80_FR_43194 80 FR 43055 - Notice of Affirmation of Addition of a Treatment Schedule for Methyl Bromide Fumigation of Figs

80 FR 43055 - Notice of Affirmation of Addition of a Treatment Schedule for Methyl Bromide Fumigation of Figs

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 139 (July 21, 2015)

Page Range43055-43056
FR Document2015-17841

We are affirming our earlier determination that it was necessary to immediately add to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual a treatment schedule for methyl bromide fumigation of figs for certain pests, including Chilean false red mite. In a previous notice, we made available to the public for review and comment a treatment evaluation document that described the new treatment schedule and explained why we have determined that it is effective at neutralizing these pests.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015) 
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43055-43056]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17841]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2015-0007]


Notice of Affirmation of Addition of a Treatment Schedule for 
Methyl Bromide Fumigation of Figs

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: We are affirming our earlier determination that it was 
necessary to immediately add to the Plant Protection and Quarantine 
Treatment Manual a treatment schedule for methyl bromide fumigation of 
figs for certain pests, including Chilean false red mite. In a previous 
notice, we made available to the public for review and comment a 
treatment evaluation document that described the new treatment schedule 
and explained why we have determined that it is effective at 
neutralizing these pests.

DATES: Effective July 21, 2015, we are affirming the addition to the 
Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual of the treatment 
described in the notice published at 80 FR 10661-10662 on February 27, 
2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk 
Manager--Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, 
MD 20737; (301) 851-2018.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are 
intended, among other things, to prevent the introduction or 
dissemination of plant pests and noxious weeds into or within the 
United States. Under the regulations, certain plants, fruits, 
vegetables, and other articles must be treated before they may be moved 
into the United States or interstate. The phytosanitary treatments 
regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 (referred to below as the 
regulations) set out standards for treatments required in 7 CFR parts 
301, 318, and 319 for fruits, vegetables, and other articles.
    In Sec.  305.2, paragraph (b) states that approved treatment 
schedules are set out in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) 
Treatment Manual.\1\ Section 305.3 sets out a process for adding, 
revising, or removing treatment schedules in the PPQ Treatment Manual. 
In that section, paragraph (b) sets out the process for adding, 
revising, or removing treatment schedules when there is an immediate 
need to make a change. The circumstances in which an immediate need 
exists are described in Sec.  305.3(b)(1). They are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Treatment Manual is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf or by contacting the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Manuals Unit, 
92 Thomas Johnson Drive, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     PPQ has determined that an approved treatment schedule is 
ineffective at neutralizing the targeted plant pest(s).
     PPQ has determined that, in order to neutralize the 
targeted plant pest(s), the treatment schedule must be administered 
using a different process than was previously used.
     PPQ has determined that a new treatment schedule is 
effective, based on efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in a 
commodity or commodities may be adversely impacted unless the new 
treatment schedule is approved for use.
     The use of a treatment schedule is no longer authorized by 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or by any other Federal 
entity.
    In accordance with Sec.  305.3(b), we published a notice \2\ in the 
Federal Register on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10661-10662, Docket No. 
APHIS-2015-0007), announcing our determination that a new methyl 
bromide fumigation treatment schedule to control certain pests, 
including Chilean false red mite (Brevipalpus chilensis), on figs 
(Ficus carica) is effective, based on evidence presented in a treatment 
evaluation document (TED) we made available with the notice. We also 
determined that ongoing trade in figs would be adversely impacted 
unless the new treatment is approved for use. The treatment was added 
to the PPQ Treatment Manual, but was subject to change based on public 
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To view the notice, the TED, and the comment we received, go 
to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on April 28, 
2015. We received one comment by that date, from a private citizen. The 
commenter stated that methyl bromide is known to deplete the 
stratospheric ozone layer, and that authorizing its use for treating 
figs violates the Montreal Protocol, in which the United States agreed 
to gradually reduce and ultimately eliminate use of methyl bromide.
    The United States Government encourages methods that do not use 
methyl bromide to meet phytosanitary standards where alternatives are 
deemed to be technically and economically feasible, practical, and 
effective. At present, methyl bromide fumigation is the only authorized 
treatment that meets the above criteria for the treatment of external 
pests on figs. In addition, in accordance with Montreal Protocol 
Decision XI/13 (paragraph 7), APHIS is committed to promoting and 
employing gas recapture technology and other methods whenever possible 
to minimize harm to the environment caused by methyl bromide emissions.
    Paragraph 5 of Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol does allow for 
quarantine and preshipment uses of methyl bromide, and does not specify 
a maximum number of such applications. Therefore, the application of 
this treatment is not in conflict with the

[[Page 43056]]

protocol. Treatment of figs with methyl bromide fumigation is also 
consistent with the International Plant Protection Convention's 
standard of requiring the least restrictive phytosanitary measures to 
mitigate pests of concern.
    Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in Sec.  305.3(b)(3), 
we are affirming our addition of a methyl bromide treatment schedule 
for figs to control certain pests, as described in the TED made 
available with the previous notice. The treatment schedule is numbered 
T101-i-2-2. The treatment schedule will be listed in the PPQ Treatment 
Manual, which is available as described in footnote 1 of this document.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 
136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of July 2015.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17841 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-34-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices 43055 Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part immediately add to the Plant Protection • PPQ has determined that a new 372). and Quarantine Treatment Manual a treatment schedule is effective, based on In accordance with our process for treatment schedule for methyl bromide efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in soliciting public input when fumigation of figs for certain pests, a commodity or commodities may be considering petitions for determinations including Chilean false red mite. In a adversely impacted unless the new of nonregulated status for GE organisms, previous notice, we made available to treatment schedule is approved for use. we are publishing this notice to inform the public for review and comment a • The use of a treatment schedule is the public that APHIS will accept treatment evaluation document that no longer authorized by the U.S. written comments on our draft EA and described the new treatment schedule Environmental Protection Agency or by our preliminary PPRA regarding the and explained why we have determined any other Federal entity. petition for a determination of that it is effective at neutralizing these In accordance with § 305.3(b), we nonregulated status from interested or pests. published a notice 2 in the Federal affected persons for a period of 30 days DATES: Effective July 21, 2015, we are Register on February 27, 2015 (80 FR from the date of this notice. Copies of affirming the addition to the Plant 10661–10662, Docket No. APHIS–2015– the draft EA and the preliminary PPRA, Protection and Quarantine Treatment 0007), announcing our determination as well as the previously published Manual of the treatment described in that a new methyl bromide fumigation petition, are available as indicated the notice published at 80 FR 10661– treatment schedule to control certain under ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER 10662 on February 27, 2015. pests, including Chilean false red mite INFORMATION CONTACT above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. (Brevipalpus chilensis), on figs (Ficus After the comment period closes, Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager— carica) is effective, based on evidence APHIS will review all written comments Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River presented in a treatment evaluation received during the comment period Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; document (TED) we made available and any other relevant information. (301) 851–2018. with the notice. We also determined After reviewing and evaluating the that ongoing trade in figs would be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The comments on the draft EA and the adversely impacted unless the new regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are preliminary PPRA and other treatment is approved for use. The intended, among other things, to information, APHIS will revise the treatment was added to the PPQ prevent the introduction or PPRA as necessary and prepare a final dissemination of plant pests and Treatment Manual, but was subject to EA. Based on the final EA, APHIS will noxious weeds into or within the United change based on public comment. prepare a NEPA decision document States. Under the regulations, certain We solicited comments on the notice (either a FONSI or a notice of intent to plants, fruits, vegetables, and other for 60 days ending on April 28, 2015. prepare an environmental impact articles must be treated before they may We received one comment by that date, statement). If a FONSI is reached, be moved into the United States or from a private citizen. The commenter APHIS will furnish a response to the interstate. The phytosanitary treatments stated that methyl bromide is known to petitioner, either approving or denying regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, the petition. APHIS will also publish a (referred to below as the regulations) set and that authorizing its use for treating notice in the Federal Register out standards for treatments required in figs violates the Montreal Protocol, in announcing the regulatory status of the 7 CFR parts 301, 318, and 319 for fruits, which the United States agreed to GE organism and the availability of vegetables, and other articles. gradually reduce and ultimately APHIS’ final EA, PPRA, FONSI, and our In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that eliminate use of methyl bromide. regulatory determination. approved treatment schedules are set The United States Government Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– out in the Plant Protection and encourages methods that do not use 7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.1 methyl bromide to meet phytosanitary 371.3. Section 305.3 sets out a process for standards where alternatives are Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of adding, revising, or removing treatment deemed to be technically and July 2015. schedules in the PPQ Treatment economically feasible, practical, and Kevin Shea, Manual. In that section, paragraph (b) effective. At present, methyl bromide Administrator, Animal and Plant Health sets out the process for adding, revising, fumigation is the only authorized Inspection Service. or removing treatment schedules when treatment that meets the above criteria [FR Doc. 2015–17845 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am] there is an immediate need to make a for the treatment of external pests on BILLING CODE 3410–34–P change. The circumstances in which an figs. In addition, in accordance with immediate need exists are described in Montreal Protocol Decision XI/13 § 305.3(b)(1). They are: (paragraph 7), APHIS is committed to DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE • PPQ has determined that an promoting and employing gas recapture approved treatment schedule is technology and other methods Animal and Plant Health Inspection ineffective at neutralizing the targeted whenever possible to minimize harm to Service plant pest(s). the environment caused by methyl • PPQ has determined that, in order bromide emissions. [Docket No. APHIS–2015–0007] to neutralize the targeted plant pest(s), Paragraph 5 of Article 2H of the Notice of Affirmation of Addition of a the treatment schedule must be Montreal Protocol does allow for asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Treatment Schedule for Methyl administered using a different process quarantine and preshipment uses of Bromide Fumigation of Figs than was previously used. methyl bromide, and does not specify a maximum number of such applications. AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 1 The Treatment Manual is available on the Therefore, the application of this Inspection Service, USDA. Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_ export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/ treatment is not in conflict with the ACTION: Notice. treatment.pdf or by contacting the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 2 To view the notice, the TED, and the comment SUMMARY: We are affirming our earlier and Quarantine, Manuals Unit, 92 Thomas Johnson we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ determination that it was necessary to Drive, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21702. #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0007. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1

43056 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices protocol. Treatment of figs with methyl FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: allow and to respond to local bromide fumigation is also consistent Contact Janis Bouma, Project Team environmental conditions and stocking with the International Plant Protection Leader, Kootenai National Forest, 31374 rates. All of these benefits fall within Convention’s standard of requiring the US Hwy 2, Libby, MT 59923. Phone: the Governor’s criteria. least restrictive phytosanitary measures (406) 283–7774. Individuals who use Proposed Action to mitigate pests of concern. Therefore, in accordance with the telecommunication devices for the deaf The proposed action includes non- regulations in § 305.3(b)(3), we are (TDD) may call the Federal Information commercial and commercial vegetation affirming our addition of a methyl Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 management activities that accomplish bromide treatment schedule for figs to between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern the following: control certain pests, as described in the Time, Monday through Friday. Habitat improvement for grizzly bear TED made available with the previous SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May and lynx; (2) Reduce fuel loading and notice. The treatment schedule is 20, 2014, Department of Agriculture ladder fuels; (3) Break up the continuity numbered T101-i-2–2. The treatment Secretary Vilsack announced the of fuels; (4) Reduce tree densities and schedule will be listed in the PPQ designation of approximately 45.6 tree species susceptible to fire mortality; Treatment Manual, which is available as million acres of National Forest System (5) Increase fire resilient species; (6) described in footnote 1 of this lands across 94 national forests in 35 Reduce susceptibility to insects and document. states to address insect and disease potential disease; (7) Increase tree vigor threats that weaken forests and increase and resilience to disturbance. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– Project NEPA analysis would employ 7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, the risk of forest fire. The Kootenai National Forest is the only forest in various adaptive management screens 2.80, and 371.3. across the initial proposed acreage. Montana that lies completely within Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of these priority landscapes. The Governor These ‘‘screens’’ would be used to avoid July 2015. impacts to Threatened and Endangered of Montana has asked that priority be Kevin Shea, given to project development within wildlife and plant species, and sensitive Administrator, Animal and Plant Health these designated insect and disease areas. Treatment boundaries could also Inspection Service. areas, and created his Forest in Focus be further narrowed depending on [FR Doc. 2015–17841 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am] Initiative to accelerate the pace and localized site conditions including soils BILLING CODE 3410–34–P scale of forest restoration in the state of conditions, standard wildlife effects Montana. The Kootenai National Forest mitigations, and Best Management Young-Growth Project area is Practices (BMPs). Therefore, the actual, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE approximately 400,000 acres in size and on-the ground vegetation management is located only in second-growth; would be considerably smaller than the Forest Service initial 400,000 acres proposed for previously harvested timber stands about across the Kootenai National evaluation. The project would rely on Kootenai National Forest; Lincoln and the existing road system to reach the Sanders Counties; Montana; Kootenai Forest. stands with a need for treatment, with National Forest Young Growth Purpose and Need for Action no new specified road construction Environmental Impact Statement The purpose and need for this project proposed for this analysis. Prior logging AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. is: (1) Improve the resiliency of the systems such as previous skid trails may timber stands to insects and disease; (2); be used if evidence of them still exists. ACTION:Notice of intent to prepare an If site-specific Forest Plan amendments improve wildlife habitat especially for environmental impact statement. may be needed, then the proposed grizzly bear and lynx; (3) address SUMMARY: The Forest Service will impacts from climate change and, 4) and treatments would be dropped or prepare an Environmental Impact to decrease risk of stand-replacing deferred to another future project Statement (EIS) to disclose the wildfire. analysis. environmental effects of commercial Overall project benefits and the The acres included in this anticipated and non-commercial vegetation purpose associated with young-growth decision would provide forest products management activities and prescribed vegetation management will be to for an array of markets. A portion of the burning of activity fuels. Access improve stand conditions and increase acreage, predominately the older second management changes and other design resistance to insects, disease, and stand- growth, would provide a saw log features are included to protect replacement wildfire while also product. Many of the acres would resources and facilitate management providing for abundance of forage and provide non-saw products such as post activities. The project is located across improved habitat conditions for a and pole. These offerings of forest the Kootenai National Forest Kootenai variety of wildlife species. Managing products would be assessed for National Forest, Lincoln and Sanders these stands is important in order to economic feasibility and may be mixed reach a healthier stocking rate and to and matched with other offerings or Counties, Montana. increase overall growth and vigor of the decisions in order to ensure economic DATES: Comments concerning the scope stand by reducing competition and viability. Additionally, in order to of the analysis must be received within stress on remaining conifers. anticipate and respond to future timber 30 days from the date of publication in Management of these stands would also market opportunities or newly asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the Federal Register. increase quantities of grasses, forbs, and developed markets, the analysis would ADDRESSES: Send written comments to shrubs that many wildlife species utilize consider biomass removal in addition to Chris Savage; Forest Supervisor, in the early stage of forest development, traditional commercial timber harvest Kootenai National Forest, 31374 US thereby improving foraging habitat for activities. Hwy 2, Libby, MT 59923. Comments grizzly bear, lynx, and other wildlife Various silvicultural treatments may also be sent via email to comments- species. The project would allow for would be proposed to meet the northern-kootenai@fs.fed.us; or via adaptive management over the next 10 vegetative objectives for the previously facsimile to (406) 283–7709. to 15 years as stand conditions would harvested areas and move the landscape VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1


Document Created: 2018-02-23 09:23:35
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 09:23:35
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionNotice.
DatesEffective July 21, 2015, we are affirming the addition to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual of the treatment described in the notice published at 80 FR 10661-10662 on February 27, 2015.
ContactDr. Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager--Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2018.
FR Citation80 FR 43055 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR