Notice of Hearing on the Application to Use Sodium Fluoroacetate ...

This ~race~dins is jeing concucwd under 3 2 Zules 9f ?mctic2
8
joverning hearin~s under
-
~ n 2 r2cer:i , Inszczicide, F~n~ic: ie 3r,d ?>acen?'c: 22
? ? *
Act (40 CF2 Part io~) and in ?articular Sujparz D ;?,ere<strong>of</strong>. In acc~rdanc2
with hragraph 164.131 (a) , tne Adni ni srrator rcvi evded fne appi f caci ons
for registra~ion 07 Compound 1080 and detnined thsi r?consideration <strong>of</strong>
the suspension and cancellation order kas warranted.
The cited secticn provides in par::
"The Administrator shall de12rnine thac such reconsideration
is [warranted When he finds chat: (i ) the appl icanc has
presmted sunstancia1 new evib2ncc 1,qhich aay ~at~t-i a: iy
effect zhe ?rior cancellation or 3us;ension or&r and which
was not avai lable to th? Adzi ni sfrator,at the tire he nade
his final cancellatioj. or suspensian detminacion and (2)
such evidencs could not, chrough the zxercise <strong>of</strong> due
diligence, have been discavered by rhe partiss ta tne
canc2llation or susgension proceeding prior TO che issuance
<strong>of</strong> the final order."
Paragraph 164.132(a) <strong>of</strong> tne Subpar: O rules orovides that ihe burden sf
pro<strong>of</strong> in the hearing shall be on the a~plicant or applicants who shall
proceed first. This section further provides:
"The issues in the hearing shall be whether: (1) substzntial
new evidence exists and (2) such substantial new evidence
requires reversal or modification <strong>of</strong> existing canceila~ion
or suspension order. The deternination <strong>of</strong> these issues shall
be made taking into account the human and environmental risks
found by the Administrator in his ,canceiiation and suspension
determination and the accurnu?ative effect <strong>of</strong> all past and
present uses, including the requested use, and uses which may
reasonably be anticipated to occur in the future as a result
<strong>of</strong> grancing the requested reversal or modification."
The ALJ ruled that, although the initial determination under
Paragraph 154.1 31 (a) as to whether the evidence warrants reccnsi deraii on
3