28014 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Notices 

40 CFR 156.10(a)(5), products with 

brand names that, in a false or 

misleading manner, state or imply 

safety, efficacy or comparative claims, 

or are otherwise false or misleading in 

any particular, are considered to be 

misbranded and may not be sold or 

distributed. 

The revised, draft PR Notice explains 

the statutory and regulatory 

requirements that a pesticide product 

brand name, either by itself or 

containing or located in close proximity 

to a company name or trademark, not be 

false or misleading. The draft PR Notice 

provides examples of potentially false or 

misleading product brand names. 

Finally, the draft PR Notice states that 

the Agency will be applying these 

regulations as interpreted in this notice 

when evaluating applications for new 

products or brand names, reviewing 

notifications for alternate or changed 

brand names, reviewing applications for 

registration, or conducting registration 

reviews. The draft PR Notice encourages 

applicants and registrants to review 

their product names in light of its 

guidance, and, if warranted, take 

corrective action within two years of the 

issuance of the final PR Notice. The 

draft PR Notice explains that after the 

final implementation date, EPA may 

consider the guidance in the final PR 

Notice when determining whether a 

product is misbranded under FIFRA. 

III. Do PR Notices Contain Binding 

Requirements? 

The PR Notice discussed in this 

notice is intended to provide guidance 

to EPA personnel and decisionmakers 

and to pesticide registrants. While the 

requirements in the statute and Agency 

regulations are binding on EPA and the 

applicants, this PR Notice is not binding 

on either EPA or pesticide registrants, 

and EPA may depart from the guidance 

where circumstances warrant and 

without prior notice. Likewise, pesticide 

registrants and applicants may assert 

that the guidance is not appropriate 

categorically or not applicable to a 

specific pesticide or situation. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests. 

Dated: May 12, 2010. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11977 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–1005; FRL–8824–4] 

Petitions Concerning Whether 

Ammonia or Urea Sold or Distributed 

and Used for Certain Purposes Should 

Be Regulated as Pesticides 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice makes available 

for review and public comment three 

petitions concerning the regulatory 

status under the Federal Insecticide 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

of products containing ammonia or urea 

sold or distributed for use in the 

presence of sodium hypochlorite as a 

biocide or as part of a biocidal system 

in the production of pulp and 

paperboard products. The notice also 

makes available for review and public 

comment documents associated with 

the petitions which have also been 

placed in a docket created for this 

matter. That docket may be accessed as 

described in this Notice. The Agency 

registered as ‘‘pesticides’’ two products 

containing ammonia as the active 

ingredient based on applications for 

registration and supporting data 

submitted by Buckman Laboratories, 

Inc. (Buckman). The Agency has also 

registered an ammonium bromide 

product for a similar use in the pulp and 

paperboard industry. Another company, 

Nalco, Inc. (Nalco) is currently selling 

unregistered ammonia and urea 

products to the pulp and paperboard 

industry for use in a manner similar to 

those of the three registered products. 

Nalco informed EPA of its view that 

Buckman’s ammonia products were not 

‘‘pesticides’’ and argued therefore that 

EPA should not have registered them 

under FIFRA. Nalco petitioned the 

Agency to cancel Buckman’s 

registrations for the two ammonia 

products. Subsequently, the Agency 

received two other petitions from 

Buckman and Ashland Hercules Water 

Technologies (Ashland-Hercules), 

which would also be affected by any 

Agency decision relative to the 

contested uses of ammonia and urea, 

supporting the decision to register 

ammonia and further requesting that the 

Agency find Nalco’s sale and 

distribution of its unregistered ammonia 

product to be contrary to law. AshlandHercules also raised issues relative to 

the safe use and risks associated with 

the unregistered use of urea in 

chlorinated water in pulp and paper 

mill use scenarios and asked that the 

Agency find that Nalco’s sale and 

distribution of its urea product was 

unlawful. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 19, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

identified by the docket identification 

(ID) number EPA–HQ–2009–1005, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the docket ID number EPA–HQ–2009– 

1005. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Notices 28015 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Melba S. 

Morrow, Antimicrobials Division 

(7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–2716; fax number: (703) 308– 

6467; e-mail address: 

morrow.melba@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are a business engaged 

in the manufacturing of pesticides and 

other agricultural chemicals. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Pesticide and other agricultural and 

chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 

325320) e.g. businesses engaged in the 

manufacture of pesticides. 

• Pulp and paperboard industries 

(NAICS code 322110, 322130). 

• Antimicrobial pesticides (NAICS 

code 32561). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected. The North American Industrial 

Classification System codes have been 

provided to assist you and others in 

determining whether this action might 

apply to certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity please 

contact the person list under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD-ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD-ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree 

with any of positions taken in the 

petitions; suggest alternatives and 

substitute language for your requested 

changes. Carefully consider the merits 

of what you are proposing. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient details to 

allow it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

appropriate alternative measures when 

possible. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline that has been identified. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. Legal Authority 

Under FIFRA and its regulations, no 

person may distribute or sell any 

pesticide product that is not registered 

under the Act except as provided under 

40 CFR 152.20, 152.25 and 152.30. A 

pesticide is any substance (or mixture of 

substances) intended for a pesticidal 

purpose i.e., use for the purpose of 

preventing, destroying, repelling, or 

mitigating any pest, among other things. 

The regulations in 40 CFR 152.15 

contain provisions that guide the 

Agency’s determination of whether a 

particular product is a ‘‘pesticide’’ under 

FIFRA. 

FIFRA also provides the Agency with 

authority to cancel or suspend 

pesticides which do not comply with 

the Act or no longer meet the statutory 

standard for registration. FIFRA further 

authorizes the Agency to initiate 

enforcement action against persons who 

are not in compliance with the Act. 

Enforcement actions may, among other 

things, be initiated on the basis of sale 

or distribution of unregistered pesticide 

products or unlawful use of a registered 

pesticide product. See generally, FIFRA 

Sections 3, 6, 12, and 13. 

III. History of Registrations for 

Ammonia and Urea Products for Use in 

the Pulp and Paper Industry 

Buckman is the registrant of BCMW 

(EPA Reg. No. 1448–432) and Busan 

1215 (EPA Reg. No.1442–433). Both 

products were registered in 2007, and 

both products contain ammonia as the 

active ingredient. Buckman’s ammonia 

products are registered for use as a 

water treatment in combination with 

sodium hypochlorite to inhibit the 

growth of bacteria in pulp and paper 

mills. Ashland-Hercules is the 

authorized distributor of Spectrum 

XD3899 Ammonium Bromide 

Technology (EPA Reg. No. 8622–64– 

74655), an ammonium bromide solution 

sold as a FIFRA Section 3(e) 

supplemental distributor product under 

Ameribrom, Inc.’s Fuzzicide Solution 

(EPA Reg. No. 8622–64) that was 

registered in 2003. Nalco does not hold 

any registrations for ammonia or urea 

products for use in pulp and paper 

mills. Nalco is currently marketing and 

distributing their ammonia product, 

Nalcon 60620, that is used in 

combination with sodium hypochlorite. 

Nalco is also marketing and distributing 

a urea-based product, Nalcon 60615, 

which is also used as a water treatment 

for the production of biocides in pulp 

and paper mill settings. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
28016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Notices 

IV. Summary of the Petitions and Other 

Documents 

The Agency has received petitions 

and multiple related submissions from 

Ashland-Hercules, Buckman, and Nalco 

regarding the regulatory status of 

products containing ammonia or urea 

when intended for use in the presence 

of sodium hypochlorite as a biocide or 

as part of a biocidal system in the 

production of pulp and paperboard 

products. The submissions from Nalco 

generally argue that under FIFRA, those 

products are not ‘‘pesticides’’ when used 

under that circumstance. The 

submissions provided by AshlandHercules and Buckman argue that these 

products when intended or used for 

such purpose are ‘‘pesticides’’ requiring 

registration under FIFRA. The history of 

each petition and the principal 

arguments are summarized below. 

A. Nalco, Inc. 

Nalco filed a petition on October 30, 

2007 and requested that EPA revisit the 

requirement to register ammonia as a 

pesticide under FIFRA. The petitioner 

acknowledged the Agency had issued 

registrations for products containing 

ammonia to be used to inhibit the 

growth of bacteria in water used in pulp 

and paper mills. In its discussion of 

current biocidal control practices in the 

manufacture of pulp and paperboard 

products, the petitioner explained that it 

is common practice to add ammoniabased products to water which has been 

treated with chlorine in order to 

generate chloramines. Nalco further 

contended that, by requiring registration 

of ammonia, all companies that 

currently provide unregistered ammonia 

products for use with chlorine in water 

treatment are in violation of FIFRA. The 

Nalco petition stated that, in requiring 

the registration of ammonia, the Agency 

had failed to assess the impact that such 

a requirement would have on the 

regulated community. According to 

Nalco, EPA’s decision to register 

ammonia products intended for use as 

part of a biocidal system in the 

production of pulp and paperboard 

products represented a change in EPA’s 

policy that was undertaken without an 

opportunity for public input. The Nalco 

petition further stated that requiring 

registration of ammonia would in 

essence require that all users purchase 

ammonia from the only EPA-registered 

source. The Nalco petition requested 

that the Agency issue an interim 

statement that the sale of ammoniabased compounds for use with chlorine 

in water systems would not result in 

enforcement action and that the Agency 

would reconsider whether companies 

need to register ammonia when 

intended for use as part of a biocidal 

system in the production of pulp and 

paperboard products. The petition also 

argued that the decision to require the 

registration of ammonia products would 

also have an impact on municipal water 

treatment facilities, as the practice of 

adding ammonia is necessary to 

produce chloramines for municipal 

water disinfection. 

On December 4, 2007, Nalco wrote the 

Agency asking EPA to reconsider earlier 

actions requiring the registration of 

ammonia, which Nalco described as a 

‘‘precursor’’ to chloramine in water 

treatment processes, and to assure Nalco 

that there would be no enforcement 

action taken during the transition 

period. The December 4 Nalco 

submission made the following 

assertions and arguments: 

• As shown in the background 

information on the chemistry of 

chlorine in antimicrobial water 

treatment, chloramines are weak 

biocides. Because they are more stable 

than chlorine, chloramines are used in 

water systems to extend the period of 

antimicrobial activity and to minimize 

the production of other by-products of 

water disinfection by reducing the 

reactivity of chlorine. 

• Ammonia is not a pesticide and does 

not contribute to the pesticidal activity 

of sodium hypochlorite or other 

chlorine-based water disinfectants. In 

industrial water systems such as those 

used by pulp and paper mills, there is 

high organic content in the water 

systems which can be controlled 

through the generation of chloramines. 

Chloramines reduce disinfection 

demands. The pesticidal activity of 

chloramine is a result of the residual 

activity of chlorine. 

•Chlorine is the active ingredient in 

water treatment and the reaction with 

ammonia only stabilizes or sequesters 

ammonia. Thus, ammonia is not a 

precursor for in situ generation of a 

pesticide. Moreover, even if ammonia 

were a precursor, the Agency’s decision 

to register ammonia is inappropriate 

because in the past, EPA has registered 

precursors when they are the only 

logical chemical through which the use 

of a pesticide can be regulated. Prior to 

the registration of ammonia for use as 

part of a biocidal system in the 

production of pulp and paperboard 

products, the Agency never required 

registration of ammonia compounds. 

•Rather than designating ammonia as 

a ‘‘precursor,’’ EPA should consider it a 

‘‘stabilizer’’ or an ‘‘activator.’’ The 

Agency’s historical position has been 

that activators need not be registered. 

The Agency’s decision to require the 

registration of ammonia is also 

inconsistent with the Agency’s position 

on other chemicals, such as cyanuric 

acid used to stabilize chlorine in 

swimming pools, which performs 

similar functions. The submission 

contained an Appendix listing inert 

ingredients found in other pesticides 

that allegedly play a role similar to 

ammonia. 

•The Agency should articulate a rule 

of decision regarding when registration 

is required and assess the impact of that 

rule before it is implemented. The 

rationale for a decision to require 

registration of ammonia should also be 

articulated. The current situation, in 

which one registrant of ammonia is 

threatening enforcement against users of 

similar systems in pulp and paper mills 

using unregistered ammonia compound, 

is causing confusion in the marketplace. 

In follow-up to the December 

submission, on February 7, 2008, EPA 

sent Nalco a letter indicating that the 

December 4th communication would be 

treated as a petition. The letter further 

stated ‘‘...the Office of Pesticide 

Programs would regard Nalco’s sale and 

distribution of ammonia and ammonia 

products for use in connection with 

chlorine to treat water to require 

registration under FIFRA Section 3 only 

if Nalco makes a pesticidal claim for 

such products.’’ In July 2008, the 

Agency asked Nalco to define the term 

‘‘activator’’ and to provide further 

explanation of the relationship between 

ammonia and the inert ingredients 

listed in the appendix to the December 

submission. 

In July 2008, Nalco filed a supplement 

to its December 2007 submission. Nalco 

acknowledged that there is no 

regulatory definition of an activator and 

stated its opinion that ammonia is 

merely a ‘‘stabilizer’’ which acts to 

prolong the availability of chlorine, and 

would therefore not meet the definition 

of a pesticide. Nalco further 

characterized ammonia as a 

‘‘sequestrant’’, and defined that term as 

a substance which acts by preventing or 

inhibiting normal ion behavior by 

combination with added materials. In 

reference to the compounds identified 

in an appendix to Nalco’s December 

2007 submission, Nalco stated that they 

were included as examples of available 

compounds that have been determined 

by the Agency to be inert compounds. 

The description of the purpose of the 

inert component indicates that it will 

modify the activity of or interact with 

the pesticidally active ingredient in the 

formulation. Nalco compared the role of 

the inert compounds to that of ammonia 

by stating that the description of the 

inert compounds suggests a chemical 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Notices 28017 

reaction but not one that is needed to 

produce a pesticidally active ingredient. 

B. Buckman Laboratories, Inc. 

Buckman filed its petition on 

September 2, 2008, and responded to 

the concerns raised by Nalco’s petition. 

Buckman defended the status of its 

ammonia products as registered 

pesticides and requested that the 

Agency immediately prohibit further 

distribution and sale of unregistered 

ammonia for water treatment. In 

addition, Buckman provided 

information on the chemical reaction 

which results in the formation of 

chloramines following the addition of 

ammonia to chlorinated water. 

Buckman stated in its petition that 

ammonia does not sequester or release 

chlorine and is not an adjuvant. 

Buckman further contended that 

ammonia reacts with sodium 

hypochlorite to produce an entirely new 

active ingredient, monochloramine 

(MCA), which has distinct biocidal 

properties. Buckman stated its opinion 

that the MCA, which is created by the 

chemical reaction, ‘‘is the main active 

ingredient’’ for biocidal water treatment 

in the pulp and paper process. 

Buckman provided the following 

rationale to support its request that the 

Agency maintain the status quo, i.e., its 

position that products containing 

ammonia intended for use in the 

presence of sodium hypochlorite as a 

biocide or as part of a biocidal system 

in the production of pulp and 

paperboard products are pesticides 

requiring registration under FIFRA. 

Buckman repeated its request that EPA 

prohibit further distribution and sale of 

unregistered ammonia products. 

Buckman’s main points were: 

•Both Nalco and Buckman sell 

ammonia for use in proprietary systems 

in which ammonia and sodium 

hypochlorite react to form 

monochloramine, which is the active 

ingredient supplied by each system for 

water treatment. The basic chemistry 

involving both the Nalco and Buckman 

products and the production of MCA is 

the same. 

•The registration of ammonia is 

necessary because monochloramine is 

too unstable to exist as a marketable 

commodity, and no EPA-approved 

sodium hypochlorite label has 

instructions for use with ammonia to 

result in the safe production of MCA. In 

addition, the continued use of 

unregistered ammonia to produce MCA 

poses a potentially unreasonable risk to 

human health and the environment. 

There is no way to ensure that the MCA 

produced with an unapproved product 

will result in acceptable residues in 

food packaging or not pose a risk of 

toxicity to aquatic organisms from the 

residues in the effluent. 

• Ammonia does not sequester or 

release chlorine and is not an adjuvant. 

Ammonia reacts with sodium 

hypochlorite to produce MCA which 

has distinct properties (the mechanism 

by which it inactivates microorganisms 

by adversely affecting cell respiration, 

transport and DNA activity; a different 

spectrum of antimicrobial activity) from 

hypochlorous acid. 

•The Agency should deny Nalco’s 

petition to revoke Buckman’s ammonia 

registrations because the Agency has 

acted properly in its registration of 

ammonia as a precursor to the formation 

of MCA for water treatment. As a 

precursor of MCA, ammonia reacts with 

sodium hypochlorite to produce a new 

active ingredient, which has distinct 

properties as described above. 

•The Agency should prohibit further 

distribution and sale of unregistered 

ammonia for water treatment because 

the continued sale of unregistered 

ammonia presents an unreasonable risk 

to public health and unfairly damages 

the commercial value of Buckman’s 

registrations. 

C. Ashland-Hercules 

Ashland-Hercules contacted the 

Agency in February 2009 with a petition 

that also included a file of 

correspondence to and from the Agency 

that dated back to June 2008. AshlandHercules’s arguments were basically the 

same as those provided by Buckman 

with regard to Nalco’s distribution and 

sale of unregistered ammonia for use 

with sodium hypochlorite as a biocide 

or as part of a biocidal system in the 

production of pulp and paperboard 

products. Ashland-Hercules further 

discussed the need for the Agency to 

take action against the sale or 

distribution of unregistered urea 

products as biocidal agents in the pulp 

and paperboard industry. AshlandHercules based this on arguments that 

urea has not been subjected to review 

for registration as an antimicrobial 

pesticide as required under FIFRA. 

Ashland-Hercules stated that the use of 

an unregistered urea-based product 

presents potential risks to human health 

and safety that EPA has not evaluated. 

Ashland- Hercules made the following 

points: 

•There is a distinction between the 

treatment of public potable water 

supplies with MCA and the application 

of ammonia in the presence of sodium 

hypochlorite to prevent biofouling in 

the paper industry. Although the two 

uses are conceptually similar, the 

concentrations at which ammonia and 

chlorine are used are not the same. 

•The potential hazards presented by 

the unregulated and uncontrolled use of 

ammonia-based biocides in pulp and 

paper mills are far greater than those 

associated with potable water treatment 

because of higher concentrations of 

chemicals that are used for biocidal 

activity in pulp and paper mills, thereby 

exposing workers to increased risks. 

•While ammonia-based products used 

in treating potable water may not be 

registered under FIFRA, EPA has 

regulated chloramines produced by the 

addition of ammonia to chlorine under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 

Thus, there is a basis for assuring the 

safety of potable water using the 

authority of the SDWA. The same can 

not be said for Nalco’s product. 

•The chemical reaction that takes 

place when concentrated ammoniabased compounds are combined in situ 

with concentrated sodium hypochlorite 

can result in the release of hazardous 

gases such as nitrogen trichloride and 

raises safety concerns when using 

Nalco’s product. 

• An unregistered product has no 

upper limits for feed rates. The exposure 

to the undesirable compounds produced 

during the uncontrolled mixing of 

concentrated solutions of ammonium 

sulfate and sodium hypochlorite is 

unlimited as well. 

D. Current Status 

The Agency believes that all three 

parties have raised matters which pose 

common issues and which therefore are 

being considered and addressed 

together. The Agency’s Office of 

Pesticide Programs, which is leading 

this effort to consider these petitions, is 

also examining other issues, including 

any potential issues involving EPA’s 

Office of Water and is obtaining 

information for use in making its 

decision on whether the sale and 

distribution of ammonia and urea 

products for use with chlorine-treated 

water in pulp and paper production are 

pesticidal uses that require registration 

under FIFRA. 

EPA held a meeting on February 16, 

2010 with all of the parties who either 

hold registrations for ammonia or who 

had petitioned the Agency with 

concerns pertaining to the status of the 

ammonia or urea products described 

above. The materials from the meeting 

as well as a transcript of the meeting 

have been placed in the docket, along 

with the three petitions, and 

correspondence associated with the 

petitions. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
28018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Notices 

V. What Action is the Agency Taking 

Through this notice, the Agency is 

making the petitions and other 

correspondence submitted by Nalco, 

Buckman Laboratories and Ashland 

Hercules available for public review and 

comment. Any public comments 

received on these petitions will be 

included in the electronic docket and 

reviewed by the Agency. Following 

review of the petitions and any 

comments received in response to this 

notice, EPA will issue its decision and 

response to the petitions. 

In reviewing the materials in the 

docket and submitting any comments to 

the Agency, the Agency requests that, in 

addition to providing comments 

regarding any other issues raised by the 

materials in the docket, commenters 

respond to the following specific 

questions: 

•When the ingredients in a product 

do not provide any pesticidal activity 

unless they react with other chemicals, 

should the product be treated as a 

pesticide? Are there any other factors 

which could or should lead to a 

different outcome in different settings? 

If so, what are they and what would the 

different outcome be? 

•When a product is marketed as an 

essential part of a system or as a coingredient in a treatment regime that 

provides a pesticidal function, should 

the product be registered as a pesticide? 

Should the system be registered as a 

pesticide product? Are there any other 

factors which could or should lead to a 

different outcome in different settings? 

If so, what are they and what would the 

different outcome be? 

• If a system is registered as a 

pesticide, how should requirements 

governing labeling and compositions 

apply to the system and to individual 

products comprising the system? 

•What are the implications for other 

products containing ammonia or urea 

that are used in conjunction with 

chlorine-treated water in settings other 

than the production of pulp and 

paperboard? 

•What substances, other than 

ammonia or urea, are sold for uses 

similar to the Ashland, Buckman, and 

Nalco products, and might require 

registration or might currently be 

registered? 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Pesticides 

and pests. 

Dated: May 3, 2010. 

Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, 

Director, Antimicrobial Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11445 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9153–2] 

Science Advisory Board Staff Office; 

Notification of a Public Teleconference 

of the Science Advisory Board 

Integrated Nitrogen Committee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a 

public teleconference of the SAB 

Integrated Nitrogen Committee to 

discuss the Committee’s draft report. 

DATES: The public teleconference will 

be held on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 from 

1 to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time). 

ADDRESSES: The public teleconference 

will be conducted by telephone only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public wishing to obtain 

further information concerning this 

public teleconference should contact Dr. 

Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal 

Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory 

Board (1400F), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

via telephone/voice mail (202) 343– 

9995; fax (202) 233–0643; or e-mail at 

armitage.thomas@epa.gov. General 

information concerning the EPA Science 

Advisory Board can be found on the 

SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

sab. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2, notice is 

hereby given that the SAB Integrated 

Nitrogen Committee will hold a public 

teleconference to discuss its draft report. 

The SAB was established pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent 

scientific and technical advice to the 

Administrator on the technical basis for 

Agency positions and regulations. The 

SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee 

under FACA. The SAB will comply 

with the provisions of FACA and all 

appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural 

policies. 

Background: The SAB Integrated 

Nitrogen Committee is conducting a 

study to evaluate the need for integrated 

research and management strategies to 

reduce reactive nitrogen in the 

environment. At the global scale, 

reactive nitrogen from human activities 

now exceeds that produced by natural 

terrestrial ecosystems. Reactive nitrogen 

both benefits and impacts the health 

and welfare of people and ecosystems. 

Scientific information suggests that 

reactive nitrogen is accumulating in the 

environment and that nitrogen cycling 

through biogeochemical pathways has a 

variety of consequences. Background 

information on the work of the 

Integrated Nitrogen Committee can be 

found on the SAB Web site at http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

fedrgstr_activites/ 

Nitrogen%20Project?OpenDocument. 

The purpose of the teleconference is for 

the SAB Integrated Nitrogen Committee 

to discuss its draft report addressing the 

environmental problems presented by 

reactive nitrogen and providing 

recommendations related to an 

integrated nitrogen management 

strategy. 

Availability of Meeting Materials: The 

agenda and other materials in support of 

the teleconference will be placed on the 

SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab 

in advance of the teleconference. 

Procedures for Providing Public Input: 

Public comment for consideration by 

EPA’s federal advisory committees and 

panels has a different purpose from 

public comment provided to EPA 

program offices. Therefore, the process 

for submitting comments to a federal 

advisory committee is different from the 

process used to submit comments to an 

EPA program office. 

Federal advisory committees and 

panels, including scientific advisory 

committees, provide independent 

advice to EPA. Members of the public 

can submit comments for a federal 

advisory committee to consider as it 

develops advice for EPA. They should 

send their comments directly to the 

Designated Federal Officer for the 

relevant advisory committee. Oral 

Statements: In general, individuals or 

groups requesting time to make an oral 

presentation at a public SAB 

teleconference will be limited to three 

minutes, with no more than a total of 30 

minutes for all speakers. Interested 

parties should contact Dr. Armitage, 

DFO at the contact information 

provided above by June 1, 2010 to be 

placed on the list of public speakers for 

the teleconference. 

Written Statements: Written 

statements should be supplied to the 

DFO via email at the contact 

information noted above by June 1, 2010 

so that the information may be made 

available to the Committee members for 

their consideration. Written statements 

should be supplied in one of the 

following electronic formats: Adobe 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES