Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices 8123 

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 

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

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 pelleted form 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 pelleted form and 

packaged without a protective bait station, 

and (2) containing a SGAR. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices 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 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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 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 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES