~1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYBEFORE THE ADMINISTRATORIn
re
1
Chapman Chemical Company, et a1
.
,
1
I
FIFRA Docket No.
246,
et
al.
Registrants
1
--
-
INITIAL DECISION0
F
BERNARD D. LEVINSONADMINISTRATIVE
LAM
JUDGEDECEMBER
12,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
t
In
re
11
Chapman Chemical Company, et a1
.,
)
FIFRA Docket No. 246, et at.Registrants
)
)
Initial DecisionPrel iminary StatementThese areconsol idpted proceedings to cancel the reg is trati nsof a1
1
pesticides containing mercury.The proceedings were initiatedunder section
4
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and RodenticideAct as it existed prior to the amendments of October 21, 1972 (FIFRA1947,
7
U.S.C. 136b(c)).The proceedings continued under section 6of the
Act
as amended (FIFRA), P.L. 92-516, 92nd Cong., 7 U.S.C. 136d(b)and (d).
1/
The proceedings were initiated on March 22, 1972 when theAdministrator of Environmental Protection Agency issued PR Notice 72-5cancel
1
ing the registrations of a1
1
pesticides
containing mercurybecause they created "a substantial question of safety as to whether ornot their use, even in accordance with label directions, is not injuriousto man and other living animals." This notice also contained thefollowing order. "In addition, registratfons for alkyl compounds and
1/
A
motion to dismiss by some of the registrants based, in part,on thg ground that certain procedures set forth in FIFRA 1947 had notbeen compl fed with, was denied
by
the Administrative Law Judge and thedenial was sustained
by
the Judicial Officer on April
1,
1974.
nonalkyl uses on rice seed, in laundry, and marine antifoulingpaint create an iminent hazard and these registrations are hereby
zl
suspended."These suspensions are not here in issue.Section 6(b) of FIFRA, 7
U.S.C.
136d(b) provides in pertinentpart as follows:
If
it
appears to the Administrator that a pesticideor its labeling or other material required to besubmitted does not comply with the provisions of thisAct or, when used in accordance with widespread andcomnonly recognized practice
,
eneral ly causesunreasonable adverse effects on the environment,theAdministrator may issue a notice of his intent
.
.
.
to cancel its registration
. .
.
ogether with thereasons (including the factual basis) for hisactfon
.
.
.
The proposed actfon shall become finaland effective at the end of
30
days from receipt bythe registrant of [the] notice
.
. .
unless withinthat time
.
. .
a request for hearing is made by aperson adversely affected by the notice.Section 2(bb) of FIFRA
(7
U.S.C.
136(bb)) defines "unreasonableadverse effects on the environment" to mean
:
Any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, takinginto account the economic, social
,
and environmentalcosts and benefits of the use of any pesticide.Sectlon 6(d), 7
U.S.C.
136(d) sets forth the basic proceduralrequirements for hearing and deci sion.
A
number of registrants did request a hearing and by order of theChief Administrative Law Judge the cases were consol idated for hearing.Two parties were admitted into the case as intervenors and one individuala physician, was permitted to participate in the case as amicus curiae.The suspensions for "imminent hazard" were issued under section4(c) of
FIFRA
1947, 7
U.S.C.
135b(c).Section 6(c) of FIFRA as amended,7 U.S.C. 136d(c) contains
a
similar provision.
4.
of 00
Environmental Protection Agency: fifra-246-chapman-chemical-id-121275
351 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 01/26/2008 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment