[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 81 (Thursday, April 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10138]
[Federal Register: April 28, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IX
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
Hearing Concerning Application To Modify the Final Cancellation Order
for Pesticide Products Containing EBDCs; Notice
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-30000/18E; FRL-4773-3]
Hearing Concerning Application To Modify the Final Cancellation
Order for Pesticide Products Containing EBDCs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 1, 1993 the Agency received a request from Elf
Atochem and Griffin Corporations to amend labels of certain pesticide
products which contain the active ingredients of mancozeb or maneb and
which were affected by the final EBDC Cancellation Order and to modify
the final EBDC Cancellation Order to allow all EBDC registrants to
modify their end use product label(s) in the same manner that Atochem
and Griffin have proposed to amend theirs. The proposed amendment seeks
to allow the use of more than one EBDC active ingredient per crop per
season. It also seeks to allow for a single application per crop per
season for seed treatment in addition to any foliar uses for products
which have a registered seed treatment use for the particular crop. The
proposed amendments would not change the current maximum allowable
amount of EBDCs.
Under subpart D of 40 CFR Part 164, this submission constitutes a
petition to modify the final cancellation order concerning EBDC
products. Such a petition may not be granted without a formal
adjudicatory hearing. EPA has concluded that the submissions by Atochem
and Griffin, if substantiated in a hearing, may provide a basis for
modification of the order canceling EBDC products. This Notice (1)
announces that EPA has decided to hold a hearing regarding the petition
to modify that order as it applies to the use of more than one EBDC
active ingredient per crop per season and the allowance of a single
application for seed treatment per crop per season (in addition to
foliar applications) on crops which have registered seed treatment
uses, (2) specifies the issues of fact and law to be considered at that
hearing, and (3) establishes a schedule for the hearing.
DATES: Requests to participate in the hearing announced by this notice
must be received by the Office of the Hearing Clerk at the address
given below by [insert date 30 days after date of publication in the
Federal Register]. A pre-hearing conference will be held and the
evidentiary hearing will commence as soon thereafter as practicable,
according to the schedule outlined herein.
ADDRESSES: Requests for a hearing must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk
(1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC
20460. Information supporting the Administrator's decision to hold a
hearing will be available for public inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except legal holidays in: Information Services
Section, Management and Program Support Division (7502C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 236, Crystal
Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Amy Farrell, Special Review
and Reregistration Division (7508W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Crystal Station, 2800 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA (703) 308-8054.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 2, 1992, the Administrator issued a
Notice of Intent to Cancel (NOITC) and Conclusion of the EBDC Special
Review which announced EPA's intent to cancel registrations and to deny
applications for registration for all pesticide products containing
EBDCs as an active ingredient unless the registrations/applications
complied with the terms and conditions of that Notice. As a result of
the Notice, 11 uses were canceled and use restrictions were placed on
the remaining 45 uses. One requirement was that, to avoid cancellation,
all EBDC labels and product registrations bearing agricultural uses
must be amended to include the following label statement: ``If this
product is used on a crop, no other product containing a different EBDC
active ingredient may be used on the same crop during the same growing
season.'' This requirement prohibits the use of more than one EBDC
active ingredient per crop per season.
I. The Submissions
On December 1, 1993 the Agency received evidentiary submissions
from Elf Atochem and Griffin Corporations in support of their requests:
(1) To amend labels of seven EBDC pesticide products which were subject
to the Cancellation Order and which contain the active ingredients of
mancozeb or maneb (ManexTM, Maneb 75DF, Maneb 80, Maneb Plus Zinc
F4, Penncozeb, Penncozeb DF and Pro-Tex) and (2) that the Agency modify
the final EBDC Cancellation Order to allow all other EBDC registrants
to modify their EBDC end use product label(s) in the same manner that
Atochem and Griffin have proposed to amend theirs. Subsequently,
additional related correspondence was submitted by Atochem and Griffin
on December 30, 1993 and January 12, 1994 to supplement the original
proposal.
The current label language required by the Cancellation Order
prohibits the use of more than one EBDC (maneb, mancozeb, or metiram)
on a given crop during a growing season. The petitioners request that
more than one EBDC active ingredient be allowed to be used per crop per
season. Under their proposal, when all products being used have the
same maximum poundage (maximum application rate times the maximum
number of allowed applications) the total amount used must not exceed
the maximum label poundage, or when the products being used have
different maximum poundages, the total amount used must not exceed the
lowest maximum poundage. Additionally, allowance for a single seed
treatment in addition to foliar applications where there is a
registered use for seed treatment is requested.
In their request, Atochem and Griffin are asking that EPA modify
the Cancellation Notice and Order as noted below so that any EBDC
registrant may amend their labels accordingly. The request also
includes applications to amend labels of seven mancozeb and maneb
products.
One of the elements of the Cancellation Notice and Order was a
label requirement which reads ``If this product is used on a crop, no
other product containing a different EBDC active ingredient may be used
on the same crop during the same growing season.'' This current
language prevents the use of more than one EBDC active ingredient per
crop per season. The registrants are proposing to replace that language
with the following language:
Foliar applications. Where EBDC products used allow the same
maximum poundage of active ingredient per acre per season:
If more than one product containing an EBDC active ingredient
(maneb, mancozeb, or metiram) is used on a crop during the same
growing season and the EBDC products used allow the same maximum
poundage of active ingredient per acre per season, then the total
poundage of all such EBDC products used must not exceed any of the
specified individual EBDC product maximum seasonal poundage of
active ingredient allowed per acre.
Where EBDC products used allow different maximum poundage of active
ingredient per acre per season:
If more than one product containing an EBDC active ingredient is
used on a crop during the same growing season and the EBDC products
used allow different maximum poundage of active ingredient per acre
per season, then the total poundage of all such EBDC products used
must not exceed the lowest specified individual EBDC product maximum
seasonal poundage of active ingredient allowed per acre.
Seed Treatment
In addition to the maximum number of foliar applications
permitted by the formula stated above, a single application for seed
treatment may be made on crops which have registered seed treatment
uses.
The language proposed by the registrants allows the use of more
than one EBDC active ingredient per crop per season, specifies formulas
to follow for maximum poundage allowed when different EBDCs are used,
and allows for a single seed treatment per crop per season in addition
to the foliar applications where the crop has a registered seed
treatment use.
II. Regulatory History
On March 2, 1992, the Administrator issued a Notice of Intent to
Cancel (NOITC) and Conclusion of the EBDC Special Review which
announced EPA's intent to cancel registrations and to deny applications
for registration for all pesticide products containing EBDCs as an
active ingredient unless the registrations/applications complied with
the terms and conditions of that Notice. The decision to issue that
order was based on the determination that use of EBDCs without such
modified terms and conditions would result in unreasonable adverse
effects to humans or the environment. More specifically, 11 uses were
canceled and use restrictions placed on the remaining 45 uses. The
information and analysis upon which that determination was based is set
forth in detail in the text of the March 2, 1992 NOITC (57 FR 7484).
The NOITC contained a requirement that, to avoid cancellation, all
EBDC labels and product registrations bearing agricultural uses must be
amended to include the following label statement: ``If this product is
used on a crop, no other product containing a different EBDC active
ingredient may be used on the same crop during the same growing
season.'' This requirement prohibits the use of more than one EBDC
active ingredient per crop per season. Although the reason for this
requirement was not stated in the Notice, the Agency's decision to
limit EBDC application as such was to avoid the potential overuse of
EBDC's through active ingredient switching. The decision was not based
on specific risk concerns or on the risk calculations underlying the
Agency's EBDC regulatory decision.
Subsequent to the NOITC becoming an effective order of
cancellation, the Agency received a request for a subpart D hearing,
the evidentiary submissions and associated correspondence from Elf
Atochem and Griffin Corporations, the details of which are delineated
above. The Agency received supporting letters from the Florida Fruit
and Vegetable Association and the National Potato Council. The language
proposed would replace a label requirement specified in the
Cancellation Notice and Order which allows the use of only one EBDC per
crop per season and prohibits certain seed treatment applications.
III. Statutory and Regulatory Background
A. Standards for Maintaining a Registration
Before a pesticide product may be lawfully sold or distributed in
either intrastate or interstate commerce, the product must be
registered by the Environmental Protection Agency. FIFRA section 3(a)
and 12(a)(1)(A). A registration is a license allowing a pesticide
product to be sold and distributed for specified uses in accordance
with specified use instructions, precautions, and other terms and
conditions. A pesticide product may be registered or remain registered
only if it performs 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(b). The burden to
demonstrate that a pesticide product satisfies the criteria for
registration is on the proponents of initial or continued registration.
Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607,
653 n.61 (1980); Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 510 F.2d 1292, 1297, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
Under FIFRA section 6, the Agency may issue a notice of intent to
cancel the registration of a pesticide product whenever it is
determined that the product no longer satisfies the statutory criteria
for registration. The Agency may specify particular modifications in
the terms and conditions of registration, such as deletion of
particular uses or revisions of labeling, as an alternative to
cancellation. If a hearing is requested by an adversely affected
person, the final order concerning cancellation of the product is not
issued until after a formal administrative hearing.
B. Subpart D Proceedings
When the Agency receives an application to permit use of a
pesticide in a manner inconsistent with a prior cancellation decision,
that application constitutes a petition to the Administrator to modify
the final cancellation order. Because of the opportunity for a notice
and a formal adjudicatory hearing which precedes entry of a final
cancellation order concerning a pesticide product, EPA has determined
that such an order should not be modified or rescinded without
affording interested parties a similar notice and opportunity for
hearing concerning such modification or rescission. The procedures
governing all applications to modify or reverse a previous final
cancellation order are set forth in subpart D of 40 CFR part 164, 40
CFR 164.130 through 164.133.
When all opportunities for hearing and review with respect to an
Agency decision to cancel a pesticide product have either been
exercised or waived, and a final cancellation order has been entered,
the Agency is entitled to rely on the finality of the order and the
validity of the evidentiary rationale supporting it. Applicants seeking
modification of a final order should not be afforded a new adjudicatory
hearing concerning the same matters which were considered or could have
been considered during a prior hearing. Thus, 40 CFR 164.131(a)
provides that the Administrator will grant a hearing to modify a prior
final cancellation order when she finds that:
(1) The applicant has presented substantial new evidence which may
materially affect the prior cancellation order and which was not
available to the Administrator at the time he/she made his/her final
cancellation determination and, (2) such evidence could not, through
the exercise of due diligence, have been discovered by the parties to
the cancellation proceeding prior to the issuance of the final order.
In deciding whether or not to initiate a hearing, the Administrator
does not need to determine that the evidence submitted by the
petitioner would in fact justify modification of the prior order.
Rather, a decision to initiate a hearing means only that the
Administrator has determined that the evidence submitted, if
substantiated on the record in the hearing, may ``materially affect''
the evidentiary rationale upon which the prior order was based. On the
other hand, if the evidence submitted, even if substantiated on the
record, would be unlikely to provide a basis for modification of the
prior order, then a hearing would serve no purpose.
If the Administrator determines that a petitioner has met the
criteria for a subpart D hearing, the Administrator then publishes a
notice in the Federal Register setting forth the determination, the
rationale for that determination, a description of the issues of fact
and law to be adjudicated in the hearing, and a schedule for the
hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether: (1)
Substantial new evidence exists and (2) such substantial new evidence
requires reversal or modification of the existing cancellation order.
For purposes of any decision in the hearing, those portions of the
substantive rationale for the existing order concerning which the
petitioner did not submit substantial new evidence are assumed to be
correct. Thus, the scope of any subpart D hearing is intrinsically
narrower than the proceeding which was held or could have been held
concerning the order to be modified.
In a subpart D hearing, as in a cancellation hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge transmits a recommended decision to the
Administrator, who then issues a final decision retaining, modifying,
or reversing the existing order.
IV. Analysis of the EBDC Request for Subpart D Hearing
A. Risk Issues
Atochem and Griffin have not submitted any new information which
would affect the validity of the Agency's analysis of the toxicity of
EBDCs or the methodology used by the Agency to estimate exposure to
EBDCs. The petitioners assert that the proposed language does not
increase the individual or seasonal application limits and provides
equivalent protection in terms of limiting exposure while addressing
the Agency's concerns about multiple EBDC use and having the added
advantage of being more easily understood. The petitioners further
assert that the decision to restrict EBDC use as per the restrictive
language of the NOITC was not based on specific risk concerns but on
concerns of exceeding maximum amount of product allowed per crop per
season.
As mentioned in unit II above, the March 2, 1992 NOITC, which
contained the requirement which would prevent the use of more than one
EBDC active ingredient per crop per season, did not provide a risk/
benefit rationale for the specific application prohibitions at issue
here. The Agency's thinking at that time was that such a provision
would help assure that growers would not exceed EBDC usage limits per
crop. The language was designed to address this need. There are other
disincentives to growers that should dissuade them from engaging in
that type of practice, such as the risk of having crops with over-
tolerance residues which could make crops subject to seizure.
The Agency recognizes that there might be different and better ways
to address this concern which do not increase risks and would allow
EBDC use in situations where multiple EBDC use is warranted.
B. Benefits Issues
The Atochem and Griffin submission includes information and
evidence on the benefits of using more than one EBDC active ingredient
per crop per season which was not available to or considered by the
Agency prior to the final Cancellation Order. The submission asserts
that the current label restriction ``has had a substantial impact on
the industry, including negative effects on competition, industry-wide
confusion, and hardship for suppliers and growers alike'' and includes
information which is summarized below in support of their assertion:
The current label specification precludes growers from switching
among EBDCs for any reason. This is true even if a particular product
is high priced due to limited availability or unavailable altogether.
The petitioners assert that the potato industry has faced a unique
problem. According to petitioners, many potato growers are required by
contract with food processors or packers to make pre-storage
applications of Ridomil (metalaxyl) which contains mancozeb,
because consultants and researchers have strongly recommended this as a
way to prevent root rot, or late blight. This, coupled with the current
prohibition on switching among EBDC active ingredients, precludes any
potato grower under such a contract from using any EBDC but mancozeb on
that crop for the remainder of the season--even though it may not be
the most effective treatment for the pest. Petitioners further assert
that there is an increased risk of resistance when the range of
products used is limited.
Fungal problems associated with potatoes include root rot, or late
blight which is commonly treated with a metalaxyl product which is
considered most effective when it is a metalaxyl/EBDC mix. Product
mixes (as opposed to tank mixes) are preferred because of their
convenience, ease in handling, reduced potential exposure, and reduced
costs. Current labeling precludes growers from using metalaxyl/EBDC
mixes such as Ridomil Mz (metalaxyl and mancozeb) if they had
used maneb earlier in the season. This would limit them to using
metalaxyl without an EBDC which may be a less effective treatment and
may limit the potatoes' marketability.
Reliability of supply is another issue that growers consider. All
EBDC active ingredients are manufactured abroad and domestic suppliers
have little control over ensuring their steady supply. The failure of a
foreign supplier or manufacturer to deliver the active ingredients as
scheduled can result in the shortage of a particular formulation. This
could create problems for growers who are bound by current label
specifications to the use of a specific active ingredient.
The submission provides some evidence of the registrant/
marketplace/grower confusion that resulted from implementation of this
provision that was not available at the time of the NOITC. The
submission asserts that there has been significant confusion in the
marketplace and among growers and includes two examples: the Wisconsin
Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, according to their February
8, 1993 newsletter, interpreted the current label language to restrict
growers to one brand all season and Sugar Producer Magazine interpreted
the statement the same way, saying that no product switching would be
allowed.
These interpretations of the language differ substantially from the
EPA's post-cancellation order interpretation (EPA response to questions
posed by the EBDC/ETU Task Force after the NOITC had become a final
cancellation order) which clearly limited only switching among active
ingredients and did not restrict switching among different brands of
the same EBDC active ingredient. Petitioners assert that this confusion
could influence purchasing decisions and create unfair advantages for
certain products while undermining integrated pest control practices.
As noted above, the Agency has attempted to clarify this issue, but
even with clarification, the unintended impacts have continued. The
Agency recognizes that the label language required by the NOITC has
created confusion and implementation problems in the marketplace and at
the grower level. It is obvious from the information provided by the
Petitioners that this confusion has continued even after the Agency
attempted to clarify the requirement and its intent. Obviously, the
Agency does not want this confusing situation to continue. In light of
the unfortunate situation that has evolved since the NOITC requirement
became final and began to be implemented, the Agency now believes that
its goal of limiting the potential exceeding of EBDC usage limits by
growers can be addressed in a better way with different label language.
Atochem and Griffin further assert that the current label
restriction is inconsistent with the nature of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) programs which are ``based on selective use of
different classes of fungicides...''
The Agency has received copies of correspondence from the Florida
Fruit and Vegetable Association and the National Potato Council
discussing certain problems faced by growers who are bound by the
current label restrictions. Both letters expressed strong support for
the Atochem and Griffin request to replace the current restriction with
the proposed language.
The Atochem and Griffin submission asserts that ``the proposed
language serves EPA's objective which was to ensure that seasonal
limits on the quantities of EBDCs that can be applied to a particular
crop not be exceeded without any negative effects on competition or any
hardship to the industry or to growers.''
C. Subpart D Determination
Under 40 CFR 164.131(a), the Administrator is to provide a hearing
to modify a prior final cancellation decision only if it is determined
that certain criteria have been met. Having concluded that Atochem and
Griffin have presented substantial new evidence concerning the impact
of new restrictions on the use of more than one EBDC active ingredient
per crop per season which was not available to the Agency when the
final cancellation order went into effect, the Administrator must now
determine whether that evidence ``may materially affect'' that order.
The Administrator has concluded that because risk will not be increased
by adoption of the proposed language, she might consider modifying the
cancellation decision to alter this restriction if the evidentiary
record in a hearing substantiates the Atochem and Griffin assertions
concerning the impacts of the restrictions and the benefits of using
more than one EBDC active ingredient per crop per season and in certain
cases allowing a single seed treatment application per crop per season
in addition to foliar applications. Thus, the first criterion in 40 CFR
164.131(a) has been met.
Certain information provided by Petitioners on the post-
cancellation order implementation confusion, and problems created by
this label provision in the marketplace and among users, could not have
reasonably been obtained before the restriction was in place. Having
also concluded that either these petitioners or the parties in the
cancellation proceeding could not have discovered earlier some of this
new evidence on the impact of this restriction ``through the exercise
of due diligence'' the second criterion in 40 CFR 164.131(a) has also
been met.
Based on the above analysis, the Administrator has decided to hold
a hearing under subpart D to consider whether to modify the final
cancellation order for pesticide products containing EBDCs as it
applies to the restriction on the use of more than one EBDC active
ingredient per crop per season and the allowance in certain cases of a
single seed treatment application per crop per season in addition to
foliar applications.
V. Hearing Procedures
A. Issues To Be Adjudicated
Pursuant to 40 CFR 164.131(c), the Administrator is specifying
those issues of fact and law to be adjudicated in the hearing convened
pursuant to this notice. Because the purpose of such a hearing is only
to consider whether to modify certain aspects of the Administrator's
prior cancellation decision and because a prompt conclusion to the
hearing is a requisite of meaningful relief for the petitioners, the
evidentiary presentation in the hearing shall be strictly confined to
the issues of fact and law which the Administrator has determined are
presented by the Atochem and Griffin submission.
The issues of fact to be adjudicated are:
1. What will the economic impacts on growers, processors, and
consumers be if the lack of a provision for a seed treatment
application and the present restriction on using multiple EBDC active
ingredients on the same crop during the same growing season continue?
2. What have been the use practices regarding the use of more than
one EBDC active ingredient per crop per season prior to the current
restriction?
3. What will be the effect of the present restriction on using
multiple EBDC active ingredients on the same crop during the same
growing season if this restriction is maintained? Likewise, what would
be the effect on efficacy of EBDC use and other pest control practices
if the lack of a provision for a seed treatment application continues?
4. Assuming the validity of the analysis of the toxicity of EBDCs
and the methodology for analysis of exposure to EBDCs upon which the
cancellation order was based, what quantitative effect would adoption
of the proposed language have on the total risk associated with EBDC
use?
The issues of law to be adjudicated are:
1. Has substantial new evidence been presented pertaining to the
use of more than one EBDC active ingredient per crop per season and
allowance in certain cases for a single seed treatment application per
crop per season in addition to foliar applications and the impact of
the current restriction?
2. Assuming the validity of the analysis of the toxicity of EBDCs
and the methodology for analysis of exposure to EBDCs upon which the
cancellation order was based, does the evidence presented demonstrate
that the benefits of allowing use of more than one EBDC active
ingredient per crop per season and allowing in certain cases a single
seed treatment application per crop per season in addition to foliar
applications are likely to outweigh the risks of such use? [i.e. Based
on the evidence presented, should the Agency revise its prior
determination that allowed use to be limited to one active ingredient
per crop per season and that a single seed treatment should not be
allowed in certain cases in addition to the foliar application?]
The sole objective of this hearing is to determine whether or not
the order canceling all sale, distribution, and use of pesticide
products containing EBDCs which do not comply with the current label
restriction on multiple EBDC use should be modified to permit the use
of more than one EBDC active ingredient per crop per season and allow a
single seed treatment in addition to foliar uses where there is a
registered seed treatment use.
B. Burden of Proof
As provided by 40 CFR 164.132, the burden of proof in this
proceeding shall be on the proponent(s) of modification of the final
cancellation order and the petitioners shall proceed first. As in all
formal adjudication, all testimony must be presented and documents
sponsored by a witness competent to be cross-examined on the material.
It is the petitioners rather than the Agency who must make an
evidentiary record substantiating the assertions in the submission. Of
course, Agency counsel may also present testimony and cross-examine
Petitioners' witnesses concerning the issues of fact to be adjudicated.
C. Hearing Requests
The petitioners and the Agency shall automatically be parties in
the hearing. Any other person or party who seeks to participate in the
hearing must submit a written hearing request describing the interest
of that person or party in the proceeding and the nature and purpose of
the participation sought. All requests for a hearing must be received
by the Office of the Hearing Clerk within 30 calendar days from the
date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. Any request
received after that time will be denied. Requests for a hearing must be
submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900). Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
D. Scheduling
As required by 40 CFR 164.131(c), the Administrator is specifying a
schedule for this hearing. In recognition of the narrow scope of the
proceeding, the Administrator is establishing the following schedule.
The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall appoint an Administrative
Law Judge to preside at this proceeding within 35 calendar days from
date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. The hearing
shall commence in Washington, DC as soon thereafter as practicable but
in no event later than 40 calendar days from the date of publication of
this Notice in the Federal Register. The presiding Administrative Law
Judge shall transmit recommended findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the hearing record to the Administrator within 70 calendar days
from the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register.
The parties shall submit any objections to the recommended findings of
fact and conclusions of law to the Administrator within 10 business
days after issuance, and the Administrator will enter a final order as
soon thereafter as practicable.
E. 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 issue: the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the
Environmental Appeals Board, the Deputy Administrator, and the members
of the staff in 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 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 this proceedings, without fully complying with the applicable
regulations.
Dated: April 18, 1994.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. 94-10138 Filed 4-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
