Rodenticides; Notice of Intent To Cancel Registrations of, and Notice of Denial of Applications for, Certain Rodenticide Bait Products, 8123-8128 [2013-02500]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices
SIP budgets in a May 14, 1999
memorandum entitled ‘‘Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March
2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision.’’
Additional guidance on EPA’s adequacy
process was published in a July 1, 2004
Federal Register final rulemaking,
‘‘Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions
for Existing Areas; Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments:
Response to Court Decision and
Additional Rule Changes’’ (69 FR
40004). We followed this guidance in
making our adequacy determination.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Dated: January 25, 2013.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2013–02492 Filed 2–4–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0049; FRL–9377–7]
Rodenticides; Notice of Intent To
Cancel Registrations of, and Notice of
Denial of Applications for, Certain
Rodenticide Bait Products
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA hereby
announces its intent to cancel the
registration of 12 rodenticide products
identified in this Notice. Pursuant to
section 3(c)(6) of FIFRA, EPA hereby
announces the denial of applications for
registration of 2 products identified in
this Notice. This Notice summarizes
EPA’s basis for these actions, and
explains how eligible persons may
request a hearing and the consequences
of requesting or failing to request such
a hearing.
DATES: Affected registrants must request
a hearing within 30 days of receiving
EPA’s Notice of Intent to Cancel, or on
or before March 7, 2013, whichever
SUMMARY:
8123
occurs later. Other adversely affected
parties must request a hearing on or
before March 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: All persons who request a
hearing must comply with the Agency’s
Rules of Practice Governing Hearings,
40 CFR part 164. Requests for hearing
must be filed with the Hearing Clerk in
EPA’s Office of Administrative Law
Judges (OALJ), in conformance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 164. The
OALJ uses different addresses
depending on the delivery method.
Please see Unit VI. for specific
instructions.
Neil
Anderson, Pesticide Re-evaluation
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–8187; email address:
anderson.neil@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. What action is the agency taking?
EPA is announcing its intent to cancel
the registration of each of the pesticide
products listed in Table 1:
TABLE 1—PESTICIDE PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION
EPA Reg.
No.
Product
Registrant
Active
ingredient
Deficiency
Consumer product in a powder form and packaged without a protective bait station.
Consumer product in a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station.
Consumer product in a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station.
Consumer product in a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station.
Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and
packaged without a protective bait station,
and (2) contains a second generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR).
Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and
packaged without a protective bait station,
and (2) containing a SGAR.
Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and
packaged without a protective bait station,
and (2) containing a SGAR.
Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and
packaged without a protective bait station,
and (2) containing a SGAR.
Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and
packaged without a protective bait station,
and (2) containing a SGAR.
Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and
packaged without a protective bait station,
and (2) containing a SGAR.
Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and
packaged without a protective bait station,
and (2) containing a SGAR.
Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and
packaged without a protective bait station,
and (2) containing a SGAR.
3282–3
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Warfarin ........
D-Con Ready Mixed Kills Rats &
Mice.
D-Con Mouse Prufe Kills Mice .........
3282–4
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Warfarin ........
3282–9
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Warfarin ........
D-Con Pellets Kills Rats & Mice .......
3282–15
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Warfarin ........
D-Con Mouse Prufe II .......................
3282–65
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Brodifacoum ..
D-Con Pellets Generation II ..............
3282–66
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Brodifacoum ..
D-Con Bait Pellets II .........................
3282–74
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Brodifacoum ..
D-Con Ready Mixed Generation II ...
3282–81
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Brodifacoum ..
D-Con Mouse-Prufe III ......................
3282–85
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Difethialone ...
D-Con Bait Pellets III ........................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
D-Con Concentrate Kills Rats & Mice
3282–86
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Difethialone ...
D-Con II Ready Mix Baitbits III .........
3282–87
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Difethialone ...
D-Con Bait Packs III .........................
3282–88
Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ...
Difethialone ...
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:46 Feb 04, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM
05FEN1
8124
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices
EPA is also announcing its denial of
the applications for registration of the
pesticide products listed in Table 2:
TABLE 2—PESTICIDE PRODUCT REGISTRATIONS SUBJECT TO DENIAL
Product
EPA
Application
No.
Registrant
Active
ingredient
D-Con Bait Station XV Kills Mice ....
D-Con Bait Station XVI Kills Mice ...
3282–RNU ...
3282–RNL ....
Reckitt Benckiser Inc .....
Reckitt Benckiser Inc .....
Brodifacoum ........
Brodifacoum ........
In addition, this Notice summarizes
EPA’s basis for these actions (see Unit
III.), and explains how eligible persons
may request a hearing and the
consequences of requesting or failing to
request such a hearing (see Unit VI.).
the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket that is
available at https://www.epa.gov/
dockets.
B. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking these actions?
The Agency’s authority is contained
in FIFRA sections 3(c)(6) and 6(b), 7
U.S.C. 136a(c)(6) and 136d(b).
II. Legal Authority
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
C. Who is affected by this action?
This announcement will directly
affect the pesticide registrant listed in
Tables 1 and 2, and others who may
sell, distribute, or use the products
listed in Table 1. This announcement
may also be of particular interest to a
wide range of stakeholders including
environmental and human health
advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the
public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since
others also may be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all
the other specific entities that may be
affected by this action.
D. How can I get copies of this
document and other related
information?
To facilitate public access to this
document and additional information
supporting this action, EPA has
established a docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0049.
Please note that this docket provides
access to related information, but cannot
be used for requesting a hearing. Please
see Unit VI. for instructions on
submitting a request for a hearing.
The docket is available at https://
www.regulations.gov and at the OPP
Docket in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
The Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Feb 04, 2013
Jkt 229001
With minor exceptions not at issue
here, as provided in FIFRA section 3(a),
a pesticide product may not be lawfully
sold or distributed in the United States
unless and until the product is
registered by EPA. 7 U.S.C. 136a(a). A
pesticide registration is a license
allowing a pesticide product to be sold,
distributed, and used for specified uses
in accordance with use instructions,
precautions, and other terms and
conditions established by EPA when it
grants the registration.
As a general matter, in order to obtain
or maintain a registration for a pesticide
under FIFRA, an applicant or registrant
must demonstrate that the pesticide
satisfies the statutory standard for
registration, section 3(c)(5) of FIFRA.
7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). That standard
requires, among other things, that the
pesticide performs its intended function
without causing ‘‘unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment.’’ The term
‘‘unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment’’ is defined under FIFRA
section 2(bb) as ‘‘any unreasonable risk
to man or the environment, taking into
account the economic, social, and
environmental costs and benefits of the
use of any pesticide.’’ 7 U.S.C. 136(bb).
This standard requires a finding that the
risks associated with the use of a
pesticide are justified by the benefits of
such use, when the pesticide is used in
compliance with the terms and
conditions of registration or in
accordance with commonly recognized
practices. See Defenders of Wildlife v.
Administrator, EPA, 882 F.2d 1294,
1298–99 (8th Cir. 1989) (describing
FIFRA’s required balancing of risks and
benefits). The burden of demonstrating
that a pesticide product satisfies the
statutory criteria for registration is at all
times on the proponents of the initial or
continued registration, and continues as
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Deficiency
Consumer product containing a SGAR.
Consumer product containing a SGAR.
long as the registration is in effect. 40
CFR 164.80(b). See also, Industrial
Union Dept. v. American Petroleum
Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 653 n.61 (1980);
Stearns Electric Paste v. EPA 461 F.2d
293 (7th Cir. 1972); Environmental
Defense Fund v. EPA, 510 F.2d 1292,
1297 (D.C. Cir. 1975)).
Under FIFRA section 6(b), the Agency
may issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel
the registration of a pesticide product
whenever it appears either that:
1. A pesticide or its labeling or other
material required to be submitted does
not comply with FIFRA, or
2. When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized
practice, the pesticide generally causes
unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment. 7 U.S.C. 136d (b).
If a hearing is requested by an
adversely affected person, the final
order concerning cancellation of the
product is not issued until after an
administrative hearing.
In the cancellation hearing, the
Agency has the burden of going forward
to present an affirmative case for
cancellation. 40 CFR 164.80(a).
However, the ultimate burden of proof
is on the proponent of the registration.
40 CFR 164.80(b); Industrial Union
Dept., 448 U.S. at 653 n. 61; Stearns
Electric Paste v. EPA 461 F.2d 293, (7th
Cir. 1972). Once the Agency makes its
prima facie case that the risks of the
product’s continued use fail to meet the
FIFRA standard for registration, the
responsibility to demonstrate that the
product meets the FIFRA standard is
upon the proponents of continued
registration. 40 CFR 164.80(b); Dow v
Ruckelshaus, 477 F.2d 1317, 1324 (8th
Cir. 1973).
FIFRA Section 3(c)(6) provides that
where EPA determines that an
application for registration does not
meet the registration criteria of section
3(c)(5) for registration, the Agency must
publish a notice of denial and the
reasons therefore. Section 3(c)(6) further
provides that upon such notification of
the denial, the applicant for registration,
or other interested person with the
concurrence of the applicant, shall have
E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM
05FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices
the same remedies as provided for in
section 6.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
III. Basis for Issuance of Notice of
Intent To Cancel
EPA has determined that the
rodenticide registrations listed in Table
1 should be cancelled because they
cause unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment. EPA has further
determined that the applications for
registration listed in Table 2 should be
denied because they do not meet the
standard for registration under FIFRA.
The Agency’s rationale for cancellation
and denial is set forth more fully in the
document ‘‘Statement of Reasons and
Factual Basis for Notice of Intent to
Cancel and Notice of Denial of Certain
Rodenticide Bait Product Registrations
and Applications’’ dated January 29,
2013. That document can be found in
docket EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0049 at
www.regulations.gov. While interested
parties should consult that document
for a more detailed rationale of the bases
for cancellation and denial, a short
summary of the rationale follows.
The purpose of this action is to
protect children, pets, and non-target
wildlife from unnecessary, unreasonable
exposures to certain consumer-use
rodenticides. EPA has determined that
all consumer-use rodenticide bait
products must be used in, and sold
with, protective bait stations reasonably
anticipated not to release the
rodenticide bait; and has further
determined that consumer-use
rodenticides must not contain secondgeneration anti-coagulants as active
ingredients. The products subject to this
Notice all fail to meet at least one of
these criteria, and many fail to meet
both.
The rodenticides subject to this
Notice are designed to kill commensal
mice and rats. As mammalian poisons,
they are also highly toxic to other
mammals and birds. EPA has been
concerned about the risks of consumeruse rodenticides to children, pets, and
non-target wildlife for many years. This
action is an important step in the
Agency’s continuing efforts to mitigate
unnecessary risks associated with
rodenticides, while still assuring that
people have multiple effective tools for
controlling mice and rats in homes.
A. Bait Stations
For many years, EPA has required
rodenticide products used to control
commensal mice and rats in and around
homes to have label language requiring
that the products must be applied in
tamper-resistant bait stations if children,
pets, domestic animals, or non-target
wildlife may be exposed to the product.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Feb 04, 2013
Jkt 229001
Unfortunately, that requirement has not
proved effective in preventing
exposures to children, pets, and
wildlife. Separate tamper-resistant bait
stations are rarely found in the stores
that sell the products subject to this
Notice, and thousands of children each
year are exposed to rodenticides in the
home. Each exposure incident has the
potential to cause adverse effects owing
to the amount of active ingredient in a
single placement of any of the products
subject to this Notice. While it is
fortunate that children rarely have
serious health consequences from
exposures to rodenticides used in and
around homes, one percent of exposed
children (an average of 128 per year
from 1999–2005) were reported to have
experienced symptoms from the
exposure. While EPA is unaware of any
fatal or untreatable incidents involving
children, pets are not so fortunate, and
on average more than 100 pet deaths are
reported each year from exposure to
rodenticides. And even though children
do not routinely suffer significant
adverse health consequences, EPA does
not believe the great bulk of children’s
exposures to rodenticides are risk-free
or should be taken lightly. To the
contrary, the incidence of young
children being exposed to rodenticides
in the home is unnecessary and poses
real risks that should no longer be
tolerated.
The risks to young children posed by
rodenticide exposure are clearly worthy
of regulatory action when compared to
other risks Congress has directed EPA to
address. In 1996, Congress unanimously
adopted the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA), amending both FIFRA and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) to assure that children receive
special protection from pesticide
residues in food, and that such residues
not be allowed in food unless EPA can
find a reasonable certainty of no harm
from exposure to those residues. Under
this risk-only standard, no level of
economic benefits can justify pesticide
residues in food that do not meet the
reasonable certainty of no harm
standard.
The exposures children can get from
eating small amounts of rodenticide bait
well exceed the safety standard
promulgated in the FQPA. EPA fully
appreciates that rodenticides are
governed by the FIFRA risk-benefit
standard rather than the FFDCA
reasonable certainty of no harm
standard, and that any hearing on this
Notice must consider the benefits of
rodenticide use against the risks of such
use. Nevertheless, the FFDCA criteria
for unsafe exposures to pesticides in
food provide a meaningful benchmark.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8125
If Congress would not allow these levels
of pesticide exposure in food—no
matter how beneficial the pesticide use
might be to agricultural producers—it is
reasonable to infer that children should
not suffer the same levels of exposures
through other routes absent important
countervailing benefits.
EPA has looked at the benefits of
allowing continued use of consumer-use
rodenticide products not in
appropriately protective bait stations
reasonably anticipated not to release the
rodenticide bait, and has concluded that
the benefits of such products are
generally minimal, and are insufficient
to justify the increased risks to children,
pets, and non-target wildlife. It is worth
noting at the outset that existing labels
of the products subject to this Notice do
not allow the use of the products in or
around homes if children, pets, or nontarget wildlife can get access to the
product; in such situations the labels
direct users to apply the product only in
tamper-resistant bait stations.
Unfortunately, in the past this label
language has failed to prevent many
thousands of unlawful exposures of
children, pets, and non-target wildlife to
rodenticides. Now, however, consumeruse rodenticide products are
commercially available with tamperresistant bait stations, and in block form
that prevents bait from easily escaping
the stations. These bait-station products
are effective for use against commensal
rodents; products similar to these have
been widely and successfully used by
professional applicators for many years.
The great majority of the use of
consumer-use rodenticide products is
targeted against house mice; bait-station
products targeting mice are
commercially available at essentially the
same price as the products subject to
this Notice. There is simply no reason
today to allow the continued exposure
of children, pets, and non-target wildlife
to the rodenticide products subject to
this Notice when safer, effective, and
economically comparable products are
available. These unnecessary, and in
most cases unlawful, exposures of
children, pets, and non-target wildlife
meet the unreasonable risk standard for
cancellation and denial.
While there is some increased cost
associated with bait station products
targeting commensal rats, EPA believes
that the increased cost to those
consumers who now use unprotected
rodenticide baits to control commensal
rats in residences where children and
pets are never present is acceptable
under FIFRA taking into account: The
small amount of consumer-use products
currently used to target commensal rats;
the availability of a number of pesticidal
E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM
05FEN1
8126
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices
and non-pesticidal alternatives for
effectively controlling commensal rats;
the lack of success of existing labels to
prevent exposures to children, pets, and
non-target wildlife; the risks associated
with those exposures; and the
difficulties in preventing unprotected
‘‘rat’’ products sold in the general
consumer market from being diverted to
the much more common use against
mice. EPA does not believe it
appropriate, in making these
cancellation and denial decisions, to
consider price increases for consumers
who are currently using products
subject to this Notice inappropriately, in
circumstances where children, pets,
and/or non-target wildlife can get access
to the placed product.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Second-Generation Anti-Coagulants
As noted earlier, all rodenticides are
highly toxic to non-target mammals and
birds. The risks associated with
‘‘primary’’ exposure (exposure where
non-target wildlife consumes the bait
intended for rodents) to consumer-use
rodenticides are similar across the
various rodenticide active ingredients,
and can be significantly reduced for
most species by requiring that such
rodenticides be placed in tamperresistant bait stations. Bait stations will
not, however, protect non-target wildlife
from a significant portion of
‘‘secondary’’ exposure to rodenticides;
secondary exposures are those where
non-target wildlife gets exposed to
rodenticides by preying upon or
scavenging poisoned rodents or nontarget wildlife.
EPA has assessed the secondary risks
of rodenticides, and has determined that
the class of rodenticides known as
second generation anti-coagulants
(SGARs) pose significantly greater risks
to predators, particularly raptors, than
do the other active ingredients
contained in consumer-use rodenticide
products—bromethalin and first
generation anti-coagulants. SGARs pose
greater risks of secondary poisoning
primarily because of their greater
toxicity; their persistence in tissue; and
the potential for poisoned rodents to
carry ‘‘super-lethal’’ doses (although
rodents feeding upon SGARs can
consume a lethal dose in a single night’s
feeding, the effects are delayed for a
number of days during which time the
rodents can continue to consume more
poison, resulting in many times the
lethal dose being found in poisoned
rodents). Incident reports provide
further support for the conclusion that
consumer-use SGAR products pose
significant risks to non-target mammals
and raptors, and that these risks are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Feb 04, 2013
Jkt 229001
greater than those posed by the other
rodenticide active ingredients.
The greater risks of secondary
poisoning of non-target mammalian
predators and raptors associated with
residential consumer use of SGARs are
not supported by commensurate
benefits. Other rodenticides registered
and available for residential consumer
use can provide equally effective control
of rodents, at similar costs. Nonchemical control methods will remain
available, and the use of rodenticides by
professional applicators (and
agricultural users) is unaffected by this
Notice. There are no benefits associated
with the residential consumer use of
SGARs that justify the significant risks
those products pose to non-target
wildlife from secondary-poisoning.
IV. Status of Products That Become
Cancelled
A. Timing of Cancellation or Denial of
Registration
The cancellation or denial of
registration for the specific products
identified in Table 1 of Unit I.A. of this
document will be final and effective on
March 7, 2013 unless a valid hearing
request is received regarding that
specific rodenticide product.
In the event a hearing is held
concerning a particular product, the
cancellation or denial of the registration
for that product will not become
effective except pursuant to a final order
issued by the Environmental Appeals
Board or (if the matter is referred to the
Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR
164.2(g)) the Administrator, or an initial
decision of the presiding Administrative
Law Judge that becomes a final order
pursuant to 40 CFR 164.90(b).
B. Existing Stocks Issues
Existing stocks of cancelled pesticides
are those products that were ‘‘released
for shipment’’ under FIFRA before the
effective date of cancellation. This
provision addresses two issues: Whether
questions concerning the treatment of
existing stocks can be raised at any
cancellation hearing; and how the
Agency intends to treat existing stocks
when and if products are cancelled
pursuant to this Notice.
1. Whether questions concerning the
treatment of existing stocks can be
raised at the hearing. It is settled law
that existing stocks issues are not
required to be a part of a cancellation
proceeding, and that the treatment of
existing stocks issues is only included
as an issue in a cancellation proceeding
when the Notice giving rise to the right
to a hearing voluntarily identifies and
includes existing stocks as an issue for
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
examination. In the Matter of Cedar
Chemical Co., et al., 2 E.A.D. 584, nn.
7,9, 1988 WL 525242 (June 9, 1988)
(Decision of the Administrator). The
Administrator’s decision in Cedar
Chemical on whether existing stocks
had to be included as an issue in the
hearing was affirmed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in Northwest Food Processors
Association v. Reilly, 886 F. 2d 1075,
1078 (9th Cir. 1989). In the case of this
rodenticide cancellation Notice, EPA
has determined not to include existing
stocks as an issue in this hearing.
Instead, the only issues for hearing
under this Notice are whether the
subject products should be cancelled, or
the applications should be denied.
2. Treatment of existing stocks in the
event of cancellation. FIFRA section
6(a)(1) allows the Agency to permit the
continued sale and use of existing
stocks of pesticides whose use has been
cancelled, to the extent the
Administrator determines that such sale
or use would not be inconsistent with
the purposes of this Act. 7 U.S.C.
136d(a)(1). The Agency does not believe
that it would be appropriate under
FIFRA to allow any further sale or
distribution by any person of the
products identified in this Notice if this
Notice results in the cancellation of
such products, and it does not intend to
allow any such sale or distribution if
this Notice results in the cancellation of
such products. First and most
importantly, the continued sale and
distribution of products cancelled in a
proceeding pursuant to this Notice
would continue to cause unreasonable
adverse effects on health and the
environment. Second, the regulated
community has been on notice since
May 28, 2008 that the Agency intended
that the sale and distribution of these
products by registrants cease by June 4,
2011. During that period, most
registrants have amended existing
rodenticide products, or registered new
rodenticide products, that conform to
EPA’s May 28, 2008 regulatory decision
and consequently pose significantly less
risk to health and the environment, and
such rodenticide products are widely
available. EPA does not believe it to be
consistent with the purposes of FIFRA
to continue to put registrants who
timely complied with the Agency’s 2008
decision, and brought safer products to
the market, at a competitive
disadvantage relative to registrants who
declined to improve their products.
Accordingly, EPA has determined that
the continued sale and distribution of
existing stocks of pesticide products
cancelled pursuant to this Notice should
E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM
05FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
not be permitted, except that EPA
intends to allow the limited shipment of
existing stocks for the sole purposes of
lawful export, proper disposal, or return
to the person from whom the holder of
the existing stock purchased the
product.
V. Mandated FIFRA Reviews
When EPA intends to issue a Notice
of Intent to Cancel, it must furnish a
draft of that Notice and an analysis of
the impact of the proposed action on the
agricultural economy to the Secretary of
the Department of Agriculture (USDA)
for comment at least 60 days prior to
issuing the Notice (FIFRA section 6(b),
7 U.S.C. 136d(b)). When a public health
use is involved, section 6(b) directs EPA
to solicit information from the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) on the impact of the
cancellation on public health control
efforts. In addition, the Agency must
within the same time period submit the
proposed cancellation action to the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)
for comment concerning the impact of
the proposed action on health and the
environment (FIFRA section 25(d), 7
U.S.C. 136w(d)).
In the event that written comments
are received from the USDA, HHS or the
SAP within 30 days of such referral, the
Agency must publish those comments
and the Agency’s response to the
comments.
EPA provided the draft Notice of
Intent to Cancel and Notice of Denial of
Registration for Certain Rodenticide Bait
Products and documents supporting
that Notice to the SAP on November 3,
2011, and to USDA and HHS on
November 17, 2011. EPA convened a
meeting of the SAP on November 28
through December 1, 2011, to review
science issues related to the proposed
cancellations. EPA received the SAP’s
comments on December 29, 2011; EPA
received minutes from the SAP meeting
(SAP Minutes No. 2011–06: A Set of
Scientific Issues Being Considered by
the Environmental Protection Agency
Regarding: Scientific Conclusions
Supporting EPA’s FIFRA Section 6(b)
Notice of Intent to Cancel Twenty
Homeowner Rodenticide Bait Products)
on January 4, 2012. These documents
are available in docket EPA–HQ–OPP–
2011–0718 at www.regulations.gov.
USDA advised EPA on April 11, 2012
that it had no comments on the
proposed cancellation. On April 20,
2012, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) of the Public
Health Service submitted comments on
behalf of HHS stating they are
supportive of requiring bait stations for
products used in buildings and of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Feb 04, 2013
Jkt 229001
requirements that end residential
consumer use of second generation
anticoagulants. On April 20, 2012, EPA
posted the letters from USDA and CDC
in docket EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0955 at
www.regulations.gov.
The letters from USDA and CDC
require no response from EPA. The
Agency has prepared a response to the
comments from the SAP; that response,
dated January 29, 2013, can be found in
docket EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0049 at
www.regulations.gov.
VI. Procedural Matters
This unit explains how eligible
persons may request a hearing and the
consequences of requesting or failing to
request such a hearing.
A. Requesting a Hearing
1. Who can request a hearing? A
registrant or any other person who is
adversely affected by a cancellation or
denial of registration as described in
this Notice may request a hearing.
2. When must a hearing be requested?
A request for a hearing by a registrant
or applicant for registration must be
submitted in writing within 30 days
after the date of receipt of the Notice of
Intent to Cancel, or within 30 days after
publication of this announcement in the
Federal Register, whichever occurs
later. A request for a hearing by any
other person adversely affected by the
Agency’s proposed action must be
submitted within 30 days of the date of
publication of this Notice in the Federal
Register. See the DATES section of this
document.
3. How must a hearing be requested?
All persons who request a hearing must
comply with the Agency’s Rules of
Practice Governing Hearings, 40 CFR
Part 164. Among other requirements,
these rules include the following:
i. Each hearing request must
specifically identify by registration or
accession number each individual
pesticide product concerning which a
hearing is requested, 40 CFR 164.22(a);
ii. Each hearing request must be
accompanied by a document setting
forth specific objections which respond
to the Agency’s reasons for proposing
cancellation as set forth in this Notice
and/or the related ‘‘Statement of
Reasons and Factual Basis for Notice of
Intent to Cancel and Notice of Denial of
Certain Rodenticide Bait Product
Registrations and Applications’’ dated
January 29, 2013, in docket Id number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0049, and state the
factual basis for each such objection, 40
CFR 164.22(a); and
iii. Each hearing request must be
received by the OALJ within the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8127
applicable 30-day period (40 CFR
164.5(a)).
Failure to comply with any one of these
requirements will invalidate the request
for a hearing and, in the absence of a
valid hearing request, result in final
cancellation or denial of registration for
the product in question by operation of
law.
iv. Where does a person submit a
hearing request? Requests for hearing
must be submitted to the OALJ. The
OALJ uses different addresses
depending on the delivery method.
Please note that mail deliveries to
Federal agencies are screened off-site,
and this security procedure can delay
delivery. Documents that a party sends
using the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to the following OALJ
mailing address: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of
Administrative Law Judges, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code
1900L, Washington, DC 20460–2001.
Documents that a party hand delivers
or sends using a courier or commercial
delivery service (such as Federal
Express or UPS) must be addressed to
the following OALJ hand delivery
address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Administrative Law
Judges, 1099 14th Street NW., Franklin
Court Building, Suite 350, Washington,
DC 20005.
B. The Hearing
If a hearing concerning any product
affected by this Notice is requested in a
timely and effective manner, the hearing
will be governed by the Agency’s Rules
of Practice Governing Hearings, 40 CFR
Part 164, and the procedures set forth in
Unit VI. Any interested person may
participate in the hearing, in accordance
with 40 CFR 164.31.
Documents and transcripts will be
available in the public docket for the
hearing, located at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of
Administrative Law Judges, Franklin
Court, Suite 350, 1099 14th St. NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The references
can be viewed from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
C. Separation of Functions
EPA’s Rules of Practice forbid anyone
who may take part in deciding this case,
at any stage of the proceeding, from
discussing the merits of the proceeding
ex parte with any party or with any
person who has been connected with
the preparation or presentation of the
proceeding as an advocate or in any
investigative or expert capacity, or with
any of their representatives (40 CFR
164.7). To facilitate compliance with the
E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM
05FEN1
8128
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices
ex parte rule, the following are
designated as adjudicatory personnel for
purposes of this proceeding: The
Administrative Law Judges and their
staff, the Environmental Appeals Board
and its staff, the Administrator and
certain members of her immediate
office, and the General Counsel and
certain members of his immediate
office. None of the persons identified as
adjudicatory personnel may discuss the
merits of the proceeding with any
person with an interest in the
proceeding, or representative of such
person, except in compliance with 40
CFR 164.7.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Pesticides
and pests.
Dated: January 29, 2013.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013–02500 Filed 2–4–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9776–3]
Request for Nominations of Experts to
the EPA Office of Research and
Development’s Board of Scientific
Counselors
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking
nominations for technical experts to
serve on its Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC), a federal advisory
committee to the Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Submission of
nominations is preferred via the BOSC
Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/osp/
bosc/nomination.htm.
DATES: Nominations should be
submitted by April 1, 2013, per
instructions below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any
member of the public needing
additional information regarding this
Notice and Request for Nominations
may contact Mr. Greg Susanke, Office of
Science Policy, Office of Research and
Development, Mail Code 8104–R,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at:
(202) 564–9945; via fax at: (202) 565–
2911; or via email at:
susanke.greg@epa.gov. General
information concerning the BOSC can
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:18 Feb 04, 2013
Jkt 229001
be found at the following Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
•
Background
The BOSC is a chartered Federal
Advisory Committee that was
established by the EPA to provide
independent scientific and technical
peer review, advice, consultation, and
recommendations about ORD. As a
Federal Advisory Committee, the BOSC
conducts business in accordance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related
regulations.
The BOSC is comprised of an
Executive Committee and six supporting
subcommittees currently being formed.
Each of these subcommittees will focus
on one of ORD’s research programs: Air,
Climate, and Energy Research Program;
Chemical Safety for Sustainability
Research Program; Homeland Security
Research Program; Human Health Risk
Assessment Research Program; Safe and
Sustainable Water Resources Research
Program; and Sustainable and Healthy
Communities Research Program. Please
visit https://www.epa.gov/ord/researchprograms.htm to learn more about these
programs.
Members of the BOSC are recognized
experts in various scientific,
engineering, and social science fields.
EPA will consider nominees from
academia, industry, business, public
and private research institutes or
organizations, government (federal,
state, local, and tribal) and nongovernment organizations, and other
relevant interest areas. Members are
appointed by the EPA Administrator for
a period of three years and serve as
special government employees. EPA
values and welcomes diversity. In an
effort to obtain nominations of diverse
candidates, EPA encourages
nominations of women and men of all
racial and ethnic groups.
Expertise Sought
EPA’s BOSC Staff Office is seeking
nominations of nationally and
internationally recognized scientists and
engineers having experience and
expertise in one or more of the
following areas:
• Atmospheric Science
—aerosol chemistry
—aerosol physical science
—air quality modeling
—atmospheric chemistry
—atmospheric physics
• Biology
—biogeochemistry
—cell biology
—endocrinology (endocrine
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
disruptors)
—microbiology/molecular biology
—pharmacokinetics
—systems biology
Chemistry
—analytical chemistry
—combustion chemistry
—environmental chemistry
—green chemistry
—physical chemistry
—water chemistry
Climate Change/Global Change
—adaption
—modeling
—variability
—greenhouse gas technology
assessment
Ecology
—aquatic ecology (freshwater,
wetland)
—ecosystem services
—hydrology/hydraulics (watershed
modeling)
—plant/forestry ecology
—water resources
—soil biogeochemistry
—system ecology
—landscape ecology
—urban ecology
Engineering
—biochemical engineering
—bioenvironmental engineering
—civil engineering (drinking water
treatment and distribution,
stormwater treatment, wastewater
treatment, storm-, and wastewater
infrastructure)
—chemical engineering
—combustion engineering
—environmental engineering
(decontamination, clean-up,
management)
—industrial engineering
—mechanical engineering
Information Science
—information technology
—information visualization
—research communication
—spatial analysis
—uncertainty analysis
Nanotechnology
Public Health
—children’s health
—community health
—environmental health
—epidemiology/molecular
epidemiology
—exposure science (assessment,
predictive)
Risk Assessment (cumulative risk
assessment, mixtures risk
assessment, ecological risk
assessment, human health risk
assessment)
Sustainability
—community/urban level planning
and sustainability
—industrial (industrial ecology, life
cycle analysis, technology policy,
E:\FR\FM\05FEN1.SGM
05FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8123-8128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02500]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0049; FRL-9377-7]
Rodenticides; Notice of Intent To Cancel Registrations of, and
Notice of Denial of Applications for, Certain Rodenticide Bait Products
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA hereby announces its intent to cancel
the registration of 12 rodenticide products identified in this Notice.
Pursuant to section 3(c)(6) of FIFRA, EPA hereby announces the denial
of applications for registration of 2 products identified in this
Notice. This Notice summarizes EPA's basis for these actions, and
explains how eligible persons may request a hearing and the
consequences of requesting or failing to request such a hearing.
DATES: Affected registrants must request a hearing within 30 days of
receiving EPA's Notice of Intent to Cancel, or on or before March 7,
2013, whichever occurs later. Other adversely affected parties must
request a hearing on or before March 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: All persons who request a hearing must comply with the
Agency's Rules of Practice Governing Hearings, 40 CFR part 164.
Requests for hearing must be filed with the Hearing Clerk in EPA's
Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in conformance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 164. The OALJ uses different addresses
depending on the delivery method. Please see Unit VI. for specific
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Anderson, Pesticide Re-evaluation
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number: (703) 308-8187; email address: anderson.neil@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. What action is the agency taking?
EPA is announcing its intent to cancel the registration of each of
the pesticide products listed in Table 1:
Table 1--Pesticide Products Subject to Cancellation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Reg.
Product No. Registrant Active ingredient Deficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D-Con Concentrate Kills Rats & 3282-3 Reckitt Benckiser, Warfarin........... Consumer product in a
Mice. Inc. powder form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station.
D-Con Ready Mixed Kills Rats & 3282-4 Reckitt Benckiser, Warfarin........... Consumer product in a
Mice. Inc. pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station.
D-Con Mouse Prufe Kills Mice.... 3282-9 Reckitt Benckiser, Warfarin........... Consumer product in a
Inc. pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station.
D-Con Pellets Kills Rats & Mice. 3282-15 Reckitt Benckiser, Warfarin........... Consumer product in a
Inc. pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station.
D-Con Mouse Prufe II............ 3282-65 Reckitt Benckiser, Brodifacoum........ Consumer product: (1) In
Inc. a pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station, and (2)
contains a second
generation
anticoagulant
rodenticide (SGAR).
D-Con Pellets Generation II..... 3282-66 Reckitt Benckiser, Brodifacoum........ Consumer product: (1) In
Inc. a pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station, and (2)
containing a SGAR.
D-Con Bait Pellets II........... 3282-74 Reckitt Benckiser, Brodifacoum........ Consumer product: (1) In
Inc. a pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station, and (2)
containing a SGAR.
D-Con Ready Mixed Generation II. 3282-81 Reckitt Benckiser, Brodifacoum........ Consumer product: (1) In
Inc. a pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station, and (2)
containing a SGAR.
D-Con Mouse-Prufe III........... 3282-85 Reckitt Benckiser, Difethialone....... Consumer product: (1) In
Inc. a pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station, and (2)
containing a SGAR.
D-Con Bait Pellets III.......... 3282-86 Reckitt Benckiser, Difethialone....... Consumer product: (1) In
Inc. a pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station, and (2)
containing a SGAR.
D-Con II Ready Mix Baitbits III. 3282-87 Reckitt Benckiser, Difethialone....... Consumer product: (1) In
Inc. a pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station, and (2)
containing a SGAR.
D-Con Bait Packs III............ 3282-88 Reckitt Benckiser, Difethialone....... Consumer product: (1) In
Inc. a pelleted form and
packaged without a
protective bait
station, and (2)
containing a SGAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8124]]
EPA is also announcing its denial of the applications for
registration of the pesticide products listed in Table 2:
Table 2--Pesticide Product Registrations Subject to Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product EPA Application No. Registrant Active ingredient Deficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D-Con Bait Station XV Kills Mice 3282-RNU............ Reckitt Benckiser Brodifacoum........ Consumer product containing a SGAR.
Inc.
D-Con Bait Station XVI Kills 3282-RNL............ Reckitt Benckiser Brodifacoum........ Consumer product containing a SGAR.
Mice. Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, this Notice summarizes EPA's basis for these actions
(see Unit III.), and explains how eligible persons may request a
hearing and the consequences of requesting or failing to request such a
hearing (see Unit VI.).
B. What is the Agency's authority for taking these actions?
The Agency's authority is contained in FIFRA sections 3(c)(6) and
6(b), 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(6) and 136d(b).
C. Who is affected by this action?
This announcement will directly affect the pesticide registrant
listed in Tables 1 and 2, and others who may sell, distribute, or use
the products listed in Table 1. This announcement may also be of
particular interest to a wide range of stakeholders including
environmental and human health advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the other
specific entities that may be affected by this action.
D. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?
To facilitate public access to this document and additional
information supporting this action, EPA has established a docket for
this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2013-0049. Please note that this docket provides access to related
information, but cannot be used for requesting a hearing. Please see
Unit VI. for instructions on submitting a request for a hearing.
The docket is available at https://www.regulations.gov and at the
OPP Docket in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket that is
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Legal Authority
With minor exceptions not at issue here, as provided in FIFRA
section 3(a), a pesticide product may not be lawfully sold or
distributed in the United States unless and until the product is
registered by EPA. 7 U.S.C. 136a(a). A pesticide registration is a
license allowing a pesticide product to be sold, distributed, and used
for specified uses in accordance with use instructions, precautions,
and other terms and conditions established by EPA when it grants the
registration.
As a general matter, in order to obtain or maintain a registration
for a pesticide under FIFRA, an applicant or registrant must
demonstrate that the pesticide satisfies the statutory standard for
registration, section 3(c)(5) of FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). That
standard requires, among other things, that the pesticide performs its
intended function without causing ``unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment.'' The term ``unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment'' is defined under FIFRA section 2(bb) as ``any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the
economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of
any pesticide.'' 7 U.S.C. 136(bb). This standard requires a finding
that the risks associated with the use of a pesticide are justified by
the benefits of such use, when the pesticide is used in compliance with
the terms and conditions of registration or in accordance with commonly
recognized practices. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Administrator, EPA,
882 F.2d 1294, 1298-99 (8th Cir. 1989) (describing FIFRA's required
balancing of risks and benefits). The burden of demonstrating that a
pesticide product satisfies the statutory criteria for registration is
at all times on the proponents of the initial or continued
registration, and continues as long as the registration is in effect.
40 CFR 164.80(b). See also, Industrial Union Dept. v. American
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 653 n.61 (1980); Stearns Electric
Paste v. EPA 461 F.2d 293 (7th Cir. 1972); Environmental Defense Fund
v. EPA, 510 F.2d 1292, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1975)).
Under FIFRA section 6(b), the Agency may issue a Notice of Intent
to Cancel the registration of a pesticide product whenever it appears
either that:
1. A pesticide or its labeling or other material required to be
submitted does not comply with FIFRA, or
2. When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized
practice, the pesticide generally causes unreasonable adverse effects
on the environment. 7 U.S.C. 136d (b).
If a hearing is requested by an adversely affected person, the
final order concerning cancellation of the product is not issued until
after an administrative hearing.
In the cancellation hearing, the Agency has the burden of going
forward to present an affirmative case for cancellation. 40 CFR
164.80(a). However, the ultimate burden of proof is on the proponent of
the registration. 40 CFR 164.80(b); Industrial Union Dept., 448 U.S. at
653 n. 61; Stearns Electric Paste v. EPA 461 F.2d 293, (7th Cir. 1972).
Once the Agency makes its prima facie case that the risks of the
product's continued use fail to meet the FIFRA standard for
registration, the responsibility to demonstrate that the product meets
the FIFRA standard is upon the proponents of continued registration. 40
CFR 164.80(b); Dow v Ruckelshaus, 477 F.2d 1317, 1324 (8th Cir. 1973).
FIFRA Section 3(c)(6) provides that where EPA determines that an
application for registration does not meet the registration criteria of
section 3(c)(5) for registration, the Agency must publish a notice of
denial and the reasons therefore. Section 3(c)(6) further provides that
upon such notification of the denial, the applicant for registration,
or other interested person with the concurrence of the applicant, shall
have
[[Page 8125]]
the same remedies as provided for in section 6.
III. Basis for Issuance of Notice of Intent To Cancel
EPA has determined that the rodenticide registrations listed in
Table 1 should be cancelled because they cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment. EPA has further determined that the
applications for registration listed in Table 2 should be denied
because they do not meet the standard for registration under FIFRA. The
Agency's rationale for cancellation and denial is set forth more fully
in the document ``Statement of Reasons and Factual Basis for Notice of
Intent to Cancel and Notice of Denial of Certain Rodenticide Bait
Product Registrations and Applications'' dated January 29, 2013. That
document can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0049 at
www.regulations.gov. While interested parties should consult that
document for a more detailed rationale of the bases for cancellation
and denial, a short summary of the rationale follows.
The purpose of this action is to protect children, pets, and non-
target wildlife from unnecessary, unreasonable exposures to certain
consumer-use rodenticides. EPA has determined that all consumer-use
rodenticide bait products must be used in, and sold with, protective
bait stations reasonably anticipated not to release the rodenticide
bait; and has further determined that consumer-use rodenticides must
not contain second-generation anti-coagulants as active ingredients.
The products subject to this Notice all fail to meet at least one of
these criteria, and many fail to meet both.
The rodenticides subject to this Notice are designed to kill
commensal mice and rats. As mammalian poisons, they are also highly
toxic to other mammals and birds. EPA has been concerned about the
risks of consumer-use rodenticides to children, pets, and non-target
wildlife for many years. This action is an important step in the
Agency's continuing efforts to mitigate unnecessary risks associated
with rodenticides, while still assuring that people have multiple
effective tools for controlling mice and rats in homes.
A. Bait Stations
For many years, EPA has required rodenticide products used to
control commensal mice and rats in and around homes to have label
language requiring that the products must be applied in tamper-
resistant bait stations if children, pets, domestic animals, or non-
target wildlife may be exposed to the product. Unfortunately, that
requirement has not proved effective in preventing exposures to
children, pets, and wildlife. Separate tamper-resistant bait stations
are rarely found in the stores that sell the products subject to this
Notice, and thousands of children each year are exposed to rodenticides
in the home. Each exposure incident has the potential to cause adverse
effects owing to the amount of active ingredient in a single placement
of any of the products subject to this Notice. While it is fortunate
that children rarely have serious health consequences from exposures to
rodenticides used in and around homes, one percent of exposed children
(an average of 128 per year from 1999-2005) were reported to have
experienced symptoms from the exposure. While EPA is unaware of any
fatal or untreatable incidents involving children, pets are not so
fortunate, and on average more than 100 pet deaths are reported each
year from exposure to rodenticides. And even though children do not
routinely suffer significant adverse health consequences, EPA does not
believe the great bulk of children's exposures to rodenticides are
risk-free or should be taken lightly. To the contrary, the incidence of
young children being exposed to rodenticides in the home is unnecessary
and poses real risks that should no longer be tolerated.
The risks to young children posed by rodenticide exposure are
clearly worthy of regulatory action when compared to other risks
Congress has directed EPA to address. In 1996, Congress unanimously
adopted the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), amending both FIFRA and
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to assure that
children receive special protection from pesticide residues in food,
and that such residues not be allowed in food unless EPA can find a
reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure to those residues. Under
this risk-only standard, no level of economic benefits can justify
pesticide residues in food that do not meet the reasonable certainty of
no harm standard.
The exposures children can get from eating small amounts of
rodenticide bait well exceed the safety standard promulgated in the
FQPA. EPA fully appreciates that rodenticides are governed by the FIFRA
risk-benefit standard rather than the FFDCA reasonable certainty of no
harm standard, and that any hearing on this Notice must consider the
benefits of rodenticide use against the risks of such use.
Nevertheless, the FFDCA criteria for unsafe exposures to pesticides in
food provide a meaningful benchmark. If Congress would not allow these
levels of pesticide exposure in food--no matter how beneficial the
pesticide use might be to agricultural producers--it is reasonable to
infer that children should not suffer the same levels of exposures
through other routes absent important countervailing benefits.
EPA has looked at the benefits of allowing continued use of
consumer-use rodenticide products not in appropriately protective bait
stations reasonably anticipated not to release the rodenticide bait,
and has concluded that the benefits of such products are generally
minimal, and are insufficient to justify the increased risks to
children, pets, and non-target wildlife. It is worth noting at the
outset that existing labels of the products subject to this Notice do
not allow the use of the products in or around homes if children, pets,
or non-target wildlife can get access to the product; in such
situations the labels direct users to apply the product only in tamper-
resistant bait stations. Unfortunately, in the past this label language
has failed to prevent many thousands of unlawful exposures of children,
pets, and non-target wildlife to rodenticides. Now, however, consumer-
use rodenticide products are commercially available with tamper-
resistant bait stations, and in block form that prevents bait from
easily escaping the stations. These bait-station products are effective
for use against commensal rodents; products similar to these have been
widely and successfully used by professional applicators for many
years. The great majority of the use of consumer-use rodenticide
products is targeted against house mice; bait-station products
targeting mice are commercially available at essentially the same price
as the products subject to this Notice. There is simply no reason today
to allow the continued exposure of children, pets, and non-target
wildlife to the rodenticide products subject to this Notice when safer,
effective, and economically comparable products are available. These
unnecessary, and in most cases unlawful, exposures of children, pets,
and non-target wildlife meet the unreasonable risk standard for
cancellation and denial.
While there is some increased cost associated with bait station
products targeting commensal rats, EPA believes that the increased cost
to those consumers who now use unprotected rodenticide baits to control
commensal rats in residences where children and pets are never present
is acceptable under FIFRA taking into account: The small amount of
consumer-use products currently used to target commensal rats; the
availability of a number of pesticidal
[[Page 8126]]
and non-pesticidal alternatives for effectively controlling commensal
rats; the lack of success of existing labels to prevent exposures to
children, pets, and non-target wildlife; the risks associated with
those exposures; and the difficulties in preventing unprotected ``rat''
products sold in the general consumer market from being diverted to the
much more common use against mice. EPA does not believe it appropriate,
in making these cancellation and denial decisions, to consider price
increases for consumers who are currently using products subject to
this Notice inappropriately, in circumstances where children, pets,
and/or non-target wildlife can get access to the placed product.
B. Second-Generation Anti-Coagulants
As noted earlier, all rodenticides are highly toxic to non-target
mammals and birds. The risks associated with ``primary'' exposure
(exposure where non-target wildlife consumes the bait intended for
rodents) to consumer-use rodenticides are similar across the various
rodenticide active ingredients, and can be significantly reduced for
most species by requiring that such rodenticides be placed in tamper-
resistant bait stations. Bait stations will not, however, protect non-
target wildlife from a significant portion of ``secondary'' exposure to
rodenticides; secondary exposures are those where non-target wildlife
gets exposed to rodenticides by preying upon or scavenging poisoned
rodents or non-target wildlife.
EPA has assessed the secondary risks of rodenticides, and has
determined that the class of rodenticides known as second generation
anti-coagulants (SGARs) pose significantly greater risks to predators,
particularly raptors, than do the other active ingredients contained in
consumer-use rodenticide products--bromethalin and first generation
anti-coagulants. SGARs pose greater risks of secondary poisoning
primarily because of their greater toxicity; their persistence in
tissue; and the potential for poisoned rodents to carry ``super-
lethal'' doses (although rodents feeding upon SGARs can consume a
lethal dose in a single night's feeding, the effects are delayed for a
number of days during which time the rodents can continue to consume
more poison, resulting in many times the lethal dose being found in
poisoned rodents). Incident reports provide further support for the
conclusion that consumer-use SGAR products pose significant risks to
non-target mammals and raptors, and that these risks are greater than
those posed by the other rodenticide active ingredients.
The greater risks of secondary poisoning of non-target mammalian
predators and raptors associated with residential consumer use of SGARs
are not supported by commensurate benefits. Other rodenticides
registered and available for residential consumer use can provide
equally effective control of rodents, at similar costs. Non-chemical
control methods will remain available, and the use of rodenticides by
professional applicators (and agricultural users) is unaffected by this
Notice. There are no benefits associated with the residential consumer
use of SGARs that justify the significant risks those products pose to
non-target wildlife from secondary-poisoning.
IV. Status of Products That Become Cancelled
A. Timing of Cancellation or Denial of Registration
The cancellation or denial of registration for the specific
products identified in Table 1 of Unit I.A. of this document will be
final and effective on March 7, 2013 unless a valid hearing request is
received regarding that specific rodenticide product.
In the event a hearing is held concerning a particular product, the
cancellation or denial of the registration for that product will not
become effective except pursuant to a final order issued by the
Environmental Appeals Board or (if the matter is referred to the
Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR 164.2(g)) the Administrator, or an
initial decision of the presiding Administrative Law Judge that becomes
a final order pursuant to 40 CFR 164.90(b).
B. Existing Stocks Issues
Existing stocks of cancelled pesticides are those products that
were ``released for shipment'' under FIFRA before the effective date of
cancellation. This provision addresses two issues: Whether questions
concerning the treatment of existing stocks can be raised at any
cancellation hearing; and how the Agency intends to treat existing
stocks when and if products are cancelled pursuant to this Notice.
1. Whether questions concerning the treatment of existing stocks
can be raised at the hearing. It is settled law that existing stocks
issues are not required to be a part of a cancellation proceeding, and
that the treatment of existing stocks issues is only included as an
issue in a cancellation proceeding when the Notice giving rise to the
right to a hearing voluntarily identifies and includes existing stocks
as an issue for examination. In the Matter of Cedar Chemical Co., et
al., 2 E.A.D. 584, nn. 7,9, 1988 WL 525242 (June 9, 1988) (Decision of
the Administrator). The Administrator's decision in Cedar Chemical on
whether existing stocks had to be included as an issue in the hearing
was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in Northwest Food Processors Association v. Reilly, 886 F. 2d
1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1989). In the case of this rodenticide
cancellation Notice, EPA has determined not to include existing stocks
as an issue in this hearing. Instead, the only issues for hearing under
this Notice are whether the subject products should be cancelled, or
the applications should be denied.
2. Treatment of existing stocks in the event of cancellation. FIFRA
section 6(a)(1) allows the Agency to permit the continued sale and use
of existing stocks of pesticides whose use has been cancelled, to the
extent the Administrator determines that such sale or use would not be
inconsistent with the purposes of this Act. 7 U.S.C. 136d(a)(1). The
Agency does not believe that it would be appropriate under FIFRA to
allow any further sale or distribution by any person of the products
identified in this Notice if this Notice results in the cancellation of
such products, and it does not intend to allow any such sale or
distribution if this Notice results in the cancellation of such
products. First and most importantly, the continued sale and
distribution of products cancelled in a proceeding pursuant to this
Notice would continue to cause unreasonable adverse effects on health
and the environment. Second, the regulated community has been on notice
since May 28, 2008 that the Agency intended that the sale and
distribution of these products by registrants cease by June 4, 2011.
During that period, most registrants have amended existing rodenticide
products, or registered new rodenticide products, that conform to EPA's
May 28, 2008 regulatory decision and consequently pose significantly
less risk to health and the environment, and such rodenticide products
are widely available. EPA does not believe it to be consistent with the
purposes of FIFRA to continue to put registrants who timely complied
with the Agency's 2008 decision, and brought safer products to the
market, at a competitive disadvantage relative to registrants who
declined to improve their products. Accordingly, EPA has determined
that the continued sale and distribution of existing stocks of
pesticide products cancelled pursuant to this Notice should
[[Page 8127]]
not be permitted, except that EPA intends to allow the limited shipment
of existing stocks for the sole purposes of lawful export, proper
disposal, or return to the person from whom the holder of the existing
stock purchased the product.
V. Mandated FIFRA Reviews
When EPA intends to issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel, it must
furnish a draft of that Notice and an analysis of the impact of the
proposed action on the agricultural economy to the Secretary of the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) for comment at least 60 days prior to
issuing the Notice (FIFRA section 6(b), 7 U.S.C. 136d(b)). When a
public health use is involved, section 6(b) directs EPA to solicit
information from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on
the impact of the cancellation on public health control efforts. In
addition, the Agency must within the same time period submit the
proposed cancellation action to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP) for comment concerning the impact of the proposed action on
health and the environment (FIFRA section 25(d), 7 U.S.C. 136w(d)).
In the event that written comments are received from the USDA, HHS
or the SAP within 30 days of such referral, the Agency must publish
those comments and the Agency's response to the comments.
EPA provided the draft Notice of Intent to Cancel and Notice of
Denial of Registration for Certain Rodenticide Bait Products and
documents supporting that Notice to the SAP on November 3, 2011, and to
USDA and HHS on November 17, 2011. EPA convened a meeting of the SAP on
November 28 through December 1, 2011, to review science issues related
to the proposed cancellations. EPA received the SAP's comments on
December 29, 2011; EPA received minutes from the SAP meeting (SAP
Minutes No. 2011-06: A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the
Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: Scientific Conclusions
Supporting EPA's FIFRA Section 6(b) Notice of Intent to Cancel Twenty
Homeowner Rodenticide Bait Products) on January 4, 2012. These
documents are available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0718 at
www.regulations.gov.
USDA advised EPA on April 11, 2012 that it had no comments on the
proposed cancellation. On April 20, 2012, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) of the Public Health Service submitted
comments on behalf of HHS stating they are supportive of requiring bait
stations for products used in buildings and of requirements that end
residential consumer use of second generation anticoagulants. On April
20, 2012, EPA posted the letters from USDA and CDC in docket EPA-HQ-
OPP-2006-0955 at www.regulations.gov.
The letters from USDA and CDC require no response from EPA. The
Agency has prepared a response to the comments from the SAP; that
response, dated January 29, 2013, can be found in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-
2013-0049 at www.regulations.gov.
VI. Procedural Matters
This unit explains how eligible persons may request a hearing and
the consequences of requesting or failing to request such a hearing.
A. Requesting a Hearing
1. Who can request a hearing? A registrant or any other person who
is adversely affected by a cancellation or denial of registration as
described in this Notice may request a hearing.
2. When must a hearing be requested? A request for a hearing by a
registrant or applicant for registration must be submitted in writing
within 30 days after the date of receipt of the Notice of Intent to
Cancel, or within 30 days after publication of this announcement in the
Federal Register, whichever occurs later. A request for a hearing by
any other person adversely affected by the Agency's proposed action
must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of this
Notice in the Federal Register. See the DATES section of this document.
3. How must a hearing be requested? All persons who request a
hearing must comply with the Agency's Rules of Practice Governing
Hearings, 40 CFR Part 164. Among other requirements, these rules
include the following:
i. Each hearing request must specifically identify by registration
or accession number each individual pesticide product concerning which
a hearing is requested, 40 CFR 164.22(a);
ii. Each hearing request must be accompanied by a document setting
forth specific objections which respond to the Agency's reasons for
proposing cancellation as set forth in this Notice and/or the related
``Statement of Reasons and Factual Basis for Notice of Intent to Cancel
and Notice of Denial of Certain Rodenticide Bait Product Registrations
and Applications'' dated January 29, 2013, in docket Id number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2013-0049, and state the factual basis for each such objection, 40
CFR 164.22(a); and
iii. Each hearing request must be received by the OALJ within the
applicable 30-day period (40 CFR 164.5(a)).
Failure to comply with any one of these requirements will invalidate
the request for a hearing and, in the absence of a valid hearing
request, result in final cancellation or denial of registration for the
product in question by operation of law.
iv. Where does a person submit a hearing request? Requests for
hearing must be submitted to the OALJ. The OALJ uses different
addresses depending on the delivery method. Please note that mail
deliveries to Federal agencies are screened off-site, and this security
procedure can delay delivery. Documents that a party sends using the
U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to the following OALJ mailing
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administrative
Law Judges, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 1900L, Washington,
DC 20460-2001.
Documents that a party hand delivers or sends using a courier or
commercial delivery service (such as Federal Express or UPS) must be
addressed to the following OALJ hand delivery address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administrative Law Judges,
1099 14th Street NW., Franklin Court Building, Suite 350, Washington,
DC 20005.
B. The Hearing
If a hearing concerning any product affected by this Notice is
requested in a timely and effective manner, the hearing will be
governed by the Agency's Rules of Practice Governing Hearings, 40 CFR
Part 164, and the procedures set forth in Unit VI. Any interested
person may participate in the hearing, in accordance with 40 CFR
164.31.
Documents and transcripts will be available in the public docket
for the hearing, located at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Administrative Law Judges, Franklin Court, Suite 350, 1099
14th St. NW., Washington, DC 20005. The references can be viewed from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
C. Separation of Functions
EPA's Rules of Practice forbid anyone who may take part in deciding
this case, at any stage of the proceeding, from discussing the merits
of the proceeding ex parte with any party or with any person who has
been connected with the preparation or presentation of the proceeding
as an advocate or in any investigative or expert capacity, or with any
of their representatives (40 CFR 164.7). To facilitate compliance with
the
[[Page 8128]]
ex parte rule, the following are designated as adjudicatory personnel
for purposes of this proceeding: The Administrative Law Judges and
their staff, the Environmental Appeals Board and its staff, the
Administrator and certain members of her immediate office, and the
General Counsel and certain members of his immediate office. None of
the persons identified as adjudicatory personnel may discuss the merits
of the proceeding with any person with an interest in the proceeding,
or representative of such person, except in compliance with 40 CFR
164.7.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Dated: January 29, 2013.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013-02500 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P