Notice of Intent to Cancel Registration of Certain Products Containing the Active Ingredient Metam-Sodium

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-66200; FRL-4911-7]

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)-

305-6900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

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

A. Metam-Sodium

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

eye problems.

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

this chemical.

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

(Ref. 2).

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

equipment.

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

investigated.

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

these products.

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

adverse effects.

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

applicators.

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

Agriculture

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

classification.

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

Agency's decision.

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

164).

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.

VIII. References

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

metam-sodium products.

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

request.

15. May 12, 1994 Letter to Doug Campt on USDA's reply to request to

waive review.

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

recordkeeping requirements.

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