[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 1994)]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23353]
[Federal Register: September 21, 1994]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Notice of Intent to Cancel Registration of Certain Products
Containing the Active Ingredient Metam-Sodium
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; Intent to Cancel Registrations.
SUMMARY: This Notice announces the Agency's intent to cancel the
registrations of the pesticide products Vaporooter A Foaming Fumigant
(EPA Reg. No. 9993-1), Foam Coat Vaporooter (EPA Reg. No. 9993-2), and
Sanafoam Vaporooter II (EPA Reg. No. 9993-3). EPA has determined that
continued sale, distribution, and use of the products would cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. EPA bases this
determination on data and other information showing that products that
contain metam-sodium (sodium methyldithiocarbamate) when used for
control of root growth in sewer lines must be classified for
``Restricted Use Only'' to ensure their safe use. The chemical is
hazardous, and applicators need to wear protective equipment and
receive specialized training when using the products for this use.
Airrigation Engineering Co., Inc. (Airrigation) has failed to comply
with the Agency's requirement for Restricted Use classification for the
products listed above. EPA is therefore issuing this Notice of Intent
to Cancel as required by section 6(b) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
DATES: Requests for a hearing by a registrant or other adversely
affected parties must be received by the Office of the Hearing Clerk at
the address given below on or before October 21, 1994 or within 30 days
from receipt of this Notice by the registrant, whichever occurs later.
ADDRESSES: Written requests for a hearing, identified by the document
control number [OPP-66200], must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Steve Robbins, Acting Product
Manager (PM) 21, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 227, Crystal Mall
#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Telephone: (703)-
This Notice announces EPA's intent to cancel the registrations of
the pesticide products Vaporooter A Foaming Fumigant (EPA Reg. No.
9993-1), Foam Coat Vaporooter (EPA Reg. No. 9993-2), and Sanafoam
Vaporooter II (EPA Reg. No. 9993-3). For the reasons set forth below,
the Administrator has determined that these products, when used in
accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, will
generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on public health and/or
the environment unless they are classified for restricted use. This
determination is based on the hazardous nature of these products and
their active ingredient, metam-sodium; the complex application method
for use of these products; the need for specialized equipment and
training to apply these products; and the potential for residential
exposure to the products due to incorrect application procedures.
A. Organization of this Notice
This Notice is divided into nine units. Unit I provides
introductory information and describes the legal authority for this
action. Unit II discusses the factual background for this action,
including information relating to the active ingredient metamsodium,
and communications with Airrigation Engineering Co. Unit III presents
the EPA's determinations with regard to Airrigation's sewer use
products. Unit IV describes the role of the Scientific Advisory Panel
and the Secretary of Agriculture relating to this action. Unit V sets
forth the Agency's determination that these product registrations must
be canceled. Unit VI discusses the disposition of existing stocks of
the products. Unit VII contains a discussion of the procedures for
implementing the actions required by this Notice, as well as the
procedures for requesting a hearing. Unit VIII identifies the
references. Unit IX gives information on the Public Docket.
B. Legal Authority
Before a pesticide product may be lawfully sold or distributed in
either intrastate or interstate commerce, the product must be
registered by EPA, pursuant to FIFRA sections 3(a) and 12(a)(1).
A registration is a license allowing a pesticide product to be sold
and distributed for specified uses in accordance with specific use
instructions, precautions and other terms and conditions. A pesticide
product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the
statutory standard for registration. Among other things, a pesticide
must perform its intended pesticidal function without causing
``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment'' (FIFRA section
3(c)(5)). ``Unreasonable adverse effects on the environment'' is
defined as ``any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking
into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits
of the use of [the] pesticide'' (FIFRA section 2(bb)).
In addition, under FIFRA section 3(d)(1)(C), the Administrator may
classify a pesticide for restricted use if she determines that the
pesticide, when applied in accordance with its directions for use,
warnings, and cautions, or, in accordance with widespread and commonly
recognized practice, may generally cause unreasonable adverse effects
on the environment, without additional regulatory restrictions. Once
classified for restricted use, a product can be applied only by or
under the direct supervision of a certified applicator (FIFRA sections
3(d)(1)(C), 12(a)(2)(F), 12(a)(2)(G)). EPA has promulgated regulations
which establish the procedures EPA will follow when classifying a
product for restricted use. Pursuant to 40 CFR 152.165(c)(2), the
Agency may notify a registrant of the decision to classify its product
for restricted use and require the registrant to submit certain
information, listed in paragraph (c)(1) of that section, to comply with
the classification decision. If the registrant fails to comply with
this notification, the Agency may initiate cancellation proceedings.
The regulations at 40 CFR 152.170(a) provide general criteria that
guide EPA's decision to classify a pesticide product for restricted
use. In general, use of a product will be restricted if the Agency
determines that: (1) the product or its use poses a serious hazard that
may be mitigated by restricting use; (2) the product's labeling, when
considered according to the factors in paragraph (e)(2) of that
section, is not adequate to mitigate the hazard(s); (3) restriction of
the product would decrease the risk of adverse effects; and (4) the
decrease in risks of the pesticide as a result of restriction would
exceed any attendant decrease in benefits. Paragraph (e)(2) of that
section states that labeling will be judged adequate, and therefore
will be appropriate for unrestricted use products, if it meets all of
the following criteria: (1) the user would not be required to perform
complex operations or procedures requiring specialized training and/or
experience; (2) the label directions do not call for a specialized
apparatus, protective equipment, or materials that reasonably would not
be available to the general public; (3) failure to follow label
directions in a minor way would result in few or no significant adverse
effects; (4) following directions for use would result in few or no
significant adverse effects of a delayed or indirect nature through
bioaccumulation, persistence, or pesticide movement from the original
application site; and (5) widespread and commonly recognized practices
of use would not nullify or detract from label directions such that
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment might occur.
The burden of demonstrating that a pesticide product satisfies the
statutory criteria for registration is at all times on the proponents
of initial or continued registration. Under FIFRA section 6, the Agency
may issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel the registration of a pesticide
product whenever it appears to the Administrator that the product no
longer satisfies the statutory criteria for registration. If
appropriate, the Agency may require modifications to the terms and
conditions of registration, such as deletion of particular uses or
revisions in labeling, as an alternative to cancellation. If the Notice
requires such changes, cancellation may be avoided by making the
changes specified in the Notice, if possible. Adversely affected
persons may also request a hearing on the cancellation of a specified
registration. If they do so in a legally effective manner, the
registration will be continued pending a decision at the conclusion of
an administrative hearing.
II. Factual Background
Metam-sodium, the sodium salt of methyldithiocarbamate, is
extremely volatile and very unstable under aerobic conditions with a
half-life of 23 minutes. Its principal derivative is methyl
isothiocyanate (MITC). In water, metam-sodium is rapidly decomposed to
MITC and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Pesticide products containing
metam-sodium are registered for numerous agricultural and non-
agricultural uses, including as a soil fumigant to control insects,
nematodes, soil-borne diseases, and weeds prior to planting crops.
Other uses include wood preservation, tree root killer in sewers,
slimicide, and use in sugar refineries.
Metam-sodium and MITC show varying degrees of acute and chronic
toxicity. Due to the chemical nature of metam-sodium, in that it is
readily hydrolyzed to MITC and H2S, the Agency believes that
exposure from pesticide use would be related to MITC rather than metam-
sodium (Ref. 1). MITC is shown to be moderately toxic in short-term
(acute) exposures to laboratory test animals. In rabbits, MITC is shown
to be a severe skin and respiratory tract irritant and a severe eye
irritant. Test animals exposed to high levels of air-borne MITC in
acute studies show eye irritation, hypoactivity, distressed breathing,
convulsions, and death.
Metam-sodium is shown to be slightly toxic to laboratory test
animals in acute studies. If on skin or ingested, it is corrosive and
causes severe irritation or burns. Metam-sodium has the potential for
causing adverse health effects from both acute and chronic exposures.
In addition, existing medical conditions may be exacerbated upon
exposure to metam-sodium. Acute health effects include excessive
salivation, sweating, fatigue, weakness, nausea, headache, dizziness,
and eye and respiratory tract irritation. Chronic conditions can
include conjunctivitis, photophobia, and blurred vision. Studies also
have suggested that the chemical may exhibit reproductive toxicity.
Medical conditions that are prone to further aggravation upon exposure
to metam-sodium include impaired pulmonary functions and preexisting
Potential public health and environmental impacts of this chemical
were demonstrated when in July 1991, a train derailment resulted in
19,500 gallons of metam-sodium being spilled into the Sacramento River
near Dunsmuir, California. All aquatic life and substantial shoreline
vegetation along a 45-mile stretch of river leading to Lake Shasta were
killed. As a result of this incident, the Agency expanded and
intensified ongoing review of this chemical. Registrants formed the
Metam-Sodium Task Force in response to the Agency's request for data
needed to fully assess the environmental and public health impact of
The Agency's review of available data led to conclusions that
agricultural uses of metam-sodium may result in unacceptable risk from
acute and developmental toxicity effects. In order to mitigate
agricultural use risks, EPA and the Task Force entered into an
agreement which included: (1) label amendments to limit around-home and
small-area uses (lawns, seed-beds, plant-beds, and other non-field
limited areas) to certified applicators; products will be labeled with
``Restricted Use''; (2) label amendments to include requirements for
protective clothing and equipment; (3) a reentry waiting period of 48
hours for agricultural sites; and (4) a tarping requirement for treated
areas adjacent to homes. These requirements are currently in place and
were voluntarily implemented with the cooperation of the Task Force
consisting of all producers of technical grade metam-sodium as well as
other product formulators.
In addition to this agreement between EPA and the registrants, both
parties initiated reviews of other uses of metam-sodium. These reviews
were intended to determine what measures, if any, would be needed to
further mitigate risk.
B. Use of Metam-Sodium in Sewers
Sewer lines are frequently damaged and blocked by tree roots. This
is a perennial and costly problem for municipalities. Lateral lines to
buildings on private property may also be damaged and blocked by roots.
A mechanical remedy involves the use of a rotary cutting tool. This
technique only offers temporary results, and may even exacerbate the
problem by causing root branching. Rotary cutters also damage sewer
pipes. When the damage and blockage are too severe, sewers are dug up
and replaced at considerable cost to the community or property owner
Sewer root control via this chemical system involves the use of
metam-sodium, dichlobenil, and a foaming agent. Application of this
pesticide involves premixing of measured chemicals and a knowledge of
calibrated chemical feeding, pressurizing, and foam-generating
In 1971 and 1973, Airrigation obtained registrations for two
pesticide products to control roots in sewers. Each product consisted
of metam-sodium and dichlobenil mixed together just prior to use. A
patent was obtained which prevented potential competition from
marketing this type of combination product for controlling roots in
sewers. The registrant limited sales of its products to a few
contractors and encouraged them to train their staff due to the complex
application method. Experience with this pesticide treatment over the
ensuing years showed it to be superior to mechanical methods and it
became the preferred method for controlling roots in sewers. Following
the expiration of Airrigation's patent, three additional products have
been registered for this use.
In March 1993, EPA learned of an incident that occurred
approximately 1 year prior to that involving Airrigation's product,
Sanafoam Vaporooter II. In that incident, a worker in Los Alamos, New
Mexico, improperly applied the Sanafoam product, causing the product to
back up into the plumbing of a nearby residence. The residents reported
the incident to EPA, stating that they suffered respiratory and
pulmonary injury (Ref. 3). Airrigation did not provide EPA with any
information regarding the incident.
More recently, on July 11, 1994, an incident involving a metam-
sodium sewer use product occurred in Roseville, CA, and resulted in a
home being evacuated (Ref. 4). The foam product being applied by a
municipal sewer maintenance crew flowed into one home and out into the
yard of another home located behind it. What caused the pesticide
product to flow into the home rather than down the sewer pipes is being
Upon completing review of the available data base and use history
of products in this application, the Agency concluded that the sewer
root control use of metam-sodium should be restricted. This decision
was based largely upon the potential risks to workers and the public
due to the hazardous nature of the chemical, the need for specialized
training associated with complex equipment and application procedures,
the need for specialized protective equipment, the potential for metam-
sodium to enter buildings through drains, and the potential for damage
to sewage biological digestion processes (Ref. 8). Technical
information supporting this restricted-use classification was obtained
from product literature on the registered products, two applicants of
pending metam-sodium sewer use products with experience as contract
users of similar registered products, and operation records from two
large municipal sewage treatment systems. Moreover, the Agency believes
that because of the patent expiration and the effectiveness of metam-
sodium root control, there is the probability of large market expansion
throughout the United States with increased potential risk from new
suppliers. The Agency has concluded that the complex application method
could pose an unreasonable risk to inadequately trained workers as well
as to the public.
The Agency has also concluded that restricted use classification
should be phased in over time to allow for development of a training
program for applicator certification. This program is being designed by
metam-sodium registrants, in cooperation with the Agency. The
restricted use requirement will only go into effect after the training
manual, testing, and certification are available. The three most recent
registrants have agreed to restricted use classification and to support
development of EPA/State training programs for applicator
certification. The restricted use classification must be reflected on
product labeling within 120 days of the issuance of an EPA accepted
training manual for applicator certification.
Airrigation's sewer treatment products are not currently classified
as restricted use pesticides. Therefore, any persons can purchase and
apply these products, regardless of their qualifications to do so.
Airrigation has asserted that restricting the use of these products is
not necessary because Airrigation gives a training program to all
customers who purchase the products. However, EPA believes that this
system is insufficient to assure that the people who actually perform
the product application are adequately trained. If these products were
classified for restricted use, it would be a violation of FIFRA for
anyone other than a certified applicator, or someone under the direct
supervision of a certified applicator, to apply the products (FIFRA
sections 12(a)(2)(F),(G)), and EPA would have assurance that the
applicators had at least received the requisite training in use of
Pursuant to the decision by EPA to classify all metam-sodium sewer
use products as restricted use pesticides, the Agency communicated
frequently with affected registrants on this matter. The Agency's
initial approach to implementing restricted use classification was to
request voluntary compliance in the spirit of continued cooperation
between EPA and the industry. Except for Airrigation, all affected
registrants of both pending and registered metam-sodium sewer use
products agreed to comply. Despite numerous meetings and much
correspondence with EPA, Airrigation has remained steadfast in its
refusal to voluntarily implement EPA's determination. Therefore, on
September 24, 1993, a letter was sent to Airrigation which formally
requested, pursuant to 40 CFR 152.165(c)(2), that the company submit
amended labeling for the above-named products to reflect a restricted
use classification and additionally requested a written response to
that letter within 10 days (Ref. 5). Airrigation responded in a letter
dated October 14, 1993, that was received by the Agency on October 22,
1993. The letter stated that the company declined to agree to the
reclassification of its products (Ref. 6). Because Airrigation has
failed to adopt the Agency's classification of its products for
restricted use, EPA is initiating this cancellation action.
III. Findings on Airrigation Engineering Sewer Use Products
A. General Criteria
The Agency has determined, pursuant to FIFRA section 3(d)(1)(C),
that restricted use classification for the use of metam-sodium in
sewers is required due to the elaborate and complicated methods of
applying this chemical and the potential for harmful human exposure.
The Agency has examined available information regarding risks from
potential exposure to metam-sodium use in sewer root control and has
concluded that existing and potential risks are unacceptable, based
upon the following:
1. These products pose a serious hazard to workers and the public
due to their acute toxicity and developmental toxicity, which are
evident from available toxicological studies (Ref. 1). There is a
potential, realized in at least one incident, for the products to
invade residential and commercial properties during use, causing injury
to those inside (Ref. 2). Inhalation and dermal exposure risks to
mixer/loaders and applicators exist due to the high volatility of
methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), the principle derivative of metam-sodium
(Ref. 1). Potential for worker and public exposure, through misuse or
otherwise, is significant due to the complexity of the application
method used for applying metam-sodium in sewer systems (Ref. 7). In
addition, these products have the potential to contaminate ground and
surface water, and to damage biological sewage treatment systems (Ref.
8). The Agency believes that these hazards could be mitigated through
restricting the products' use.
2. The current labeling of the Airrigation products is not adequate
to mitigate the hazard these products pose. Under EPA's regulations, a
label will be deemed ``adequate,'' and thus suitable for products
classified for general use, only if it meets all of the factors listed
in 40 CFR 152.170(e)(2). Those factors are listed in Unit I.B. of this
preamble. EPA finds that Airrigation's sewer use products do not meet
three of those factors as follows:
a. Users of these products are required to perform complex
operations or procedures requiring specialized training or experience.
All of the products' labels state ``RECOMMENDED FOR USE BY TRAINED
PERSONNEL'' (Refs. 9, 10, and 11). On August 25, 1993, Agency personnel
attended a demonstration of treatment of a sewer line with another
metam sodium product to learn first-hand the type of operations that
are involved. The procedures and equipment utilized were highly complex
and clearly required specialized training and knowledge to effectively
operate (Ref. 7). As noted above, the current labeling of these
products does not restrict who can apply the products. Although
Airrigation states that it provides some type of training to all of its
customers, the Agency cannot ensure that only people who have been
adequately trained will be permitted to apply these products.
Therefore, these products do not meet factor (e)(2)(i).
b. The label directions for these products call for specialized
apparatus and protective equipment that reasonably would not be
available to the general public. In order to use the products, the
applicator must use a special foam generator to convert the liquid
product constituents to a foam form (Refs. 9, 10, and 11). The Foam-
Coat Vaporooter label directs users ``USE ONLY SPECIALIZED FOAM
APPLICATION EQUIPMENT,'' and then states that this equipment is
available from Airrigation Engineering (Ref. 10). This machinery is
necessary to produce the foam and to introduce the foam into the sewer
lines. The Sanafoam Vaporooter II label only gives directions for use
of the product with Airrigation's FOAM MAKER (R) generator (Ref. 11).
In addition, that label's directions for use instruct the user to
``[u]se specialized foam application equipment,'' and, if treating a
building lateral line, to ``[b]e sure foam application discharge hose
is also of a specialized type'' (Ref. 11). Therefore, the Airrigation
products' labels do not meet factor (e)(2)(ii).
c. Failure to follow label directions in a minor way could result
in significant adverse effects. EPA is very concerned regarding the
potential these products have to invade residential or other structures
through improper application. The Sanafoam Vaporooter II label
acknowledges this danger and states that ``caution must be used to
assure foam does not travel into adjacent structures'' (Ref. 11).
However, as the incident in Los Alamos, NM, shows, this result is
possible in spite of the cautionary labeling. EPA no longer believes
that this cautionary statement is sufficient to mitigate these
products' potential to expose the general public to highly toxic
fumigants. A person who is not thoroughly trained and familiar with the
complicated application methods and equipment for these products could
easily make a minor error in the application procedure, which could
cause widespread human exposure and result in adverse effects to those
people and the environment. Therefore, the Airrigation products' labels
do not meet factor (e)(2)(iii).
3. Restriction of the use of metam-sodium products in sewers would
decrease the risk of adverse effects to the public and to workers.
Requiring that all workers who apply these products be properly trained
certified applicators, or under the direct supervision of properly
trained certified applicators, will ensure to the greatest degree
possible that users of these products have the requisite skill and
ability to utilize the complex machinery and application methods
necessary to apply these products as safely as possible.
4. The decrease in potential risk from restricting use of these
products will exceed any incidental decrease in their benefits. The
Agency believes that restricted use classification will not
significantly increase the cost of sewer root control treatment.
Because there are other substantially similar products available which
will be classified for restricted use when the applicator training
program is completed, there will be little benefit to the public from
having one product on the market with much higher risks than the others
at comparable cost. The need for root control in sewer lines will
continue to be met by the other products with less potential for
B. Risk-Benefit Assessment
There is a significant potential for serious harm to humans and the
environment due to the improper application of these products. The
Agency cannot adequately mitigate this potential risk through
cautionary labeling alone because the products' application method
requires specialized equipment and training. The best way EPA can
ensure that all product applicators are sufficiently skilled to prevent
harm to humans and the environment, to the greatest extent possible, is
to require all persons who apply these products to be properly trained
certified applicators or under the direct supervision of such certified
There are currently three other registrants marketing products
which are substantially similar to the Airrigation products. Each of
these companies agreed upon registration of its product to participate
in developing a training program for sewer treatment applicators, and
to label its sewer treatment products for restricted use once the
program is made available to the States. EPA believes that the cost of
these products is comparable to that of Airrigation's products since
the amount of chemicals (active ingredients), the percentage and
quality of foaming ingredients are all very similar. The other
registrants have indicated to EPA that they do not expect restricted
use classification to increase the cost of their products to the
public. EPA also believes that these companies' products, and any new
products to enter the market in the future, will be sufficient to meet
the public demand for sewer root treatment. In performing this
function, they will pose less overall risk to the public than the
Airrigation products because they will be used only by or under the
direct supervision of properly trained certified applicators.
Therefore, in comparison to other available alternatives, the
Airrigation products pose serious risks and provide negligible
benefits, if any. Unless these products are classified for restricted
use under the same phased approach as the other registrants' products,
they will no longer meet the statutory standard for registration.
C. Measures Short of Cancellation
Under FIFRA, prior to taking regulatory action to cancel a
pesticide's registration, the Administrator must consider whether any
measures short of cancellation would be sufficient to reduce the risk
of adverse effects to an acceptable level. As discussed above, the
Agency has determined that restricted use classification would reduce
the potential risks of these products to humans and the environment to
an acceptable level. That was the basis for EPA's letter of September
24, 1993 to Airrigation. Airrigation refused to comply with the
Agency's decision. Accordingly, there are no other measures short of
cancellation which would reduce the potential risks from these products
to an acceptable level. In order to avoid cancellation, Airrigation
must amend the registrations of these products so that they will be
classified for restricted use upon issuance of the applicator training
program. Additional information on avoiding cancellation can be
obtained from the Office of Pesticide Program personnel listed in the
section above under the heading ``For Further Information Contact.''
IV. Role of the Scientific Advisory Panel and the Secretary of
Sections 6(b) and 25(d) of FIFRA provide certain opportunities for
the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the FIFRA
Science Advisory Panel (SAP) to review and comment upon a draft Notice
of Intent to Cancel, and in the case of USDA, an analysis of the impact
of the proposed action on the agricultural economy. These reviews may
be waived, and if they are, the Notice may be published without delay.
On May 2, 1994, EPA asked the SAP and the Secretary of USDA to
waive their rights to review and comment on this Notice (Refs. 12 and
13). These requests were made because the bases for this notice are
regulatory in nature due to the need for specialized training, and
specialized application and protective equipment when using these
products. Therefore, a science finding is not required. Moreover, the
use of these products does not involve agricultural commodities. On May
23, 1994, the SAP notified EPA that it waived its review of this action
(Ref. 14). On May 12, 1994, Nancy N. Ragsdale, Director, National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, USDA, notified EPA
that the Secretary would waive review of this action (Ref. 15). Because
USDA and SAP have waived their review of this action, the Agency is not
delaying issuance of this Notice.
V. Agency Determination that Cancellation of Airrigation
Engineering's Products is Necessary
EPA has determined that the Airrigation sewer treatment products
listed above, without being classified for restricted use, fail to meet
the standard for registration under FIFRA for the reasons listed below,
and that the registrations of these products must be canceled.
1. These products pose a serious hazard, due to their acute and
developmental toxicity and their complicated and difficult application
methods, which could be adequately mitigated through restricted use
2. There are adequate alternative products which will be classified
for restricted use (when the certified applicator training program is
available to the States) which will perform the same function and
provide the same benefits while posing significantly lower risks.
3. EPA has informed Airrigation of this determination pursuant to
40 CFR 152.65(c)(2), and Airrigation has refused to comply with the
VI. Disposition of Existing Stocks
For purposes of this Notice, existing stocks are defined as those
stocks of Vaporooter A Foaming Fumigant (EPA Reg. No. 99931), Foam Coat
Vaporooter (EPA Reg. No 9993-2), and Sanafoam Vaporooter II (EPA Reg.
No. 9993-3) which were in the United States and were packaged and
labeled for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation of
the registrations of these products. The Agency has determined that no
further sale, distribution, or use of existing stocks of these products
will be permitted after the effective date of cancellation of the
registration of the product, except for distribution for the purposes
of disposal. Owners of existing stocks of the products may at any time
dispose of the product in accordance with applicable local, State, and
Federal regulations. The determination is based on the finding that
continued use of these products without restricted use classification
may result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.
VII. Procedural Matters
This Notice announces EPA's intent to cancel the registration of
Airrigation Engineering Co., Inc., products containing metam-sodium for
use in treating sewer lines, and any product with any of the
registration numbers listed above that is supplementally distributed.
This action is taken pursuant to authority in section 6(b) of FIFRA.
Under FIFRA section 6(b)(1), registrants and other adversely affected
parties may request a hearing on the cancellation actions that this
Notice initiates. Any hearing concerning cancellation of registration
for any affected pesticide product will be held in accordance with
FIFRA section 6(d). Unless a hearing is properly requested in
accordance with the provisions of this Notice, the registration will be
canceled. This unit of the Notice explains how such persons may request
a hearing in accordance with the procedures specified in this Notice,
and the consequences of requesting or failing to request a hearing.
A. Procedures for Requesting a Hearing
To contest the regulatory action initiated by this Notice,
registrants or other adversely affected persons must request a hearing
within 30 days of the registrant's receipt of this Notice, or within 30
days from the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal
Register, whichever occurs later. All registrants and other adversely
affected persons who request a hearing must file the request in
accordance with the procedures established by FIFRA and EPA's Rules of
Practice Governing Hearings (40 CFR part 164). These procedures require
that all requests must identify the specific registration by
Registration Number and state the basis for objecting to the
cancellation of the product for which a hearing is requested, and must
be received by the Hearing Clerk within the applicable 30-day period.
Failure to comply with these requirements will result in denial of the
request for a hearing. Requests for a hearing should also be
accompanied by objections that are specific to each basis of
cancellation of the pesticide product for which a hearing is requested.
Requests for a hearing must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
1. Consequences of filing a timely and effective hearing request.
If a hearing on any action initiated by this Notice is requested in a
timely and effective manner, the hearing will be governed by EPA's
Rules of Practice Governing Hearings under FIFRA section 6 (40 CFR part
2. Consequences of failure to file in a timely and effective
manner. If a hearing concerning the cancellation of a specific product
subject to this Notice is not requested in a timely and effective
manner by the end of the applicable 30-day period, registration of that
product will be canceled automatically.
B. 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 his/her representatives (40 CFR 164.7).
Accordingly, the following EPA offices, and the staffs thereof, are
designated as the judicial staff of EPA in any administrative hearing
on this Notice of Intent to Cancel: the Office of Administrative Law
Judge, the Environmental Appeals Board, the Deputy Administrator and
the members of the staff of the immediate office of the Deputy
Administrator, and the Administrator and the members of staff in the
immediate office of the Administrator. The following offices are
designated as the trial staff in any proceeding which may arise under
this Notice: the Office of General Counsel, the Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances and his/
her immediate staff, the Office of Pesticide Programs, and the Office
of Compliance Monitoring. None of the persons designated as the
judicial staff may have any ex parte communications with the trial
staff or any other interested person not employed by EPA on the merits
of any of the issues involved in these proceedings, without fully
complying with the applicable regulations.
The following list of references are contained in the Public Docket
and can be made available on request:
1. June 22, 1994 Memorandum from Ameesha Mehta to Penny Fenner-
Crisp regarding worker and residential/bystander risk.
2. July 24, 1992 Memorandum from Anne E. Linsay to Stephen L.
Johnson regarding support needs for restricted use (RU) labeling of
3. April 11, 1992 Incident Report--Herbicide Contamination of a
Private Residence in Los Alamos, NM.
4. July 12, 1994 Newspaper Article ``Toxic Sewer Spill Forces
Evacuation,'' The Press Tribune.
5. September 9, 1993 letter from Larry Culleen requesting voluntary
compliance with restricted use classification.
6. October 14, 1993 Letter from Barbara H. Tiernan to Larry
Culleen, refusing to voluntarily comply with Restricted Use Labeling.
7. December 30, 1992 Letter from Frank T. Sanders to Barbara H.
Tiernan regarding EPA's decision to classify sewer use products as RU.
8. October 3, 1994 Letter from Anthony Malavenda, Duke's Sales, to
Susan Lewis regarding metam-soduim sewer use for root control.
9. Vaporooter labeling, EPA Reg. No. 9993-1.
10. Foam-Coat Vaporooter labeling, EPA Reg. No. 9993-2.
11. Sanafoam Vaporooter II labeling, EPA Reg. No. 9993-3.
12. May 2, 1994 Memorandum from Doug Campt to Bruce Jaeger, Science
Advisory Panel, requesting waiver of review.
13. May 2, 1994 Letter from Doug Campt to Nancy Ragsdale of USDA,
requesting waiver of review.
14. May 23,1994 Response memorandum from SAP regarding waiver
15. May 12, 1994 Letter to Doug Campt on USDA's reply to request to
IX. Public Docket
The Public Docket containing the above references is located at
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Rm. 1132, Arlington, Virginia. The
references can be viewed from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except legal holidays.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
Dated: September 12, 1994.
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-23353 Filed 9-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F