
on
how
best
to
accomplish
label
changes
to
protect
listed
species,
where
EPA,
FWS
or
NOAA
Fisheries
has
identified
use
limitations
to
ensure
protection.
The
Agency
also
seeks
suggestions
for
specific
label
language
to
relay
the
information
articulated
in
this
section.

E.
Enforcement
For
pesticide
products
determined
to
affect
listed
species
or
critical
habitat,
the
Agency
is
proposing
that
the
product
labels
carry
a
statement
directing
users
to
follow
the
appropriate
County
Bulletin
in
effect
at
the
time
of
product
application.
Another
option
is
that
all
Bulletins
published
by
an
annual
date
certain
will
be
in
effect
for
12
months.
In
either
case,
pesticide
users
who
fail
to
follow
provisions
applicable
to
their
pesticide
application,
whether
that
failure
results
in
harm
to
a
listed
species
or
not,
would
be
subject
to
enforcement
under
the
misuse
provisions
of
FIFRA
(
section
12(
a)(
2)(
G)).
Specific
Input
Requested
­
Enforcement
In
connection
with
these
approaches,
EPA
seeks
public
comment
on
whether:
 
Either
or
both
of
these
approaches
provide
effective
means
to
implement
species
protection.
 
There
are
alternative
means
to
ensure
appropriate
protection
of
species
that
may
be
adversely
affected
from
the
use
of
a
pesticide.
F.
Enhancing
Monitoring
Programs
Evaluating
the
extent
to
which
the
ESPP
is
protecting
and
contributing
to
the
conservation
of
listed
species
can
be
accomplished
in
several
ways.
Potential
options
include
monitoring
to
determine
the
degree
to
which
pesticide
users
in
affected
areas
are
or
are
not
applying
pesticides
in
accordance
with
the
County
Bulletins,
best
management
practices
associated
with
landowner
agreements,
and
State­
specific
approaches.
To
determine
the
feasibility
of
this
type
of
monitoring,
EPA
proposes
several
pilot
studies.
At
least
two
States
would
conduct
a
pilot
study
with
the
Agency
regarding
adherence
to
information
in
the
Bulletins.
States
selected
for
this
pilot
would
be
from
among
those
that
are
currently
working
on
more
efficient
ways
to
distribute
County
Bulletins.
EPA
also
proposes
that
another
State,
from
among
those
currently
employing
landowner
agreements
in
their
endangered
species
protection
efforts,
pilot
a
review
of
the
effectiveness
of
landowner
agreements.
Finally,
the
Agency
proposes
that
two
additional
States
assist
in
piloting
a
review
of
the
effectiveness
of
Statespecific
approaches
(
Unit
II.
E.
3.
b.).
Again,
the
States
selected
for
this
pilot
would
be
from
among
those
that
have
implemented
protection
programs
that
vary
from
EPA's
proposal
in
some
significant
respect.
Also,
it
is
important
that
data
being
collected
through
acceptable
sources
be
used
to
the
fullest
extent
possible
to
maximize
efficiencies
and
minimize
costs.
EPA
proposes
to
use
more
effectively
the
information
being
obtained
by
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
to
detect
pesticides
in
surface
and
ground
water,
information
provided
to
EPA's
Office
of
Water
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
State­
level
ground
or
surface
water
monitoring
resulting
from
State
pesticide
program
efforts.
EPA
will
also
use
the
technical
data
identified
during
section
7
consultations
with
the
Services.
EPA
proposes
to
analyze
this
information
to
determine
if
residues
of
pesticides
are
occurring
at
levels
of
concern
in
aquatic
environments.
Further,
EPA
proposes
to
augment
these
data
with
targeted
terrestrial
residue
monitoring,
possibly
to
include
postregistration
monitoring
by
registrants
or
others.
Locations
would
be
determined
with
input
from
the
Services
and
the
appropriate
State
or
Tribe,
based
on
proximity
of
pesticide
use
sites
with
species
locations.
If
such
pilots
result
in
broader
monitoring,
this
would
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
States'
or
Tribes'
ongoing
enforcement
efforts.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71560
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
Finally,
EPA
would
continue
and
improve
upon
its
cooperation
with
the
Services,
States,
Tribes,
and
others
to
review
reported
incidents
in
which
pesticides
have
had
an
impact
on
listed
species
and
critical
habitat.
EPA
has
been
working
with
FWS
field
offices
throughout
the
country,
as
well
as
other
Federal
and
State
agencies,
to
ensure
that
EPA
has
the
best
possible
information
on
incidents.
EPA's
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
maintains
an
Ecological
Incidents
Information
System.
EPA
also
gathers
incident
information
from
registrant
reports
submitted
under
FIFRA
section
6(
a)(
2),
or
those
in
which
pesticide
registrants
report
to
the
Agency
on
observed
adverse
effects.
Specific
Input
Requested
­
Enhanced
Monitoring
In
particular,
the
Agency
is
interested
in
obtaining
public
input
on
the
following
issues:
 
The
appropriate
role
of
pesticide
registrants
and
manufacturers
in
performing
environmental
monitoring.
 
The
role
incident
data
could
play
in
protecting
listed
species
and
critical
habitat.
 
Whether
there
are
other
ongoing
monitoring
programs
EPA
should
consider
reviewing
routinely
for
information.
 
The
role
the
Services
should
play
in
monitoring
programs.
 
Other
methods
of
monitoring
that
might
be
appropriate
for
the
agencies
to
implement.
 
How
to
improve
the
quality
of
information
on
the
effects
of
pesticides
on
listed
species
and
critical
habitat.

G.
Role
of
the
States
and
Tribes
Because
local
and
State
and
Tribal
circumstances
may
influence
the
effectiveness
of
different
approaches
to
listed
species
protection,
States
and
Tribes
will
continue
to
be
integral
to
the
success
of
the
ESPP.
Specific
roles
include
review
of
county
maps;
review
of
use
limitations
to
protect
species;
determining
the
effectiveness
of
the
program;
and,
at
their
discretion,
development
of
alternative
approaches
for
protecting
listed
species.
1.
Review
of
county
maps.
States
and
Tribes
will
be
requested
to
provide
input
to
the
Agency
on
county
maps
to
accomplish
several
things.
First,
accuracy
of
the
maps
is
key
to
success
of
relaying
information
to
pesticide
users.
Therefore,
States
and
Tribes
will
be
requested
to
provide
feedback
on
draft
maps
relative
to
whether
they
accurately
depict
landmarks,
rivers,
roads,
etc.
Further,
State
and
Tribal
input
on
how
best
to
characterize
use
limitation
areas
on
the
County
maps
will
be
sought.
For
example,
some
States
believe
that
their
pesticide
users
would
be
best
served
by
designating
limitation
areas
based
on
townshiprange
section
mapping,
while
other
States
believe
their
pesticide
users
would
prefer
designations
based
on
natural
and
man­
made
landmarks
such
as
rivers,
roads
and
railways.
2.
Review
of
use
limitations
to
protect
species.
States
and
Tribes
also
will
be
requested
to
provide
input
to
the
Agency
on
any
potential
use
limitations
for
species
protection.
The
purpose
of
this
review
would
be
for
the
Agency
to
ascertain,
based
on
local
conditions,
whether
specific
use
limitations
could
be
implemented.
States
and
Tribes
will
also
be
sources
of
input
on
the
technological
and
economic
feasibility
of
implementing
any
proposed
use
limitations.
3.
Help
determine
the
effectiveness
of
the
program.
Because
States
and
Tribes
are
in
closer
contact
with
pesticide
users
than
is
the
Agency,
they
will
be
requested
to
assist
the
Agency
in
determining
whether
the
ESPP
as
implemented
is
effective
in
protecting
listed
species.
They
also
will
be
requested
to
assist
in
determining
whether
the
limitations
outlined
in
County
Bulletins
are
being
followed
or
modified
based
on
local
conditions,
and
whether
any
generic
changes
in
the
County
Bulletins
would
improve
the
success
of
this
program.
4.
Develop
alternative
approaches
to
protect
listed
species.
States
and
Tribes
may
develop
and
propose
alternative
plans
for
protecting
listed
species
in
their
areas.
Such
a
plan
would
recommend
measures
and
approaches
that
EPA
could
use
to
protect
listed
species
in
that
area.
If
these
plans
are
submitted
to
EPA
for
review
and
approval,
EPA
will
coordinate
with
the
Services
and
consult,
as
appropriate,
to
determine
that
the
provisions
of
the
plan
will
provide
adequate
protections
for
listed
species
within
that
State
or
Tribal
land.
If
EPA
approves
the
plan
following
any
necessary
consultation
with
the
Services,
EPA
would
then
adopt
it
and
could
require,
through
Bulletins,
that
users
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
plan.
Alternative
plans
can
be
developed
for
all
or
a
portion
of
the
species
affected
in
that
State
or
Tribal
land.
An
alternative
plan
may
be
submitted
to
EPA
at
any
time.
However,
once
the
federally
initiated
actions
are
implemented
within
an
area,
those
requirements
will
be
effective
in
that
area
until
the
alternative
plan
is
approved
for
implementation.
H.
Public
Participation
EPA
has
encouraged
the
involvement
of
Federal
agencies,
States,
Tribes
and
members
of
the
public
throughout
the
development
of
the
ESPP
and
will
continue
to
provide
opportunities
for
public
participation
once
the
program
is
final.
EPA
intends
the
final
ESPP
to
be
as
flexible
as
possible
and
to
modify
it
as
necessary
to
achieve
the
goals
of
protecting
listed
species
and
minimizing
the
impact
on
pesticide
users.
Eventually,
the
ongoing
program
will
meld
its
components
of
public
participation
with
existing
practices
in
the
registration
and
reregistration
processes.
EPA
will
always
welcome
comments
from
the
public
on
the
various
aspects
of
the
program.
EPA
intends
periodically
to
reevaluate
the
Program,
review
public
comments,
and
modify
the
ESPP
to
continually
improve
protection
of
listed
species
while
serving
the
public
interest.
Additionally,
there
are
several
major
phases
of
a
listed
species
assessment
that
have
opportunity
for
public
input:
(
1)
Prior
to
a
``
may
affect
determination''
by
EPA,
(
2)
subsequent
to
such
determination
but
during
development
of
information
with
which
to
consult
with
the
Services,
and
(
3)
prior
to
issuance
of
a
Biological
Opinion
to
EPA
by
the
Services.
EPA
proposes
to
engage
the
public
in
each
of
these
phases
as
noted
below.
When
any
of
these
phases
corresponds
with
a
public
participation
phase
under
EPA's
ongoing
review
processes
(
i.
e,
reregistration
review),
that
ongoing
public
process
will
be
used.
1.
Prior
to
a
``
may
affect
determination.''
The
Agency
proposes
to
notify
affected
pesticide
registrants
and
provide
them
an
opportunity
to
update
information
or
provide
additional
information
relative
to
the
determination.
Subsequently,
the
Agency
will
make
public
in
draft,
any
determination
that
a
pesticide
``
may
affect''
a
listed
species.
The
public
will
have
a
30
 
day
opportunity
to
provide
input
to
that
determination.
2.
Subsequent
to
a
``
may
affect
determination.''
The
Agency
will
accept
information
provided
for
use
during
consultation
with
the
Services.
Information
provided
subsequent
to
a
``
may
affect
determination''
being
made
will
not
be
considered
by
the
Agency
alone
but
will
be
shared
with
the
Services
for
joint
consideration
during
consultation.
3.
Public
comment
on
draft
Biological
Opinion.
The
Agency
intends
to
request
that
the
Services
provide
draft
Biological
Opinions
to
the
Agency
upon
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
71561
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
231
/
Monday,
December
2,
2002
/
Notices
their
development.
The
Agency
will
provide
opportunity
for
public
input
to
any
reasonable
and
prudent
measures
or
alternatives
recommended
by
the
Services
in
these
draft
Biological
Opinions.
The
purpose
of
this
review
would
be
to
determine
whether
the
alternatives
or
measures
can
be
reasonably
implemented
and
whether
there
are
alternative
measures
that
may
provide
similar
protection
but
result
in
less
impact.
The
Agency
will
consider
this
input
in
developing
its
response
to
the
draft
Biological
Opinions.
Specific
Input
Requested
­
Public
Participation
The
Agency
seeks
specific
suggestions
on
how
the
public
could
most
effectively
be
informed
of
the
Agency's
determinations
and
consultations.
The
Agency
also
seeks
other
suggestions
for
enhancing
public
involvement
in
the
ESPP.

I.
Implementation
Timing
Once
public
comment
on
this
Notice
has
been
considered
and
a
final
Notice
issued,
the
Agency
intends
to
begin
field
implementation
of
the
ESPP.
At
the
same
time,
EPA
recognizes
that
technical
and
consultation
process
issues
may
change
based
on
input
in
response
to
the
ANPR
the
Agency
will
issue
with
DOI
and
DOC
on
or
about
the
same
date
as
this
Notice,
or
changes
to
FIFRA
implementation
regulations.
However,
the
Agency
believes
the
responsible
approach
is
to
implement
in
a
timely
manner,
those
aspects
of
listed
species
protection
that
the
Agency
can,
while
building
modifications
and
efficiencies
into
the
longer
term
effort
of
a
sustained
approach
to
protecting
listed
species.
Within
6
months
of
reviewing
existing
Interim
Pamphlets
for
accuracy,
the
Agency
intends
to
modify
them
as
appropriate
and
issue
them
as
County
Bulletins.
While
the
Bulletins
will
be
widely
available,
they
will
be
effective
upon
reference
to
them
on
pesticide
labels.
The
Agency
also
will
develop
for
public
comment
a
PR
Notice
that
will
identify
time
frames
in
which
the
Agency
anticipates
that
registrants
could
modify
labels
for
these
products.
Upon
issuance
of
a
final
Notice
of
Program
Field
Implementation,
the
Agency
will
begin
the
process
of
reviewing,
for
endangered
species
implications,
those
pesticides
for
which
REDs
have
already
been
issued
but
for
which
specific
endangered
species
assessments
were
not
completed
during
the
RED
process.
As
pesticides
are
reviewed
and
determinations
made
for
listed
species,
the
Agency
will
begin
creating
Bulletins
or
preparing
to
include
these
pesticides
in
existing
Bulletins,
as
appropriate.
EPA
will
review
the
County
Bulletins
as
necessary,
but
generally
update
them
not
more
than
once
annually.
Specific
Input
Requested
­
Implementation
Timing
How
can
EPA
time
the
release
of
County
Bulletins
to
minimize
the
potential
disruption
to
pesticide
users
during
a
growing
season?

J.
Program
Maintenance
To
the
degree
possible,
endangered
species
issues
are
and
will
be
addressed
within
the
Agency's
existing
processes
of
registration
and
reregistration.
Concurrently,
the
Agency
will
review
those
pesticides
that
have
been
through
reregistration
and
were
found
potentially
to
affect
listed
species,
or
did
not
undergo
ESA
review
during
reregistration.
Once
all
registered
pesticides
have
been
re­
evaluated,
EPA's
future
obligations
to
consult
under
ESA
will
be
fulfilled
through
an
ongoing
process
of
evaluation
and
referral.
If
new,
valid
information
becomes
available
on
existing
pesticide
registrations,
or
if
new
species
affected
by
specific
pesticides
are
listed
under
the
ESA,
EPA
will
re­
evaluate
its
determinations
and
reinitiate
consultation
when
appropriate.
EPA
anticipates
that
reinitiation
on
the
basis
of
new
information
will
occur
on
an
annual
or
biannual
basis,
as
necessary.
EPA
will
periodically
reinitiate
consultation,
as
appropriate,
on
pesticides
already
included
in
the
Program
to
obtain
Biological
Opinions
for
newly
listed
species.
It
is
not
the
Agency's
intent,
however,
to
change
product
labels
and
County
Bulletins
constantly;
rather,
EPA
intends
to
maintain
the
ability
to
act
on
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
issues
if
a
new
body
of
data
becomes
available.

IV.
References
All
references
are
available
for
public
review
in
the
public
docket.
The
references
used
in
this
document
are:
1.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
2002.
Process
for
Assessing
Potential
Risks
to
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
and
Consultation
with
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
and
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
2.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1986.
Hazard
Evaluation
Division
Standard
Evaluation
Procedure,
Ecological
Risk
Assessment.
3.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1991.
Report
to
Congress
on
the
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
as
it
Relates
to
Pesticide
Regulatory
Activities.
List
of
Subjects
Environmental
protection,
Pesticides,
Endangered
species.

Dated:
November
25,
2002.
James
Jones,
Acting
Director,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
30463
Filed
11
 
29
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
FRL
 
7415
 
4]

CERCLA
Administrative
Consent
Order
Containing
Proposed
Past
Costs
Settlement
Related
to
the
Butternuts
Landfill
Superfund
Site,
Town
of
Butternuts,
Otsego
County,
NY
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Notice;
request
for
public
comment.

SUMMARY:
In
accordance
with
Section
122(
i)
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980,
amended
(``
CERCLA''),
42
U.
S.
C.
9622(
i),
notice
is
hereby
given
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(``
EPA''),
Region
II,
of
an
administrative
consent
order
(``
Order'')
pursuant
to
sections
104,
106,
107,
and
122
of
CERCLA
42
U.
S.
C.
9604,
9606,
9607,
and
9622,
addressing,
inter
alia,
proposed
recovery
of
past
response
costs
paid
by
EPA
with
regard
to
the
Butternuts
Landfill
Superfund
Site
(``
Site'')
located
in
the
Town
of
Butternuts,
Otsego
County,
New
York.
The
Order
requires
the
settling
party,
Hugo
Neu
Schnitizer
East
(``
Respondent''),
to
perform
a
removal
action
at
the
Site
and
also
pay
$
40,000
in
reimbursement
of
EPA's
past
response
costs
at
the
Site.
The
settlement
includes
a
covenant
not
to
sue
the
Respondent
pursuant
to
sections
106
and
107(
a)
of
CERCLA,
42
U.
S.
C.
9606,
9607(
a),
for
performance
of
the
removal
action
and
for
recovery
of
EPA's
past
costs
and
oversight
costs.
For
thirty
(
30)
days
following
the
date
of
publication
of
this
notice,
EPA
will
receive
written
comments
relating
only
to
the
portion
of
the
Order
which
settles
EPA's
claim
for
recovery
of
its
past
response
costs.
EPA
will
consider
all
such
comments
received
and
may
modify
or
withdraw
its
consent
to
the
past
costs
settlement
if
comments
received
disclose
facts
or
considerations
that
indicate
that
the
proposed
past
costs
settlement
is
inappropriate,
improper
or
inadequate.
EPA's
response
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
27
Nov
29,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
02DEN1.
SGM
02DEN1
