[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 144 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39024-39029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18921]



[[Page 39023]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



Cyanazine; Notice of Final Determination to Terminate Special Review of 
Cyanazine; Notice of Voluntary Cancellation and Cancellation Order of 
Cyanazine Product Registrations; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 144 / Thursday, July 25, 1996 / 
Notices  

[[Page 39024]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-30000/60B; FRL-5385-7]


Cyanazine; Notice of Final Determination to Terminate Special 
Review of Cyanazine; Notice of Voluntary Cancellation and Cancellation 
Order of Cyanazine Product Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Final Determination to Terminate Special Review; 
Notice of Voluntary Cancellation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the conclusion of the Special Review of 
cyanazine and EPA's acceptance of requests for the voluntary 
cancellation of cyanazine registrations. EPA is concluding the Special 
Review because the registrants have agreed to voluntarily modify the 
terms and conditions of the cyanazine registrations so that use of the 
pesticide will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the 
environment. The registrants have agreed to voluntarily amend their 
registrations and phase out cyanazine use by gradually reducing 
application rates, implementing additional protective use restrictions 
during the phaseout, and voluntarily cancelling cyanazine registrations 
effective December 31, 1999. EPA is accepting these voluntary 
cancellations of technical and end use pesticide products containing 
cyanazine pursuant to agreements by the registrants.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Joseph E. Bailey, Review 
Manager, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508W), Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., 
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail 
address: Special Review Branch, 3rd Floor, Crystal Station, 2800 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, Telephone: 703-308-8173, 
e-mail: [email protected]. For a copy of documents in the 
public docket, to request information concerning the Special Review, or 
to request indices to the Special Review public docket, contact the 
Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division 
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: 703-305-5805.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Regulatory Background

    This Notice of Final Determination concludes the Special Review of 
cyanazine which began in November 1994 when EPA issued the Notice of 
Initiation of Special Review of atrazine, simazine, and cyanazine (58 
FR 60412, November 23, 1994) (FRL-4919-5). The Agency initiated the 
Special Review based upon concerns that cyanazine may pose a risk of 
inducing cancer in humans from dietary, occupational, and residential 
exposure.
    When EPA initiated this Special Review, E.I. duPont de Nemours and 
Company (``DuPont'') and Ciba Geigy Corporation (``Ciba'') were the 
only registrants of cyanazine products. On August 2, 1995, DuPont 
voluntarily proposed to amend its cyanazine registrations to 
incrementally reduce cyanazine maximum application rates in 1997, 1998, 
and 1999, and to terminate the production of cyanazine for use in the 
United States by the end of 1999. DuPont proposed that after December 
31, 1999, the registrant would not release for shipment any cyanazine 
formulated end use products for use in the United States. EPA would 
authorize distribution and sale through September 30, 2002, of any 
existing stocks of cyanazine formulated end use products that were 
released for shipment on or before December 31, 1999. It also would 
authorize use of these products in accordance with the product labels 
through December 31, 2002. DuPont would modify the labels of cyanazine 
formulated end use products released for shipment by the registrant 
after July 25, 1996, to specify the maximum application rates during 
the phaseout and to inform the public of the existing stocks 
provisions. It also would modify cyanazine labels to require use of 
application equipment with enclosed cabs for applicators beginning in 
1998. Cyanazine technical products released for shipment by DuPont 
after July 25, 1996, would bear labels subjecting any end use products 
made from those technical products to the terms and conditions 
described in this paragraph. Finally, DuPont requested that EPA accept 
the voluntary cancellation of all registered DuPont cyanazine products 
effective on December 31, 1999. DuPont also waived any right to 
challenge EPA's final action on the Special Review or the terms and 
conditions upon EPA's final acceptance of the proposed amendments. On 
August 2, 1995, EPA accepted DuPont's proposal to amend the cyanazine 
registrations.
    On November 8, 1995, EPA announced receipt of a request from Ciba 
to voluntarily cancel its only product containing cyanazine (60 FR 
56333) (4984-1). The cancellation order for Ciba's sole product 
containing cyanazine was effective February 6, 1996.
    After EPA initiated Special Review, Griffin Corporation 
(``Griffin'') filed an application to register certain cyanazine 
pesticide products and subsequently agreed to the same terms and 
conditions of registration that were proposed by DuPont. EPA granted 
Griffin's applications and issued conditional registrations subject to 
those same terms and conditions.
    On March 1, 1996, EPA issued a Notice of Preliminary Determination 
to Terminate Special Review and a Notice of Receipt of Requests for 
Voluntary Cancellation of cyanazine registrations (61 FR 8186) (5352-
6). In this Notice, EPA explained that it was proposing to terminate 
the Special Review of cyanazine because, based upon the modified terms 
and conditions of the cyanazine registrations, the use of cyanazine 
will not cause any unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. The 
complete terms and conditions to amend cyanazine registrations that 
were agreed to by the registrants were provided in the Notice.
    In the same Notice, EPA announced receipt of requests from DuPont 
and Griffin to voluntarily cancel their registrations pursuant to 
section 6(f) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. section 136d(f)). The requested voluntary 
cancellations would take effect on December 31, 1999.
    The cyanazine product registrations that are subject to the 
modified terms and conditions of registrations as agreed to by DuPont 
and Griffin, including voluntary cancellation effective on December 31, 
1999, are listed below by registration number and product name.

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Registration No.                       Product Name        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
352-470                                    DuPont Bladex (R)4L Herbicide
352-475                                    DuPont Cyanazine Technical   
352-495                                    DuPont Bladex (R)90 DF       
                                            Herbicide                   
352-500                                    DuPont Extrazine (R)II 4L    
                                            Herbicide                   
352-577                                    DuPont Extrazine (R)II DF    
                                            Herbicide                   
1812-364                                   Griffin Cyanazine Technical  

[[Page 39025]]

                                                                        
1812-365                                   Griffin Cynex DF             
1812-366                                   Griffin Cynex 4L Herbicide   
                                            Liquid                      
1812-367                                   Griffin Cynex Extra 4L       
1812-368                                   Griffin Cynex Extra DF       
------------------------------------------------------------------------



B. Legal Background

    1. Summary of Special Review Process. Special Review is a decision-
making process designed to help EPA determine whether the Agency should 
initiate formal procedures, such as involuntary cancellation or 
suspension of a pesticide registration or the imposition of modified 
terms and conditions of registration because use of the pesticide may 
cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment (40 CFR 
154.1(a)).
    EPA announces its decision to initiate the process by publishing a 
Notice of Special Review. EPA may initiate a Special Review if a 
pesticide use under the existing terms and conditions of registration 
meets or exceeds the risk criteria specified in the regulations at 40 
CFR 154.7. In the initial Notice, EPA solicits comments concerning the 
risks and benefits of the uses that are subject to Special Review (40 
CFR 154.25).
    In response to the Notice of Special Review, the public may submit 
comments pertinent to whether the use of a pesticide product as 
currently registered meets or exceeds the risk criteria as currently 
registered; whether any additional restrictions on the use of the 
product, in accordance with a pending application or amendment, would 
cause it to meet or exceed the risk criteria; whether the risks caused 
by use of the product are unreasonable; and what regulatory action EPA 
should take (40 CFR 154.26).
    The regulations governing Special Review contemplate that EPA may 
terminate the process if the pesticides' registrants are willing and 
able to voluntarily eliminate any unreasonable adverse effects without 
formal proceedings by voluntarily modifying the terms and conditions of 
registration or voluntarily cancelling registrations. Section 154.1(a) 
of the regulations states that the issuance of a Notice of Special 
Review means that the Agency expects to initiate a formal proceeding 
unless ``the Agency's initial determination was erroneous, . . . the 
risks can be reduced to acceptable levels without the need for formal 
proceedings, or . . . the benefits of the pesticide's use outweigh the 
risks.''
    If EPA determines that the risks can be reduced to acceptable 
levels because the registrants are able and willing to modify the terms 
and conditions of registration, then it will issue a Notice of 
Preliminary Decision to Terminate Special Review. This Notice explains 
EPA's basis for concluding that the measures agreed to by the 
registrants will reduce risks to an acceptable level and responds to 
significant comments received in response to the initial Notice of 
Special Review. It also solicits public comments on EPA's position to 
terminate Special Review and its proposed resolution of risk concerns 
(59 FR 12188; March 27, 1985).
    One of the risk reduction measures that a registrant may agree to 
is a voluntary cancellation under FIFRA section 6(f). This provision 
authorizes EPA to cancel a registration based upon the request of the 
registrant without regard for whether the pesticide poses an 
unreasonable risk of adverse effects. Other possible risk reduction 
measures that a registrant may agree to are modifications of the use of 
the pesticide that will reduce risk to an acceptable level, such as 
requiring the use of respirators or reducing the amount of pesticide 
that may be used. Registrants generally agree to incorporate such 
voluntary risk reduction measures into the terms and conditions of 
their registration to insure future compliance.
    Sometimes registrants are unable or unwilling to voluntarily amend 
the existing terms and conditions of registration so that the products 
in question do not cause unreasonable adverse effects. If this occurs, 
the regulations contemplate that the Agency will issue a Notice of 
Preliminary Determination to Terminate Special Review and, among other 
things, will describe the regulatory measures that the Agency intends 
to initiate following termination of the process (40 CFR 154.31).
    After the close of the comment period for a Notice of Preliminary 
Determination, EPA issues a Notice of Final Determination. This Notice 
includes the Agency's final determination and a discussion of the 
reasons for that determination, any comments submitted by the Secretary 
of Agriculture or the Scientific Advisory Panel, any significant public 
comments submitted in response to the Notice of Preliminary 
Determination, and instructions to registrants, applicants for 
registration, and other interested persons with respect to procedures 
that will be used to implement the final determination (40 CFR 154.33).
    Following termination of Special Review, the Agency may either 
return the pesticide to the regular registration process or initiate 
formal proceedings. These formal proceedings include cancellation under 
FIFRA section 6(b), suspension under FIFRA section 6(c), denial of a 
registration application under FIFRA section 3(c)(6), or change of 
classification under FIFRA section 3(d)(2). A more detailed description 
of the Special Review Process may be found at 40 CFR part 154 and 61 FR 
8187-8.
    2. Voluntary Cancellation Process. FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(D) 
authorizes the Administrator to approve or deny a request for voluntary 
cancellation (7 U.S.C. section 136d(f)(10(D)). Unlike an involuntary 
cancellation under FIFRA section 6(b), FIFRA does not require the 
Administrator to make a finding that use of the pesticide may generally 
cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment to approve a 
voluntary cancellation request. If a registrant wishes to voluntarily 
cancel its registration, it may do so at any time under section 6(f), 
by submitting a request to EPA (7 U.S.C. section 136d(f)(1)(A)). The 
statute also contains provisions governing the publication of a notice 
of such a request which ensures that users and others will have 
adequate notice of the voluntary cancellation and time to submit their 
own applications to assume the registrations (7 U.S.C. section 
136d(f)(1)). FIFRA does not require EPA to conduct a hearing on whether 
a voluntary cancellation request should be granted.

II. Summary of Notice of Preliminary Determination

    In the Preliminary Determination, EPA reviewed the risks and 
benefits of phasing out and eventually cancelling cyanazine 
registrations pursuant to the terms and conditions of registration 
agreed to by DuPont and Griffin. It concluded that the phaseout and 
cancellation will eventually reduce risk to zero when the product may 
no longer be used. Prior to cancellation, EPA noted that progressive 
restrictions on the maximum amount of cyanazine that may be applied per 
acre, combined with closed cab requirements and depletion of existing 
stocks will progressively reduce risk (61 FR at 8200).
    EPA also discussed the benefits of cyanazine use under the terms 
and conditions of the phaseout and cancellation. It determined that the 
gradual phaseout will lessen the economic impact to growers who have 
used cyanazine when compared to an immediate cancellation. The phaseout 
should allow growers sufficient time to find suitable alternative weed 
control strategies to replace cyanazine, causing

[[Page 39026]]

little disruption to agricultural production. The phaseout also makes 
it unnecessary to recall and dispose of unused product because it 
provides advance notice of the ultimate cancellation and prohibition of 
use to distributors and growers.
    Based upon the assessment of risks and benefits in light of the 
terms and conditions agreed to by DuPont and Griffin, EPA concluded 
that the use of cyanazine during the phaseout would not pose any 
unreasonable adverse effects.

III. Response to Public Comments

A. Analysis Required by Special Review Regulations

    Griffin, citing 40 CFR 154.1(a), asserts that after EPA initiates 
Special Review it is prohibited from taking further steps to ``cancel 
or alter a product registration if the record establishes that `the 
Agency's initial determination was erroneous . . . or that the benefits 
of the pesticide's use outweigh the risks.'''
    The Agency disagrees with Griffin's characterization of this 
Special Review regulation. The regulation, cited in part by the 
commenter, reads:

    The purpose of the Special Review process is to help the Agency 
determine whether to initiate procedures to cancel, deny, or 
reclassify registration of a pesticide product because uses of that 
product may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment in 
accordance with section 3(c)(6) and 6 of [FIFRA]. The process is 
intended to ensure that the Agency assesses risks that may be posed 
by pesticides and the benefits of use of those pesticides in an open 
and responsive manner. The issuance of a Notice of Special Review 
means that the Agency has determined that one or more uses of a 
pesticide may pose significant risks and that, following completion 
of the Special Review process, the Agency expects to initiate formal 
proceedings seeking to cancel, deny, reclassify, or require 
modifications to the registration of the product(s) in question 
unless it has been shown during the Special Review that the Agency's 
initial determination was erroneous, that the risks can be reduced 
to acceptable levels without the need for formal proceedings, or 
that the benefits of the pesticide's use outweigh the risks (40 CFR 
154.1(a)).

    This provision describes the actions that EPA believes may be 
necessary after termination of Special Review depending upon the 
circumstances. It does not establish mandatory procedures that restrict 
the Agency's options once Special Review is initiated as the commenter 
seems to suggest. Rather it describes possible steps that the Agency 
may consider taking after it terminates Special Review.
    The regulation describes the steps that EPA expects to initiate 
after termination of Special Review as ``formal proceedings'' to 
``cancel, deny, reclassify, or require modifications'' to product 
registrations. The regulation contemplates that ``formal proceedings'' 
likely would not be appropriate if the Agency determines that one of 
the following occurs: (1) The decision to initiate Special Review is 
erroneous, (2) the risks cannot be reduced to acceptable levels without 
a formal proceeding, or (3) the benefits outweigh the risks. Based upon 
this language, it is clear that the term ``formal proceedings'' means 
involuntary, EPA-initiated proceedings such as the issuance of a Notice 
of Intent to Cancel under FIFRA section 6(b) or the required 
modification of the terms and conditions of a registration and does not 
include other measures that the registrants agree to such as voluntary 
cancellations under FIFRA section 6(f) or voluntary modifications to 
product registrations. If any one of the three circumstances specified 
in the rule exists, then formal involuntary proceeding would be 
unnecessary because the risk/benefit balance would not justify such an 
action.
    Griffin's assertion that the regulation prohibits EPA from taking 
steps to cancel or alter a registration if the Agency's initial risk 
determination is erroneous or if the benefits outweigh the risks would 
produce an absurd result. Both the statute and the regulations 
contemplate that registrants may address unreasonable risks by amending 
their registrations to reduce risk or even by requesting voluntary 
cancellation of their registrations. Griffin's interpretation would 
effectively prevent EPA from accepting such risk reduction measures 
once it has initiated Special Review and force it to initiate 
unnecessary measures such as a FIFRA section 6(b) cancellation. Such an 
interpretation of 154.1(a) is inconsistent with the meaning of the 
regulation and with congressional intent underlying FIFRA's voluntary 
cancellation provision.
    EPA has determined that the risks posed by cyanazine can be reduced 
to acceptable levels without formal proceedings because of the 
voluntary cancellation and phaseout agreed to by both DuPont and 
Griffin. As a result, it does not need to initiate formal cancellation 
or other involuntary proceedings upon completion of the Special Review. 
Instead, EPA will return the cyanazine registrations to the regular 
registration process.

B. Applicability of Rulemaking Provisions of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA)

    Griffin claims that the Special Review process constitutes 
rulemaking under the APA and that EPA must comply with the APA's notice 
and comment requirements when it conducts a Special Review. It also 
alleges that EPA violated APA rulemaking requirements in a number of 
instances by failing to provide background information that was not 
cited in any Special Review Notice and by failing to respond to 
comments on various aspects of the Agency's risk assessment and on 
alternative methods of addressing risks posed by cyanazine usage.
    EPA has always taken the position that Special Review does not 
constitute APA rulemaking but instead is an informal information 
gathering mechanism for assessing whether the use of specific 
pesticides causes unreasonable adverse effects on the environment based 
upon the terms and conditions of registration. As noted in the 
regulations, Special Review is designed to help EPA decide whether to 
initiate a formal proceeding to cancel or reclassify an existing 
registration or deny an application for a registration (40 CFR 
154.1(a)).
    The APA imposes notice-and-comment requirements only upon 
``legislative'' rules. See generally Community Nutrition Institute v. 
Young, 818 F.2d 943 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Legislative rules generally 
``create law,'' Gibson Wine Co. v. Synder, 194 F.2d 329, 331 (D.C. Cir. 
1952) and ``grant rights, impose obligations, or produce other 
significant effects on private interests.'' Batterton v. Marshall, 648 
F.2d 694, 701-02 (D.C. Cir.1980); see also American Hospital Ass'n v. 
Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Courts also give some 
deference to an agency's characterization of its statement although 
that characterization is not determinative. Community Nutrition, 818 
F.2d at 946.
    Based upon these standards, it is clear that the Special Review 
process is not legislative rulemaking. Termination of Special Review 
does not itself grant a new right or create a new legal obligation. 
Following the termination of Special Review, EPA may affect private 
rights but only by taking further steps to initiate an involuntary 
adjudicative process or by implementing voluntary risk reduction 
measures. Accordingly, the Special Review process does not create a new 
law and thus, is not a legislative rule requiring notice and comment.

[[Page 39027]]

    The Ninth Circuit rejected an argument similar to that proposed by 
Griffin in a challenge to EPA's consideration of permit applications 
for storm water discharges under the Clean Water Act. Natural Resources 
Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1309 (9th Cir. 1992). NRDC 
argued that EPA's decision to approve or disapprove a group application 
was a rule of ``general applicability'' and thus subject to APA's 
notice and comment requirements. Id. The court rejected this argument. 
It first observed that ``rulemaking ordinarily involves `broad 
judgments, legislative in nature rather than the resolution of a 
particular dispute of facts.''' Id. (citation omitted). The court held 
that EPA's decision on the permit application was ``essentially a 
factual determination,'' not rulemaking, because it focused on a 
specific factual question regarding whether the application adequately 
identified a second group that would be subject to more extensive data 
requirements. Id. The court also explicitly noted that EPA was not 
engaged in rulemaking even though the decision on the permit 
applications might affect a large number of applicants.
    The principal case that Griffin relies upon, Waste Management, Inc. 
v. EPA, 669 F. Supp. 536 (D.D.C. 1987), does not support the conclusion 
that Special Review constitutes rulemaking. In Waste Management, EPA 
was engaged in issuing a regulation governing ocean incineration. EPA 
decided to temporarily freeze all applications for ocean incineration 
permits until the final regulation was promulgated but it did not make 
any specific factual determinations regarding specific permit 
applications. The court held that this temporary freeze constituted APA 
rulemaking.
    In contrast to the circumstances in Waste Management, EPA is 
utilizing the cyanazine Special Review to analyze the risks and 
benefits of cyanazine under the terms and conditions of registration. 
This analysis is preparatory either to initiating proceedings to 
address any unreasonable risk or implementing voluntary risk reduction 
measures and does not itself impose any limitations upon existing 
registrations. See, 40 CFR 154.1(a). Such preliminary factual 
determinations are not rulemaking under the APA.

C. Risk/Benefit Comments Beyond Scope of Agency Determination

    1. Scope of Agency determination. A number of comments address 
matters beyond those at issue in the Agency's Final Determination. The 
regulations governing Special Review do not require the Agency to 
consider such immaterial comments.
    As EPA stated in the Notice of Preliminary Determination, the issue 
is whether the modified terms and conditions agreed to by the 
registrants ``will eliminate any unreasonable adverse effects posed by 
cyanazine registrations'' (61 FR at 8200). Where the registrants agree 
to modify the terms and conditions of registration, the controlling 
issue is whether the use of cyanazine pursuant to the modifications 
poses any unreasonable adverse effects. If EPA determines that use 
pursuant to the modified registrations continues to cause unreasonable 
adverse effects despite the modifications, then it terminates Special 
Review and initiates other involuntary mechanisms to address the risk. 
On the other hand, if EPA determines that the use pursuant to the 
modified registrations eliminates any unreasonable adverse effects, 
then additional involuntary proceedings are unnecessary and the Agency 
would terminate Special Review and return the registrations to the 
registration process.
    The regulations specifically require EPA to respond in the Notice 
of Final Determination to ``significant public comments submitted on 
the Notice of Preliminary Determination'' (40 CFR 154.33(a)(3)). 
Significant comments concern a matter that is at issue in the 
proceeding or that is probative of a matter at issue; in other words, 
those that raise matters material to EPA's Preliminary Determination. 
At this point, the only issue is whether the modified terms and 
conditions agreed to by the registrants will eliminate any unreasonable 
adverse effects caused by the use of the products and the Agency will 
respond only to comments that address that issue.
    This interpretation of Sec. 154.33(a)(3), which governs responses 
to significant comments, is consistent with other Special Review 
regulations. As discussed in Unit III.A. of this document, the 
regulations contemplate that EPA will likely terminate Special Review 
and not impose any involuntary actions upon a pesticide registration if 
the registrant agrees to modify the terms and conditions of 
registration to reduce risk to an acceptable level.
    Some of the comments indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the 
nature of Special Review. EPA review focuses on the risks and benefits 
of a pesticide that result from the use of the pesticide under the 
terms and conditions of the existing registrations. At this point, the 
registrants have agreed to amend the terms and conditions that control 
the use of the pesticide and EPA has accepted those amendments. Terms 
and conditions of registration that governed the use of cyanazine 
before EPA accepted the amendments no longer exist and therefore have 
no effect upon the risks and benefits associated with the use of 
cyanazine. Similarly, hypothetical alternative terms and conditions of 
registration suggested by commenters do not address the issue of the 
risks and benefits associated with the use of cyanazine under the 
modified terms and conditions agreed to by the registrants. Thus 
comments pertaining to previous terms and conditions of registration or 
to hypothetical alternative arrangements, and the risks or benefits 
associated with such terms and conditions, are immaterial to the 
Agency's decision to terminate the cyanazine Special Review.
    2. Specific comments. Some commenters focus on issues that EPA 
raised in the initial Notice of Special Review and that concern the 
risks or benefits of cyanazine usage under the old terms and conditions 
of registrations that existed at the time Special Review was initiated. 
These issues do not address whether cyanazine usage poses any 
unreasonable adverse effects under the new terms and conditions agreed 
to by the registrants in 1995. For example, Griffin comments that EPA 
erroneously decided to initiate Special Review based upon a flawed risk 
assessment and provides a lengthy critique of that initial risk 
assessment. While such comments were material to the Agency's initial 
Notice of Special Review, they do not concern the issue now before the 
Agency - whether cyanazine poses any unreasonable adverse effects under 
the new terms and conditions of registration.
    Griffin and other commenters claim that the benefits of cyanazine 
use may be higher than EPA first estimated in the Notice of Special 
Review, asserting that the Agency did not calculate the relative costs 
of cyanazine and alternative pesticides correctly and did not recognize 
that cyanazine is ``significantly superior'' to alternatives. These 
claims are immaterial to the Agency's decision to terminate Special 
Review. EPA has decided to terminate the process because the benefits 
of continued use under the new terms and conditions of registration 
outweigh the risks. At this point it is inconsequential whether the 
benefits outweigh the risks by a greater margin than EPA earlier 
calculated because greater benefits would only provide more support for 
the decision to terminate Special Review without initiating formal 
proceedings.

[[Page 39028]]

    Some additional commenters discuss alternative terms and conditions 
of registrations that might yield an acceptable risk/benefit balance. 
At this point, however, such alternatives are immaterial because the 
agreed upon modifications already insure that cyanazine usage does not 
pose any unreasonable adverse effects. Given the registrants' agreement 
to these modifications, it is unnecessary for EPA to address these 
issues.
    The comments directed towards the old terms and conditions of 
cyanazine registration appear to be directed at the decision of the 
registrants to voluntarily amend their cyanazine registrations rather 
than the Agency's decision to terminate Special Review. The termination 
of Special Review will not prevent interested persons from applying for 
registrations with terms and conditions different from those currently 
in effect. Such an application may be filed at any time, even after the 
current registrations are cancelled. If the application otherwise 
fulfills the prerequisites for registration, the Agency would consider 
the risks and benefits of use under the proposed terms and conditions 
and pursuant to FIFRA and the regulation including 40 CFR 154.35. An 
applicant may contest the decision to deny an application as specified 
in FIFRA section 3(c)(6).

D. Response to Material Risk/Benefit Comments

    Griffin also addresses the economic impact of the phaseout and 
voluntary cancellations and concludes that ``EPA's conclusions 
concerning the economic impact of the phase-out and registration 
cancellations likely are correct.'' In reaching this conclusion, the 
commenter relied in part upon the data that EPA used to determine 
cyanazine application rates as summarized in Table 5 of the Preliminary 
Determination. It also utilized additional application rate data that 
it obtained independently.
    Based upon the information underlying Table 5, EPA agrees that its 
conclusions with respect to the economic impact of the modified terms 
and conditions of registration are correct. The Agency has not analyzed 
the additional data utilized by Griffin because the comment states that 
it supports rather than contradicts the Agency's preliminary economic 
determination.

E. Secretary of Agriculture and Scientific Advisory Panel

    The Special Review regulations require the Agency to respond to any 
comments submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Scientific 
Advisory Panel (40 CFR 154.33(a)(2)) but neither submitted comments. 
The regulations require EPA to refer proposals to initiate involuntary 
proceedings such as a FIFRA section 6(b) cancellation to those bodies. 
The regulations, however, do not impose such a requirement where, as 
here, the registrants have accepted voluntary modifications of the 
terms and conditions of their registrations followed by voluntary 
cancellations.

IV. Decision Regarding Special Review

    EPA has decided to terminate the cyanazine Special Review. This 
decision is based upon EPA's determination that the use of cyanazine on 
cotton, field and sweet corn, and sorghum in accordance with the 
voluntary cancellation and phaseout agreed to by the cyanazine 
registrants does not cause any unreasonable adverse effects.
    The new terms and conditions of registration will gradually lower 
and then eliminate the risks caused by cyanazine. Maximum application 
rates will be reduced in 1997, 1998, and 1999, and applicators will be 
required to use closed cab equipment beginning in 1998. Risks will 
eventually be reduced to zero when the use prohibition takes effect in 
2002. The requirement that cyanazine applicators use closed cabs to 
apply the pesticide beginning in 1998 also will reduce occupational 
exposure to the substance. While there will be some exposure to 
cyanazine during the phaseout, exposure and thus, risks will decline as 
application rates drop and existing stocks are depleted.
    The phaseout of cyanazine will lessen the economic impact to 
growers who have used cyanazine to control weeds. The phaseout should 
allow growers sufficient time to replace cyanazine with alternative 
weed control practices so that there will be little disruption to 
agricultural production. Another likely benefit of the incremental 
phaseout is depletion of existing stocks of cyanazine so there will be 
little unused product to recall and dispose of after the cancellations 
take effect. Furthermore, the costs, time and uncertainties associated 
with an involuntary cancellation proceeding are avoided.
    For all these reasons, EPA has decided that the implementation of 
the terms and conditions of the cyanazine voluntary cancellation and 
phaseout will prevent any unreasonable adverse effects which might 
otherwise be caused by the use of cyanazine on corn, cotton, and 
sorghum.

V. Decision Regarding Voluntary Cancellation and Use of Existing 
Stocks

A. Voluntary Cancellation/Cancellation Order

    EPA accepts the voluntary cancellation of all cyanazine products as 
requested by the cyanazine registrants in accordance with FIFRA section 
6(f). Both of the cyanazine registrants, DuPont and Griffin, have 
requested voluntary cancellations as terms and conditions of their 
registrations. EPA has not received any applications to assume the 
existing registrations of cyanazine under the new terms and conditions 
of registration. Consequently, EPA accepts the voluntary cancellations 
effective December 31, 1999 and orders the cancellations to take effect 
on January 1, 2000. Those products for which EPA accepts the voluntary 
cancellation are listed by product registration number and product name 
in Unit I.A. of this Notice. When the voluntary cancellations take 
effect on December 31, 1999, the Agency will issue an order confirming 
the cancellations.

B. Existing Stocks

    For any cyanazine formulated end use products that are released for 
shipment by a registrant on or before December 31, 1999, EPA authorizes 
the continued sale and distribution of such products in the channels of 
trade in accordance with their labels through September 30, 2002. EPA 
authorizes the continued use of such existing stocks in accordance with 
their labels through December 31, 2002. EPA prohibits the use of 
cyanazine products after December 31, 2002. EPA is not establishing any 
existing stocks provisions for technical cyanazine products (DuPont 
Registration Number 352-475 and Griffin Registration Number 1812-364); 
however, any technical or formulated end use cyanazine product may be 
exported pursuant to FIFRA sections 3 and 17.

VI. Availability of Public Docket

    EPA established a public docket, OPP-30000/60, for the cyanazine 
Special Review. This public docket includes this Notice and any other 
Notices associated with the cyanazine Special Review and EPA's decision 
to terminate the cyanazine Special Review. This docket also contains 
documents not considered Confidential Business Information that are 
pertinent to the cyanazine Special Review and copies of written 
comments or other material submitted to EPA by any person outside the 
government in response to the cyanazine Special Review. The docket is 
available for inspection from 8 a.m. to

[[Page 39029]]

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public 
docket is located in Rm. 1132 of the Public Response and Program 
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection.

    Dated: July 17, 1996.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pollution and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 96-18921 Filed 7-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F