Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 56819 

Are There Changes in the Estimates 

From the Last Approval? 

There is anticipated to be no change 

in the hours in the total estimated 

respondent burden compared with that 

identified in the ICR currently approved 

by OMB. 

What Is the Next Step in the Process for 

This ICR? 

EPA will consider the comments 

received and amend the ICR as 

appropriate. The final ICR package will 

then be submitted to OMB for review 

and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 

1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue 

another Federal Register notice 

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to 

announce the submission of the ICR to 

OMB and the opportunity to submit 

additional comments to OMB. If you 

have any questions about this ICR or the 

approval process, please contact the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Dated: September 24, 2008. 

Granta Y. Nakayama, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

[FR Doc. E8–22943 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–1008; FRL–8385–3] 

Pesticides; Notice of Intent To 

Withdraw the Draft PR Notice on Label 

Statements Regarding Third-Party 

Endorsements and Cause Marketing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing its draft 

Pesticide Registration Notice (PR 

Notice) entitled ‘‘Label Statements 

Regarding Third-Party Endorsements & 

Cause Marketing.’’ The draft PR Notice, 

issued for public comment in October 

2007, contained a description of the 

Agency’s proposed framework for 

evaluating proposed statements and 

graphic material to appear on pesticide 

labeling regarding third-party 

endorsements or a relationship between 

the pesticide registrant and a charity 

(‘‘cause marketing claims’’) and the 

kinds of information EPA would expect 

to receive in applications to add such 

claims to pesticide labeling. Public 

comments on the draft raised serious 

issues, leading the Agency to conclude 

that considerably more information 

would likely be needed to support such 

claims than was described by the draft 

PR Notice. Rather than develop 

additional guidance, EPA believes it is 

better to allocate its resources to other 

initiatives which should improve 

pesticide labeling in ways that enhance 

users’ understanding of and ability to 

use products safely and effectively. 

Thus, the Agency will continue to 

evaluate applications proposing to add 

labeling containing third-party 

endorsements or cause marketing claims 

on a case-by-case basis to ensure that 

the applicant has provided sufficient 

information to allow EPA to determine 

whether products containing such 

claims meet the standards for 

registration. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle DeVaux, Immediate Office 

(7501P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–5891; fax number: (703) 308– 

4776; e-mail address: 

devaux.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This notice is directed to the public 

in general, although it may be of 

particular interest to those persons who 

register products under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may 

also be interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2007–1008. 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 Office of 

Pesticide Programs (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. 

2. Electronic access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. 

II. Background 

EPA is committed to ensuring that 

pesticide labeling communicates to the 

user information on how to use the 

product safely and effectively. The 

Agency is devoting considerable 

resources to improving the content and 

design of the labeling of currently 

approved pesticide products in order to 

meet this goal. These efforts address not 

only guidance about what information 

should appear in labeling, but also how 

EPA receives and reviews labeling and 

how labeling is communicated to users. 

In the Federal Register of October 31, 

2007 (72 FR 61638) (FRL–8152–6), EPA 

issued for public comment a draft 

Pesticide Registration Notice (PR 

Notice) entitled ‘‘Label Statements 

Regarding Third-Party Endorsements & 

Cause Marketing.’’ The draft PR Notice 

described a proposed framework for 

evaluating proposed statements and 

graphic material to appear on pesticide 

labeling regarding third-party 

endorsements or a relationship between 

the pesticide registrant and a charity 

(‘‘cause marketing claims’’). The draft 

PR Notice also discussed the kinds of 

information EPA would expect to 

receive in an application in order to 

determine that such claims are 

consistent with FIFRA. The Agency 

received 108 comments opposing the 

draft PR Notice, along with 11 

comments in support of some or all of 

the draft. 

This Notice discusses EPA’s decision, 

after reviewing public comments, to 

withdraw its draft PR Notice, and to 

continue to support initiatives that 

simplify and clarify labeling in order to 

better communicate critical information 

to users. Unit III. of this Notice 

describes the legal framework used by 

EPA to evaluate proposed labeling of 

pesticide products. Unit IV. discusses 

the importance of pesticide labeling and 

initiatives the Agency is taking to 

improve pesticide labeling. Unit V. 

discusses the draft PR Notice and public 

comments received, and Unit VI. 

explains EPA’s position on the kinds of 

cause marketing claims and third-party 

endorsements as described in the PR 

Notice and the basis for this position. 

In sum, consistent with its mandate, 

EPA will accept and review all 

applications for new or amended 

pesticide labeling, including those 

proposing to add third-party 

endorsements or cause marketing 

claims. After review of public 

comments, however, the Agency has 

decided that such claims are unlikely to 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
56820 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 

enhance users’ ability to use a pesticide 

safely and effectively. Because it does 

not wish to encourage such claims, EPA 

has decided it is not appropriate to issue 

guidance on what information is needed 

to support such applications. If EPA 

receives such an application, the 

Agency expects to decide on a case-bycase basis both what information would 

be sufficient to support the application 

and whether a product containing such 

a claim would meet the applicable 

statutory standard for approval. 

III. Legal Framework 

EPA regulates the sale, distribution, 

and use of pesticide products under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). With certain 

minor exceptions, every pesticide 

product must be ‘‘registered’’ by EPA 

before it may lawfully be sold or 

distributed in the United States. FIFRA 

sections 3(a) and 12(a)(1)(A). FIFRA 

section 3(c)(1) requires an applicant for 

registration to file with EPA, among 

other things, ‘‘a statement which 

includes— . . . (C) a complete copy of 

the labeling, a statement of all claims to 

be made for [the pesticide] . . . .’’ Under 

FIFRA section 3(c)(5), EPA may register 

a pesticide, i.e., approve a license 

authorizing the sale and distribution of 

the pesticide product, if EPA determines 

that: 

(A) [the pesticide’s] composition is such as 

to warrant the proposed claims made for it; 

(B) its labeling and other material required 

to be submitted comply with the 

requirements of [FIFRA]; 

(C) it will perform its intended function 

without unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment; and 

(D) when used in accordance with 

widespread and commonly recognized 

practice it will not generally cause 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment. 

The labeling of a pesticide plays a 

critical role in assuring the safe use of 

pesticide products. FIFRA section 

2(p)(1) defines the ‘‘label’’ of a pesticide 

as ‘‘the written, printed, or graphic 

matter on, or attached to, the pesticide 

or device or any of its containers or 

wrappers.’’ FIFRA section 2(p)(2) 

defines ‘‘labeling’’ to mean ‘‘all labels 

and all other written, printed or graphic 

matter (A) accompanying the pesticide 

or device at any time; or (B) to which 

reference is made on the label . . . .’’ 

Typically, the label of a pesticide 

contains the product name, brand, or 

trademark; an ingredients statement; a 

statement of net weight or contents; 

directions for use; and hazard and 

precautionary statements. See EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 156. 

Two other sections of FIFRA relating 

to the labeling of pesticide products 

contain important provisions that 

establish the link between registration 

decisions and pesticide use. Under 

FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), it is unlawful 

for any person ‘‘to use any registered 

pesticide in a manner inconsistent with 

its labeling.’’ To reinforce this authority, 

FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(A) also declares 

it unlawful for any person to ‘‘detach, 

alter, deface or destroy, in whole or in 

part, any labeling required under 

[FIFRA],’’ i.e., the labeling approved as 

part of EPA’s registration decision. 

Thus, EPA’s registration decisions 

regarding approved labeling become the 

primary vehicle by which EPA 

establishes enforceable requirements on 

the use of a pesticide. 

In addition, FIFRA section 12(a)(1)(E) 

prohibits the sale or distribution of any 

pesticide or device which is 

‘‘misbranded.’’ FIFRA section 2(q) 

contains a lengthy definition explaining 

when a pesticide should be considered 

‘‘misbranded,’’ including when: 

(1)(A) its labeling bears any statement, 

design or graphic representation relative 

thereto or to its ingredients which is false or 

misleading in any particular; . . . 

(E) any word, statement, or other 

information required by or under the 

authority of [FIFRA] to appear on the label 

or labeling is not prominently placed thereon 

with such conspicuousness (as compared 

with other words, statements, designs, or 

graphic matter in the labeling) and in such 

terms as to render it likely to be read and 

understood by the ordinary individual under 

customary conditions of purchase and use; 

(F) the labeling accompanying it does not 

contain directions for use which are 

necessary for effecting the purpose for which 

the product is intended and if complied with, 

. . . are adequate to protect health and the 

environment. 

The language in FIFRA section 

3(c)(5)(B), in effect, makes the 

misbranding definition one of the 

criteria for determining the acceptability 

of a pesticide for registration. 

In summary, EPA has the authority 

and responsibility to register pesticides 

according to specific standards, to 

ensure that the products registered, 

when used according to the labeling, 

will not generally cause unreasonable 

adverse effects. The importance of 

labeling to convey the end results of the 

registration process to the user is 

paramount. 

IV. Registration & Labeling 

In order to protect human health and 

the environment from unreasonable 

adverse effects that might be caused by 

pesticides, the Agency has developed 

and operates a rigorous and demanding 

process for registering pesticides. The 

formal process begins when a 

manufacturer submits an application to 

register a pesticide. The application 

must contain required test data, 

including information on the pesticide’s 

chemistry, environmental fate, toxicity 

to humans and wildlife, and its 

potential for human exposure. The 

Agency also requires a copy of the 

proposed labeling, including directions 

for use, and appropriate warnings. Since 

users are required to comply with the 

directions for use and restrictions on a 

product’s labeling, EPA uses the 

labeling to define how the pesticide 

would be used and thus how people and 

the environment would be exposed to 

the pesticide. 

As required by FIFRA section 3(c)(4), 

the Agency announces the receipt of 

applications for products that contain a 

new active ingredient or change a use 

pattern and invites public comment 

through a Federal Register Notice. Once 

an application is received, EPA 

processes it and conducts an evaluation, 

which includes a detailed review of 

scientific data to determine the potential 

impact on human health and the 

environment. The assessment may 

undergo peer review by a panel of 

scientific experts. The Agency considers 

the risk assessments and results of any 

peer review, reviews risk mitigation 

measures, and makes risk management 

and regulatory decisions. 

In the decision-making process, EPA 

evaluates the application to determine 

whether the proposed use(s) meets the 

Agency’s standards for human health, 

worker and environmental protection. If 

the application does not contain enough 

evidence to prove that the pesticide 

meets all of these standards, EPA 

communicates to the applicant the need 

for more or better refined data, labeling 

modifications, or additional use 

restrictions. Once the applicant has 

demonstrated that a proposed product 

meets the statutory standards, EPA 

establishes a tolerance if the product is 

intended to be used on food and 

approves the registration with any risk 

mitigation necessary, and publishes the 

decision in the Federal Register Notice. 

EPA devotes significant resources to the 

regulation of pesticides to ensure the 

highest levels of protection of the public 

and the environment. 

Product labeling is the primary 

mechanism used by EPA to 

communicate critical information to the 

pesticide user. The labeling contains use 

directions, health and safety 

information, and instructions for proper 

storage and disposal. Users are obligated 

to follow the use instructions on the 

label and labeling for registered 

products. Different program 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 56821 

stakeholders, including states, the 

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, 

members of the Consumer Labeling 

Initiative, and the public, however, have 

raised concerns with the current state of 

pesticide labels. External stakeholder 

feedback has suggested that labels need 

to be simpler, especially for products at 

the consumer level, in order for users to 

fully understand them. To better 

communicate the required information 

and to avoid distractions to the 

consumer, stakeholders have suggested 

that EPA reduce unnecessary label 

content and provide clear, concise and 

easy-to-read information. 

In addition to stakeholder feedback on 

label formatting, EPA has received input 

from states on the enforceability of label 

language. States, as co-regulators with 

EPA, are responsible for enforcing many 

pesticide-related laws. There are several 

standing venues through which states 

can raise concerns to EPA; while many 

types of issues are covered in these 

formal venues, states often raise 

questions on label language on a caseby-case basis as well. When developing 

enforcement cases, states often request 

interpretations of unclear or vague 

labeling language. As a consequence of 

these comments, EPA is becoming 

increasingly concerned about the 

effectiveness of labeling on currently 

registered pesticides. EPA recognizes 

the critical role that states play in 

enforcing pesticide label language and is 

pursuing efforts to reduce the burden on 

states to continuously seek 

interpretations of vague language. 

EPA agrees with stakeholders that 

product labeling is a crucial 

communications tool between EPA and 

the user. In recognition of the issues 

raised, the Agency has supported a 

number of efforts to improve labeling. 

These include issuing guidance on 

environmental hazard general labeling 

statements on outdoor use products (73 

FR 29503, May 21, 2008) (FRL–8362–3), 

labeling statements on products used for 

adult mosquito control (70 FR 12881, 

March 16, 2005) (FRL–7695–8), labeling 

of pesticide products under the National 

Organic Program (68 FR 10477, March 5, 

2003) (FRL–7281–6), and proposed 

guidance on the use of antimicrobial 

pesticide products in heating, 

ventilation, air conditioning and 

refrigeration systems (71 FR 78433, 

December 29, 2006) (FRL–8108–9). 

Given the importance of labeling in 

communicating critical safety and use 

information to the user, EPA will 

continue to pursue improvements. 

Through internal reviews, EPA 

identified label organization as an issue 

to be addressed. The Agency is working 

towards using resources efficiently to 

effect wholesale improvements in 

labeling language, content, and 

enforceability. The goal of these 

initiatives is to simplify labels, reducing 

the amount of unnecessary information, 

and to clarify labeling text, in order to 

better communicate critical information 

to the user. 

V. Consideration of Cause Marketing 

and Third-Party Claims 

A. Clorox’s Proposed Claims 

In January 2006, The Clorox Company 

(Clorox) submitted an application to 

EPA to add cause marketing language to 

the labels of some of their registered 

pesticide products. The proposed 

language described a philanthropic 

relationship between Clorox and the 

American Red Cross (Red Cross). In a 

meeting between EPA and Clorox in 

March 2006, Clorox described the 

partnership agreement into which they 

had entered with the Red Cross, 

discussed what cause marketing 

language they were currently using on 

non-pesticide products, and presented a 

label mock-up for an antimicrobial 

bleach product. In this meeting, EPA 

expressed concern that consumers 

might interpret the Red Cross symbol on 

the label as an implied safety claim. 

Clorox provided an additional 

presentation in July 2006, which 

included a toxicological profile of 

bleach; a National Capital Area Poison 

Control Center presentation regarding 

incidents involving bleach; and 

information from a consumer survey 

indicating that the labeling would not 

alter consumer behavior in ways that 

could lead to misuse. 

After review of the information 

described above, EPA approved Red 

Cross cause marketing claim language 

on the label of certain Clorox products. 

The decision particularly relied on 

EPA’s expectation, which was based on 

the consumer survey research, that 

consumers would not interpret the Red 

Cross symbol on labels to mean that the 

product was safe. The decision also 

relied on an assessment of the likely 

health consequences were the products 

to be misused as a result of the presence 

of the cause marketing labeling and 

consideration of whether such labeling 

would alter consumer behavior in ways 

that could lead to misuse. EPA 

concluded that this information was 

sufficient to support a conclusion that 

the product bearing the cause marketing 

language would not be ‘‘misbranded’’ 

under FIFRA. 

B. Post-Approval Activity 

After EPA’s decision to approve 

Clorox’s application to add the cause 

marketing claim became widely known, 

a number of organizations expressed 

their opposition to the specific decision 

and to any general policy that would 

allow cause marketing claims on the 

labeling of pesticide products. The 

groups opposing the Red Cross claim on 

Clorox labels included the Association 

of American Pesticide Control Officials, 

Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action 

Network North America, Center for 

Environmental Health, American Bird 

Conservancy, Pesticide Education 

Project, Strategic Counsel on Corporate 

Responsibility, Environmental Health 

Fund, the Endocrine Disruption 

Exchange, and Northwest Coalition for 

Alternatives to Pesticides, as well as 

Attorneys General in six states. In April 

2007, the Minnesota Department of 

Agriculture refused to accept Clorox 

products with the Red Cross charity 

labels for distribution in Minnesota. 

This topic was discussed by the 

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 

(PPDC) in May 2007, and in meetings 

with various other stakeholder groups. 

The PPDC, established under the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

consists of a diverse group of 

stakeholders and provides an 

opportunity for feedback to the 

Agency’s pesticide program on various 

pesticide regulatory, policy, and 

program implementation issues. 

Comments from the PPDC members 

were divided; some spoke in support of 

EPA’s decision, but others expressed 

strong objections. See http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2007/ 

may2007/may2007.htm. 

C. Proposed Pesticide Registration (PR) 

Notice 

The Agency developed a proposed 

framework and guidelines for evaluating 

requests to add cause marketing claims 

and third-party endorsements to 

pesticide labeling. EPA proposed that, at 

a minimum, the labeling of a registered 

product must be effective in providing 

both use instructions and necessary 

safety information. The Agency issued a 

draft PR Notice for comment on October 

31, 2007 (72 FR 61638). The draft PR 

Notice defined what the Agency 

considered cause marketing claims (‘‘a 

statement describing a relationship 

(usually philanthropic) between the 

registrant of the pesticide product and 

another entity, usually a charity’’) and 

third-party endorsements (‘‘an 

expression of approval or a 

recommendation to use a product made 

by an entity other than the applicant/ 

registrant’’). 

The legal framework of the PR Notice 

rested primarily on the requirement that 

EPA determine that proposed pesticide 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
56822 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 

labeling would not be misbranded 

under FIFRA. Recommendations for 

data to be submitted for consideration 

included mock labels, documentation of 

the relationship between the registrant 

and charity or third-party endorser, 

discussion of potential consumer 

impacts, consumer market research, 

disclaimer language to minimize 

misunderstanding by consumers, and 

other supporting information. The 

intent of the PR notice was to set a high 

bar for consideration of claims that may 

have a higher likelihood to be 

considered false or misleading, or as 

detracting from use directions or other 

important information on the label or 

labeling. The proposed guidance 

outlined how applicants or registrants 

could demonstrate that the proposed 

language and logos did not distract from 

safe use instructions or violate the 

misbranding standard. 

D. Public Comments on the PR Notice 

EPA received a total of 119 comments 

on the draft PR Notice. Along with other 

background information, the comments 

appear in the public docket for this 

action: EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–1008. Of 

those, 108 opposed the draft PR Notice 

and 11 supported some or all of the 

components of the draft PR Notice. The 

following is a summary of the comments 

received. 

1. Opposition. Those opposed to the 

PR Notice argued that labels should be 

used only to convey use instructions 

and safety information, not unnecessary 

endorsements or logos. They also noted 

that the labels of many (if not most) 

products are already crowded, and 

additional information would take space 

away or distract from elements required 

by statute and regulation. These claims 

would be designed to draw consumers’ 

attention, potentially distracting them 

from the important health and safety 

information and undermining the 

protections implemented through label 

requirements. Commenters also asserted 

that EPA should not become involved in 

corporate marketing, which falls outside 

the Agency’s mission of protecting 

human health and the environment and 

providing information on labeling to 

assist with the safe use of pesticide 

products. Since space on labels is 

limited, these comments urged EPA to 

refuse to allow extraneous information 

that is not needed for product 

identification, directions for use, or 

other text that minimizes risk and 

maximizes efficacy. 

Some commenters also opposed the 

PR Notice because they believe that 

logos and claims are inherently 

misleading, i.e., that they imply safety 

claims or greater efficacy for a product. 

Commenters cited the FIFRA definition 

of misbranding (section 2(q)(1)(A)), 

claiming that, under this provision, 

cause marketing statements or thirdparty endorsements are inherently 

misleading. In addition, they cited 40 

CFR 156.10(a)(5)(iii) which states that 

false and misleading statements include 

ones ‘‘about the value of the product 

other than as a pesticide or device,’’ 

which could be implied by a cause 

marketing claim or third-party 

endorsement. Commenters argued that 

consumers may interpret the logo of an 

organization they trust or from a 

celebrity as an implied endorsement. In 

addition, they argued that vulnerable 

populations such as elderly people, 

those with low literacy, and children 

may rely on the logo as the primary 

selection criteria, regardless of the 

intended use of the product. 

As discussed above, EPA devotes 

significant resources to evaluation of 

labels and labeling and registration of 

products. Commenters argued that the 

additional level of review necessary to 

evaluate a cause marketing claim or 

third-party endorsement would divert 

Agency resources from evaluations of 

more important elements of the label 

and labeling required by the statute and 

regulation. The comments made a 

similar argument with respect to the 

allocation of resources in enforcement 

programs. Commenters argued that the 

resources of the Agency’s pesticide 

program should not be diverted from the 

fundamental mission of protecting 

public health and the environment to 

evaluate claims that are designed as 

marketing or fundraising campaigns. 

Commenters also asserted that the 

draft PR Notice conflicted with EPA’s 

Label Review Manual (http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppfead1/labeling/lrm/), a 

policy document on label and labeling 

content that uses the Red Cross logo as 

an example of a symbol that implies 

safety or non-toxicity, and could be 

considered false or misleading. They 

requested that the existing policy be 

followed. At the least, before accepting 

claims that could be viewed as 

inconsistent with the Label Review 

Manual and that could potentially 

endanger public health, commenters 

requested more demonstration of the 

expected public benefit and an 

explanation of why a change would be 

necessary. 

Some commenters in opposition 

argued that the information EPA 

proposed to require would contain 

insufficient detail to allow the Agency 

to evaluate an application with a cause 

marketing claim or third-party 

endorsement. These commenters 

recommended that EPA provide more 

specific guidance, or implement 

requirements, for applicants to ensure 

that the information provided would 

prove the absence of any implied 

endorsement and false or misleading 

claims. They also suggested that 

information should be required to prove 

that the proposed cause marketing claim 

or third-party endorsement would not 

detract or distract from the required 

labeling elements. 

Lastly, some commenters opposed the 

proposal because EPA decisions to 

allow cause marketing claims and thirdparty endorsements could conflict with 

states’ decisions. They believed that 

there was insufficient meaningful 

consultation with the states through the 

State FIFRA Issues Research and 

Evaluation Group. Allowing these types 

of claims could make the Federal 

standard more lenient than some state 

regulations, and could prevent states 

from denying registration of these 

products if they find a risk concern. 

2. Support. Comments in support of 

the draft PR Notice fell into two 

categories. One group recommended 

that EPA limit the scope of the draft PR 

Notice only to cause marketing claims 

and that EPA should issue a final PR 

Notice with only modest changes to the 

draft. As for third-party endorsements, 

these comments recommended that EPA 

establish a public engagement process 

for further consideration of the issues 

raised by such labeling. The other group 

supported changing the emphasis of the 

PR Notice to focus on third-party 

endorsements from established 

organizations and environmentally 

preferable or ‘‘green’’ certification 

programs. 

Those who supported approving the 

PR Notice for cause marketing claims 

argued that this type of claim should be 

held to the same standards as any other 

non-FIFRA text added to the label. They 

asserted that no additional information 

(beyond the current requirements) 

should be necessary unless there is a 

concern that the cause marketing claim 

could have an implied safety message. 

In a similar vein, they stated that 

additional publicengagement—beyond 

what FIFRA mandates—would be 

unnecessary and improper, because the 

public and states are not currently 

involved in registration decisions and it 

would be improper to engage outside 

stakeholders in the case of cause 

marketing claims. 

Another group of comments 

expressed support for the draft PR 

Notice because it would make the 

inclusion of third-party endorsements in 

pesticide labeling more likely. These 

comments argued that there is an 

Agency precedent for allowing certain 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 56823 

logos or endorsements on labels. 

Specifically, endorsements by the 

Organic Material Review Institute and 

the Soil and Mulch Council were cited. 

They also proposed that approving 

standards established by third-party 

certification programs such as Design 

for the Environment and Green Seal 

would alleviate burden on EPA during 

the application review process while 

providing information to consumers to 

assist them in differentiating between 

products based on environmental, 

efficacy-based and other quantitative 

characteristics. 

VI. Agency Action 

The Agency has decided to withdraw 

the PR Notice describing framework for 

evaluating cause marketing claims or 

third-party endorsements. After 

reviewing public comments, the Agency 

agrees that cause marketing claims and 

third-party endorsements as outlined in 

the draft PR Notice generally would not 

contribute meaningfully to improving 

protection of human health and the 

environment. The addition of such 

statements is not likely to enhance 

users’ ability to understand the labeling 

required to inform the user about how 

to use the product safely and effectively. 

In fact, the addition of such statements 

could interfere with that goal. In 

addition, EPA recognizes that its 

resources are limited and should be 

targeted towards activities that will 

enhance the level of protection of 

human health and the environment 

from pesticides. Thus, although EPA 

will review any future application it 

receives, it generally discourages the 

submission of applications to add cause 

marketing claims or third-party 

endorsements. 

In reviewing the legal framework on 

which the PR Notice was based, the 

Agency concluded that FIFRA and its 

implementing regulations do not 

explicitly prohibit the inclusion of 

cause marketing claims or third-party 

endorsements in labeling, nor do they 

differentiate between the two types of 

claims. Therefore, EPA will continue to 

review and make decisions on 

applications to for new or amended 

pesticide labeling using the standards in 

FIFRA section 3(c)(5)(A)–(D). Consistent 

with existing policy, EPA will not 

approve a statement in the labeling of a 

pesticide product unless the applicant 

can demonstrate that the statement is 

not false or misleading and that the 

presence of the statement detracts from 

other information required on the 

labeling. 

If EPA receives applications to add 

such labeling to product labeling, EPA 

will decide on a case-by-case basis what 

types of information would be necessary 

to allow the Agency to evaluate such an 

application. In recognition of concerns 

about such claims’ potential impact on 

public health and their potential burden 

on EPA resources, the Agency will 

expect applicants to supply a complete 

justification to support the proposed 

additions. While it is difficult for the 

Agency to identify the exact types of 

information it will need in every 

circumstance, applicants should 

understand that they must submit 

sufficient information to allow the 

Agency to determine that the desired 

statements will not mislead pesticide 

users, especially vulnerable 

subpopulations, and will not detract 

from other important language on the 

label. Ultimately, the applicant has the 

responsibility to provide the Agency 

with sufficient information to allow the 

Agency to make the necessary findings. 

See 40 CFR part 158. If, upon initial 

review, the Agency finds that the 

applicant has not met its burden, EPA 

may request additional information 

from the applicant to facilitate further 

consideration of the proposal. 40 CFR 

158.75. Failure to provide requested 

information could lead EPA to deny the 

application. 

The Agency will also review and 

decide on a case-by-case basis whether 

to approve such applications. As 

indicated above, the legal standards for 

such reviews appear in FIFRA section 

3(c)(5), as informed by the definition of 

‘‘misbranding’’ in FIFRA section 2(q). 

Also, as discussed above, product 

labeling plays a critical role in the 

effective regulation of pesticides, and 

the Agency thinks clear, simple, and 

enforceable labeling is essential to 

ensuring pesticides do not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment. Since most cause 

marketing claims or third-party 

endorsements ordinarily do not provide 

information that contributes to the safe 

and effective use of a pesticide, EPA 

will approve applications to add cause 

marketing claims or third-party 

endorsements only if the applicant 

provides information to show that the 

inclusion of such text will neither create 

a misleading impression in any 

significant subgroup of the population 

of people who might use or otherwise 

come into contact with the product nor 

interfere with the ability of people who 

use the product to understand how to 

use the product properly. The decision 

about whether to approve the proposed 

addition of such labeling text would 

likely depend on the proposed content 

and placement of the text, the nature of 

the existing labeling, and the potential 

risks associated with the use of the 

pesticide, among other characteristics. 

EPA expects that, in general, it would be 

difficult to convince EPA to approve 

applications to add most types of causemarketing claims or third-party 

endorsements. 

Based on the experience with the 

cause marketing claim proposed by 

Clorox, EPA expects that there would be 

a high level of public concern about 

future requests for consideration of such 

claims. Given the controversial and 

complicated nature of these types of 

claims, EPA believes it would benefit 

from consultation with states and a 

public comment period. Although it has 

not been historical practice, if EPA 

receives applications to add cause 

marketing claims or third-party 

endorsements that have enough 

information to support the approval of 

such a claim, it would likely offer its 

state partners, as well as the public, an 

opportunity to comment. Any public 

engagement would be conducted in a 

manner consistent with FIFRA 

requirements to protect Confidential 

Business Information (CBI). 

In light of the significant interest in 

improving users’ understanding of and 

ability to use products safely and 

effectively, EPA agrees with public 

comments that comparative safety 

statements, or ‘‘green labeling,’’ on 

pesticide labels should be further 

considered as a tool. Companies have 

found that consumers are interested in 

having labeling on products indicating 

that the products meet a specific set of 

criteria, for example that they are safer 

or environmentally preferable according 

to a specific standard. Programs to set 

standards for such green labeling 

include: Energy Star, Design for the 

Environment, and Green Seal. 

Experience also suggests that some 

consumers will alter their behavior to 

use products bearing such green 

labeling. 

As a first step, the Office of Pesticide 

Programs will engage a work group 

under the Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee on comparative safety 

statements or logos for pesticide product 

labeling. This work group will address 

interest being expressed by the public 

for possible development of Agency or 

third-party standards regarding 

comparative product safety. The work 

group will make recommendations to 

the full Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee as to whether the 

government should pursue revision of 

the current regulations at 40 CFR 

156.10(a)(5) in order to develop or allow 

these types of statements or logos. 

EPA anticipates that these types of 

comparative safety statements would be 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
56824 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 190 / Tuesday, September 30, 2008 / Notices 

*Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(8) and (9). 

1Section 10(d)(1) requires MTOs to establish, 

observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations 

and practices relating to or connected with 

receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property. 

46 U.S.C. 41102(c). Section 10(d)(4) provides that 

an MTO may not give any undue or unreasonable 

preference or advantage or impose any undue or 

unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage with 

respect to any person. 46 U.S.C. 41106(2). An MTO 

may not unreasonably refuse to deal or negotiate. 

46 U.S.C. 41106(3). 

2For the purposes of this order, the City of Los 

Angeles, the Harbor Department of the City of Los 

Angeles and the Board of Harbor Commissioners of 

the City of Los Angeles will be referred to as the 

Port of Los Angeles or POLA. 

used by consumers as tools, to assist 

them in differentiating between similar 

types of products based on distinct, 

verifiable criteria. For example, a logo 

from the National Organic Standards 

Board could assist a grower seeking to 

obtain or maintain organic certification 

for his/her farm. Labels could provide 

information about the comparative 

safety of the product as well as about its 

potential environmental impact, 

allowing consumers to choose among 

products based on their preferences. 

Along with the recommendations from 

the PPDC work group, EPA will 

consider the potential risks associated 

with including these types of statements 

on pesticide labeling and the proper role 

of government in this type of program 

before deciding whether or not to revise 

the current regulations. 

In summary, the Agency is committed 

to ensuring that pesticide labeling is 

utilized as a tool to communicate 

critical information to the user how to 

use the product safely and effectively. In 

order to ensure that protection of public 

health and the environment remain the 

top priorities for EPA, we are not 

encouraging submissions of any label 

claims that detract or distract from the 

use and safety instructions or that could 

be considered false or misleading. We 

remain committed to programs and 

initiatives designed to improve the 

content, organization and enforceability 

of pesticide labeling. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests. 

Dated: September 24, 2008. 

Debra Edwards, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E8–22938 Filed 9–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

Farm Credit Administration Board; 

Regular Meeting 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, 

pursuant to the Government in the 

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of 

the regular meeting of the Farm Credit 

Administration Board (Board). 

DATES AND TIME: The regular meeting of 

the Board will be held at the offices of 

the Farm Credit Administration in 

McLean, Virginia, on October 9, 2008, 

from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board 

concludes its business. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm 

Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– 

4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. 

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit 

Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, 

McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of 

this meeting of the Board will be open 

to the public (limited space available), 

and parts will be closed to the public. 

In order to increase the accessibility to 

Board meetings, persons requiring 

assistance should make arrangements in 

advance. The matters to be considered 

at the meeting are: 

Open Session 

A. Approval of Minutes 

• September 11, 2008. 

B. New Business—Regulation 

• Disclosure and Accounting 

Requirements—Proposed Rule—12 CFR 

Parts 619, 620, and 621. 

C. Reports 

• OE Quarterly Report and Funding 

the Farm Credit System (FCS): 

Æ Financial Condition of FCS. 

Æ Funding the FCS. 

Closed Session * 

• Supervisory and Oversight 

Activities of FCS Institutions. 

Dated: September 26, 2008. 

Roland E. Smith, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. E8–23077 Filed 9–26–08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 08–05] 

City of Los Angeles, CA, Harbor 

Department of the City of Los Angeles, 

Board of Harbor Commissioners of the 

City of Los Angeles, City of Long 

Beach, California, Harbor Department 

of the City of Long Beach, and the 

Board of Harbor Commissioners of the 

City of Long Beach—Possible 

Violations of Sections 10(B)(10), 

10(D)(1) and 10(D)(4) of the Shipping 

Act of 1984; Order of Investigation and 

Hearing 

On November 20, 2006, the governing 

boards of the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach voted to approve the San 

Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan 

(‘‘CAAP’’). The CAAP is a broad effort 

aimed at significantly reducing the 

health risks posed by air pollution from 

port-related ships, trains, drayage 

trucks, terminal equipment and harbor 

craft by at least 45 percent in five years. 

To that end, each port has adopted a 

Clean Truck Program (‘‘CTP’’) as a 

component of the CAAP to address air 

pollution caused by the short haul 

truckers that transport containers to and 

from the ports, i.e., the harbor truck 

drayage system. Each port’s CTP 

becomes effective on October 1, 2008. 

The Federal Maritime Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is responsible for 

enforcing the requirements of the 

Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by 

the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 

(‘‘Shipping Act’’). 46 U.S.C. 40101 et 

seq. As the ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach operate as marine terminal 

operators (‘‘MTOs’’) under the Shipping 

Act, their actions, to the extent they 

impact international transportation, are 

subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction 

and, in particular, to the requirements of 

section 10 of the Shipping Act.1

While the Commission appreciates 

the significant environmental and 

public health benefits of the San Pedro 

Ports CAAP, it is concerned that certain 

aspects of the ports’ CTPs may violate 

the Shipping Act. Accordingly, the 

Commission has determined to initiate 

an Investigation and Hearing of the 

Ports’ Clean Truck Programs under 

section 11 of the Shipping Act with 

respect to possible violations under 

section 10 of the Shipping Act. 

San Pedro Bay Ports 

The Port of Los Angeles (‘‘POLA’’), 

referred to as the Los Angeles Harbor 

Department, is a self-supporting 

department of the City of Los Angeles, 

California. POLA is under the control of 

a five-member Board of Harbor 

Commissioners appointed by the mayor 

of Los Angeles and approved by the City 

Council, and is administered by an 

executive director.2 POLA is the largest 

container port in the United States. 

POLA’s annual loaded container volume 

for 2007 was 5.7 million twenty-foot 

equivalent units (‘‘TEUs’’). 

The Port of Long Beach (‘‘POLB’’) has 

an administrative structure similar to 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES