This ~race~dins
s
jeing concucwd under
32
Zules
9f
?mctic2
8
-
joverning hearin~s nder
~n2
2cer:i
,
Inszczicide,
F~n~ic:
e
3r,d
?>acen?'c:
22
??*
Act
(40
CF2
Part
io~)
nd
in
?articular Sujparz
D
;?,ereof.
In
acc~rdanc2with hragraph
164.131
(a)
,
tne
Adni ni srrator rcvi evded
fne
appi
f
caci onsfor registra~ion 7 Compound
1080
and detnined
thsi
r?consideration of
3
the suspension and cancellation order kas warranted.The
cited
secticn provides in par::"The Administrator shall de12rnine thac such reconsiderationis [warranted When he finds chat:(i
)
the appl icanc haspresmted sunstancia1 new evib2ncc 1,qhich
aay
~at~t-i
:
iy
effect zhe ?rior cancellation or 3us;ension or&r
and
whichwas not avai
lable
to
th?
Adzi ni sfrator,at the
tire
he
nadehis final cancellatioj.
or
suspensian detminacion and
(2)
such evidencs could not, chrough the zxercise
of
duediligence, have been discavered
by
rhe
partiss
ta
tnecanc2llation or susgension proceeding prior
TO
che issuanceof the final order."Paragraph 164.132(a)
of
tne Subpar:
O
rules orovides that
ihe
burden
sf
proof in the hearing shall be
on
the a~plicant r
applicants
who
shallproceed first.This section further provides:"The issues
in
the hearing shall
be
whether:
(1)
substzntialnew evidence exists and
(2)
such substantial new evidencerequires reversal or modification of existing canceila~ion
or
suspension order.The deternination of these issues shallbe made taking into account the human and environmental risksfound
by
the Administrator in
his
,canceiiation and suspensiondetermination and the accurnu?ative effect of all past
and
present uses, including the requested use, and uses which
may
reasonably be anticipated to occur
in
the future as
a
resultof grancing
the
requested reversal or modification."The
ALJ
ruled that, although the initial determination underParagraph
154.1
31 (a)
as
to whether the evidence warrants reccnsi deraii
on
Leave a Comment