### 8123 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 PM 2.5 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**

**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—P ESTICIDE 

### P RODUCTS 

### S UBJECT TO 

### CANCELLATION

Product EPA Reg. No. Registrant Active ingredient Deficiency

D-Con Concentrate Kills Rats & Mice 3282–3 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Warfarin ........ Consumer product in a powder form and packaged without a protective bait station. D-Con Ready Mixed Kills Rats &

Mice. 3282–4 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Warfarin ........ Consumer product in a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station. D-Con Mouse Prufe Kills Mice ......... 3282–9 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Warfarin ........ Consumer product in a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station. D-Con Pellets Kills Rats & Mice ....... 3282–15 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Warfarin ........ Consumer product in a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station. D-Con Mouse Prufe II ....................... 3282–65 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Brodifacoum .. Consumer product: (1) In 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, Inc ... Brodifacoum .. Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station, and (2) containing a SGAR. D-Con Bait Pellets II ......................... 3282–74 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Brodifacoum .. Consumer product: (1) In a pelletedform and packaged without a protective bait station, and (2) containing a SGAR. D-Con Ready Mixed Generation II ... 3282–81 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Brodifacoum .. Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station, and (2) containing a SGAR. D-Con Mouse-Prufe III ...................... 3282–85 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Difethialone ... Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station, and (2) containing a SGAR. D-Con Bait Pellets III ........................ 3282–86 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Difethialone ... Consumer product: (1) In 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, Inc ... Difethialone ... Consumer product: (1) In a pelleted form and packaged without a protective bait station, and (2) containing a SGAR. D-Con Bait Packs III ......................... 3282–88 Reckitt Benckiser, Inc ... Difethialone ... Consumer product: (1) In a pellete d form and packaged without a protective bait station, and (2) containing a SGAR.


### 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—P ESTICIDE 

### P RODUCT 

### R EGISTRATIONS 

### S UBJECT TO 

### D ENIAL

Product EPA Application No. Registrant Active ingredient Deficiency

D-Con Bait Station XV Kills Mice .... 3282–RNU ... Reckitt Benckiser Inc ..... Brodifacoum ........ Consumer product containing a SGAR. D-Con Bait Station XVI Kills Mice ... 3282–RNL .... Reckitt Benckiser Inc ..... Brodifacoum ........ Consumer product containing a SGAR

.

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 http:// 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 http://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


### 8125 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices

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 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. 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 oraround 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 torodenticides. Now, however, consumeruse rodenticide products arecommercially 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


### 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.

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 suchrodenticides 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 orscavenging 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 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 controlof 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 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


### 8127 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / 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 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


### 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**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  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: http://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 be found at the following Web site: http://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 http://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 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,