PIC CIRCULAR XXVIII – December 2008

ROTTERDAM CONVENTION

SECRETARIAT FOR THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION ON THE PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Pic Circular XXVIII December 2008

PIC CIRCULAR XXVIII - December 2008

Table of Contents

1. THE PURPOSE OF THE PIC CIRCULAR ...... 2

2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION...... 2 2.1 Designated national authorities (Article 4 of the Convention)...... 2 2.2 Notification of final regulatory action to ban or severely restrict a chemical...... 2 (Article 5 of the Convention)...... 2 2.3 Proposal for inclusion of severely hazardous pesticide formulations (Article 6 of the Convention)...... 3 2.4 Chemicals subject to the PIC procedure and distribution of decision guidance documents (Article 7 of the Convention) ...... 3 2.5 Export Notifications (Article 12)...... 4 2.6 Information to accompany exported chemicals (Article 13, paragraph 1) ...... 4 2.7 Transmittal of a response concerning future import of a chemical ...... 4 (Article 10, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention)...... 4 2.8 Information on responses received concerning future import of a chemical (Article 10, paragraph 10 and Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Convention) ...... 5 2.9 Information exchange on chemicals recommended by the Chemical Review Committee for listing in Annex III but for which the Conference of the Parties has yet to take a final decision (article 14)...... 6 2.10 Information on transit movements (Article 14, paragraph 5)...... 6

3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR DNAs...... 6 3.1 Information on status of ratification of the Convention ...... 6 3.2 List of documents in support of the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention...7 3.3 Resource kit of information on Rotterdam Convention...... 8

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I (Synopsis of Notifications of Final Regulatory Action received under the PIC procedure) ...... 11

APPENDIX II (Proposals for Inclusion of Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulations received under the PIC Procedure) ...... 68

APPENDIX III (Chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention)...... 69

APPENDIX IV (Listing of All Import Responses Received From Parties)...... 71

APPENDIX V (Tabular summary of Notifications of Final Regulatory Actions of chemicals not inlisted in Annex III) ...... 390

APPENDIX VI (Information exchange on domestic regulatory status of chemicals recommended for inclusion in Annex III by Chemical Review Committee) ...... 402 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

INTRODUCTION

1. THE PURPOSE OF THE PIC CIRCULAR

The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals in International Trade entered into force on 24 February 2004.

The purpose of the PIC Circular is to provide all Parties through their designated national authorities (DNAs), with the information required to be circulated by the Secretariat, in line with Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 14. The decision guidance documents to be dispatched to Parties in line with Article 7, paragraph 3, are sent out in a separate communication.

The PIC Circular is published every six months, in June and December, respectively. This Circular contains information related to the period from 30 April 2008 to 31 October 2008. In order to allow for processing of the information received in preparation of this PIC Circular, information received after 31 October 2008 has not generally been included, but will be reflected in the next Circular scheduled for June 2009.

Considerable efforts have been made by the Secretariat to ensure that the information included in this PIC Circular is both complete and accurate. DNAs are requested to review the information relating to their countries and communicate any inconsistencies, errors or omissions to the attention of the Secretariat.

2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROTTERDAM CONVENTION

2.1 Designated national authorities (Article 4 of the Convention)

In line with Article 4, paragraph 4 of the Convention, the Secretariat shall inform Parties of new nominations or changes in nominations of designated national authorities (DNAs). A complete Register of DNAs containing all contact details is distributed together with the present PIC Circular. DNAs can also access this information on the Rotterdam Convention website at www.pic.int .

2.2 Notification of final regulatory action to ban or severely restrict a chemical (Article 5 of the Convention)

In line with Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the Secretariat circulates summaries of notifications of final regulatory action that have been verified to contain the information required by Annex I of the Convention. In addition, the Secretariat circulates a synopsis of all of the notifications of final regulatory action received, including information regarding those notifications that do not contain all the information required by Annex I of the Convention.

Synopses of all notifications of final regulatory action to ban or severely restrict chemicals, received from Parties since the last PIC Circular (June 2008) have been prepared. Part A of Appendix I of this PIC Circular, contains the summary of the individual notifications verified to meet the information requirements of Annex I of the Convention. Part B contains a list of all notifications received, over the same period, that have been verified not to meet the information requirements of Annex I of the Convention. Finally, Part C lists Parties that have submitted notifications, which are still under verification by the Secretariat.

Part A of Appendix V, contains a tabular summary of all the notifications of final regulatory action for banned or severely restricted chemicals that are not listed in Annex III that were received from Parties from September 1998 to 31 October 2008, and verified as meeting the information requirements of Annex I of the Convention. The table includes information on 184 chemicals. Once an additional notification, verified as meeting the information requirements of Annex I, has been submitted from a second PIC region for one or more of these chemicals, they will be then forwarded to the Chemical Review Committee for consideration as candidate chemicals for inclusion in Annex III of the Convention.

2 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Parties that have adopted final regulatory actions are to notify the Secretariat of that fact within the timeframes established in paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 5. The Secretariat would like to draw the attention of Parties to these 184 chemicals for which at least one complete notification already exists and encourage Parties to accord priority to those chemicals in preparing notifications of final regulatory action.

Part B of Appendix V contains a list of all notifications received, over the same period, that have been verified not to meet the information requirements of Annex I of the Convention.

Information on notifications submitted by Parties for the chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention, verified as meeting the information requirements of Annex I of the Convention have been included in the subsection titled “Additional information on Annex III chemicals on the Rotterdam Convention website at www.pic.int .

Finally, a synopsis of all notifications received before the adoption of the Convention (under the Original PIC procedure) was published in PIC Circular X in December 1999 and is available at the Convention website(www.pic.int). The notifications submitted before the adoption of the Convention do not meet the requirements of Annex I because the information requirements for notification under the original PIC procedure were different than those of the Convention. It is to be noted that although Parties are not obliged to resubmit notifications submitted under the original PIC procedure (paragraph 2 of article 5 of the Convention), they may wish to consider doing so for those chemicals not presently listed in Annex III, in the event that sufficient supporting information is available.

In order to facilitate the submission of notifications, a Form for notification of final regulatory action to ban or severely restrict a chemical and guidance on how to complete it have been developed. Copies of the form and the instructions can be obtained at www.pic.int or upon request from the Secretariat.

When a notification of final regulatory action is submitted, the date of issue, signature of the DNA and official seal must be provided for each individual form to ensure its official status.

2.3 Proposal for inclusion of severely hazardous pesticide formulations (Article 6 of the Convention)

In line with Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Secretariat circulates summaries of those proposals for inclusion of severely hazardous pesticide formulations in the PIC procedure, which the Secretariat has verified to contain the information required by part 1 of Annex IV of the Convention.

Summaries of proposals received from Parties are provided in part A of Appendix II of this PIC Circular. Parties that have submitted proposals, which are still under verification by the Secretariat, are listed in part B of this Appendix.

One proposal for Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulations has been submitted since the last Circular in June 2008 and is under verification.

In order to facilitate the submission of proposals, a Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulation Report Form for Health Incidents has been developed. A Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulation Report Form for Environment Incidents has also been developed. Copies of these forms and instructions may be obtained from the Rotterdam Convention website(www.pic.int) or upon request from the Secretariat. When a Proposal is submitted, the date of issue, signature of the DNA and official seal must be provided for each individual form to ensure its official status.

2.4 Chemicals subject to the PIC procedure and distribution of decision guidance documents (Article 7 of the Convention)

3 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Appendix III of this PIC Circular, lists all chemicals that are currently in Annex III of the Convention and subject to the PIC procedure, their categories (pesticide, industrial chemical and severely hazardous pesticide formulation) and the date of first dispatch of the corresponding decision guidance document (DGD) to DNAs.

The Fourth Conference of the Parties in decision RC.4/5 agreed to make all tributyltin compounds subject to the Prior Informed Consent procedure and to list them in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention as follows:

Chemical Relevant CAS number(s) Category All tributyltin compounds including: Tributyltin oxide 56-35-9, Tributyltin fluoride, 1983-10-4,

Tributyltin methacrylate, 2155-70-6, Pesticide Tributyltin benzoate, 4342-36-3,

Tributyltin chloride, 1461-22-9,

Tributyltin linoleate, 24124-25-2,

Tributyltin naphthenate 85409-17-2

In line with paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention the Decision Guidance Document for tributyltin compounds will be circulated on 1 February 2009 along with a request that DNAs provide an import response for these chemicals within nine months.

2.5 Export Notifications (Article 12)

Article 12 and Annex V of the Convention set out the provisions and information requirements related to export notifications. Where a chemical is banned or severely restricted by a Party, that Party shall provide an export notification to the importing Party. The importing Party has the obligation to acknowledge receipt of the export notification within 30 days. The Conference of the Parties at its third meeting requested the Secretariat to develop a standard form for export notification in order to assist Parties in meeting their obligations under the Convention. Copies of the form are enclosed with this Circular and are also available on the Rotterdam Convention website at www.pic.int or upon request from the Secretariat. Parties are encouraged to use this form when making or acknowledging receipt of export notifications. Where there are forms that have been developed at the national level that meet the information requirements of Annex V of the Convention they may continue to be used.

2.6 Information to accompany exported chemicals (Article 13, paragraph 1)

In accordance with article 13, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the World Customs Organization (WCO) has assigned specific Harmonized System (HS) customs codes to the individual chemicals or groups of chemicals listed in Annex III to the Rotterdam Convention. These codes entered into force on 1 January 2007. DNAs shall ensure that, for a chemical listed in Annex III and for which a HS customs code has been assigned, the shipping document carries this assigned code when the chemical is exported. A table containing this information is also available on the Rotterdam Convention website at www.pic.int .

2.7 Transmittal of a response concerning future import of a chemical (Article 10, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention) 4 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

In accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Convention, each Party shall transmit to the Secretariat, as soon as possible, and in any event not later than nine months after the date of dispatch of the decision guidance document (DGD), a response concerning the future import of the chemical concerned. If a Party modifies this response, the DNA shall forthwith submit the revised response to the Secretariat.

Article 10 paragraph 7 of the Convention states that, each Party shall, no later than the date of entry into force of the Convention for that Party; transmit import response to the Secretariat for each of the chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention.

In line with Article 10, paragraph 4 of the Convention, the response shall consist of either a final decision or an interim response. The interim response may include an interim decision regarding import. The response must relate to the category or categories specified for the chemical in Appendix III of this Circular.

As of 31 October 2008, 62 Parties have not yet provided import responses for one or more of the chemicals listed in Annex III to the Convention, among these, the following 14 Parties have failed to provide any import responses: Botswana, Croatia, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Namibia, Georgia, Marshall Islands, Maldives, Moldova, and Ukraine.

When the Convention enters into force for new Parties, the Secretariat sends a welcome package to the DNA. The package contains all information relevant to the implementation of the Convention together with the request for the submission of the outstanding import responses.

The list of “Cases of failure to transmit a response” in Appendix IV of the PIC Circular serves as a further reminder of the need to submit import responses for all chemicals in Annex III.

In order to facilitate the submission of responses regarding import, a Form for import response and guidance on how to complete it, have been developed. Copies of the form and the instructions can be obtained on the Rotterdam Convention website at www.pic.int or upon request to the Secretariat. When an import response is submitted, the date of issue, signature of the DNA and official seal must be provided for each individual form to ensure its official status.

2.8 Information on responses received concerning future import of a chemical (Article 10, paragraph 10 and Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Convention)

Paragraph 10 of Article 10 states that the Secretariat shall, every six months, inform all Parties of the responses received regarding future import, including a description of the legislative or administration measures on which the decisions have been based, where available, and information on cases of failure on their part to transmit a response.

Appendix IV of this PIC Circular contains information on the import responses submitted by Parties for chemicals in Annex III of the Convention. Part 1 includes those import responses received since the last PIC Circular that is the period between 30 April and 31 October 2008. Part 2 includes a full listing of all of the import responses received from all Parties up to 31 October 2008, Part 3 lists the cases of failure to transmit a response for each Party and the date on which the Secretariat first informed all Parties, through publication of the PIC Circular, of the failure of that Party to transmit an import response. The information in this Appendix has been arranged according to the sequence of the individual chemicals as they are listed in Appendix III of this Circular.

The responses listed in Appendix IV relate to the category or categories specified for each chemical in Appendix III of this Circular. Please note that any response not addressing importation is considered as an interim response that does not contain an interim decision.

The Secretariat encourages Parties to submit the outstanding import responses for the all 39 chemicals listed in Annex III to the Convention and wishes to draw the attention of DNAs to Article 11, paragraph 2 of the

5 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Convention, in relation to the failure to transmit a response or an interim response that does not contain an interim decision.

2.9 Information exchange on chemicals recommended by the Chemical Review Committee for listing in Annex III but for which the Conference of the Parties has yet to take a final decision (article 14)

Article 14 states in paragraph 1 that each Party shall, as appropriate and in accordance with the objective of this Convention facilitate: a) the exchange of scientific, technical, economic and legal information concerning the chemicals within the scope of this Convention, including toxicological, ecotoxicological and safety information; b) the provision of publicly available information on domestic regulatory actions relevant to the objectives of this Convention; and c) the provision of information to other Parties, directly or through the Secretariat, on domestic regulatory actions that substantially restrict one or more uses of the chemical, as appropriate.

The Conference of the Parties in decisions RC.3/3, RC.4/4 on chrysotile asbestos and decision RC.4/6 on endosulfan encouraged Parties to make use of all information available on these chemicals, to assist others, in particular developing counties and countries with economies in transition to make informed decisions regarding their import and management and to inform other Parties of these decisions using the information exchange provisions in Article 14 of the Convention. The full text of these decisions may be found in Annex I of the reports of the meetings (UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.3/26 and UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.4/24).

In line with these decisions and in the interest of promoting information exchange on these chemicals Appendix VI of the PIC Circular has been divided into two parts.

Part 1 provides a reference to the information that has been provided by Parties on national decisions concerning the management of chrysotile asbestos and endosulfan. It is a tabular summary which provides details on the Party that submitted the information; the PIC Circular the information was circulated in, and the web link to the Rotterdam Convention website where the information might be found. In the section “Chemicals recommended by CRC for inclusion in Annex III” on the Rotterdam Convention website, there is further information on these chemicals including the notifications of final regulatory action and supporting documentation that was made available to the Chemical Review Committee and the draft decision guidance documents.

Part 2 is a list of decisions on the future import of chrysotile asbestos and endosulfan that have been submitted by Parties under Article 14. These import decisions are circulated for information only and do not constitute part of the legally binding PIC procedure.

This information as well as further information relevant to the work of the Chemical Review Committee on these chemicals may be accessed directly on the Rotterdam Convention website at www.pic.int .

2.10 Information on transit movements (Article 14, paragraph 5)

Since the last PIC Circular of June 2008, no Party has reported to the Secretariat its need for information on transit movements through its territory of Annex III chemicals.

3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR DNAs

3.1 Information on status of ratification of the Convention

The Convention entered into force on 24 February 2004, 90 days after the date of the deposit of the 50th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. For each State or regional economic integration organization that ratifies, accepts or approves this Convention or accedes thereto after 24 February 2004, the Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit by such State or regional economic integration organization of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 6 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

As of 30 November 2008 there were 125 Parties to the Rotterdam Convention and one further State (Nicaragua) that had ratified but for whom the Convention had yet to enter into force.

The Parties include: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Congo (DR), Congo, Cook Islands, Côte d´Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Cuba, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Community, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea (DPR), Korea, Republic of , Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands. Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Republic of , Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania, , Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam and Yemen.

For those States that become Parties to the Convention after 30 November 2008, all information will be reported in the next PIC Circular scheduled for June 2009 (PIC Circular XXIX).

The Rotterdam Convention website (www.pic.int) gives a complete and up to date list of the States or regional economic integration organizations that have ratified the Rotterdam Convention.

3.2 List of documents in support of the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention

The following are documents relevant to the operation of Rotterdam Convention and they can be obtained from the Secretariat or from the Rotterdam Convention website at www.pic.int .

• The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish);

• Decision guidance documents for each of the chemicals in Annex III of the Convention (available in English, French and Spanish);

• Form and instructions for notification of final regulatory action to ban or severely restrict a chemical (available in English, French and Spanish);

• Form and instructions for import response (available in English, French and Spanish);

• Severely Hazardous Pesticide Formulation (SHPF) report form - Environmental Incident report from (available in English, French and Spanish);

• Export notification form and instructions (available in English, French and Spanish);

• Form for nomination of a Designated National Authority (available in English, French and Spanish);

• All past PIC Circulars (available English, French and Spanish);

• Register of Designated National Authorities for the Rotterdam Convention (available in English). 7 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

3.3 Resource kit of information on Rotterdam Convention

A Resource kit of information on the Rotterdam Convention is available. It has been developed with a range of end-users in mind, including the general public, designated national authorities and stakeholders involved in the implementation of the Convention. It includes elements to assist in awareness-raising activities and detailed technical information and training materials aimed at facilitating implementation of the Convention. All documents contained in the Resource kit are downloadable at www.pic.int.

The following is a list of the key components of the Resource kit:

General Information on the Convention (A: Arabic, C: Chinese, E: English, F: French, R: Russian and S: Spanish)

Item Language availability

CDs of Resource Kit containing all publications in the various - language versions

The Stepwise guide a brief introduction to the Resource Kit, the E/F/S titles and content of all publications

Towards Responsible Trade, a short overview of the nature of the A/C/E/F/R/S Convention, its objective and the benefits to Parties but without technical details

Protecting human health and the environment: A guide to the A/C/E/F/R/S Rotterdam Convention on trade in hazardous chemicals and pesticides, basic information on the Convention in simple, non- technical language

Information brochure on the Hazardous Chemicals and Waste A/C/E/F/R/S Conventions, a brief non-technical overview of the three Conventions (Rotterdam, Stockholm and Basel Convention), how they complement each other and where they differ

Overview of the Rotterdam Convention with more technical E/F/S information on the scope and operation of the Convention PowerPoint presentations on the Convention, two presentations E/F/S that might be used by designated national authorities or others in raising awareness about the Rotterdam Convention.: 1) Overview of the Rotterdam Convention and 2) the Interrelationship of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions

8 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Guidance Information

Item Language availability

A/C/E/F/R/S Guidance to Designated National Authorities on the operation of the Rotterdam Convention provides comprehensive guidance to DNAs on the rights and obligations of Parties under the Convention

Guide on the Development of National Laws to Implement the A/C/E/F/R/S Rotterdam Convention and Case studies on the development of national laws for the implementation of the Convention to assist in the development of national laws to implement the Rotterdam Convention (now complemented by three case studies NEW)

Steps Towards Ratification sets out general steps that a country A/C/E/F/R/S may follow in becoming a Party to the Convention

Harmonized System codes fact sheet (NEW) E/F/S

Implementation documents

Item Language availability

Booklet containing all the forms: Import response form, Final E/F/S regulatory action form, Severely Hazardous Pesticide formulation , Designated national authorities form, , Export notification

PIC Circular Introduction Guide A/E/F/R/S

A Decision Guidance Document example E/F/S

Training materials

Item Language availability

E-learning (NEW), the Interactive Training on the Operation of E the Rotterdam Convention (ITORC). It has been developed with the goal of providing technical training to Designated National Authorities (DNA) and other interested stakeholders for the implementation of the Convention. The e-learning is available online and on CD Rom.

Training manual, four modules, each including a summary note E/F/S introducing the relevant elements of the Convention, a PowerPoint presentation and a list of Frequently Asked Questions. These are accompanied by a case study aimed at providing practice in completing the relevant forms in preparation for their submission to the Secretariat.

9 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Information on cross cutting issues relevant to chemicals management

Item Language availability

Cross cutting issues booklet (NEW), information collected and A/C/E/F/R/S made available to assist countries in developing and strengthening their national chemicals management infrastructure CD containing all publications and links mentioned in the booklet

This material can also be obtained from the Secretariat upon request.

The Secretariat can be contacted at the following addresses if there are any queries regarding aspects of the development and operation of the Rotterdam Convention:

Secretariat for the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat for the Rotterdam Convention (FAO) (UNEP Chemicals) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 11-13, Chemin des Anémones 00100 Rome, Italy CH – 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland Tel: (+39 06) 5705 2188 Tel: (+41 22) 917 8296 Fax: (+39 06) 5705 6347 Fax: (+41 22) 917 8082 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

10 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

APPENDIX I

SYNOPSIS OF NOTIFICATIONS OF FINAL REGULATORY ACTION RECEIVED UNDER THE PIC PROCEDURE

Part A: SUMMARY OF EACH NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REGULATORY ACTION THAT HAS BEEN VERIFIED TO CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY ANNEX I OF THE CONVENTION

Notifications of final regulatory action that have been verified to contain all the information required by Annex I of the Convention, received between 30 April 2008 and 31 October 2008.

BURKINA FASO Common Name(s): Endosulfan CAS number(s): 115-29-7 Chemical Name: 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3- oxide Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All formulations containing Endosulfan and all uses of this preparation are banned.

Use or uses that remain allowed: None The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Sahelian Pesticide Committee prohibits all formulations containing Endosulfan. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Endosulfan is highly toxic and the risk of intoxication for users in the sahelian conditions of use is considered inacceptable.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: The risk of Endosulfan is limited.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Endosulfan is very toxic for fish and for certain aquatic vertebrates. The risk of environmental impact in surface waters in cotton-trees areas in the Sahel is considered inacceptable.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Endosulfan environmental risk is limited. Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 13/11/2007The ban entered into force, starting with the signing of the decision taken by the Coordinating Minister of CILSS, on 13 November 2007 regarding all distributions and on 31 December 2008 for all uses. Existing stocks of Endosulfan can be used until the 31-12- 2008.

11 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

CANADA Common Name(s): N-Nitrosodimethylamine CAS number(s): 62-75-9 Chemical Name: Methanamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso- Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of NDMA, or a mixture or product containing NDMA, unless the substance is incidentally present.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to NDMA that is:

contained in a hazardous waste, hazardous recyclable material or non-hazardous waste; contained in a control product (e.g., pesticide); present as a contaminant in a chemical feedstock used in a process from which there are no releases of the substance and provided that the substance is destroyed or completely converted in that process to a substance that is not listed in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Regulations; or used in a laboratory for analysis; in scientific research; or as a laboratory analytical standard.

The Regulations also establish a permit system that provides a mechanism for temporarily exempting certain applications of a substance listed in the Regulations. A permit may be granted only if the Minister of the Environment is satisfied that there is no technically or economically feasible alternative or substitute available for the substance. In addition, the Minister must be satisfied that measures have been taken to minimize or eliminate any harmful effects of the substance on the environment and human health. Finally, the applicant must provide an implementation plan that identifies specific timelines for eliminating the substance. Each permit lasts for 12 months, and can be renewed only twice.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2005 prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of toxic substances listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Regulations. NDMA is found on Schedule 1, which lists substances subject to total prohibition, with the exception of incidental presence. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to:

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) requires the Ministers of the Environment and of Health to prepare and publish a Priority Substances List that identifies substances, including chemicals, groups of chemicals, effluents and wastes that may be harmful to the environment or constitute a danger to human health. The Act also requires both Ministers to assess these substances and determine whether they are "toxic" or capable of becoming "toxic" as defined in the Act, which states: "a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that (a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or (c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health."

A description of the approach to assessment of the human health effects of Priority Substances is available in the published document "Canadian Environmental Protection Act - Human Health Risk Assessment for Priority Substances" (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/exsd/pdf/approach.pdf). It should be noted that the approach outlined in this document has evolved to incorporate recent developments in risk assessment methodology, 12 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

which will be addressed in future releases.

Data relevant to the assessment of the potential risks of NDMA to human health were identified through evaluation of existing review documents of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, as well as reviews prepared under contract by BIBRA Toxicology International. To identify additional relevant toxicological data, literature searches on NDMA were conducted using the strategy of searching by its name or CAS registry number in a variety of databases (see Assessment Report for a complete list). The EMBASE database, for 1981-1999, was searched using the name, registry number and major synonyms, combined with a link to toxicological information. In addition to the above sources of information, numerous provincial and federal government officials and representatives of various industrial sectors were contacted between February and August of 1996 for data relevant to exposure and/or effects.

A survey of Canadian industry was carried out under authority of Section 16 of the original CEPA. Companies were required to provide information on uses, releases, environmental concentrations, effects or other data on NDMA available to them if they met the trigger quantity of 10 g NDMA per year. Data obtained after August 31, 1998 were not considered in this assessment unless they were critical data received during the 60-day public review of the report (February 19 to April 19, 2000).

NDMA was released to the Canadian environment as a by-product and contaminant from various industries and from municipal wastewater treatment plants. Major releases of NDMA have been from the manufacture of pesticides, rubber tires, alkylamines and dyes. NDMA was also detected in drinking water and in automobile exhaust. Sources of release of NDMA may have occurred across Canada, but releases were quantified only in Ontario. NDMA may also form under natural conditions in air, water and soil as a result of chemical, photochemical and biological processes.

NDMA was not detected in ambient air, except in the vicinity of industrial sites, in small surveys of several cities in southern Ontario. Low concentrations of NDMA were measured in drinking water in Ontario, where sources included the contamination of groundwater with industrial effluents and the formation of NDMA in water treatment plants. The presence of NDMA was demonstrated in some foods in Canada, most frequently in beer, cured meat and fish products, and some cheeses, although levels of NDMA had decreased in these products owing to changes in food processing. Some of these changes were mandated under the Canadian Food and Drugs Act and Regulations.

Based on available data, it was concluded that NDMA was entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constituted or may have constituted a danger in Canada to human life or health. Therefore, NDMA was considered to be "toxic" as defined in CEPA 1999. This approach is consistent with the objective that exposure to substances where cancer is likely induced through direct interaction with genetic material be reduced wherever possible and obviates the need to establish an arbitrary "de minimis" level of risk for the determination of "toxic" under CEPA 1999.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: NDMA is not currently used, sold, produced, imported or exported in Canada. The Regulations ensure that NDMA is not introduced into the Canadian market, which could represent an increase in risk to Canadians' health.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 15/05/2005

CANADA Common Name(s): NCC ether CAS number(s): 94097-88-8 Chemical Name: (4-Chlorophenyl)cyclopropyLmethanone, 0-[(4-nitrophenyl) methyl]oxime Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

13 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of NCC ether, with the exceptions listed below.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to the incidental presence of NCC ether or for use in a laboratory for scientific research purposes or as a laboratory analytical standard.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Note: NCC ether was assessed under the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). While the Act was updated in 1999, the conclusions of the assessment remain the same. This notification is based on the assessment and therefore references the original Act.

Background The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), authorizes the Ministers of the Environment and of Health to investigate Substances New to Canada that may contaminate the environment and cause adverse effects on the environment or on human health.

Also, pursuant to section 29 of the Act, where Ministers have assessed any information, and suspect that a substance is "toxic", the Minister may prohibit any person from manufacturing or importing the substance, before the period for assessing the information is expired. Under Section 11 of CEPA, a substance is considered "toxic" if: "… it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions a. having or that may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment; b. constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends; or c. constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health."

In December, 1995, NCC ether "(4-Chlorophenyl)cyclopropylmethanone, O-[(4-nitrophenyl)-methyl]oxime" was notified to the Minister of Environment pursuant to subsection 26(1) of CEPA and was subsequently assessed pursuant to subsection 28(1). The assessment led to a suspicion that the substance was toxic and, consequently, its manufacture and importation was prohibited on December 20, 1995.

In view of the demonstrated contact sensitization, adverse health effects in the subchronic study, clear evidence of in vitro genotoxicity in the Ames test and equivocal and/or inconclusive evidence of genotoxicity in one in vitro and in one in vivo test, NCC ether was considered capable of posing at least a moderate degree of health hazard.

There was reason to suspect NCC ether is toxic under paragraph 11(c) of CEPA. It may enter the environment in quantity or concentration or under conditions constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

14 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: NCC ether was originally prohibited under the Prohibition Regulations. At that time NCC ether was not used, sold, produced, imported or exported in Canada. The only way to ensure that it was not introduced into the Canadian market was through a ban. The amended Regulations continue to prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or import of NCC ether towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Note: NCC ether was assessed under the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). While the Act was updated in 1999, the conclusions of the assessment remain the same. This notification is based on the assessment and therefore references the original Act.

Also, pursuant to section 29 of the Act, where Ministers have assessed any information, and suspect that a substance is "toxic", the Minister may prohibit any person from manufacturing or importing the substance, before the period for assessing the information is expired. Under Section 11 of CEPA, a substance is considered "toxic" if: "… it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions a) having or that may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment; b) constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends; or c) constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health."

Based on the ecotoxicological data, Daphnia magna was the most sensitive aquatic species tested. The 48 hour EC50 was reported to be 18 g/L and the "no observed effect concentration" was reported to be 4.7 g/L. These data were used to establish freshwater organism "concentrations of concern" for chronic and acute effects of 18 and 470 ng/L, respectively. Manufacture, processing and use information submitted indicated that the substance's release into the environment would have been primarily into receiving waters via plant effluent. The predicted environmental concentration was estimated to be 800 ng/L in receiving waters under potential production conditions.

The predicted environmental concentration in the receiving water exceeded the concern concentration for chronic and acute effects by factors of 40 and 2 respectively.

NCC ether is expected to persist in the environment as degradation was not observed in "ready biodegradation" tests and significant hydrolysis did not occur under environmentally relevant conditions. In addition, the log of the octanol/water partition coefficient (log Kow) for NCC ether is 6.3, indicating the substance has the potential to bioaccumulate in organisms.

NCC ether was determined to be toxic under paragraph 11(a) of CEPA. It may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that may have an immediate or long-term effect on the environment.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: NCC ether was originally 15 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

prohibited under the Prohibition Regulations. At that time NCC ether was not used, sold, produced, imported or exported in Canada. The only way to ensure that it was not introduced into the Canadian market was through a ban. The amended Regulations continue to prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or import of NCC ether towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 15/05/2005

CANADA Common Name(s): Azinphos-methyl CAS number(s): 86-50-0 Chemical Name: Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-dimethyl S-[(4-oxo-1,2,3-benzotriazin-3(4H)-yl)methyl] ester Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: Phase-out of all uses of azinphos-methyl as of end of December 2005, for which alternatives exist (alfalfa, clover, rye, quince, potatoes, tomatoes, rutabagas, turnips, cabbage, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflowers, cucumbers, strawberries, boysenberries, longan berries, walnuts, melons, pumpkins, blueberries, outdoor ornamentals, nursery plants, forest trees and shade trees).

Use or uses that remain allowed: Continued registration for use of apples, crab apples, apricots, blackberries, cherries, cranberries, grapes, pears, peaches, plums, prunes, raspberries (uses that are part of an established IPM program and uses for which no alternatives exist) until end of December 2012. The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The use of azinphos-methyl and associated end-use products (EP) entails an unacceptable risk of harm to the agricultural worker pursuant to Section 20 of the Canadian Pest Control Product (PCP) Regulations Environmental concerns have also been identified. As a result, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has determined that all uses of azinphos-methyl are to be phased out as outline below.

- Phase-out of all uses of azinphos-methyl as of end of December 2005, for which alternatives exist (alfalfa, clover, rye, quince, potatoes, tomatoes, rutabagas, turnips, cabbage, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflowers, cucumbers, strawberries, boysenberries, longan berries, walnuts, melons, pumpkins, blueberries, outdoor ornamentals, nursery plants, forest trees and shade trees).

- Continued registration for use of apples, crab apples, apricots, blackberries, cherries, cranberries, grapes, pears, peaches, plums, prunes, raspberries (uses that are part of an established IPM program and uses for which no alternatives exist) until end of December 2012.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Two key factors are considered when assessing health risks: the dose levels where no health effects occur and the dose levels to which people may be exposed. The dose levels used to assess risks are established to protect the most sensitive human population (e.g. children and nursing mothers). Only those uses where exposure is well below levels that cause no effects in animal testing are considered acceptable for continued registrations.

Azinphos-methyl is extremely toxic following acute oral and dermal exposures. Azinphos-methyl is moderately toxic via the inhalation route and is a dermal sensitizer.

Acute toxic signs induced by azinphos-methyl are consistent with cholinesterase inhibiting chemicals and include: tremors, convulsions, salivation and respiratory distress. Dose-related inhibition of plasma, erythrocyte and brain cholinesterase activity occurs by all routes and following exposures of various durations. 16 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Occupational risk estimates associated with applications, mixing and loading for current label uses exceed the level of concern for most exposure scenarios, even after consideration of maximum feasible engineering controls and personal protective equipment (PPE) and clothing. The PPE, engineering controls and use pattern changes required to mitigate worker exposure during the phase-out period are described in PCAR 2003-07, Appendix II.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Reducing the risk of occupational exposure to azinphos-methyl. In the interim, until registrations end on December 31, 2012, the registrant must implement a specific product stewardship plan and a number of mitigative measures to:

Ensure that field workers are provided with double notification (i.e. written notice on posted signs and verbal notification to those re-entering a field) that the area has been treated with azinphos-methyl and that azinphos-methyl is a cholinesterase inhibitor. This should include a brief description of the signs and symptoms of cholinesterase inhibition and ways to minimize exposure, and Increase the margins of safety for agricultural workers.

Details of the mitigative measures are listed in the Use Standard in PACR 2003-07, Appendix II.

Source: - Proposed Accetability for Continuing Registration (PACR 2003-07) Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) Re-evaluation of Azinphos-methyl, March 31, 2003

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 31/12/2005No further uses were allowed after December 2005 for all uses except for apples, crab apples, apricots, blackberries, cherries, cranberries, grapes, pears peaches, plums, prunes, raspberries.

CANADA Common Name(s): Benzidine CAS number(s): 92-87-5 Chemical Name: [1,1'-Biphenyl-4,4'-diamine Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: Benzidine has been used primarily as an intermediate in the manufacture of dyes and pigments. It is not produced in Canada, and although it may have been imported in small amounts between 1980 and 1987, there no longer appears to be any commercial activity in Canada involving this substance.

Benzidine and its salt are currently used only in very limited specialty laboratory applications, and for research and development purposes.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of benzidine and benzidine dihydrochloride, with the exceptions listed below: The Regulations do not apply to benzidine and benzidine dihydrochloride that are: • contained in a hazardous waste, hazardous recyclable material or non-hazardous waste; • contained in a control product (e.g., pesticide); • present as a contaminant in a chemical feedstock used in a process from which there are no releases of the substance and provided that the substance is destroyed or completely converted in that process to a 17 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

substance that is not a toxic substance listed in the Regulations; or, • used in a laboratory for analysis; in scientific research; or, as a laboratory analytical standard.

In addition, the Regulations do not apply in respect of the manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale or import of benzidine or benzidine dihydrochloride for the following permitted uses: staining for microscopic examination, such as immunoperoxidase staining, histochemical staining or cytochemical staining • reagent for detecting blood in biological fluids • niacin test to detect some microorganisms • reagent for detecting chloralhydrate in biological fluids.

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2005 prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of toxic substances listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Regulations. Benzidine and benzidine dihydrochloride are found on Schedule 2, which lists substances that are subject to prohibitions related to concentration or use. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) requires the Ministers of the Environment and of Health to prepare and publish a Priority Substances List that identifies substances, including chemicals, groups of chemicals, effluents and wastes that may be harmful to the environment or constitute a danger to human health. Benzidine was placed on this list and was given priority for assessment to determine whether it is "toxic" under CEPA. As benzidine was assessed under the original CEPA (CEPA was reviewed and updated in 1999), it was assessed against the definition for "toxic" as interpreted in section 11 of the 1988 Act, which states: "a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions a) having or that may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment; b) constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends; or c) constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health."

Data relevant to the assessment of whether benzidine is "toxic" under CEPA 1988 were identified through evaluation of existing review documents, as well as an unpublished review of the environmental behaviour and health effects of this substance prepared under contract, supplemented with information from published reference texts and literature identified through on-line searches (from 1965 to 1992) of various databases. In addition, a number of provincial authorities were requested to provide any available information on the levels of benzidine in the drinking water of their provinces. The Quebec Ministry of the Environment was requested to provide available quantitative data on potential release of this substance from petrochemical facilities. Data relevant to the assessment of the effects of benzidine on the environment and human health obtained after November 1992 and February 1993, respectively, were not considered for inclusion.

Review articles were consulted where appropriate. However, all original studies that form the basis for determining whether benzidine is "toxic" under CEPA 1988 have been critically evaluated by staff of Health Canada (human exposure and effects on human health) and Environment Canada (entry and environmental 18 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

exposure and effects).

The environmental sections of the assessment report were reviewed by Drs. C.M. Auer and W.H. Farland of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sections related to the assessment of effects on human health were approved by the Standards and Guidelines Ruling Committee of the Bureau of Chemical Hazards of Health Canada.

Entry into the Environment No conclusive data on the environmental release of benzidine in Canada were identified. It can enter the environment from any stage in the production, storage, transport, use and disposal of benzidine itself or benzidine-containing materials (such as dyes and pigments), or possibly by atmospheric and water-borne transport from other countries. In water, benzidine can be produced by the photodegradation of 3,3'- dichlorobenzidine. No information on the extent to which benzidine may be formed and released into the environment by this mechanism was identified.

Exposure-related Information Fate Oxidation, photochemical transformation, partitioning to sediment or soil, and microbial degradation are expected to be the main pathways of distribution and transformation of benzidine in the environment. Benzidine is not expected to persist in the environment, with overall half-lives in water, soil and air of less than a few weeks. The products formed by the degradation of this substance have not been well characterized.

Benzidine is expected to be slightly volatile (from water), based on its low Henry's law constant of 2.2 × 10-2 Pa m3/mol. In water, although oxidation (by hydroperoxyl radical or molecular oxygen), biodegradation and photolysis may be significant processes, the most important process controlling the fate of benzidine appears to be oxidation by naturally occurring metal cations; the half-life is approximately a few hours. Benzidine is quickly absorbed into clays and subsequently oxidized. Although the environmental fate of such complexes is not known with certainty, it is assumed that further oxidation would be facile. Estimated half-lives for the biodegradation of benzidine in surface water and groundwater are 31 to 192 h and 96 to 384 h, respectively.

Benzidine is quickly bound in soils and sediments; however, information on the bioavailability of such bound residues was not identified. It was noted that benzidine adsorption to soil or sediment was favoured by low pH, and highly correlated with the surface area of the soil or sediment. In soil, benzidine is degraded microbially. The half-life of benzidine was estimated to be 48 to 192 h for aerobic degradation.

In air, benzidine is expected to photooxidize moderately rapidly, with an estimated half-life ranging from 0.3 to 3.2 h.

Concentrations Benzidine was not detected (detection limit = 2 mg/L) in 34 samples of raw and 1 015 samples of treated drinking water obtained in the province of Alberta between 1987 and 1991. No other data on the concentrations of benzidine within Canada in drinking water, surface water, groundwater, air, biota, soil or sediment, foodstuffs or products containing dyes derived from this substance were identified.

In the United States, benzidine was not detected in a survey of biota and sediment; however, it was detected (but not quantitated) in 1.1% of 1 235 samples of industrial effluent and 0.1% of 879 samples of natural water collected between 1980 and 1982.

Benzidine accumulates only moderately in aquatic biota. Bioconcentration factors (after 3 days) were 55 for mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), 293 for Daphnia magna, 456 for mosquito larva (Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus), 645 for snail (Physa sp.) and 2 617 for a filamentous green alga (Oedogonium cardiacum). A 5-day bioaccumulation factor in activated sludge of 1 200, a 1-day bioaccumulation factor in algae (Chlorella 19 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

fusca) of 850, and a 3-day bioaccumulation factor in fish (golden orfe, Leuciscus idus melanotus) of 83 were reported. While some of the results may suggest some potential for the bioaccumulation of benzidine by predator organisms, none has been observed, nor would it be expected for a chemical with a log octanol-water partition coefficient of 1.34.

Assessment of Benzidine under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Environment

The most sensitive species of fish identified was the red shiner (Notropis lutrensis) with a 72- and 96-hour LC50 of 2.5 mg/L. This concentration was divided by a factor of 20 to convert it to a chronic no-observed-effect-level, to account for interspecies differences and to extrapolate laboratory results to the field. This yielded an estimated effect threshold of 0.13 mg/L. Since benzidine was not produced in or imported into Canada at the time the Assessment Report was published, and since its half-life in environmental media is less than a few weeks, concentrations of benzidine in surface water in the range of the estimated effect threshold were considered very unlikely. Therefore, on the basis of the limited available data, benzidine was not considered to be "toxic" to the environment.

Environment on Which Life Depends Benzidine is expected to be slightly volatile and to photooxidize rapidly in air. Therefore, this substance is not expected to contribute to ozone depletion, global warming or the formation of ground-level ozone. Therefore, on the basis of available data, benzidine was not considered to be "toxic" to the environment on which life depends.

Human Life or Health Population Exposure Quantitative data on the concentrations of benzidine in air, drinking water, soil or foodstuffs within Canada (or elsewhere) were not identified. Consequently, the available data were inadequate to estimate the exposure of the general population of Canada to benzidine.

Effects The results of a number of analytical epidemiological studies as well as supporting data from case reports and series of workers occupationally exposed to benzidine have provided clear evidence for the carcinogenicity of this substance in humans. Indeed, the observed association between the occurrence of bladder carcinoma and occupational exposure to benzidine fulfils the traditional criteria (consistency, strength, specificity, temporal relationship, exposure-response relationship and plausibility) for assessment of causality in epidemiological studies.

The observed associations have been very specific, in that occupational exposure to benzidine has been associated with an increased incidence of, or death due to, cancer of the bladder-almost exclusively, transitional cell carcinoma. The results have been remarkably consistent, with an association between occupational exposure to benzidine and an increased incidence of, or mortality due to, bladder cancer observed in all the analytical epidemiological studies in which these relationships were examined.

The association between the increased incidence of, or mortality due to, bladder carcinoma is strong. Reported standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for bladder cancer in occupationally exposed workers are 3.4 and 19.2. Reported standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for death due to bladder cancer in occupationally exposed workers range from 12 to 83.3.

Although quantitative information on exposure to benzidine was not assessed in any of the available analytical epidemiological studies, a relationship between qualitative measures of exposure and an increased incidence of bladder cancer was reported in two studies. Although the data are limited, there is evidence indicating that a reduction in the (occupational) exposure to benzidine was associated with a decrease in the incidence of bladder carcinoma. 20 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

The carcinogenicity of benzidine in humans is plausible, based on the overwhelming evidence of the genotoxicity of this substance. Moreover, the carcinogenicity of benzidine in experimental animals (i.e., rats, mice, hamsters) has been well documented.

Since the observed association of bladder cancer (predominantly transitional cell carcinoma) with occupational exposure to benzidine fulfils the traditional criteria for assessment of causality in epidemiological studies, on the basis of the available data, benzidine was classified in Group I (Carcinogenic to Humans) of the classification scheme developed for the determination of "toxic" to human life or health under CEPA.

For such substances, where possible, estimated total daily intake by the general population in Canada is compared to quantitative estimates of carcinogenic potency to characterize risk and provide guidance for further action (i.e., analysis of options to reduce exposure). Owing to the lack of available information on concentrations of benzidine in environmental media to which humans are exposed, it was not possible to quantitatively estimate the total daily intake of this substance by the general population of Canada. Consequently, estimates of total daily intake were not compared to quantitative estimates of cancer potency, although such values would be expected to be low owing to the lack of reported use of this substance in Canada.

Benzidine has been classified as being "Carcinogenic to Humans", and is therefore considered to be "toxic" to human life or health.

This approach is consistent with the objective that exposure to non-threshold toxicants should be reduced wherever possible, and obviates the need to establish an arbitrary de minimis level of risk for determination of "toxic" under CEPA.

Overall Conclusion Based on the available data, benzidine was not considered to be "toxic" to the environment or the environment on which life depends. Benzidine was considered to be "toxic" to human life or health.

Benzidine has been shown to cause cancer in occupationally exposed workers and experimental animals and is considered to be a "non-threshold toxicant" (i.e., a substance for which there is believed to be some chance of adverse effect at any level of exposure).

Note: Benzidine dihydrochloride is also being addressed in the Regulations because it dissociates in water into benzidine.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Levels of use of benzidine and benzidine dihydrochloride in Canada at the time the Regulations were published did not pose a threat to human health and the environment. The Regulations were put in place as a precautionary measure to protect the health of Canadians and ecosystems by ensuring that future production, importation and use of benzidine and benzidine dihydrochloride is prohibited with very limited exemptions. Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 15/05/2005

CANADA Common Name(s): Chloromethyl methyl ether CAS number(s): 107-30-2 Chemical Name: Methane, chloromethoxy- Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of CMME, with the exceptions listed below. 21 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply in the case of incidental presence or for use in a laboratory for scientific research purposes or as a laboratory analytical standard. The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2005 prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of toxic substances listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Regulations. CMME is found in Schedule 1, which lists prohibited toxic substances subject to total prohibition, with the exception of incidental presence. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: The assessment of substances to determine if they are "toxic" under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is a shared responsibility of Environment Canada and Health Canada. Environment Canada assesses the environmental risks, and Health Canada assesses the human health risks. An assessment was conducted to determine if a substance is likely to harm the environment or the health of humans, taking into account the likelihood and magnitude of releases at levels occurring in the Canadian environment. Thus "toxic" in the context of CEPA is a function of both the inherent properties of a substance and the amounts, concentrations, or nature of entry of the substance in the Canadian environment.

The assessment process thus provides a framework for making science-based decisions on the effective management of toxic substances that are of concern. The determination of whether or not a substance is "toxic" must be based on sound, scientifically reliable data. Under the original CEPA, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

CMME has been demonstrated to cause cancer in experimental animals and in humans. It was therefore considered to be a "non-threshold toxicant" (substance for which it is believed to be some chance of adverse health effects at any level of exposure). Owing to the lack of available information on concentrations in several environmental media to which humans are exposed, it was not possible to quantitatively estimate the total daily intake of CMME by the general population in Canada. It was also considered not appropriate to estimate intake on the basis of fugacity modeling, owing to the lack of commercial activity reported for these compounds. Consequently, estimates of total daily intake could not be compared to quantitative estimates of cancer potency to characterize risk and provide guidance in establishing priorities for further action under CEPA. For CMME, such values would be expected to be extremely low owing to the lack of exposure in the general environment.

In prospective (cohort) studies of 125 employees of a chemical plant in the United States, 737 "exposed" and 2120 "unexposed" workers at a chemical plant in Philadelphia and 2460 "exposed" and 3692 "unexposed" workers at seven industrial facilities, the standardized mortality ratios for lung cancer were 20, 2.8, and 3, respectively. In one of the studies, the standardized mortality ratios for deaths due to lung cancer peaked 15 to 19 years from the onset of exposure; similarly, another of the studies reported that the greatest increase in deaths due to cancer of the respiratory tract occurred approximately 10 to 20 years after first exposure.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: CMME was prohibited under the original Prohibition Regulations. At that time it was not used, sold, produced, imported or exported in Canada. The amended Regulations continue to prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, or import of CMME towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: CMME is readily degraded by hydrolysis in aqueous media or by photo-oxidation in the atmosphere, and therefore is not likely to accumulate within living organisms. Because of its extremely short residence time, it is believed that levels in the environment were extremely low (if they existed at all), and there was no exposure that could potentially arise from the past use of this substance in Canada. Therefore, even though there was a complete absence of data concerning the 22 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

environmental toxicity of these substances, there was no reason to suspect that adverse effects due to CMME could occur in organisms living in the Canadian environment.

The short persistence of CMME in the atmosphere and the extremely low levels of release preclude this substance from contributing to ozone layer depletion, global warming, or photochemical smog formation. Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 15/05/2005

CANADA Common Name(s): DDT CAS number(s): 50-29-3 Chemical Name: 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloro-benzene] Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: DDT was first registered as a pesticide in the 1940s, and although it was never manufactured in Canada, it was widely used in pest control products to control vector- transmitted diseases like malaria, as well as insects in forestry and agricultural applications. DDT was widely used during World War II to protect soldiers and civilians from malaria, typhus and other diseases spread by insects. In response to increasing environmental and safety concerns, most uses of DDT in Canada were phased out by the mid-1970s. Registration of all uses of DDT was discontinued in 1985, with the understanding that existing stocks would be sold, used or disposed of by December 31, 1990.

DDT remains a very useful pesticide for vector control in countries endemic for infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue, lymphatic filariasis.

There have been no known industrial uses.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to DDT that is: • contained in a hazardous waste, hazardous recyclable material or non-hazardous waste; • contained in a control product (i.e., pesticide); • present as a contaminant in a chemical feedstock used in a process from which there are no releases of the substance and provided that the substance is destroyed or completely converted in that process to a substance that is not listed in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Regulations; or • used in a laboratory for analysis; in scientific research; or as a laboratory analytical standard.

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2005 prohibits the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of toxic industrial substances listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Regulations. DDT is found on Schedule 1, which lists substances subject to total prohibition, with the exception of incidental presence. Note: The prohibition of DDT under the Regulations applies only to non- pesticide uses; pesticide uses are prohibited under the Pest Control Products Act. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: DDT was assessed against the criteria for selection of Track 1 substances under the federal Toxic Substances Management Policy (TSMP) in the 1990s. 23 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

This policy provides a management framework based on two key objectives: virtual elimination from the environment of toxic substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and result primarily from human activity (Track 1); and life-cycle management of other toxic substances and substances of concern to prevent or minimize their release into the environment (Track 2). The criteria for the selection of substances for Track 1 is provided in Table 1 (attached). The Ministers of the Environment and of Health used a summary of a review of the physical, chemical and toxicity properties to justify a decision that DDT meets the criteria for management as a Track 1 substance under this policy.

Predominantly Anthropogenic Although the generation of DDT and its metabolites by natural processes cannot be excluded, such contributions to the total existing levels in the environment are considered negligible. The analysis of sediment core samples reveals that DDT and its metabolites were not detectable in Lake Ontario prior to the 1940s, and peaked in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This demonstrates that the concentrations of DDT and its metabolites in environmental media are related to the production and dispersive use of this insecticide. On the basis of the available information, it was concluded that the concentration of DDT in the environment is due largely to the quantities used or released as a result of human activity.

Persistence Air: DDT may evaporate during and following its application. DDT in air exposed to sunlight will be subject to both direct photolysis and photo-oxidation. Photo-oxidation half-life estimates range from 17.7 hours to 7.4 days. DDT adsorbed onto particulate matter in the atmosphere is ultimately deposited by precipitation and dustfall. Long-range transport of DDT to the Arctic is well documented. DDT has been detected in Arctic air, soil, snow and ice and virtually all levels of the arctic food chain. Soil: Half-life measurements under field conditions for the aerobic degradation of DDT in soil range from 2 years to greater than 15 years. In flooded soils or under anaerobic conditions, the biodegradation is faster, with half-life estimated from 16 to 100 days, and the metabolite residue is DDD. DDD is highly persistent in soils, sediments and water, with half-lives estimated as high as 190 years. Water: Direct photolysis in aqueous media is very slow with an estimated half-life of 150 years. Indirect photolysis half-lives are affected by natural substances in water. Substances such as humic acids increase the degradation rate of DDT, the observed half-life in natural waters being lower than that measured in distilled water. Half-life estimates for photo-oxidation in natural waters range from 7 to 350 days. The half-life for the hydrolysis of DDT in water is estimated to be 22 years. Sediment: Using sediment cores from Lake Ontario, half-lives of DDT in sediments of 14 to 21 years have been estimated by plotting the ratio of DDT to its anaerobic breakdown product DDD over time. Many studies indicate that bottom sediments in lakes and rivers act as reservoirs for DDT and its metabolites.

On the basis of the available information, it was concluded that DDT is persistent in air, water, soil and sediment.

Bioaccumulation Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for DDT have been calculated in both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Whole organism BCFs up to 13,880 have been reported in bacteria, 58,100 in marine algae, and 84,000 in freshwater marsh plants. The invertebrate Mytilus sp. has shown BCFs of as high as 690,000. Aquatic vertebrates such as fathead minnow and rainbow trout have demonstrated BCFs up to 154,100 and 51,355, respectively. The reported log Kow for DDT range from 6.2 to 7.48. On the basis of available information, it was concluded that DDT is a bioaccumulative substance. Toxicity In response to environmental and human health concerns, Canada and other countries have taken initiatives to manage DDT. On the basis of the available considerations, it was concluded that DDT is equivalent to toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: DDT is not used, sold, produced, imported or exported in Canada. The Regulations ensure that DDT is not introduced into industrial applications in the Canadian market, which could represent an increase in risk to Canadians' health and the health of the environment. The Regulations will also assist Canada in meeting its international obligations respecting DDT under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). 24 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 15/05/2005 CANADA Common Name(s): Hexachlorobenzene CAS number(s): 118-74-1 Chemical Name: Benzene, hexachloro- Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of HCB, with the exceptions listed below:

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply HCB that is: contained in a hazardous waste, hazardous recyclable material or non-hazardous waste; contained in a control product (e.g., pesticide); present as a contaminant in a chemical feedstock used in a process from which there are no releases of the substance and provided that the substance is destroyed or completely converted in that process to a substance that is not a toxic substance listed in the Regulations; or, used in a laboratory for analysis; in scientific research; or, as a laboratory analytical standard. In addition, the Regulations do not apply in respect of the manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale or import of HCB if it is present, incidentally or not, in a mixture or product listed below if the concentration of HCB in the mixture or product is below the specified limit: Trichloroethylene, Concentration limit = 20 ppb Tetrachloroethylene, Concentration limit = 20 ppb Tetrachloromethane, Concentration limit = 20 ppb Magnesium salt (by-product from the magnesium industry), Concentration limit = 20 ppb Magnesium sludge (by-product from the magnesium industry), Concentration limit = 20 ppb Hydrochloric acid (by-product), Concentration limit = 20 ppb Ferric chloride, Concentration limit = 20 ppb Ferrous chloride, Concentration limit = 20 ppb The Regulations also establish a permit system that provides a mechanism for temporarily exempting certain applications of a substance listed in the Regulations. A permit may be granted only if the Minister of the Environment is satisfied that there is no technically or economically feasible alternative or substitute available for the substance. In addition, the Minister must be satisfied that measures have been taken to minimize or eliminate any harmful effects of the substance on the environment and human health. Finally, the applicant must provide an implementation plan that identifies specific timelines for eliminating the substance. Each permit lasts for 12 months, and can be renewed only twice.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Industrial: The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2005 prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of toxic substances listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Regulations. HCB is found on Schedule 2, which lists substances that are subject to prohibitions related to concentration or use.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Note that the information on the hazard and risk evaluation relates to the industrial regulatory action. No information is available on the hazard and risk evaluation conducted for the pesticide regulatory action. 25 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) requires the Ministers of the Environment and of Health to prepare and publish a Priority Substances List that identifies substances, including chemicals, groups of chemicals, effluents and wastes that may be harmful to the environment or constitute a danger to human health. HCB was placed on this list and was given priority for assessment to determine whether it is "toxic" under CEPA. As HCB was assessed under the original CEPA (CEPA was reviewed and updated in 1999), it was assessed against the definition for "toxic" as interpreted in section 11 of the 1988 Act, which stated: "a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions (a) having or that may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment; (b) constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends; (c) constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health."

The assessment of whether HCB is "toxic," as interpreted in CEPA 1988, was based on the determination of whether it entered or likely entered the Canadian environment in a concentration or quantities or under conditions that could have lead to exposure of humans or other biota at levels that could cause adverse effects.

For the human health-related portion of the assessment, a background review was prepared under contract in February of 1990. For the period of 1983 to 1989, a literature survey was conducted by the contractor by searching a number of databases to identify toxicological data and data relevant to the estimation of exposure of the general population to HCB. Representatives of the Drinking Water Surveillance and of the Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Programs of Ontario were contacted for unpublished information. The Canadian Chemical Producers Association was consulted concerning relevant data for consideration.

Although much of the research on HCB was conducted outside of Canada, available Canadian data on sources, fate, levels and effects of HCB on the Canadian environment and human population were emphasized.

Review articles were consulted where considered appropriate; however, all original studies that formed the basis for the determination of "toxic" under CEPA were critically evaluated by staff of Health Canada (human exposure and effects on human health) and Environment Canada (entry, environmental exposure and effects).

Human Life or Health Population Exposure Based on the most representative concentrations of HCB in air, water, food and soil, and standard values for body weights and intakes of these environmental media, the mean daily intakes of HCB were estimated for various age classes of the general population (Table 4, attached). In addition, estimates were made for more highly exposed subgroups of the population, including recreational fishermen who consumed salmonids from Lake Ontario, and Inuit from the high Arctic who consumed large quantities of marine mammals. Exposure of populations in the vicinity of industrial sources may also have been greater than that for the general population, but the available data were considered inadequate as a basis for quantitative estimation. Since intakes vary considerably during the course of the lifespan and the critical toxicological effect is associated with long-term exposure to HCB, estimates of the average daily intake of HCB over a lifetime were also calculated based on these age-specific intakes.

Effects HCB was classified in Group II (probably carcinogenic to man) of the classification scheme developed by the Bureau of Chemical Hazards for use in the derivation of the "Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality". Substances classified in Groups I and II on the basis of the weight of evidence of carcinogenicity are considered non-threshold toxicants, substances for which there is some probability of harm for the critical effect at any level of exposure. HCB was, therefore, considered to be "toxic" to human life or health.

26 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

This approach is consistent with the objective that exposure to non-threshold toxicants should be reduced wherever possible and obviates the need to establish an arbitrary de minimis level of risk for determination of "toxic" under the Act.

Overall Conclusion The data presented indicated that HCB, at the concentrations found in Canada, had potential to cause adverse effects on the environment and on human life or health. Therefore, HCB was considered to be "toxic" to the environment and to human life or health.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Sources addressed by the Industrial Regulations protect the health of Canadians and ecosystems by ensuring that future production, importation and the use of HCB is prohibited with very limited exemptions.

Note that sources of HCB emissions addressed by the Industrial Regulations are relatively small compared to the principal sources, identified as being the application of chlorinated pesticides containing HCB as a micro contaminant, and the incineration of wastes. Sources not addressed are subject to various non-regulatory initiatives contributing to the reduction of HCB releases.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Note that the information on the hazard and risk evaluation relates to the industrial regulatory action. No information is available on the hazard and risk evaluation conducted for the pesticide regulatory action.

The assessment of whether HCB is "toxic," as interpreted in CEPA 1988, was based on the determination of whether it entered or likely entered the Canadian environment in a concentration or quantities or under conditions that could lead to exposure of humans or other biota at levels that could cause adverse effects.

Data relevant to the environmental portions of the assessment were identified through searches of commercial and government databases. Additional information was identified in review documents. Relevant unpublished data were also acquired from the Canadian Wildlife Service. A background report on the fate and levels of HCB in the Canadian environment was prepared under contract.

27 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Environment The highest concentrations of HCB were observed near point sources in the Great Lakes and connecting channels. Levels in air, water and forage fish from this area at the time the assessment was conducted had the potential to cause harmful effects to fish-eating mammals, such as mink. The available data on these levels further indicated that HCB ha the potential to cause reproductive impairment to predatory bird species across Canada, including the endangered peregrine falcon.

Conclusion On the basis of the available data on levels of HCB in Canadian air, water and forage fish, and the potential effects of exposure at these levels on predatory birds and fish-eating mammals, HCB was considered to be "toxic" to the environment.

Environment on Which Human Life Depends HCB absorbs infrared light at several wavelengths (7, 13 and 14 µm) characteristic of trace gases associated with global warming. Substances that absorb strongly between 7 and 13 µm act to absorb thermal radiation from the Earth's surface that would otherwise escape into space. HCB is, however, removed from the troposphere by photolysis (t½ ˜ 80 days) and deposition to soil and water, and thus levels of HCB in the atmosphere at the time the assessment was conducted were low (< 0.2 ng/m3). HCB was, therefore, unlikely to have a significant impact on global warming.

In general, substances such as HCB with tropospheric sinks or removal processes (e.g., photolysis, deposition to soil or water) are not transported to the stratosphere. These processes, combined with the low levels of HCB in the troposphere, indicated that little, if any, HCB was expected to reach the stratosphere. HCB is, therefore, unlikely to be associated with stratospheric ozone depletion.

Conclusion Therefore, on the basis of available data, HCB was not considered to be "toxic" to the environment on which human life depends.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Sources addressed by the Industrial Regulations protect the health of Canadians and ecosystems by ensuring that future production, importation and the use of HCB is prohibited with very limited exemptions.

CANADA Common Name(s): Hexachlorobutadiene CAS number(s): 87-68-3

28 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Chemical Name: 1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro- Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: HCBD has never been commercially produced in Canada. It is produced as a by-product during the production of certain chlorinated chemicals, such as tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, allyl chloride, epichlorohydrin and carbon tetrachloride. In the past, HCBD was imported into Canada for use as a solvent, but it is no longer imported or used.

HCBD was used as a solvent for C4 and higher hydrocarbons and elastomers, as a hydraulic fluid, as a heat transfer liquid in transformers and as a chemical intermediate in the production of chlorofluorocarbons and lubricants. It was also used to recover chlorine-containing gas in chlorine plants, in gyroscopes and in insulating fluids.

The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of HCBD, or a mixture or product containing HCBD, unless the substance is incidentally present.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to HCBD that is:

• contained in a hazardous waste, hazardous recyclable material or non-hazardous waste; • contained in a control product (e.g., pesticide); • present as a contaminant in a chemical feedstock used in a process from which there are no releases of the substance and provided that the substance is destroyed or completely converted in that process to a substance that is not listed in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Regulations; or • used in a laboratory for analysis; in scientific research; or as a laboratory analytical standard.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) requires the Ministers of the Environment and of Health to prepare and publish a Priority Substances List that identifies substances, including chemicals, groups of chemicals, effluents and wastes that may be harmful to the environment or constitute a danger to human health.

The Act also requires both Ministers to assess these substances and determine whether they are "toxic" or capable of becoming "toxic" as defined in the Act, which states: 29 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

"a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that

(a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or (c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health."

A description of the approach to assessment of the environmental effects of Priority Substances is available in the document "Environmental Assessments of Priority Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Guidance Manual Version 1.0 March 1997" (http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/psap/guidman2.cfm). It should be noted that the approach outlined in this document has evolved to incorporate recent developments in risk assessment methodology, which will be addressed in future releases.

Relevant data were identified from existing review documents, published reference texts and on-line searches conducted between January and April 1996. A list of the databases searched can be found in the Assessment Report.

A survey of Canadian industry was carried out under authority of Section 16 of the original CEPA (1988). Companies were required to provide information on uses, releases, environmental concentrations, effects or other data on HCBD that were available to them if they met the trigger quantity of 1 kg of HCBD per year. Data obtained after November 30, 1997 were not considered in the assessment unless they were critical data received during the 60-day public review of the report (July 1 to August 30, 2000).

Canadian sources of HCBD were minor at the time the Report was published, but potentially numerous and included possible releases in landfill leachates, releases during refuse combustion and releases as a by-product in the production of some chlorinated chemicals. Until shortly before the Report was published, the most significant point source of HCBD in Canada appeared to be the Cole Drain, which discharges into the St. Clair River at Sarnia, Ontario, and includes outfalls from an industrial landfill and a few industrial companies. Since 1998, the discharge from the Cole Drain has been practically eliminated. The inadvertent production and use of HCBD in the United States are other potential sources of HCBD to the Canadian environment via long-range transport through the atmosphere or transboundary movement in shared water systems.

When released into the environment, HCBD partitions somewhat to air, soil, water and sediments, but tends to remain mostly in the compartment to which it was released. HCBD is slowly removed from the atmosphere by photooxidation, with an estimated half-life of up to three years. Evidence for long-range transport of HCBD exists, as the substance has been detected in samples taken from various sediment depths in Great Slave Lake. HCBD biodegrades slowly in aerobic water, with an estimated half-life of up to a year, but it would persist considerably longer under anaerobic conditions. HCBD accumulates in the tissues of freshwater organisms, with a maximum reported bioconcentration factor of 19 000, but it is quite easily metabolized and there fore does not biomagnify through food chains. Available data indicate that HCBD meets the criteria for persistence and bioaccumulation according to the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA 1999.

HCBD was detected in Canadian surface waters, sediments, aquatic organisms and, occasionally, air. Concentrations of HCBD in Canadian surface water were lower than the adverse effects thresholds predicted for sensitive pelagic aquatic organisms. Concentrations of HCBD in the sediment of highly contaminated sections of the St. Clair River were high enough that sensitive benthic organisms could experience adverse effects because of their inability to move to less contaminated areas.

Based on available data, it has been concluded that HCBD is entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biodiversity. Therefore, HCBD is considered to be "toxic" as defined under Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999.

30 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: HCBD is not currently used, sold, produced, imported or exported in Canada. The only way to ensure that it is not introduced into the Canadian market is through a ban. Furthermore, because HCBD meets the criteria for persistence and bioaccumulation, the Canadian federal government has proposed that HCBD be subject to virtual elimination provisions of CEPA 1999. The prohibition on manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or import of HCBD will work towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 15 May 2005

CANADA Common Name(s): methyl cellosolve CAS number(s): 109-86-4 Chemical Name: 2-methoxyethanol Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: 2-ME was added to the Prohibited Toxic Substances List of the Prohibition Regulations, 2005, in Schedule 2, Parts 1 and 2. In Part 1, the Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of 2-ME if it is present, incidentally or not, in diethylene glycol methyl ether, which has the molecular formula C5Hq203,and if the concentration exceeds the limit of 0.5% (w/w). In Part 2, the Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of 2-ME, with the exceptions listed below.

Use or uses that remain allowed: Part 1 allows any use of 2-ME in diethylene glycol methyl ether, where the concentration does not exceed the limit of 0.5% (w/w). Part 2 allows the use of 2-ME in coatings for aircraft refinishing and semiconductor manufacturing processes.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2005 prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of toxic substances listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Regulations. 2-ME is found in Schedule 2, which includes toxic substances that are subject to prohibitions related to concentration or use. Schedule 1 lists prohibited toxic substances subject to total prohibition, with the exception of incidental presence. Schedule 2 lists substances that are subject to prohibitions related to concentration or use.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999) requires the federal Ministers of the Environment and of Health to prepare and publish a Priority Substances List (PSL) that identifies substances, including chemicals. groups of chemicals, effluents and wastes, that may be harmful to the environment or constitute a danger to human health. The Act also requires both Ministers to assess these substances and determine whether they are "toxic" or capable of becoming "toxic" as defined in Section 64 of the Act, which states: ... a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that: (a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or (c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Descriptions of the approaches to assessment of the effects of Priority Substances on the environment and human health are available in published documents ("Environmental Assessments of Priority Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Guidance Manual Version 1.0 - March 1997" 31 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

(http://w~w.ec.qc.ca/substancesleselena/psap/quidman2.cfm)). It should be noted that the approach outlined in this document has evolved to incorporate recent developments in risk assessment methodology, which will be addressed in future releases.

The approach to assessment of 2-ME was necessarily restricted because of the extremely limited data upon which to base estimates of population exposure. Moreover, use of this substance declined substantially worldwide in the years leading up to the publication of the Assessment Report, as it had been replaced with less hazardous substances. Indeed, available information indicated that 2-ME had not been produced in Canada in the previous several years. Therefore, in view of the fact that measures had been introduced to reduce population exposure, a screening approach was adopted for assessment of whether or not the substance would be considered "toxic" under Paragraph 64(c) of CEPA 1999 primarily as a basis for determining whether the current measures were sufficiently protective of human health.

In view of the limited objectives of the screening assessment, therefore, lowest effect levels identified primarily from secondary sources were compared with worst-case or bounding estimates of exposure. The adequacy of these rather crude margins of exposure was considered in relation to intake from various sources estimated on the basis of primary review of the limited available Canadian data on exposure from various sources, including environmental media and consumer products. On this basis, areas where additional information may be required to ensure that current measures for reduction of population exposure are sufficiently protective were identified.

Data on the health effects of 2-ME were identified primarily from a review prepared in 1996 by BlBRA International, which was updated and modified in 1998. Relevant data identified subsequent to this update are summarized in Health Canada document (1999. Datasheets for recent studies on 2-methosyethanol. Priority Substances Section, Ottawa, Ontario).

Although relevant data were limited, exposure of the general population through environmental media was expected to be low, due to reported declining use of the compound as it was replaced with less hazardous compounds. Margins between worst-case estimates of exposure from environmental media and lowest effect levels for developmental toxicity obtained in toxicological investigations in experimental animals were large. However, available data are insufficient to conclude that margins between worst-case estimates of exposure in consumer products and lowest effect levels were adequate.

There was considerable evidence that 2-ME causes a range of adverse effects in experimental animals (including those considered to be severe and irreversible, such as teratogenicity), some for which it could not be precluded that there was some probability of occurrence at any level of exposure. In addition, the margins between worst-case estimates of exposure to 2-ME via some consumer products (although data were extremely limited) and effect levels for adverse health effects in experimental animals were considered inadequate to address requisite elements of uncertainty. Thus, on the basis principally of its high health hazard I potential, 2- ME is considered to constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health and is, therefore, deemed "toxic" under Paragraph 64(c) of CEPA 1999.

According to monitoring data on concentrations in occupational air collected between 1983 and 1994 by the Ontario Ministry of Labour, the majority of industries with concentrations of 2-ME above the limit of detection were commercial printing and small electrical appliances, machinery and equipment manufacturing.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: The Canadian federal government has proposed that 2-ME be subjected to virtual elimination provisions of CEPA 1999. The prohibition on manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or import of 2-ME, will work towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 09/02/2007

32 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

CANADA Common Name(s): Mirex CAS number(s): 2385-85-5 Chemical Name: Dodecachloropentacycle[5.3.0.02.6.03.9.04.8]decane Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of mirex, with the exceptions listed below.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to the incidental presence of mirex, or for use in a laboratory for scientific research purposes or as a laboratory analytical standard.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Note: Mirex was assessed under the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). While the Act was updated in 1999, the conclusions of the assessment remain the same. This notification is based on the assessment and therefore references the original Act. Information provided here was current at the time of the original notification.

Mirex is specified on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule I to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). The assessment of substances to determine if they are "toxic" under the CEPA is a shared responsibility of Environment Canada and Health Canada. Environment Canada assesses the environmental risks, and Health Canada assesses the human health risks. An assessment was conducted to determine if a substance is likely to harm the environment or the health of humans, taking into account the likelihood and magnitude of releases at levels occurring in the Canadian environment. Thus "toxic" in the context of CEPA is a function of both the inherent properties of a substance and the amounts, concentrations, or nature of entry of the substance in the Canadian environment.

The assessment process thus provides a framework for making science-based decisions on the effective management of toxic substances that are of concern. The determination of whether or not a substance is "toxic" must be based on sound, scientifically reliable data. Under CEPA, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that (a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or (c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

The main sources of mirex in Canada were located in New York State (U.S.) in the Niagara River and the Oswego River where chemical manufacturing and fire retardant production plants were located.

Canadian human exposure to mirex was generally minimal except in the group partially or wholly dependent on a diet of fish or fish-eating birds from Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. A second, very small, group at risk were those hunters that occasionally ate meals of game birds.

33 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

In humans, mirex is stored mainly in fat tissue, where it is not broken down. Mirex has been demonstrated to cause cancer in experimental animals and possibly carcinogenic to humans.

International In response to the increasing international awareness concerning the environmental and human health risks associated with certain persistent organic pollutants (POPs) mirex was identified as one of the priority substances for consideration in the negotiation of a Protocol for POPs under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution.

Due to increasing concern about the risks to human health and the environment posed by persistent organic pollutants, the United Nation Environment Program (UNEP) has initiated a process to evaluate the need to develop a global legally-binding instrument for managing these substances. At the invitation of the UNEP Governing Council the Intergovernmental Forum for Chemical Safety (IFCS) submitted a report to the Governing Council for consideration in 1997. The report concluded that there was sufficient scientific knowledge to warrant immediate international action to protect human health and the environment and to develop a global legally binding instrument to that effect. Mirex was one of the initial 12 substances to be considered under this initiative.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Mirex was found to meet the criteria for Track 1 substance under Canada's Toxic Substance Management Policy and as such is to be virtually eliminated from the environment. The prohibition on manufacture, use, sale, offer for, sale, or import of mirex, will work towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Note: Mirex was assessed under the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). While the Act was updated in 1999, the conclusions of the assessment remain the same. This notification is based on the assessment and therefore references the original Act. Information provided here was current at the time of the original notification. Mirex is specified on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule I to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). The assessment of substances to determine if they are "toxic" under the CEPA is a shared responsibility of Environment Canada and Health Canada. Environment Canada assesses the environmental risks, and Health Canada assesses the human health risks. An assessment was conducted to determine if a substance is likely to harm the environment or the health of humans, taking into account the likelihood and magnitude of releases at levels occurring in the Canadian environment. Thus "toxic" in the context of CEPA is a function of both the inherent properties of a substance and the amounts, concentrations, or nature of entry of the substance in the Canadian environment. The assessment process thus provides a framework for making science-based decisions on the effective management of toxic substances that are of concern. The determination of whether or not a substance is "toxic" must be based on sound, scientifically reliable data. Under CEPA, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that (a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or (c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

The main sources of mirex in Canada were located in New York State (U.S.) in the Niagara River and the Oswego River where chemical manufacturing and fire retardant production plants were located. This transboundary movement of mirex into Canadian waters resulted in contamination of fish and fish-feeding birds with the results that mirex contaminated several ecosystems in Canada. Mirex is biologically active, accumulates in food chains, is extremely persistent and is dispersed in the environment. Sufficient data were not available to enable a meaningful calculation of either an acceptable or tolerable level of 34 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

mirex in the Canadian environment with respect to wildlife and aquatic life. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA set the maximum concentration of mirex permissible in water for fresh water and marine aquatic life at 0.001 g/L. This value was obtained through the use of an application factor of 0.01 times the lowest concentration at which effects have been noted in crayfish, the most sensitive species tested. Quantitative information describing the persistence of mirex was limited. However, the available information consistently indicated that the substance is persistent in the environment. For example, 12 years after its application to clay soil, 50% of the mirex originally applied was recovered as mirex and mirex-related compounds with mirex representing between 65-70% of the total residues. Mirex decomposition in the environment takes place chiefly by photolysis. Anaerobic decomposition by microorganisms can occur, but it is not extensive. Mirex is also recognized to be subject to long-range transport and has been demonstrated to persist in sediment. On the basis of the available information, it was concluded that mirex is persistent in the environment. Mirex can accumulate in living tissues. In experimental work with aquatic organisms, all species at all trophic levels have been found to accumulate this substance. Bioaccumulation factors of 15,000 and 51,000 have been observed in lake trout captured in Lake Ontario and fathead minnows. A comparison of concentrations of mirex in lake trout, a predator species, with those in smelt, a prey species, gives a ratio of 1.26, indicating that biomagnification is occurring. A biomagnification factor of 108 for mirex between its concentration in water of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and in beluga whale oil has been reported. In experimental studies with birds, mirex has been shown to accumulate, particularly in fatty tissues. A study showed that mirex fed to roosters accumulated to about 100 times the concentration in the feed in thirty-two weeks. When the roosters were given clean food the mirex residues slowly decreased. Similar studies were conducted on mammals with similar findings. On the basis of the available information, it was concluded that mirex is a bioaccumulative substance.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Mirex was found to meet the criteria for Track 1 substance under Canada's Toxic Substance Management Policy and as such is to be virtually eliminated from the environment. The prohibition on manufacture, use, sale, offer for, sale, or import of mirex, will work towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 15/05/2005

CANADA Common Name(s): Pentachlorobenzene CAS number(s): 608-93-5 Chemical Name: 1,2,3,4,5-pentachlorobenzene Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of QCB, with the exception listed below

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to any use of QCB with any chlorobiphenyls that have the molecular formula C12H(10-n)Cln in which "n" is greater than 2.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

35 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment:

QCB appeared on the first Priority Substances List (PSL1) of the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). PSL1 was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 11, 1989. Assessments were performed to determine whether these chlorobenzenes (CBzs) should be considered "toxic" as defined under CEPA, and were completed in 1993. Section 11 of CEPA defined "toxic" as follows: For the purposes of this Part, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity, concentration or under conditions a) having or that may have an immediate or long-term effect on the environment; b) constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends; or c) constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Additionally, during the period over which the original assessments were conducted, it was determined that concentrations of QCB present in Canadian air and surface waters were not likely to cause adverse effects on aquatic biota or wildlife. There was, however, a lack of acceptable data on the effects of these CBzs on benthic and soil-dwelling organisms and on concentrations of CBzs in Canadian soils. Therefore, it was not possible to determine whether environmental harm was occurring due to accumulations of these substances in sediment and soil.

The lack of data led to the conclusion that there was insufficient information available on sediments and soils to determine whether these substances should be considered "toxic" under Paragraph 11(a) of CEPA. CEPA was subsequently revised in 1999. Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999 expands the definition of toxic from the original Paragraph 11(a) to include effects on biodiversity. CEPA 1999 places more emphasis on pollution prevention, gives consideration to the precautionary principle and requires special treatment of persistent and bioaccumulative substances. Substances that are shown to be both persistent and bioaccumulative, therefore, are assessed using a more conservative approach than is used for other substances.

As a result of the publication of the PSL Assessment Reports for the CBzs, additional studies were designed and funded. Concentrations of QCB were determined in sediments near point sources (i.e., outfalls from sewage treatment plants and textile manufacturing plants) in Atlantic Canada. Laboratory studies included toxicity testing to determine effects of exposure to sediments from point source locations.

The focus of the follow up report was the determination of whether accumulations of specific CBzs in aquatic sediments or soils would harm exposed benthic or soil-dwelling organisms.

QCB was identified in sediments from lakes in both temperate regions and northern Canadian environments. The detection of the QCB in northern lake sediments in the absence of nearby sources indicated that these residues are a result of long-range atmospheric transport, and therefore, meet the criteria for persistence in air.

Mean half-lives in soil were estimated to be approximately 2 years for QCB, therefore, likely to persist in soils under aerobic conditions.

On the basis of the available information, it was concluded that QCB is persistent in soil, sediment and in air, according to the criteria stipulated in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA 1999.

36 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) of 810 and 20 000 were reported for QCB in mussel (Mytilis edulis) and rainbow trout, respectively, although the BAF determined for earthworms (Eisenia andrei) was much higher (401 000). The log Kow estimates for QCB was 5.0. QCB is also a bioaccumulative substance according to the criteria stipulated in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA 1999.

It was concluded that concentrations of QCB in Canadian soil are unlikely to be causing harm to populations of soil-dwelling organisms. However, it was possible that concentrations of QCB in sediment from the St. Clair River near Sarnia may have been harming benthic organisms.

Based on available data, QCB was found to be entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that had or may have had an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity and that QCB is considered "toxic", as defined under Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: QCB is persistent, bioaccumulative, predominantly anthropogenic and is considered "toxic" under CEPA 1999, and as such, meet the criteria for Track I substances under Canada's Toxic Substances Management Policy. Therefore the Canadian federal government proposed that QCB be subjected to virtual elimination provisions of CEPA 1999. The prohibition on manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or import of QCB, will work towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 09/02/2007

CANADA Common Name(s): Phorate CAS number(s): 298-02-2 Chemical Name: Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-diethyl S-[(ethylthio)methyl] ester Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All formulation of phorate and all uses were phased-out as 2004, with the exception of use on potatoes.

Use or uses that remain allowed: Registration of Thimet 15G Soil & Systemic Insecticide Granular on potatoes continues for the short term The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The use of phorate and associated end-use products (EP) entails an unacceptable risk of harm to the agricultural worker pursuant to Section 20 of the Canadian Pest Control Product (PCP) Regulations. As a result, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has determined that all uses of phorate are to be phased out as outline below.

Uses of phorate and associated end-use products on corn, lettuce, beans and rutabagas were phased-out as end of December 2004.

Due to the lack of alternatives to phorate for control of wireworm on potatoes, the registration of phorate, for this uses only, will be continued for the short term, with interim mitigation to protect workers (engineering controls, requirements regarding additional Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and the environment (environmental statements on the label). Please refer to the RRD 2004-11, Appendix II for proposed engineering controls, PPE and other proposed label statements.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Environment

quotient method, which uses the ratio of the estimated environmental concentrations to the effects end point of concern. Quotient values less than one are considered indicative of a low hazard to non-target organisms, whereas values greater than one are considered to indicate that some degree of hazard exists for effects on non- target organisms.

Phorate is highly toxic to all terrestrial and aquatic species tested. Incident reports of bird and mammal fatalities in Canada, the U.S, and the U.K support the conclusion that phorate presents a significant risk to birds and wildlife. One granule is sufficient to kill a mall bird or mammal.

Surface broadcast application presents the greatest risk owing to the large number of exposed granules. Although soil incorporation is expected to lower the risk of terrestrial and aquatic exposure, it still presents a very high risk owing to unincorporated granules remaining exposed of the surface. The risk to small and moderate sized birds and small or moderately sized mammals remains high to very high with either method of application. Owing to its extreme toxicity to all organisms tested, the very high risk to moderate and smaller sized birds and mammals, the incident reports of bird an mammal mortalities (including large raptors in Canada), plus the persistence and mobility of the toxic sulfoxide and sulfone transformation products, the PMRA has concluded that the use of phorate in Canada presents a high risk to the environment.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Reducing the risk of environmental exposure to phorate in a manner that is the least disruptive to the need to protect agricultural crops from pests.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 31/12/2004No further use was allowed after December 2004, except on potatoes

CANADA Common Name(s): terbufos CAS number(s): 13071-79-9 Chemical Name: Phosphorodithioic acid, S-[[(1,1-dimethylethyl)thio]methyl] O,O-diethyl ester Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: Formulation Counter 5-G soil Insecticide was phased-out for all the uses as 2004. Formulation counter 15-G Lock'n Load Soil Insecticide Granular was phased-out for use on corn and rutabaga

Use or uses that remain allowed: Formulation counter 15-G Lock'n Load Soil Insecticide Granular may be used on sugar beets for the short term.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Phase-out of all uses of terbufos except on sugar beets by 2004 as a result of the unacceptable risk to the environment. There are appropriate alternatives for theses uses.

Continued registration for use on sugar beets for the short term due to lack of available alternatives. The area for use of terbufos on this crop is very limited and identified risks to workers from using terbufos on sugar beets can be effectively mitigated by ensuring engineering controls and requirements regarding additional Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and clothing. Please refer to the PACR 2003-02, Appendix I for proposed engineering controls, PPE and other proposed label statements.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Environment

38 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: The PMRA currently conducts a deterministic assessment of the environmental risk of pest control products. Environmental risk is characterized using the quotient method, which uses the ratio of the estimated environmental concentrations to the effects end point of concern. Quotient values less than one are considered indicative of a low hazard to non-target organisms, whereas values greater than one are considered to indicate that some degree of hazard exists for effects on non- target organisms. n-Octanol-water partition coefficients indicate potential for a bioaccumulation of the parent compound and limited bioaccumulation potential for terbufos sulfone or terbufos sulfoxide. Bioaconcentration studies with fish indicate a potential for bioconcentration.

Based on the available toxicity data, risk is classified as high to extremely high for aquatic organisms and in most cases high to extremely high for birds. Similarly, risk to mammals is classified as low for large mammals to high for small mammals. The high risk of terbufos on non-target species has been documented by incident reports of adverse effects.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Reducing the risk of environmental exposure to terbufos in a manner that is the least disruptive to the need to protect agricultural crops from pests.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 31/12/2004No further use was allowed after December 2004 except on sugar beets.

CANADA Common Name(s): Tetrachlorobenzene CAS number(s): 12408-10-5 Chemical Name: 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of TeCBs, with the exception listed below.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to any use of TeCBs with any chlorobiphenyls that have the molecular formula C12H(10-n)Cln in which "n" is greater than 2.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: TeCBs appeared on the first Priority Substances List (PSL1) of the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). PSL1 was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 11, 1989. Assessments were performed to determine whether these chlorobenzenes (CBzs) should be considered "toxic" as defined under CEPA and were completed in 1993. Section 11 of CEPA defined "toxic" as follows: For the purposes of this Part, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity, concentration or under conditions 39 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

a) having or that may have an immediate or long-term effect on the environment; b) constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends; or c) constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Additionally, during the period over which the original assessments were conducted, it was determined that concentrations of TeCBs present in Canadian air and surface waters were not likely to cause adverse effects on aquatic biota or wildlife. There was, however, a lack of acceptable data on the effects of these CBzs on benthic and soil-dwelling organisms and on concentrations of CBzs in Canadian soils. Therefore, it was not possible to determine whether environmental harm was occurring due to accumulations of these substances in sediment and soil.

The lack of data led to the conclusion that there was insufficient information available on sediments and soils to determine whether these substances should be considered "toxic" under Paragraph 11(a) of CEPA. CEPA was subsequently revised in 1999. Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999 expands the definition of toxic from the original Paragraph 11(a) to include effects on biodiversity. CEPA 1999 places more emphasis on pollution prevention, gives consideration to the precautionary principle and requires special treatment of persistent and bioaccumulative substances. Substances that are shown to be both persistent and bioaccumulative, therefore, will be assessed using a more conservative approach than is used for other substances.

As a result of the publication of the PSL Assessment Reports for the CBzs, additional studies were designed and funded. Data on the toxicity of TeCBs to freshwater and marine benthic organisms was reported. Additionally, concentrations of TeCBs were determined in sediments near point sources (i.e., outfalls from sewage treatment plants and textile manufacturing plants) in Atlantic Canada. Laboratory studies included toxicity testing to determine effects of exposure to sediments from point source locations.

The focus of the follow up report was the determination of whether accumulations of specific CBzs in aquatic sediments or soils would harm exposed benthic or soil-dwelling organisms.

Estimated average half-life in surface sediment is approximately 2 years for TeCBs. Additionally, the tetrachlorinated congeners have been identified in sediments from lakes in both temperate regions and northern Canadian environments.

TeCBs have been reported in sediments dated to the early 1900s, although maximum concentrations were reported to occur between the 1970s and 1980s. These data are consistent with half-life estimates exceeding 1 year in a variety of sediments. Mean half-lives in soil have been estimated to be approximately 8 months for TeCBs, therefore, likely to persist in soils under aerobic conditions.

TeCBs have been identified in sediments from lakes in both temperate regions and northern Canadian environments. The detection of the TeCBs in northern lake sediments in the absence of nearby sources indicates that these residues are a result of long-range atmospheric transport, and these CBzs, therefore, meet the criteria for persistence in air.

On the basis of the available information, it was concluded that TeCBs are persistent in soil, sediment and in air, according to the criteria stipulated in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA 1999.

Reported bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for TeCBs ranged between 1180 and 135 000. The log Kow estimate for TeCBs was 4.5. 40 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

TeCBs are also bioaccumulative substances according to the criteria stipulated in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA 1999.

It was concluded that concentrations of TeCBs in Canadian soil are unlikely to be causing harm to populations of soil-dwelling organisms. However, it was possible that concentrations of TeCBs in sediment from the St. Clair River near Sarnia may have been harming benthic organisms.

Based on available data, TeCBs were entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that had or may have had an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity and that TeCBs are considered "toxic", as defined under Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: TeCBs are persistent, bioaccumulative, predominantly anthropogenic and are considered "toxic" under Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999, and as such, meet the criteria for Track I substances under Canada's Toxic Substances Management Policy. Therefore the Canadian federal government proposed that TeCBs be subjected to virtual elimination provisions of CEPA 1999. The prohibition on manufacture, use sale, offer for sale, or import of TeCBs will work towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 09/02/2007

CANADA Common Name(s): Tetrachlorobenzene CAS number(s): 634-66-2 Chemical Name: 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of TeCBs, with the exception listed below.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to any use of TeCBs with any chlorobiphenyls that have the molecular formula C12H(10-n)Cln in which "n" is greater than 2.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Environment

b) constituting or that may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends; or c) constituting or that may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

It was concluded at that time that these substances do not constitute a danger either to the environment on which human life depends or to human life or health, and, therefore, they were not found to be "toxic" under Paragraph 11(b) or 11(c) of CEPA. Additionally, during the period over which the original assessments were conducted, it was determined that concentrations of TeCBs present in Canadian air and surface waters were not likely to cause adverse effects on aquatic biota or wildlife. There was, however, a lack of acceptable data on the effects of these CBzs on benthic and soil-dwelling organisms and on concentrations of CBzs in Canadian soils. Therefore, it was not possible to determine whether environmental harm was occurring due to accumulations of these substances in sediment and soil. The lack of data led to the conclusion that there was insufficient information available on sediments and soils to determine whether these substances should be considered "toxic" under Paragraph 11(a) of CEPA. CEPA was subsequently revised in 1999. Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999 expands the definition of toxic from the original Paragraph 11(a) to include effects on biodiversity. CEPA 1999 places more emphasis on pollution prevention, gives consideration to the precautionary principle and requires special treatment of persistent and bioaccumulative substances. Substances that are shown to be both persistent and bioaccumulative, therefore, will be assessed using a more conservative approach than is used for other substances.

The focus of the follow up report was the determination of whether accumulations of specific CBzs in aquatic sediments or soils would harm exposed benthic or soil-dwelling organisms.

Reported bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for TeCBs ranged between 1180 and 135 000. The log Kow estimate for TeCBs was 4.5.

TeCBs are also bioaccumulative substances according to the criteria stipulated in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA 1999. 42 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 09/02/2007

CANADA Common Name(s): Tetrachlorobenzene CAS number(s): 634-90-2 Chemical Name: 1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of TeCBs, with the exception listed below.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to any use of TeCBs with any chlorobiphenyls that have the molecular formula C12H(10-n)Cln in which "n" is greater than 2.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Environment

It was concluded at that time that these substances do not constitute a danger either to the environment on which 43 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

human life depends or to human life or health, and, therefore, they were not found to be "toxic" under Paragraph 11(b) or 11(c) of CEPA. Additionally, during the period over which the original assessments were conducted, it was determined that concentrations of TeCBs present in Canadian air and surface waters were not likely to cause adverse effects on aquatic biota or wildlife. There was, however, a lack of acceptable data on the effects of these CBzs on benthic and soil-dwelling organisms and on concentrations of CBzs in Canadian soils. Therefore, it was not possible to determine whether environmental harm was occurring due to accumulations of these substances in sediment and soil. The lack of data led to the conclusion that there was insufficient information available on sediments and soils to determine whether these substances should be considered "toxic" under Paragraph 11(a) of CEPA. CEPA was subsequently revised in 1999. Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999 expands the definition of toxic from the original Paragraph 11(a) to include effects on biodiversity. CEPA 1999 places more emphasis on pollution prevention, gives consideration to the precautionary principle and requires special treatment of persistent and bioaccumulative substances. Substances that are shown to be both persistent and bioaccumulative, therefore, will be assessed using a more conservative approach than is used for other substances. As a result of the publication of the PSL Assessment Reports for the CBzs, additional studies were designed and funded. Data on the toxicity of TeCBs to freshwater and marine benthic organisms was reported. Additionally, concentrations of TeCBs were determined in sediments near point sources (i.e., outfalls from sewage treatment plants and textile manufacturing plants) in Atlantic Canada. Laboratory studies included toxicity testing to determine effects of exposure to sediments from point source locations. A literature search for new data on the CBz substances of interest was performed in 1995 and repeated in 1999. The National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) and Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics databases supported by Environment Canada were also reviewed for CBz data. The focus of the follow up report was the determination of whether accumulations of specific CBzs in aquatic sediments or soils would harm exposed benthic or soil-dwelling organisms. Estimated average half-life in surface sediment is approximately 2 years for TeCBs. Additionally, the tetrachlorinated congeners have been identified in sediments from lakes in both temperate regions and northern Canadian environments. TeCBs have been reported in sediments dated to the early 1900s, although maximum concentrations were reported to occur between the 1970s and 1980s. These data are consistent with half-life estimates exceeding 1 year in a variety of sediments. Mean half-lives in soil have been estimated to be approximately 8 months for TeCBs, therefore, likely to persist in soils under aerobic conditions. TeCBs have been identified in sediments from lakes in both temperate regions and northern Canadian environments. The detection of the TeCBs in northern lake sediments in the absence of nearby sources indicates that these residues are a result of long-range atmospheric transport, and these CBzs, therefore, meet the criteria for persistence in air. On the basis of the available information, it was concluded that TeCBs are persistent in soil, sediment and in air, according to the criteria stipulated in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA 1999. Reported bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for TeCBs ranged between 1180 and 135 000. The log Kow estimate for TeCBs was 4.5. TeCBs are also bioaccumulative substances according to the criteria stipulated in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA 1999. It was concluded that concentrations of TeCBs in Canadian soil are unlikely to be causing harm to populations of soil-dwelling organisms. However, it was possible that concentrations of TeCBs in sediment from the St. Clair River near Sarnia may have been harming benthic organisms. Based on available data, TeCBs were entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that had or may have had an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity and that TeCBs are considered "toxic", as defined under Paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999.

44 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Policy. Therefore the Canadian federal government proposed that TeCBs be subjected to virtual elimination provisions of CEPA 1999. The prohibition on manufacture, use sale, offer for sale, or import of TeCBs will work towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 09/02/2007

CANADA Common Name(s): Tetrachlorobenzene CAS number(s): 95-94-3 Group Members: 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene Group Members: 95-94-3 Chemical Name: 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The Regulations prohibit the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or import of TeCBs, with the exception listed below.

Use or uses that remain allowed: The Regulations do not apply to any use of TeCBs with any chlorobiphenyls that have the molecular formula C12H(10-n)Cln in which "n" is greater than 2. The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Environment

Paragraph 11(a) to include effects on biodiversity. CEPA 1999 places more emphasis on pollution prevention, gives consideration to the precautionary principle and requires special treatment of persistent and bioaccumulative substances. Substances that are shown to be both persistent and bioaccumulative, therefore, will be assessed using a more conservative approach than is used for other substances.

A literature search for new data on the CBz substances of interest was performed in 1995 and repeated in 1999. The National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) and Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics databases supported by Environment Canada were also reviewed for CBz data. The focus of the follow up report was the determination of whether accumulations of specific CBzs in aquatic sediments or soils would harm exposed benthic or soil-dwelling organisms.

Reported bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for TeCBs ranged between 1180 and 135 000. The log Kow estimate for TeCBs was 4.5.

TeCBs are also bioaccumulative substances according to the criteria stipulated in the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations of CEPA 1999.

provisions of CEPA 1999. The prohibition on manufacture, use sale, offer for sale, or import of TeCBs will work towards the objective of virtual elimination.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 09/02/2007

CAPE VERDE Common Name(s): Endosulfan CAS number(s): 115-29-7 Chemical Name: 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3- oxide Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All formulations containing Endosulfan and all uses of this preparation are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: None The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Sahelian Pesticide Committee prohibits all formulations containing Endosulfan. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to:

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Endosulfan is highly toxic and the risk of intoxication for users in the sahelian conditions of use is considered inacceptable.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: The risk of Endosulfan is limited

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Endosulfan environmental risk is limited Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 13/11/2007 The ban entered into force, starting with the signing of the decision taken by the Coordinating Minister of CILSS, on 13 November 2007 regarding all distributions and on 31 December 2008 for all uses. Existing stocks of Endosulfan can be used until the 31-12- 2008

CUBA Common Name(s): Sodium fluoroacetate CAS number(s): 62-74-8 Chemical Name: Sodium fluoroacetate Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All pesticide formulations containing sodium fluoroacetate active ingredient and all uses.

47 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: No

Summary of the final regulatory action: Prohibited import and use throughout the country, in all possible ways, of pesticides with sodium fluoroacetate active substance.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: High number of people accidentally or intentionally poisoned

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Reduce the possibility of poisoning and death due to the introduction of this regulatory action.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 28/12/1990

CUBA Common Name(s): Mirex CAS number(s): 2385-85-5 Chemical Name: Dodecachloropentacycle[5.3.0.02.6.03.9.04.8]decane Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All pesticide formulations containing mirex active ingredient and all uses.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: No

Summary of the final regulatory action: Prohibited import and use of all pesticide formulations containing mirex active ingredient, for its high environmental persistence and bioaccumulation in living beings, and high toxicity to humans.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Mirex residues found in human tissues of people exposed. Bio-accumulation in living beings. Highly toxic to humans.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Decrease of toxic effects due to mirex residues found in human tissues.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Mirex residues found in different environmental means (water, soil, sediments, etc.), in birds and other species tissues and wild fauna and flora. High persistency in the environment.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Reduction of toxic effects for various species of wild fauna and flora.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 01/11/2001

48 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

GAMBIA Common Name(s): Endosulfan CAS number(s): 115-29-7 Chemical Name: 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3- oxide Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All the formulations containing endosulfan and all uses of theses formulations are prohibited.

Use or uses that remain allowed: None The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Sahélien Pesticides Committee (CSP) has prohibited the use of all the formulations containing the endosulfan. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Endosulfan has a high acute toxicity and the poisoning risk of user under Sahelian conditions is considered to be unacceptable. See annex for a more detailed description.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: The risk of the endosulfan is eliminated

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Endosulfan is highly toxic to fish and certain aquatic invertebrates. The risk of environmental impact in surface water in cotton growing areas of the Sahel is considered to be unacceptable. See annex for a more detailed description.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: The environmental risk of endosulfan is eliminated

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 13/11/2007The ban entered into force, starting with the signing of the decision taken by the Coordinating Minister of CILSS, on 13 November 2007 regarding all distributions and on 31 December 2008 for all uses. Existing stocks of Endosulfan can be used until the 31-12-2008.

MALI Common Name(s): Endosulfan CAS number(s): 115-29-7 Chemical Name: 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3- oxide Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All formulations containing Endosulfan and all uses of this preparation are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: None The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Sahelian Pesticide Committee prohibits all formulations 49 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

containing Endosulfan The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to:

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Endosulfan is highly toxic and the risk of intoxication for users in the sahelian conditions of use is considered inacceptable.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: The risk of Endosulfan is limited

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Endosulfan environmental risk is limited Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 13/11/2007The ban entered into force, starting with the signing of the decision taken by the Coordinating Minister of CILSS, on 13 November 2007 regarding all distributions and on 31 December 2008 for all uses. Existing stocks of Endosulfan can be used until the 31-12- 2008.

MAURITANIA Common Name(s): Endosulfan CAS number(s): 115-29-7 Chemical Name: 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3- oxide Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All formulations containing Endosulfan and all uses of this preparation are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: None The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Sahelian Pesticide Committee prohibits all formulations containing Endosulfan

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Endosulfan is highly toxic and the risk of intoxication for users in the sahelian conditions of use is considered inacceptable.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: The risk of Endosulfan is limited

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Endosulfan environmental risk is limited

50 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

regarding all distributions and on 31 December 2008 for all uses. Existing stocks of Endosulfan can be used until the 31-12-2008.

NIGER Common Name(s): Endosulfan CAS number(s): 115-29-7 Chemical Name: 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3- oxide Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All formulations containing Endosulfan and all uses of this preparation are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: None The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: The Sahelian Pesticide Committee prohibits all formulations containing Endosulfan

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to:

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Endosulfan is highly toxic and the risk of intoxication for users in the sahelian conditions of use is considered inacceptable.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: The risk of Endosulfan is limited

NIGERIA Common Name(s): Actinolite asbestos CAS number(s): 77536-66-4 Chemical Name: Actinolite asbestos Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The chemical is not manufactured, approved or used in the country.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

51 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Summary of the final regulatory action: Actinolite is subject to the National Hazardous Substances Control Scheme in line with Decree 58 of 1988 as amended by Decree 59 of 1992 which gives authority to the Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development for the control of all harzardous substances at every stage of their life cycle for the protection of the Nigerian environment and citizenry.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to:

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: As specified in the DGD.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prohibition of importation and use of the chemical will prevent human exposure and risk to health.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: As specified in the DGD.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Elimination of risk to wildlife, aquatic animals and the ecosystem in general.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 29/07/2008

NIGERIA Common Name(s): Amosite asbestos CAS number(s): 12172-73-5 Chemical Name: Asbestos, grunerite Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The chemical is not manufactured, approved or used in the country. The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Amosite is subject to the National Hazardous Substances Control Scheme in line with Decree 58 of 1988 as amended by Decree 59 of 1992 which gives authority to the Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development for the control of all harzardous substances at every stage of their life cycle for the protection of the Nigerian environment and citizenry.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: As specified in the DGD.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prohibition of importation and use of the chemical will prevent human exposure and risk to health.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: As specified in the DGD.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Elimination of risk to wildlife, aquatic animals and the ecosystem in general. Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 29/07/2008

52 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

NIGERIA Common Name(s): Anthophyllite CAS number(s): 17068-78-9, 77536-67-5 Chemical Name: Anthophyllite Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The chemical is not manufactured, approved or used in the country.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Anthophyllite is subject to the National Hazardous Substances Control Scheme in line with Decree 58 of 1988 as amended by Decree 59 of 1992 which gives authority to the Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development for the control of all harzardous substances at every stage of their life cycle for the protection of the Nigerian environment and citizenry.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: As specified in the DGD.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prohibition of importation and use of the chemical will prevent human exposure and risk to health.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: As specified in the DGD.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Elimination of risk to wildlife, aquatic animals and the ecosystem in general.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 29/07/2008

NIGERIA Common Name(s): Tetraethyl lead CAS number(s): 78-00-2 Chemical Name: Plumbane, tetraethyl- Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All uses as an anti-knock agent in vehicles are prohibited. The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Tetraethyl lead is subject to the National Hazardous Substances Control Scheme in line with Decree 58 of 1988 as amended by Decree 59 of 1992 which gives authority to the Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development for the control of all harzardous substances at every stage of their life cycle for the protection of the Nigerian environment and citizenry. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: TEL has been assessed to be very acutely toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. It may cause harm to the unborn child, and a possible risk of impaired fertility has been identified. In addition, TEL is eliminated only very slowly and there is a danger of cumulative effects. 53 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Occupational exposure to alkyl-lead compounds, either by inhalation or by absorption through the skin, poses particular risks. Overexposure of the general population to alkyl-lead may also occur during car tank refill. Moreover, the combustion of alkyl-lead additive in motor fuels accounted for the major part of all lead emissions, which is also known to produce adverse effects on the health of the general population.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prevention of the above listed health effects for workers and the general public. Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 29/07/2008

NIGERIA Common Name(s): Tetramethyl lead CAS number(s): 75-74-1 Chemical Name: Plumbane, tetramethyl- Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All uses as an anti-knock agent in vehicles are prohibited.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Tetramethyl lead is subject to the National Hazardous Substances Control Scheme in line with Decree 58 of 1988 as amended by Decree 59 of 1992 which gives authority to the Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development for the control of all harzardous substances at every stage of their life cycle for the protection of the Nigerian environment and citizenry.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to:

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: TML has been assessed to be very acutely toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. It may cause harm to the unborn child, and a possible risk of impaired fertility has been identified. In addition, TML is eliminated only very slowly and there is a danger of cumulative effects. Occupational exposure to alkyl-lead compounds, either by inhalation or by absorption through the skin, poses particular risks. Overexposure of the general population to alkyl-lead may also occur during car tank refill. Moreover, the combustion of alkyl-lead additive in motor fuels accounted for the major part of all lead emissions, which is also known to produce adverse effects on the health of the general population.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prevention of the above listed health effects for workers and the general public.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 29/07/2008

NIGERIA Common Name(s): Tremolite CAS number(s): 77536-68-6 Chemical Name: Asbestos, tremolite Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Industrial Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: The chemical is not manufactured, approved or used in the country. 54 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Tremolite is subject to the National Hazardous Substances Control Scheme in line with Decree 58 of 1988 as amended by Decree 59 of 1992 which gives authority to the Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development for the control of all harzardous substances at every stage of their life cycle for the protection of the Nigerian environment and citizenry.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: As specified in the DGD.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prohibition of importation and use of the chemical will prevent human exposure and risk to health.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: As specified in the DGD.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Elimination of risk to wildlife, aquatic animals and the ecosystem in general.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 29/07/2008

SENEGAL Common Name(s): Endosulfan CAS number(s): 115-29-7 Chemical Name: 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3- oxide Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All formulations containing Endosulfan and all uses of this preparation are banned.

Use or uses that remain allowed: None The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Endosulfan is highly toxic and the risk of intoxication for users in the sahelian conditions of use is considered inacceptable The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Endosulfan is highly toxic and the risk of intoxication for users in the sahelian conditions of use is considered inacceptable.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: The risk of Endosulfan is limited

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Endosulfan environmental 55 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

risk is limited

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 13/11/2007The ban entered into force, starting with the signing of the decision taken by the Coordinating Minister of CILSS, on 13 November 2007 regarding all distributions and on 31 December for all uses. Existing stocks of Endosulfan can be used until the 31-12-2008.

SRI LANKA Common Name(s): Paraquat CAS number(s): 4685-14-7 Chemical Name: 4,4'-Bipyridinium, 1,1'-dimethyl- Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: 200g paraquat ion/l formulation all uses

Use or uses that remain allowed: 65 g paraquat ion/l formulation

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: All paraquat formulations including the formulation with the inteon TM and other similar technologies to reduce their paraquat ion concentration to 65g/liter with effect from 1st of January 2008. Phase out the use of paraquat in three years The existing stocks of higher concentrations of paraquat formulation are to be allowed to deplete through the regular marketing channel The annual quantity of paraquat formulation sold in the country will be frozen at the current level. The phasing out scheme of the product to be worked out at the end of the year 2008 upon re-evaluation of the risk associated with reduced strength 65 g paraquat ion/l formulations

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Restrictions on the import and sales of WHO Class I toxicity pesticides in 1995 and endosulfan in 1998, in Sri Lanka have coincided with reductions in pesticide deaths in both men and women of all ages1. Due to regulation of highly toxic pesticide Sri Lanka has shown fall in Case Fatality Proportion amidst a rising incidence of self-poisoning2. There are around 400-500 deaths each year in Sri Lanka from paraquat poisining3. The ingestion of paraquat has around 65% mortality5, much higher that any other agrochemical. For example, the other commonly used herbicides (propanil, glyphosate and MCPA) have a mortality of between 4% and 8%. Unlike other agrochemicals, paraquat has no proven antidotes and supportive care is relatively ineffective at preventing death. A substantial reduction of poisonings deaths is unlikely to be achieved by focusing solely on in hospital care. Restrictions on availability of highly toxic poisons in rural communities have been shown as an important strategy to reduce the number of intentional self- poisoning deaths. Poisoned patients chose their poison on the basis of availability; most has obtained the poison either in, or near, to heir home4.

Considering the above and other related information it was concluded that the very high rate pf deaths due to paraquat poisoning caused by its inherent toxic properties, specially in misuse among the farming communities of Sri Lanka is unacceptable.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: To reduce human mortality rate do to highly toxic pesticides 56 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 01/01/2008

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Paraquat dichloride CAS number(s): 1910-42-5 Chemical Name: 4,4'-Bipyridinium, 1,1'-dimethyl-, dichloride Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is severely restricted

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All products meeting the following specifications: - Concentration d'ingrédient actif inférieure à 28% p/v - Préparation colorée en bleu - - Formulación Coloreada de azul - Envase: volume minime: 1 litre volume minimal: 30 litres

Use or uses that remain allowed: All products except those meeting the following specifications: - Active ingredient concentration not higher than 28% p/v - Blue coloured formulation - Packing: minimum size: 1 litre maximum size: 30 litres The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Having assessed the toxicological, environmental and phytosanitary aspects of Paraquat formulated herbicides, and proving that these products are extremely hazardous due to their high acute toxicity, it is resolved to limit the active ingredient concentration, packaging size and formulation colour.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of the inherent properties of paraquat formulations, particularly its high acute toxicity that poses a risk to the health of rural workers and to the general population

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Limit the use of paraquat-based products, thus minimizing the health risks arising from their employment Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 26/05/1992

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Dieldrin CAS number(s): 60-57-1 Chemical Name: 2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth[2,3-b]oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9-hexachloro-1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,7a- octahydro-, (1a.alpha.,2.beta.,2a.alpha.,3.beta.,6.beta.,6a.alpha.,7 Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All uses and formulations are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: Certain quantities of active ingredient to be used in laboratory-scale research or as a standard reference.

57 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Dieldrin formulated products are included in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants because their highly toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation, and may produce severe negative effects on the environment and human health. The use of these products is already banned in Uruguay and in several countries, not introducing this measure an impact on trade and domestic production. There are less harmful substitutive products for pest control, which in turn allows ensuring the implementation of the principles of the national environmental policy to protect the environment. (Article 6 of Law No. 17,283, Nov. 28, 2002). Considering the above, introduction, production and use, in any form or under any regime in the country, of dieldrin based products is banned.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of dieldrin formulations inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Its high toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation represent a high risk to human health in general.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prohibit the import, production and use of products based on dieldrin will reduce all possible routes of human exposure, with the consequent reduction of health risks associated.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Was performed on the basis of dieldrin formulated products inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Its high toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation represent a high risk to human health in general.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Banning introduction, production and use of dieldrin formulated products in the country will reduce the risks to wildlife, flora and the ecosystem in general.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 03/10/2005

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Endrin CAS number(s): 72-20-8 Chemical Name: 2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth[2,3-b]oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9-hexachloro-1a,2,2a,3,6,6a,7,7a- octahydro-, (1a.alpha.,2.beta.,2a.beta.,3.alpha.,6.alpha.,6a.beta.,7 Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All uses and formulations are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: Certain quantities of active ingredient to be used in laboratory-scale research or as a standard reference The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Endrin formulations are included in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants because their highly toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation, and may produce severe negative effects on the environment and human health. The use of these products is already banned in Uruguay and in several countries, not introducing this measure an impact on trade and domestic production. There are less harmful substitutive products for pest control, which in turn allows ensuring the implementation of the principles of the national environmental policy to protect the environment. (Article 6 of Law No. 17,283, 58 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

on Nov. 28, 2002). Considering the above, introduction, production and use, in any form or under any regime in the country, of endrin based products is banned. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of endrin formulations inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Its high toxicity, persistency and ability to bioaccumulate represent a high risk to human health in general.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: rohibit the introduction; production and use of endrin formulations will reduce all possible routes of human exposure, with the consequent reduction of risks associated with health.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Was performed on the basis of endrin formulations inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (FAO / UNEP) and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Their persistence, bioaccumulation and high toxicity, represent a high risk for the environment and living organisms.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Banning introduction, production and use of endrin formulations in the country will reduce the risks to wildlife, flora and the ecosystem in general

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 03/10/2005

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Heptachlor CAS number(s): 76-44-8 Chemical Name: 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-4,7-methanoindene Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All uses and formulations are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: Certain quantities of active ingredient to be used in laboratory-scale research or as a standard reference. The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Helptachlor formulated products are included in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants because their highly toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation, and may produce severe negative effects on the environment and human health. The use of these products is already banned in Uruguay and in several countries, not introducing this measure an impact on trade and domestic production. There are less harmful substitutive products for pest control, which in turn allows ensuring the implementation of the principles of the national environmental policy to protect the environment. (Article 6 of Law No. 17,283, Nov. 28, 2002). Considering the above, introduction, production and use, in any form or under any regime in the country, of heptachlor based products is banned. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of heptachlor inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Its high toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation represent a high risk to human health in general.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prohibit the import, production and 59 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

use of products based on heptachlor will reduce all possible routes of human exposure, with the consequent reduction of health risks associated

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Was performed on the basis of heptachlor formulated products inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Its high toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation represent a high risk to human health in general.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Banning introduction, production and use of heptachlor formulated products in the country will reduce the risks to wildlife, flora and the ecosystem in general

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 03/10/2005

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Hexachlorobenzene CAS number(s): 118-74-1 Chemical Name: Benzene, hexachloro- Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All uses and formulations are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: Certain quantities of active ingredient to be used in laboratory-scale research or as a standard reference.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Hexachlorobenzene formulations are included in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants because their highly toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation, and may produce severe negative effects on the environment and human health. The use of these products is already banned in Uruguay and in several countries, not introducing this measure an impact on trade and domestic production. There are less harmful substitutive products for pest control, which in turn allows ensuring the implementation of the principles of the national environmental policy to protect the environment. (Article 6 of Law No. 17,283, Nov. 28, 2002). Considering the above, introduction, production and use, in any form or under any regime in the country, of hexachlorobenzene based products is banned.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of hexachlorobenzene formulations inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Its high toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation represent a high risk to human health in general.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prohibit the import, production and use of products based on hexachlorobenzene will reduce all possible routes of human exposure, with the consequent reduction of health risks associated

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Was performed on the basis of hexachlorobenzene formulations inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Its high toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation represent a high risk to human health in general. 60 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Banning introduction, production and use of hexachlorobenzene formulated products in the country will reduce the risks to wildlife, flora and the ecosystem in general

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 03/10/2005

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Methamidophos (Soluble liquid CAS number(s): 10265-92-6 formulations of the substance that exceed 600 g active ingredient/l) Chemical Name: Phosphoramidothioic acid, O,S-dimethyl ester Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All phytosanitary uses and formulations ara prohibited The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of methamidophos formulations inherent dangers. The high toxicity implies a high risk for rural workers and for the rest of the exposed population.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Banning use of methamidophos formulations. Eliminate this product from the market.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Due to the inherent toxicity of methamidophos formulations, their phytosanitary use jeans a high risk to mammals, birds, aquatic organisms and beneficial insects.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Prohibit the use of methamidophos formulations with the consequent reduction of risks and dangers for the environment.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 17/10/2006

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Methyl Parathion CAS number(s): 298-00-0 Chemical Name: Phosphorothioic acid, O,O-dimethyl O-(4-nitrophenyl) ester Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: Prohibited all methyl-parathion formulations except microcapsules soluble in water and anticides powder formulations with active ingredient equal or less than 2%.

61 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Use or uses that remain allowed: Microcapsule formulations under the following conditions: a) Use: only in fruit trees b) Waiting time: 35 days c)- Application: only on soils d) Active ingredient concentration: max 45% (p/v) Anticides power formulated with active ingredient equal or less than 2% The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Due to: - high toxicity to humans and, particularly high risk to applicators; - its toxicity implies, as well, high risks to beneficial insects and extreme toxicity for birds; - despite its high toxicity, the risk can be significantly reduced by the use of microcapsule formulations; - its short half life, rapid microbial degradation and the inability of bioconcentration, grant some advantages from an environmental point of view; - for some of the permitted uses of methyl parathion, there are not substitutive products that meet the conditions of lower toxicity and equal efficacy, thus it is necessary maintaining the authorization of microcapsule formulations and specific uses; - all formulations of this active ingredient, except microcapsules, are included in the FAO/UNEP PIC procedure. Prohibited register and application of phytosanitary products based on methyl parathion for all agricultural use, except: 1 - Microcapsule formulations to be dissolved in water under the following conditions: - Use: only in fruit trees - Waiting time: 35 days - Application: only on soils - Active ingredient concentration: max 45% (p/v) 2 - Anticides power formulated with active ingredient equal or less than 2% The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was carried out considering the high toxicity of these products for humans and particularly, the high risk for appliers.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Restrict and reduce the use of products based on methyl parathion with the consequent reduction of risks to birds and beneficial insects.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Due to high toxicity of methyl parathion formulations, their use means a high risk to birds and beneficial insects.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Restrict and reduce the use of plant protection products based on methyl parathion with the consequent reduction of the risks and harms to the environment. Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 30/06/2002

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Mirex CAS number(s): 2385-85-5 Chemical Name: Dodecachloropentacycle[5.3.0.02.6.03.9.04.8]decane Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: Banned all uses and all mirex formulations.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes 62 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Summary of the final regulatory action: Mirex formulations are included in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants because their highly toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation, and may produce severe negative effects on the environment and human health. The use of these products is already banned in Uruguay and in several countries, not introducing this measure an impact on trade and domestic production. There are less harmful substitutive products for pest control, which in turn allows ensuring the implementation of the principles of the national environmental policy to protect the environment. (Article 6 of Law No. 17,283, Nov. 28, 2002). Considering the above, introduction, production and use, in any form or under any regime in the country, of mirex based products is banned.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of mirex formulations inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (FAO / UNEP) and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Their persistence, bioaccumulation and its high toxicity, represent a high risk to human health.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Prohibit import, production and use of mirex will reduce all possible human exposition routes, with consequent decrease of risks associated to health.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Was performed on the basis of mirex formulations inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (FAO / UNEP) and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Their persistence, bioaccumulation and its high toxicity, represent a high risk to the environment and all the living beings.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Prohibit import, production and use of mirex formulations across the country will reduce all risks to wildlife, flora and the ecosystem in general.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 03/10/2005

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Monocrotophos (BSI, E-ISO) CAS number(s): 6923-22-4 Chemical Name: Dimethyl (E)-1-methyl-2-(methylcarbamoyl)vinyl phosphate (IUPAC) Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All uses and formulations are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: Certain quantities of active ingredient to be used in laboratory-scale research or as a standard reference

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: High toxicity for humans and particularly high risk for applicators, extremely toxic for beneficial insects and birds. There are authorized substitutive products of lower toxicity. The use of this active substance has been banned in other countries and is included in the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (FAO / UNEP). Prohibited register and application of phytosanitary products based of monocrotophos for all agricultural use.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

63 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of monocrotophos formulated products inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP). Its high toxicity represents a high risk to applicators and exposed population

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Banning agricultural use of monocrotophos will reduce human exposition with the consequent benefit for the worker health and the population in general.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Was performed on the basis of monocrotophos formulated products inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP). Due to its high toxicity for birds and beneficial insects, agricultural use represents a high risk for the environment

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Banning use of monocrotophos formulations will reduce risks for the environment

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 30/06/2002

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Parathion CAS number(s): 56-38-2 Chemical Name: O,O-diethyl O-4-nitrophenyl phosphorothioate Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All uses and formulations are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: Certain quantities of active ingredient to be used in laboratory-scale research or as a standard reference.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Ethyl parathion formulated products are toxic for humans; represent a high risk for applicators and beneficial insects and extremely toxic for birds. The degradation metabolites are highly toxic. There are now real opportunities to tackle phytosanitary problems with other authorized products less toxic. The use of these formulations has been banned in other countries, and are included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) Considering the above, register and application of phytosanitary products ethyl parathion based are banned for all agricultural use.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of ethyl parathion formulated products inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP). Due the high toxicity of degradation metabolites represents a high risk to applicators and exposed population

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Banning agricultural use of ethyl parathion will reduce human exposition with the consequent benefit for the worker health and the population in general.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Was performed on the basis of ethyl paration formulated products inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO 64 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

/ UNEP). Its high toxicity for birds and beneficial insects, the agricultural use represents a high risk for the environment

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Banning the use of ethyl parathion formulated products in the country will reduce the risks to wildlife, flora and the ecosystem in general

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 30/06/2002

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Phosphamidon CAS number(s): 13171-21-6 Chemical Name: Phosphoric acid, 2-chloro-3-(diethylamino)-1-methyl-3-oxo-1-propenyl dimethyl ester Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: Banned all formulations and agricultural applications.

Summary of the final regulatory action: Because: The high toxicity to humans of products based on phosphamidon, and particularly the high risk to applicators; - The toxicity also implies high risk to beneficial insects and extreme toxicity to birds; - There are other opportunities to tackle phytosanitary problems with less toxic products; - The use of products based on this substance has been banned in other countries for the reasons given and is listed on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure of the FAO / UNEP. - Registration and application of Phytosanitary products-based phosphamidon for all agricultural uses is banned. The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: as performed on the basis of phosphamidon formulations inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (FAO / UNEP). Due to its high persistency represents a risk for the human health and rural workers (applicators).

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Eliminate agricultural use of phosphamidon will reduce all possible routes of human exposure, with consequent benefits for the workers and population health.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Was performed on the basis of phosphamidon formulations inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (FAO / UNEP). The agricultural application represents a high risk for the environment because the high toxicity for birds and beneficial insects.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Banning use of phosphamidon formulated products will reduce risks for the environment.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 30/01/2002

65 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

URUGUAY Common Name(s): Toxaphene (Camphechlor) CAS number(s): 8001-35-2 Chemical Name: Toxaphene Final regulatory action has been taken for the category: Pesticide Final regulatory action: The chemical is Banned

Use or uses prohibited by the final regulatory action: All uses and formulations are banned

Use or uses that remain allowed: Certain quantities of active ingredient to be used in laboratory-scale research or as a standard reference.

The final regulatory action was based on a risk or hazard evaluation: Yes

Summary of the final regulatory action: Toxaphene formulated products are included in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants because their highly toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation, and may produce severe negative effects on the environment and human health. The use of these products is already banned in Uruguay and in several countries, not introducing this measure an impact on trade and domestic production. There are less harmful substitutive products for pest control, which in turn allows ensuring the implementation of the principles of the national environmental policy to protect the environment. (Article 6 of Law No. 17,283, Nov. 28, 2002). Considering the above, introduction, production and use, in any form or under any regime in the country, of toxaphene based products is banned.

The reasons for the final regulatory action were relevant to: Human health and environment

Summary of known hazards and risks to human health: Was performed on the basis of toxaphene formulated products inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Its high toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation represent a high risk to human health in general.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to human health: Banning introduction, production and use of toxaphene will reduce all possible means of human exposition thus reducing the associated risks to health.

Summary of known hazards and risks to the environment: Was performed on the basis of toxaphene formulated products inherent dangers. This substance is included in the Prior Informed Consent procedure (FAO / UNEP) and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Their high toxicity, persistency and bioaccumulation represent a high risk for the environment and living organisms.

Expected effect of the final regulatory action in relation to the environment: Banning introduction, production and use of toxaphene formulated products in the country will reduce risks to wildlife, flora and the ecosystem in general.

Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 03/10/2005

66 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix I

Part B: INFORMATION ON NOTIFICATIONS OF FINAL REGULATORY ACTION THAT HAS BEEN VERIFIED NOT TO CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY ANNEX I OF THE CONVENTION

Notifications of final regulatory action have been verified not to contain all the information required by annex I of the Convention.

Chemical name CAS Category Country Region Annex III Circular Latin America Chlordecone 143-50-0 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Cloranil 118-75-2 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America and the Cyanophos 2636-26-2 Pesticide Mexico No XXVIII Caribbean America Latin America DBCP 96-12-8 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Dialifor 10311-84-9 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Dinotroamine 29091-05-2 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Endrin 72-20-8 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Erbon 136-25-4 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Formothion 2540-82-1 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Mirex 2385-85-5 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Monuron 150-68-5 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Nitrofen 1836-75-5 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Phenylmercury 62-38-4 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Schradan 152-16-9 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Sodiumfluroacetate 62-74-8 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean Latin America Triamiphos 1031-47-6 Pesticide Mexico and the No XXVIII Caribbean

Part C: NOTIFICATIONS OF FINAL REGULATORY ACTION STILL UNDER VERIFICATION

No Notifications of Final Regulatory Actions are under verification by the Secretariat.

67 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix II

APPENDIX II

PROPOSALS FOR INCLUSION OF SEVERELY HAZARDOUS PESTICIDE FORMULATIONS RECEIVED UNDER THE PIC PROCEDURE

Part A: SUMMARY OF EACH PROPOSAL OF SEVERELY HAZARDOUS PESTICIDE FORMULATION THAT HAS BEEN VERIFIED TO CONTAIN ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY, PART I, OF THE CONVENTION

No proposals for inclusion of severely hazardous pesticide formulations in the PIC procedure have been received by the Secretariat between 30 April 2008 to 31 October 2008, in line with Article 6, paragraph 2.

Part B: PROPOSALS OF SEVERELY HAZARDOUS PESTICIDE FORMULATIONS STILL UNDER VERIFICATION

One proposal for inclusion of severely hazardous pesticide formulations in the PIC procedure is under verification by the Secretariat, in line with Article 6, paragraph 2.

68 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix III

APPENDIX III

Chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention

Date of first dispatch of Relevant CAS Chemical Category decision guidance number(s) document Prior to adoption of 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters 93-76-5 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of Aldrin 309-00-2 Pesticide Convention Binapacryl 485-31-4 Pesticide 1 February 2005 Prior to adoption of Captafol 2425-06-1 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of Chlordane 57-74-9 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of Chlordimeform 6164-98-3 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of DDT 50-29-3 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of Dieldrin 60-57-1 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of Dinoseb and Dinoseb Salts 88-85-7 Pesticide Convention Dinitro-ortho-cresol (DNOC) and its salts (such as ammonium salt, potassium salt and 534-52-1 Pesticide 1 February 2005 sodium salt) Prior to adoption of 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB) 106-93-4 Pesticide Convention Ethylene dichloride 107-06-2 Pesticide 1 February 2005 Ethylene oxide 75-21-8 Pesticide 1 February 2005 Prior to adoption of Fluoroacetamide 640-19-7 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of HCH (mixed isomers) 608-73-1 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of Heptachlor 76-44-8 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 Pesticide Convention Prior to adoption of Lindane (gamma-HCH) 58-89-9 Pesticide Convention Mercury compounds, including inorganic mercury compounds, alkyl mercury Prior to adoption of 99-99-9 Pesticide compounds and alkyloxyalkyl and aryl Convention mercury compounds Monocrotophos 6923-22-4 Pesticide 1 February 2005 Parathion 56-38-2 Pesticide 1 February 2005 Prior to adoption of Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters 87-86-5 Pesticide Convention Toxaphene (Camphechlor) 8001-35-2 Pesticide 1 February 2005 All tributyltin compounds including: 56-35-9, Pesticide 1 February 2009 Tributyltin oxide Tributyltin fluoride, 1983-10-4, Tributyltin methacrylate, 2155-70-6, 69 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix III

Tributyltin benzoate, 4342-36-3, Tributyltin chloride, 1461-22-9, Tributyltin linoleate, 24124-25-2, Tributyltin naphthenate 85409-17-2 dustable powder formulations containing a Severely 17804-35-2, combination of benomyl at or above 7%, hazardous 1563-66-2, 137- 1 February 2005 carbofuran at or above 10% and thiram at or Pesticide 26-8 above 15% Formulation Severely Methamidophos (Soluble liquid formulations hazardous Prior to adoption of of the substance that exceed 600 g active 10265-92-6 Pesticide Convention ingredient/l) Formulation Severely Methyl-parathion (emulsifiable concentrates hazardous Prior to adoption of (EC) at or above 19.5% active ingredient and 298-00-0 Pesticide Convention dusts at or above 1.5% active ingredient) Formulation Severely Phosphamidon (Soluble liquid formulations hazardous Prior to adoption of of the substance that exceed 1000 g active 13171-21-6 Pesticide Convention ingredient/l) Formulation Actinolite asbestos 77536-66-4 Industrial 1 February 2005 Amosite, asbestos 12172-73-5 Industrial 1 February 2005 17068-78-9, Anthophyllite Industrial 1 February 2005 77536-67-5 Prior to adoption of Crocidolite 12001-28-4 Industrial Convention 13654-09-6, Prior to adoption of Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs) 36355-01-8, Industrial Convention 27858-07-7 Prior to adoption of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 1336-36-3 Industrial Convention Prior to adoption of Polychlorinated Terphenyls (PCTs) 61788-33-8 Industrial Convention Tetraethyl lead 78-00-2 Industrial 1 February 2005 Tetramethyl lead 75-74-1 Industrial 1 February 2005 Tremolite 77536-68-6 Industrial 1 February 2005 Prior to adoption of Tris(2,3 dibromopropyl)phosphate 126-72-7 Industrial Convention

70 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix IV

APPENDIX IV

LISTING OF ALL IMPORT RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM PARTIES AND CASES OF FAILURE ON THEIR PART TO SUBMIT RESPONSES

The information in this Appendix has been arranged according to the sequence of the individual chemicals as they are listed in Appendix III of this Circular. For each chemical there are three tabular summaries:

Part 1 is the overview of new import responses received, since the last PIC Circular (between 30 April to 31 October 2008) which have been published for the first time in the current PIC Circular. Detailed information concerning the responses can be found in the list of all import responses received from Parties contained in Part 2 of this Appendix.

Part 2 is a compilation of all the import responses received from Parties by the Secretariat as of 31 October 2008. The listed responses relate to the category or categories specified for each chemical in Appendix III of this PIC Circular. The date on which the import response was first published in a PIC Circular is also indicated.

Part 3 is a list of those Parties which have failed to provide a response regarding future import of a chemical within 9 months of the date of dispatch of the decision guidance document. It also includes the date on which the Secretariat first informed all Parties, through publication in the PIC Circular, of cases of failure to transmit a response

71 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix IV

Appendix IV - Part 1

OVERVIEW OF NEW IMPORT RESPONSES RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST PIC CIRCULAR

2,4,5-T and its salts and esters DDT Cameroon Cameroon Cape Verde Cuba Cuba Gambia Niger Dieldrin Actinolite asbestos Cameroon Cuba Cuba Iran (Islamic Republic of) Dinitro-ortho-cresol (DNOC) and its salts Kuwait (such as ammonium salt, potassium salt Aldrin and sodium salt) Cameroon Cape Verde Cuba Cuba Amosite, asbestos Gambia Cuba Malaysia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Dinoseb and Dinoseb Salts Kuwait Cameroon Anthophyllite Cuba Cuba Iran (Islamic Republic of) Dustable powder formulations containing a Kuwait combination of benomyl at or above 7%, Binapacryl carbofuran at or above 10% and thiram at Cameroon or above 15% Cape Verde Cape Verde Cuba Gambia Captafol Malaysia Cameroon EDB (1,2-dibromoethane) Cape Verde Cape Verde Cuba Cuba Niger Ethylene dichloride Chlordane Cape Verde Cape Verde Cuba Cuba Gambia Chlordimeform Ethylene oxide Cape Verde Cape Verde Cuba Côte d´Ivoire Chlorobenzilate Cuba Cape Verde Gambia Cuba Fluoroacetamide Cuba Niger

Crocidolite HCH (mixed isomers) Cuba Cuba Kuwait Niger Oman

72 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix IV

Heptachlor Kuwait Cameroon Parathion Cape Verde Cape Verde Cuba Côte d´Ivoire Hexachlorobenzene Cuba Cape Verde Gambia Cuba Kuwait Niger Lindane (gamma-HCH) Cameroon Cape Verde Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters Cuba Cameroon Malaysia Cape Verde Niger Malaysia Syrian Arab Republic Niger Phosphamidon (Soluble liquid formulations of the substance that exceed Mercury compounds, including inorganic 1000 g active ingredient/l) mercury compounds, alkyl mercury Cape Verde compounds and alkyloxyalkyl and aryl Cuba mercury compounds Kuwait Cape Verde Niger Cuba Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs) Switzerland Côte d´Ivoire

Cuba Methamidophos (Soluble liquid Mexico formulations of the substance that exceed 600 g active ingredient/l) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Cameroon Côte dÍvoire Cape Verde Cuba Cuba Kuwait Kuwait Sri Lanka Niger Polychlorinated Terphenyls (PCTs) Côte dÍvoire Cuba Methyl-parathion (emulsifiable concentrates (EC) at or above 19.5% active Mexico ingredient and dusts at or above 1.5% Tetraethyl lead active ingredient) Cuba Cameroon Tetramethyl lead Cape Verde Cuba Côte dÍvoire Toxaphene (Camphechlor) Cuba Cape Verde Kuwait Cuba Niger Tremolite Switzerland Cuba Kuwait Monocrotophos Tris(2,3 dibromopropyl)phosphate Cameroon Côte dÍvoire Cape Verde Cuba Côte dÍvoire Cuba Gambia

73 Pic Circular XXVIII Appendix IV

Appendix IV - Part 2 & 3

2,4,5-T and its salts and esters ...... 75 Aldrin ...... 83 Binapacryl ...... 91 Captafol ...... 99 Chlordane ...... 107 Chlordimeform 115 Chlorobenzilate 123 DDT ...... 130 Dieldrin ...... 138 Dinitro-ortho-cresol (DNOC) and its salts (such as ammonium salt, potassium salt and sodium salt) 146 Dinoseb and Dinoseb Salts ...... 153 EDB (1,2-dibromoethane)...... 161 Ethylene dichloride 169 Ethylene oxide 177 Fluoroacetamide 185 HCH (mixed isomers)...... 193 Heptachlor ...... 201 Hexachlorobenzene 209 Lindane (gamma-HCH)...... 216 Mercury compounds, including inorganic mercury compounds, alkyl mercury compounds and alkyloxyalkyl and aryl mercury compounds ...... 225 Monocrotophos 233 Parathion ...... 241 Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters...... 248 Toxaphene (Camphechlor)...... 257 Dustable powder formulations containing a combination of benomyl at or above 7%, carbofuran at or above 10% and thiram at or above 15%...... 265 Methamidophos (Soluble liquid formulations of the substance that exceed 600 g active ingredient/l) ...... 272 Methyl-parathion (emulsifiable concentrates (EC) at or above 19.5% active ingredient and dusts at or above 1.5% active ingredient)...... 280 Phosphamidon (Soluble liquid formulations of the substance that exceed 1000 g active ingredient/l) ...... 288 Actinolite asbestos 296 Amosite, asbestos 305 Anthophyllite 314 Crocidolite ...... 324 Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs)...... 332 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ...... 340 Polychlorinated Terphenyls (PCTs)...... 349 Tetraethyl lead 356 Tetramethyl lead 365 Tremolite ...... 374 Tris(2,3 dibromopropyl)phosphate ...... 383

74 Importing responses received from parties - 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters (CAS number: 93-76-5)

Part 2 - Listing of all importing responses received from Parties

Listing of all importing responses received from Parties

2,4,5-T and its salts and esters CAS: 93-76-5 Argentina Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 consent under Conditions for Import: Prohibited for use in agriculture are explicitly those conditions products formulated on the basis of butyl ester of 2,4,5-T Legislative or administrative measures: Decree No.2121/90 Published on the Congressional Record October 16,1990. Prohibits: importation, manufacturing, processing, commercialisation and use of agriculture applications products, on the basis of butyl ester of 2,4,5-T

Armenia Interim decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent

Australia Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 consent under Conditions for Import: Subject to approval, registration, exemption or permit conditions under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Code Act 1994, noting that Australian use of 2,4,5-T ended in the late 1980s and the herbicide is not currently approved for use Legislative or administrative measures: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Code Act 1994.

Belize Final decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Classified as a prohibited pesticide in Schedule IV of the Pesticides Control Act of 1985, Chapter 181B of the Laws of Belize, and in the Pesticides Control (replacement of Schedules) Order, 1995.

Bosnia and Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Herzegovina Brazil Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Remarks: There is no pesticide registered for any purpose. Legislative or administrative measures: Directive No. 326 of 16 August 1974 - Prohibits the use of the herbicides containing 2,4,5-T in forests, in any culture which products are intended for human feed and near household installation recreation sites as much as river, lakes, water side places and pathways within forests.

Law No. 7.802 of 11 July 1989 and Decree No. 4.074 of 04 January 2002 - Pesticides and its compounds need to be registered by the Federal Authority prior to produce, export, import, trade or use.

Burkina Faso Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Results of the Sahelien Pesticides Committee (CSP) meeting

Burundi Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

75 Importing responses received from parties - 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters (CAS number: 93-76-5)

Cameroon Final decision on import Published: 12/2008 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Act nº 66/9/COR of 8 November 1966 Decree nº 77/171 of 03 June 1977 Decree nº 83-661 of 27 December 1983 Order nº 0002/MINAGRI/DIRAGRI/SDPV of 17/01/1989

Canada Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Cape Verde Final decision on import Published: 12/2008 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The pesticide has not been registered by the Sahelian Pesticide Committee which is the regional organization in charge of pesticides registration according to national legislation, Act nº 26/97

Chad Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Final decision pending passage of pesticide control decree.

Chile Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - Through the Resolution No. 2179 of 17 July 1998, it was decided to prohibit to import, to manufacture, to sell, to distribute, and to use 2,4,5-T in agriculture.

China Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Côte d´Ivoire Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to import, locally produce, place on the market, sell or use this product in order to protect human health and the environment. The product has not been registered since 1998.

Cuba Final decision on import Published: 12/2008 no consent Remarks: The adopted decision does not include the use of the product as a reference pattern or reactive used for the development of research and analysis activities.

Legislative or administrative measures: National Decision in force under Resolution 268/1990 of the Ministry of Public Health

Ecuador Final decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent

El Salvador Final decision on import Published: 06/2000 no consent

76 Importing responses received from parties - 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters (CAS number: 93-76-5)

European Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Community Revised: 10/2008 Member States: Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to use or place on the Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, market all plant protection products containing 2,4,5-T. The chemical was Cyprus, Czech Republic, excluded from Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing Denmark, Estonia, of plant protection products on the market and authorisations for plant Finland, France, Germany, protection products thus had to be withdrawn by 25 July 2003 (Commission Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Regulation 2076/2002 of 20 November 2002 (OJ L 319, 23.11.2002, p.3) Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, extending the time period referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive Luxembourg, Malta**, 91/414/EEC and concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Netherlands, Poland, Annex I to that Directive and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant Portugal, Romania, protection products containing these substances). Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

**: These countries are currently PARTICIPATING STATES to the Rotterdam Convention. They are however listed here since they are Member States of the European Community (EC), which is a Party and whose import responses, in accordance with EC legislation, cover all its Member States

Gabon Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decrees have been introduced for the application of Law 7/77 to regulate the import, trade and use of various phytopharmaceutical products. Need more time to reach final decision.

Gambia Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: It has been placed on the list of banned pesticides.

Ghana Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticide Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528)

Guinea Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: - Decision No 2395/MAE/SGG/2001 of 6/06/2001 restricting and prohibiting the use of active substances in agriculture. - National weakness in the toxicological and ecotoxicological analyses. - Information issued by international conventions, regional legislation or institutions

Guyana Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Control (Prohibited Pesticides) Order No. 22 of 2006 made under the Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Control Act 2000 (No. 13 of 2000).

India Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Refused registration due to its extremely hazardous nature and difficulties involved in the availability of impurity-free material.

Iran (Islamic Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Republic of) Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - Production, use, import are prohibited based on Resolution of 6 May 1975, under "The Pesticides Control Act" 1968.

Jamaica Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

77 Importing responses received from parties - 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters (CAS number: 93-76-5)

Japan Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1. Agricultural Chemicals Regulation Law. 2. Pharmaceutical Affairs Law.

Jordan Final decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent Remarks: The decision was taken by the Pesticide registration committee due to the information received from the PIC.

Kazakhstan Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Kenya Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered. Other pesticides available for similar use.

Korea, Republic Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent of Remarks: The substance has never been registered in Korea.

Kuwait Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Lebanon Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision # 94/1 Dated 20/05/1998

Liberia Interim decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent

Madagascar Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: No request for registration. Use practically abandoned. Need more time to reach final decision.

Malaysia Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Import and manufacture of all pesticides is controlled under the Pesticides Act 1974 through a registration scheme. The Act is implemented by the Pesticides Board of Malaysia. 2,4,5-T is not registered under the above Act. This means that it cannot be imported, manufactured, sold and used in the country.

Mali Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree nº 01-2699/MICT-SG of 16th October 2001 listing the products the import and export of which are prohibited. Act nº 01-020 of 30yh May 2001 on pollution and nuisance

Mauritania Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: This pesticide has not been registered by the Sahelian Pesticides Committee, the regional body for registration, under national legislative and regulatory texts (Act 042/2000 on plant protection).

78 Importing responses received from parties - 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters (CAS number: 93-76-5)

Mauritius Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Mexico Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Import of this product is banned. Product classified as "Use Banned."

New Zealand Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: The last 2,4,5-T-based pesticide registration was withdrawn (at the manufacturer's request) in 1990. No import or sale permitted.

Niger Interim decision on import Published: 12/2008 no consent Remarks: Niger ratified the Rotterdam Convention which entered into force in June 2006, in January 2006 Niger ratified the Common Regulation of CILSS Member States (the Sahelian Pesticide Committee is in charge of implementing that regulation). Order Nº 092/MAG/EL/DPV of 08-07-99, listing plant protection products prohibited in Niger. All that has been said allows the country to conform to the regulation in force at a national, regional and international level.

Nigeria Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Norway Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decision 27/73 of 26 Feb 1973.

Oman Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: - According to Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries legislations.

- Royal Decree No. 46/95. Issuing the Law of Handling and Use of Chemicals.

Pakistan Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971. Agricultural Pesticide Rules 1971.

Panama Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered. Prohibited for use in agriculture.

Paraguay Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: There are no laws that prohibit the use of this product in the country.

Peru Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

Philippines Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent

Qatar Final decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Article No. 26 Environment Law (30), 2002

Rwanda Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Remarks: All uses are forbidden in the country. Product never registered

Samoa Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

79 Importing responses received from parties - 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters (CAS number: 93-76-5)

Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision based on recommendation from the relevant technical departments.

Senegal Interim decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Remarks: 2,4,5 has not been registered by the Sahelian Pesticides Committee

Singapore Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 consent under conditions Revised: 10/2008 Conditions for Import: A hazardous Substance License is required for the import of the chemical. Legislative or administrative measures: The chemical is controlled as a Hazardous Substance under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA) and its regulations. A license is required for the import, use and sale of the chemical.

South Africa Interim decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Statement of active consideration: Engaging all relevant stakeholders for a complete ban of the pesticide. Final decision can be reached: two years

Sri Lanka Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: National legislative and administrative measures - Final regulation to import prohibition effective since 17 September 1984 by Pesticide Formulary Committee (presently PeTAC) of 13/1984.

Sudan Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The Pesticides and Plant Protection Materials Act, 1994; the National Council for Pesticides. Not registered.

Suriname Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree negative list imports and exports, September 1, 1999, SB 34 (State Gazette).

Switzerland Final decision on import Published: 12/1999 no consent Remarks: Ordinance relating to Environmentally Hazardous Substances, Annex 3.1: Manufacture, supply, import and use of the substance and products containing the substance are prohibited.

Syrian Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Republic Tanzania, United Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 consent under conditions Republic of Conditions for Import: Permitted only for total weed clearance on roads.

Thailand Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 2,4,5-T was banned according to notification of Ministry of Industry issued under the Hazardous Substance Act B.E.2535 (1992) which has been effective since 2 May 1995.

Togo Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Law 96-007/PR of 3 July 1996 concerning plant protection in Togo.

80 Importing responses received from parties - 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters (CAS number: 93-76-5)

Uganda Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered

United Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Emirates Uruguay Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Presently product is not registered, imported, manufactured or formulated. By December 1997 final decision on product registration, importation, formulation, fabrication and use will be taken.

Viet Nam Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

Yemen Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: List of Banned and Severely Restricted Pesticides in Yemen.

81 Importing responses received from parties - 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters (CAS number: 93-76-5)

Listing of cases of failure to transmit a response by Parties - and date on which the Secretariat first informed the Parties of each case, through the PIC Circular

2,4,5-T and its salts and esters CAS: 93-76-5

Party1 Date

Benin 06/2004 Bolivia 06/2004 Botswana 06/2008 Congo, Democratic Republic 12/2005 of the Congo, Republic of the 12/2006 Cook Islands 12/2004 Croatia 06/2008 Djibouti 06/2005 Dominica 06/2006 Dominican Republic 12/2006 Equatorial Guinea 06/2004 Eritrea 12/2005 Ethiopia 06/2004 Georgia 06/2007 Guinea-Bissau 12/2008 Kyrgyzstan 06/2004 Lesotho 12/2008 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 06/2004 Liechtenstein 12/2004 Maldives 06/2007 Marshall Islands 06/2004 Moldova, Republic of 06/2005 Mongolia 06/2004 Namibia 12/2005 Nepal, Federal Democratic 06/2007 Republic of Ukraine 06/2004 Venezuela 12/2005

82 Importing responses received from parties - Aldrin (CAS number: 309-00-2)

Listing of all importing responses received from Parties

Aldrin CAS: 309-00-2 Argentina Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree No.2121/90 Published on the Congressional Record October 16,1990. Prohibits: importation, manufacturing, processing, commercialisation and use of agriculture applications products, on the basis of Aldrin (active ingredient)

Armenia Interim decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent

Australia Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Remarks: As a Party to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, legislation has been introduced prohibiting import, manufacture, use and export. Import is only permitted for environmentally sound disposal. Legislative or administrative measures: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Regulations 1995 Customs (Prohibited Import) Regulations 1956.

Benin Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Bolivia Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Brazil Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Remarks: There is no pesticide registered for any purpose. Legislative or administrative measures: Directive nº 63 of 15 June 1992 - Prohibits the production, import, export, trade and use of active ingredient Aldrin, for application in livestock and agriculture.

Directive nº 11 of 8 January 1998 -- Exclude the Aldrin from the list of toxics substances, which can be authorized as pesticides.

Law No. 7.802 of 11 July 1989 and Decree No. 4.074 of 04 January 2002 - Pesticides and its compounds need to be registered by the Federal Authority prior to produce, export, import, trade or use.

Burkina Faso Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Results of the Sahelien Pesticides Committee (CSP) meeting.

Burundi Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Its high toxicity, its bio accumulation and persistence in the environment led to it being prohibited. It is prohibited to import, to place on the market or use Aldrine as an agricultural pesticide by Ministerial Decree n 710/838 of 29/10/2001 under n 2001-01-P001.

83 Importing responses received from parties - Aldrin (CAS number: 309-00-2)

Cameroon Final decision on import Published: 12/2008 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Act nº 66/9/COR of 18 November 1966 Decree nº 77/171 of 03 June 1977 Decree nº 83-661 of 27 December 1983 Order nº 0002/MINAGRI/DIRAGRI/SDPV of 17/01/1989

Canada Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Cape Verde Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Chad Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Chile Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Resolution SAG No. 2003 of 22/11/1988.

China Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Congo, Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic Interim decision on import Published: 07/1993 Consent of the Remarks: Need more time.

Cook Islands Final decision on import Published: 01/1995 no consent

Côte d´Ivoire Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to import, locally produce, place on the market, sell or use the product in order to protect human health and the environment. The product has not been registered since 1998.

National Decision in force under Resolution 268/1990 of the Ministry of Public Health

Dominica Final decision on import Published: 01/1996 no consent

Dominican Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent Republic

84 Importing responses received from parties - Aldrin (CAS number: 309-00-2)

Ecuador Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

El Salvador Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Ethiopia Interim decision on import Published: 07/1994 consent under Conditions for Import: Permit from Ministry of Agriculture. conditions Remarks: Use as termiticide only. Legislation pending.

European Final decision on import Published: 06/2005 no consent Community Revised: 10/2008 Member States: Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to produce, place on Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the market or use aldrin. The chemical, whether on its own, in preparations or Cyprus, Czech Republic, as a constituent of articles, was banned by Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the Denmark, Estonia, European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic Finland, France, Germany, pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, p.5). Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta**, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland **: These countries are currently PARTICIPATING STATES to the Rotterdam Convention. They are however listed here since they are Member States of the European Community (EC), which is a Party and whose import responses, in accordance with EC legislation, cover all its Member States

Gabon Interim decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: additional time is needed for a final decision

Gambia Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent

Ghana Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticide Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528)

Guinea Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1)Decision No 2395/MAE/SGG/2001 of 6/06/2001 restricting and/or prohibiting the use of active substances in agriculture. 2) The product is listed in the group of organic product persistent in the environment "POP" 3)National weakness in the toxicological and ecotoxicological analyses.

India Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

85 Importing responses received from parties - Aldrin (CAS number: 309-00-2)

Iran (Islamic Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Republic of) Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - The use, production and import are prohibited. Based on the Resolution of 11 July 1976, under "The Pesticides Control Act" 1968. For emergency cases: permission from Ministry of Agriculture.

Jamaica Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

Japan Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1. Law Concerning the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and Regulation of their Manufacture, etc. 2. Agricultural Chemicals Regulation Law. 3. Pharmaceutical Affairs Law.

Jordan Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Kazakhstan Final decision on import Published: 07/1996 no consent

Kenya Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

Korea, Interim decision on import Published: 12/2004 consent under conditions Democratic Conditions for Import: The use of this chemical in agriculture and public People´s health is prohibited. It is only allowed to produce, import and use for protecting wood, on the basis Republic of of sufficient evaluation of its toxicity and eco-toxicity in side of public health and environment. Statement of active consideration: - The toxicity and persistence in environment of Aldrin is being re-evaluated. - The selection of alternatives to the use of Aldrin is being carried out. - The investigation for the national request of Aldrin is being done.

Korea, Republic Final decision on import Published: 01/1997 no consent of Remarks: Banned because of residue in 1972.

Kuwait Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered. Decree No. 95/1995.

Kyrgyzstan Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Ordinance of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic of 27 June 2001 No. 376 on measures to protect the environment and health of the population from adverse effects of certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides.

Lebanon Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Liberia Interim decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent

Liechtenstein Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Madagascar Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree N. 6225/93 of 30 November 1993. Use of all aldrin-based products discontinued.

86 Importing responses received from parties - Aldrin (CAS number: 309-00-2)

Malaysia Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - Import and manufacture of all pesticides are controlled under the Pesticides Act 1974 through a registration scheme and the Act is implemented by the Pesticides Board of Malaysia. No aldrin is permitted to be imported, manufactured, sold or used in the country except for purposes of research or education, where certain conditions apply. Date of entry into force of the final regulatory action: 1994

Mauritius Final decision on import Published: 01/1995 no consent

Mexico Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Mongolia Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent Remarks: Not included in the approved list for pesticides 1994-2000.

Nepal, Federal Interim decision on import Published: 07/1993 consent Democratic Remarks: Need more time. Republic of New Zealand Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Niger Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Nigeria Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Norway Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Oman Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: - According to Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries legislations.

- Royal Decree No. 46/95. Issuing the Law of Handling and Use of Chemicals.

Pakistan Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent

Panama Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

87 Importing responses received from parties - Aldrin (CAS number: 309-00-2)

Paraguay Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent

Peru Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Philippines Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Qatar Final decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticide Law (10), 1968

Article No. (26) Environment (30), 2002

Rwanda Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Samoa Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision based on recommendation from the relevant technical departments.

Senegal Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Aldrin has not been registered by the Sahelian Pesticides Committee

Singapore Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 consent under conditions Revised: 10/2008 Conditions for Import: Import for re-export purposes only. A hazardous Substance License is required for the import of the chemical. Legislative or administrative measures: The chemical is controlled as a Hazardous Substance under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA) and its regulations. A license is required for the import, use and sale of the chemical. The chemical is banned for local use since 1985.

Sri Lanka Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 consent under conditions Conditions for Import: Written approval by Registrar. Remarks: Agricultural use restricted to control in coconut nurseries. Alternative for chlordane and dieldrin as structural termiticide.

Sudan Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The Pesticides and Plant Protection Act. The National Pesticide Council decision number 3/2001 dated 3-7-2001.

Suriname Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree negative list imports and exports, September 1, 1999, SB 34 (State Gazette)

88 Importing responses received from parties - Aldrin (CAS number: 309-00-2)

Switzerland Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent

Syrian Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent Republic Tanzania, United Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 consent Republic of Remarks: For emergency cases in limited amounts.

Thailand Final decision on import Published: 12/1999 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Aldrin has been banned according to notification of Ministry of industry issued under the Hazardous Substances Act B.E. 2535 (1992) which has been effective since 2 May 1995.

Togo Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Uganda Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

United Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent Emirates Uruguay Final decision on import Published: 07/1996 no consent

Venezuela Final decision on import Published: 06/2007 no consent

Viet Nam Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Yemen Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: List of Banned and Severely Restricted Pesticides in Yemen.

89 Importing responses received from parties - Aldrin (CAS number: 309-00-2)

Listing of cases of failure to transmit a response by Parties - and date on which the Secretariat first informed the Parties of each case, through the PIC Circular

Aldrin CAS: 309-00-2

Party1 Date

Bosnia and Herzegovina 12/2007 Botswana 06/2008 Croatia 06/2008 Djibouti 06/2005 Equatorial Guinea 06/2004 Eritrea 12/2005 Georgia 06/2007 Guinea-Bissau 12/2008 Lesotho 12/2008 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 06/2004 Maldives 06/2007 Marshall Islands 06/2004 Moldova, Republic of 06/2005 Namibia 12/2005 Ukraine 06/2004

90 Importing responses received from parties - Binapacryl (CAS number: 485-31-4)

Listing of all importing responses received from Parties

Binapacryl CAS: 485-31-4 Argentina Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 consent under Conditions for Import: The Decree 3489/1958 established that all products conditions determined for treatment and control of enemies of animals and plants cultivated or used, which are commercialized in the country, has to be registered in the National Register of Plant Therapy. The resolution SAGPy A No.; 350/99 established the registration requirements for phytosanitary products in the Republic of Argentine. Remarks: Product not commercialized in Argentine.

Armenia Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Remarks: The chemical has never been manufactured, formulated or used in the Republic of Armenia. The chemical is not included in the "List of chemical and biological plan protection measures allowed for use in the Republic of Armenia", approved by the Order of the Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia No 198 dated 18 November 2003.

Legislative or administrative measures: The chemical is included in the "List of regulated under the Rotterdam Convention chemicals and pesticides banned in the Republic of Armenia" approved by the Governmental Decision of the Republic of Armenia (No293-N dated 17 March 2005)

Australia Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 consent under Conditions for Import: Subject to approval, registration, exemption or permit conditions under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Code Act 1994, noting that the only registration requested was never finalised and the product was never registered in Australia. Legislative or administrative measures: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994.

Belize Final decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Not classified as an approved pesticide in the Pesticides Control (replacement of Schedules), Order, 1995 and the Official Register of Pesticides for Belize.

Brazil Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Remarks: There is no pesticide registered for any purpose. Legislative or administrative measures: Law No. 7.802 of 11 July 1989 and Decree No. 4.074 of 04 January 2002 - Pesticides and its compounds need to be registered by the Federal Authority prior to produce, export, import, trade or use.

Resolution RDC No. 347 of 16 December of 2002 - National Health Surveillance Agency - Exclude the binapacryl from the list of toxics substances, which can be authorized as pesticides.

Burkina Faso Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Results of the Sahelian Pesticides Committee (CSP) meeting.

91 Importing responses received from parties - Binapacryl (CAS number: 485-31-4)

Burundi Final decision on import Published: 06/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Due to its harmful effects on human and animal health, the use of Binapacryl as a pesticide for agricultural purposes has been prohibited in Burundi by Ministerial Ordinance N. 710/405 of 24th March 2003 under N 2003-08-P001.

Canada Final decision on import Published: 06/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Chemical not registered for pest control in Canada.

Chile Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - This action is based on the absence, for this chemical substance, of the authorization as a pesticide in agriculture, without which it is not allowed to import, manufacture, distribute, sell or use this substance in Chile. To obtain this authorization, it is necessary to follow strict national regulations that reflect many procedures and information needed to obtain the permission.

China Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Regulations on Pesticide Administration.

Congo, Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Democratic Remarks: The Framework Act is being drawn up. Republic of the Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to use and import the chemical.

Cook Islands Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent

Côte d´Ivoire Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to use or place on the market all plant products containing Binapacryl as an active substance in the whole territory of the Côte d'Ivoire. The product is highly toxic for humans and the environment.

Cuba Final decision on import Published: 12/2008 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: National decision adopted and disseminated to the interested Parties, under the power conferred to the Designated National Authority, as entity empowered to register pesticides authorized for use at national level (Joint Resolution of March 7, 2007, Ministries of Agriculture and Public Health). It is currently in the process of adopting the resolution which grants legal status to this national decision adopted.

92 Importing responses received from parties - Binapacryl (CAS number: 485-31-4)

Ecuador Interim decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - Convene meeting of the National Technical Committee of Pesticides and Veterinarian Products for the analysis of the technical information on the product. Issed by the "Servicio Ecuatoriano de Sanidad Agropecuaria".

Ethiopia Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 consent Remarks: The product is not registered Legislative or administrative measures: According to the Pesticide Registration and Control Special Decree No. 20/1990 of Ethiopia, unregistered pesticides cannot be used in the country.

European Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Community Revised: 10/2008 Member States: Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to use or place on the Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, market all plant protection products containing binapacryl as an active Cyprus, Czech Republic, ingredient according to Council Directive 79/117/EEC of 21 December 1978 Denmark, Estonia, prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products Finland, France, Germany, containing certain active substances (OJ L 33 of 8/2/79, p. 36) as last amended Greece, Hungary, Ireland, by Regulation (EC) 850/2004 of 29/04/2004 (OJ L 229 of 29/06/2004, p.5). Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Binapacryl is classified under Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on Luxembourg, Malta**, the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to Netherlands, Poland, the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 196 Portugal, Romania, of 16.8.1967, p. 1) as: Repr. Cat. 2; R 61 (Reproductive toxicity in category 2; Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, May cause harm to the unborn child.) - Xn; R 21/22 (Harmful in contact with Sweden, United Kingdom skin and if swallowed) - N; R 50/53 (Dangerous to the environment; Very Toxic of Great Britain and to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic Northern Ireland environment).

Gambia Final decision on import Published: 12/1999 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The decision is based on the Acting under the Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticide Control and Management Act 1994, the Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticide Management Board came up with the conclusions.

Ghana Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticides Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528).

Guinea Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1) Decision No 2395/MAE/SGG/2001 of 6/06/2001 restricting and/or prohibiting the use of active substances in agriculture. 2) National weakness in the toxicological and ecotoxicological analyses. 3) National policy on health and environment protection, pesticide management

Guyana Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Administrative decision of the Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Control Board. The pesticide is not registered nor any application for registration has been received.

India Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Remarks: Binapacryl figures in the list of refused registration. Legislative or administrative measures: The insecticides Act, 1968 and rules framed thereunder. Pesticides to be imported/manufactured require registration under the Act by the Registration Committee.

93 Importing responses received from parties - Binapacryl (CAS number: 485-31-4)

Iran (Islamic Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Republic of) Legislative or administrative measures: Import and use of the substance as plant protection product are banned. Based on the Resolution of 23 May 1994, under "the Pesticide Control Act", 1968.

Jamaica Final decision on import Published: 06/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The Pesticides Act, 1975 allows importation of registered pesticides only. This pesticide is not registered nor has any application for registration been received.

Japan Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1. Agricultural Chemicals Regulation Law. 2. Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Law. 3. Pharmaceutical Affairs Law.

Jordan Final decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent Remarks: The decision was taken by the Pesticide registration committee due to the information received from the PIC.

Kenya Final decision on import Published: 06/2007 no consent Remarks: Binapacryl is banned for use in the country Legislative or administrative measures: The pest control products act cap 346 - laws of kenya empowers The pest control products board to make final decisions

Korea, Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Democratic Legislative or administrative measures: The use of this pesticide for plant People´s protection is prohibited by "The Law for Environment Protection" (April 9, 1984) and "The National Regulation of Pesticide Management", because of its high Republic of toxicity to human and animals, and also that it cause environment pollution. The National Pesticide Registration Agency is considering the issue canceling the registration of this pesticide, by reviewing the data from Secretariat for the Rotterdam Convention and other information on its toxicity.

Korea, Republic Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent of Remarks: Withdrawn in 1990 because of residue. Legislative or administrative measures: All registration of Binapacryl withdrawn by Agrochemical Managenment Act in 1990. The import of the chemical was prohibited from all sources by RDA Notification No. 2004-11 (11 Feb. 2004).

Lebanon Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision # 94/1 Dated 20/05/1998

Liberia Interim decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent

Malaysia Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - Import and manufacture of all pesticides are controlled under the Pesticides Act 1974 through a registration scheme and the Act is implemented by the Pesticides Board of Malaysia. No binapacryl is permitted to be imported, manufactured, sold or used in the country except for purposes of research or education, where certain conditions apply.

94 Importing responses received from parties - Binapacryl (CAS number: 485-31-4)

Mauritius Final decision on import Published: 12/1999 no consent

Mexico Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: No registration for use

New Zealand Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Remarks: Small-scale use of this substances in a laboratory for research and development or teaching is exempt from a HSNO approval provided all the requirements of Section 33 of the HSNO Act are met. Legislative or administrative measures: There are no approvals for pesticide formulations or veterinary actives containing binapacryl under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO).

Niger Final decision on import Published: 12/1999 no consent

Nigeria Final decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent Remarks: Legislative or administrative measures – Decree 58 of (1988) as amended by decree 59 of (1992) S.I.9 National Environmental Protection Regulations (1991).

Norway Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - Plant protection products Act and Regulations relating to plant protection products.

Oman Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: - According to Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries legislations.

- Royal Decree No. 46/95. Issuing the Law of Handling and Use of Chemicals.

Pakistan Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Banned in Pakistan

Peru Final decision on import Published: 06/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The decision is based on the "Resolución Jefatural Nº 014 - 2000 - AG - SENASA", of 28 January 2000.

Qatar Final decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Article (26) from the Environment Law No (30), 2002 Pesticide Law (10), 1968

Rwanda Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Remarks: All uses are forbidden in the country. Product never registered

Samoa Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - Pesticides Regulations 1990 and decision of the Pesticide Technical Committee (PTC) on 20 April 2000.

95 Importing responses received from parties - Binapacryl (CAS number: 485-31-4)

Saudi Arabia Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Remarks: It was registered in the past, but its registration was cancelled because it was proven risky to human health, animal and the environment. Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision based on recommendation from the relevant technical departments.

Senegal Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Binapacry has not been registered by the Sahelian Pesticides Committee and is not listed in the Senegal National Profile for Chemicals management.

Singapore Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 consent under conditions Revised: 10/2008 Conditions for Import: A hazardous Substance License is required for the import of the chemical.

Legislative or administrative measures: The chemical is controlled as a Hazardous Substance under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA) and its regulations. A license is required for the import, use and sale of the chemical.

Sri Lanka Final decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Formal declaration of prohibition of this pesticide was issued on 29 March 2001 (Pesticide Technical and Advisory Committee 15/2001).

Sudan Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Legislative or administrative measures - The Pesticides and Plant Protection Materials Act of 1994. The decision of "No consent for import of binapacryl" was taken by The Pesticides Council as its periodical meeting No. 499, in the 21st of December, 1999.

Switzerland Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: No products or formulations containing Binapacryl are authorized by the competent authority. For authorized products and uses see Index of Plant Protection Products, which is re-edited each year. Only formulated products and their specific uses are authorized for plant treatment, not active ingredients as such. Only products that are adequately effective and have no substantial adverse effects on users, consumers of food or the environment are authorized. Permanent re-evaluation of the authorization is part of the Swiss registration scheme; adaptations are possible any time.

Syrian Arab Final decision on import Published: 06/2008 no consent Republic Tanzania, United Interim decision on import Published: 06/2000 consent Republic of Remarks: The chemical will be forwarded to the National PIC Committee for consideration. Recommendations will be discussed by the Pesticides Approval and Registration Technical Committee. No application for registration of this chemical has ever been submitted.

96 Importing responses received from parties - Binapacryl (CAS number: 485-31-4)

Thailand Final decision on import Published: 06/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decision made by the Toxic Substance Controlling Board, effective by February 1991, which has been replaced by decision made by the Hazardous Substances Board, effective by 2 May 1995.

Uruguay Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: There is no legislative or administrative measure to prohibit the use of binapacryl. Binapacryl is not registerd in the country and therefore can not be imported for supply according to the decree 149/977. It was withdrawn voluntarily by the manufacturer. There is no registration in force.

Venezuela Final decision on import Published: 06/2007 no consent

Viet Nam Final decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decision No 165/1999/QD-BNN- BVTV dated 13th January 1999, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). Not registered.

Yemen Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: List of Banned and Severely Restricted Pesticides in Yemen.

97 Importing responses received from parties - Binapacryl (CAS number: 485-31-4)

Listing of cases of failure to transmit a response by Parties - and date on which the Secretariat first informed the Parties of each case, through the PIC Circular

Binapacryl CAS: 485-31-4

Party1 Date Party1 Date

Benin 12/2005 United Arab Emirates 12/2005 Bolivia 12/2005 Bosnia and Herzegovina 12/2007 Botswana 06/2008 Chad 12/2005 Congo, Republic of the 12/2006 Croatia 06/2008 Djibouti 12/2005 Dominica 06/2006 Dominican Republic 12/2006 El Salvador 12/2005 Equatorial Guinea 12/2005 Eritrea 12/2005 Gabon 12/2005 Georgia 06/2007 Guinea-Bissau 12/2008 Kazakhstan 06/2008 Kuwait 12/2006 Kyrgyzstan 12/2005 Lesotho 12/2008 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 12/2005 Liechtenstein 12/2005 Madagascar 12/2005 Maldives 06/2007 Marshall Islands 12/2005 Moldova, Republic of 12/2005 Mongolia 12/2005 Namibia 12/2005 Nepal, Federal Democratic 06/2007 Republic of Panama 12/2005 Paraguay 12/2005 Philippines 12/2006 Suriname 12/2005 Togo 12/2005 Uganda 12/2008 Ukraine 12/2005

98 Importing responses received from parties - Captafol (CAS number: 2425-06-1)

Listing of all importing responses received from Parties

Captafol CAS: 2425-06-1 Argentina Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree No.2121/90 Published on the Congressional Record October 16,1990. Prohibits: importation, manufacturing, processing, commercialisation and use of agriculture applications products, on the basis of Captafol (active ingredient)

Armenia Interim decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent

Legislative or administrative measures: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Code Act 1994.

Belize Final decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Not classified as an approved pesticide in the Official Register of Pesticides for Belize.

Bosnia and Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Herzegovina Brazil Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Remarks: There is no pesticide registered for any purpose. Legislative or administrative measures: Directive No. 4 of 19 February 1987 - Ministry of Agriculture - Prohibit register, trade and use of all products and formulations containing active ingredient captafol.

Directive No. 4 of 05 February 1987 - Ministry of Health, National Surveillance - exclude the Captafol from the list of toxics substances, which can be authorized as pesticides.

Law No. 7.802 of 11 July 1989 and Decree No. 4.074 of 04 January 2002 - Pesticides and its compounds need to be registered by the Federal Authority prior to produce, export, import, trade or use.

Burkina Faso Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Results of the Sahelian Pesticides Committee (CSP) meeting.

Burundi Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

Canada Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

99 Importing responses received from parties - Captafol (CAS number: 2425-06-1)

Chad Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Final decision pending passage of pesticide control decree.

Chile Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: This action is based on the absence, for this chemical substance, of the authorization as a pesticide in agriculture, without which it is not allowed to import, manufacture, distribute, sell or use this substance in Chile. To obtain this authorization, it is necessary to follow strict national regulations that reflect many procedures and information needed to obtain the permission.

China Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Côte d´Ivoire Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Captafol has not been registered since 2000. It is therefore prohibited to import, sell or use this product in the whole of the Côte d'Ivoire in order to protect human health and the environment.

It is currently in the process of adopting the resolution which grants legal status to this national decision adopted.

Dominican Final decision on import Published: 06/2007 consent Republic Ecuador Interim decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Communicate to physical or legal bodies which activity is manufacture, formulation, import and sale on the measure to be adopted. Issued by the "Servicio Ecuatoriano de Sanidad Agropecuaria".

El Salvador Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: "R/ Decreto ejecutivo No. 151, del 28 de junio de 2000".

100 Importing responses received from parties - Captafol (CAS number: 2425-06-1)

European Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Community Revised: 10/2008 Member States: Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to use or place on the Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, market all plant protection products containing captafol as an active ingredient Cyprus, Czech Republic, according to Council Directive 79/117/EEC of 21 December 1978 prohibiting Denmark, Estonia, the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing Finland, France, Germany, certain active substances (OJ L 33 of 8.2.1979, p. 36) as last amended by Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Regulation (EC) 850/2004 of 29/04/2004 (OJ L 229 of 29/06/2004, p.5). Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Captafol is classified under Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on Luxembourg, Malta**, the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to Netherlands, Poland, the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 196 Portugal, Romania, of 16.8.1967, p. 1) as: Carc. Cat. 2; R 45 (Carcinogen in category 2; May cause Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, cancer.) - R 43 (May cause sensitization by skin contact.) - N; R 50/53 Sweden, United Kingdom (Dangerous to the environment; Very Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause of Great Britain and long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment). Northern Ireland **: These countries are currently PARTICIPATING STATES to the Rotterdam Convention. They are however listed here since they are Member States of the European Community (EC), which is a Party and whose import responses, in accordance with EC legislation, cover all its Member States

Gabon Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Ministerial decrees have been introduced for the application of Law 7/77 to regulate the import, trade and use of various phytopharmaceutical products. Need more time to reach final decision.

Gambia Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: It has never been registered.

Ghana Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticides Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528).

Guinea Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1) Decision No 2395/MAE/SGG/2001 of 6/06/2001 restricting and/or prohibiting the use of active substances in agriculture. 2) National policy on health and environment protection, pesticide management 3) National weakness in the toxicological and ecotoxicological analyses.

India Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 consent under Conditions for Import: General conditions apply. conditions Remarks: Captafol shall be used only as a seed dresser. Use as foliar spray is banned.

Iran (Islamic Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Republic of) Legislative or administrative measures: Import and use of the substance as agricultural chemical are banned.

Jamaica Interim decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered. No application for registration has been received.

Japan Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1. Agricultural Chemicals Regulation Law. 2. Pharmaceutical Affairs Law.

101 Importing responses received from parties - Captafol (CAS number: 2425-06-1)

Jordan Final decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent Remarks: The decision was taken by the Pesticide registration committee due to the information received from the PIC.

Kazakhstan Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Kenya Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered. Other pesticides available for similar use.

Korea, Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Democratic Legislative or administrative measures: This pesticide is prohibited People´s completely for agricultural use by "The Law for Environment Protection" (April 1, 1984) and "The National Regulation of Pesticide Management", because of Republic of its high toxicity to human and animals, and also its environmental polluting effect.

Korea, Republic Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent of Remarks: Banned in 1993 because of carcinogenicity.

Kuwait Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Decree No. 95/1995.

Lebanon Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision # 94/1 Dated 20/05/1998

Liberia Interim decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent

Madagascar Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: No request for registration. Use practically abandoned. Need more time to reach final decision.

Malaysia Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Import and manufacture of all pesticides are controlled under the Pesticides Act 1974 through a registration scheme and the Act is implemented by the Pesticides Board of Malaysia. No captafol is permitted to be imported, manufactured, sold or used in the country except for purposes of research or education, where certain conditions apply. Entry into force of the final regulatory action: 1997

Mauritius Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

102 Importing responses received from parties - Captafol (CAS number: 2425-06-1)

Mexico Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 consent under Conditions for Import: General conditions apply. conditions

New Zealand Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Remarks: Small-scale use of this substances in a laboratory for research and development or teaching is exempt from a HSNO approval provided all the requirements of Section 33 of the HSNO Act are met. Legislative or administrative measures: There are no approvals for pesticide formulations containing captafol under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO)

Nigeria Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 consent under conditions Conditions for Import: Chemical is under severe restriction to be used only in seed dressing. Importation allowed only by permit from FEPA and NAFDAC pending phase-out.

Norway Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decision 23/81 of 31 March 1981.

Oman Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: - According to Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries legislations.

- Royal Decree No. 46/95. Issuing the Law of Handling and Use of Chemicals.

Pakistan Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971. Agricultural Pesticide Rules 1971.

Panama Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Paraguay Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Requests technical assistance to reach final decision.

Peru Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

Philippines Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent

Rwanda Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Remarks: All uses are forbidden in the country. Product never registered

Samoa Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

103 Importing responses received from parties - Captafol (CAS number: 2425-06-1)

Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision based on recommendation from the relevant technical departments.

Senegal Interim decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Remarks: Captafol has not been registered by the Sahelian Pesticides Committee.

Sri Lanka Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Remarks: National legislative and administrative measures - Final regulation to import: prohibition effective since 26 January 1989.

Suriname Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree negative list imports and exports, September 1, 1999, SB 34 (State Gazette)

Switzerland Final decision on import Published: 12/1999 no consent Remarks: No products and formulations containing Captafol are authorized in the Index of Plant protection Products 1998.

Syrian Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Republic Tanzania, United Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Republic of Remarks: Product banned since 1986.

Thailand Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Captafol was banned according to notification of Ministry of Industry issued under the Hazardous Substance Act B.E.2535 (1992) which has been effective since 2 May 1995.

Togo Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 consent under conditions Conditions for Import: For scientific experiments. Legislative or administrative measures: Law 96-007/PR of 3 July 1996 concerning plant protection in Togo.

104 Importing responses received from parties - Captafol (CAS number: 2425-06-1)

Uganda Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered

United Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Emirates Uruguay Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Resolution of 21 November 1990 (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) prohibits registration, importation and use.

Viet Nam Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

Yemen Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: List of Banned and Severely Restricted Pesticides in Yemen.

105 Importing responses received from parties - Captafol (CAS number: 2425-06-1)

Listing of cases of failure to transmit a response by Parties - and date on which the Secretariat first informed the Parties of each case, through the PIC Circular

Captafol CAS: 2425-06-1

Party1 Date

Benin 06/2004 Bolivia 06/2004 Botswana 06/2008 Congo, Democratic Republic 12/2005 of the Congo, Republic of the 12/2006 Cook Islands 12/2004 Croatia 06/2008 Djibouti 06/2005 Dominica 06/2006 Equatorial Guinea 06/2004 Eritrea 12/2005 Ethiopia 06/2004 Georgia 06/2007 Guinea-Bissau 12/2008 Kyrgyzstan 06/2004 Lesotho 12/2008 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 06/2004 Liechtenstein 12/2004 Maldives 06/2007 Marshall Islands 06/2004 Moldova, Republic of 06/2005 Mongolia 06/2004 Namibia 12/2005 Nepal, Federal Democratic 06/2007 Republic of Qatar 06/2005 Ukraine 06/2004 Venezuela 12/2005

106 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordane (CAS number: 57-74-9)

Listing of all importing responses received from Parties

Chlordane CAS: 57-74-9 Argentina Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Remarks: National production for national consumption not prohibited simultaneously. Legislative or administrative measures: Resolution SAGP and A, No.513/98 published on the Congressional Record August 13, 1998. Prohibits: importation, commercialisation and phytosanitary use of Chlordane active ingredient, and all products formulated with its basis, in the Republic of Argentine.

Armenia Interim decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent

Bolivia Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

Brazil Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Directive No. 040 from December 26, 1980 - Ministry of Agriculture - Prohibits the registration of Chlordane-based pesticides for application in livestock and agriculture.

Law No. 7.802 of 11 July 1989 and Decree No. 4.074 of 04 January 2002 - Pesticides and its compounds need to be registered by the Federal Authority prior to produce, export, import, trade or use.

Burkina Faso Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Results of the Sahelian Pesticides Committee (CSP) meeting.

Burundi Final decision on import Published: 06/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Considering its harmful effects on human beings and the environment, the use of chlordane as a pesticide for agricultural purposes has been prohibited by Ministerial Ordinance N.710/838 of 29th October 2001. It is listed in the register of pesticides prohibited in Burundi under N. 2001-01-P005

Cameroon Final decision on import Published: 01/1995 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

Canada Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

107 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordane (CAS number: 57-74-9)

Chad Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Chile Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent Remarks: Resolution No. 2142 of 18/10/1987.

China Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent Remarks: Is manufactured in country.

Legislative or administrative measures: National Decision in force under Resolution 268/1990 of the Ministry of Public Health

Dominica Final decision on import Published: 01/1996 no consent

Dominican Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent Republic Ecuador Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

El Salvador Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Ethiopia Interim decision on import Published: 07/1994 consent under Conditions for Import: Permit from Ministry of Agriculture. conditions Remarks: Use as termiticide only. Legislation pending.

108 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordane (CAS number: 57-74-9)

European Final decision on import Published: 06/2005 no consent Community Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to produce, place on the market or use chlordane. The chemical, whether on its own, in preparations Member States: or as a constituent of articles, was banned by Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent Cyprus, Czech Republic, organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, Denmark, Estonia, p.5). Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta**, **: These countries are currently PARTICIPATING STATES to the Rotterdam Netherlands, Poland, Convention. They are however listed here since they are Member States of the Portugal, Romania, European Community (EC), which is a Party and whose import responses, in Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, accordance with EC legislation, cover all its Member States Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Gabon Interim decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: additional time is needed for a final decision

Gambia Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent

Ghana Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticide Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528)

Guinea Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1)Decision No 2395/MAE/SGG/2001 of 6/06/2001 restricting and/or prohibiting the use of active substances in agriculture. 2) The product is listed in the group of organic product persistent in the environment "POP" 3) National weakness in the toxicological and ecotoxicological analyses.

Guyana Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Control (Prohibited Pesticides) (Information exchange on domestic regulatory status of chemicals recommended for inclusion in Annex III by Chemical Review Committee)made under the Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Control Act 2000 (No. 13 of 2000).

India Interim decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent

Iran (Islamic Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Republic of) Legislative or administrative measures: Use, production and import are banned. Based on the Resolution of 16 April 1973, under "The Pesticides Control Act" 1968. Ministry of Agriculture. Effective date: 1976.

Jamaica Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

Jordan Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent

109 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordane (CAS number: 57-74-9)

Kazakhstan Final decision on import Published: 07/1996 no consent

Kenya Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered. Other pesticides available for similar use.

Korea, Interim decision on import Published: 12/2004 consent under conditions Democratic Conditions for Import: The import for use in restricted scope is only permitted, People´s after registering to the National Pesticide Registration Agency and evaluating the efficiency, toxicity and eco-toxicity. Republic of Korea, Republic Final decision on import Published: 01/1997 no consent of Remarks: Chlordane has never been registered in Korea.

Kuwait Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Not registered. Decree No. 95/1995.

Lebanon Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Liberia Interim decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent

Liechtenstein Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Madagascar Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree N. 6225/93 of 30 November 1993. Use almost non-existent.

Malaysia Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Import and manufacture of all pesticides are controlled under the Pesticides Act 1974 through a registration scheme and the Act is implemented by the Pesticides Board of Malaysia. No chlordane is permitted to be imported, manufactured, sold or used in the country except for purposes of research or education, where certain conditions apply. Entry into force of the final regulatory action: 19970

Mauritius Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

110 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordane (CAS number: 57-74-9)

Mexico Interim decision on import Published: 01/1994 consent Remarks: Manufactured in country. Use as termiticide only.

Mongolia Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent Remarks: Not on approved list of pesticides for 1994-2000.

Nepal, Federal Final decision on import Published: 01/1995 no consent Democratic Republic of New Zealand Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Niger Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent

Nigeria Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Norway Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Oman Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Royal Decree No.46/95 Issuing the Law of Handling and Use of Chemicals.

Pakistan Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent

Panama Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered. Prohibited for use in agriculture.

Paraguay Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Resolution 447/93.

Peru Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

Philippines Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: No additional importation allowed since December 31, 1996. Phase-out for its use by December 1998.

Qatar Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Rwanda Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Remarks: All uses are forbidden in the country. Product never registered

Samoa Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision based on recommendation from the relevant technical departments.

111 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordane (CAS number: 57-74-9)

Senegal Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Remarks: Toxaphen has not been registered by the Sahelian Pesticides Committee Legislative or administrative measures: Senegal is Party to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

South Africa Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Chemical banned by the Minister in terms of Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act (Act 36 of 1947).

Sri Lanka Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Remarks: National legislative and administrative measures - Final regulation to import prohibition effective since 1 January 1996.

Suriname Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree negative list imports and exports, September 1, 1999, SB 34 (State Gazette)

Switzerland Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent

Syrian Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent Republic Tanzania, United Interim decision on import Published: 01/1995 consent under conditions Republic of Conditions for Import: For restricted and supervised soil use against grubs, termites, ants and crickets.

Thailand Final decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The Notification of Ministry of Industry entitled "List of Hazardous Substances (No. 2)". In this list, chlordane has been identified as type 4 hazardous substance which is prohibited for import, production, distribution, possession or use in Thailand.

Togo Final decision on import Published: 01/1995 no consent

Uganda Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered

United Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent Emirates

112 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordane (CAS number: 57-74-9)

Uruguay Final decision on import Published: 07/1996 no consent

Venezuela Final decision on import Published: 06/2007 no consent

Viet Nam Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Yemen Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: List of Banned and Severely Restricted Pesticides in Yemen.

113 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordane (CAS number: 57-74-9)

Listing of cases of failure to transmit a response by Parties - and date on which the Secretariat first informed the Parties of each case, through the PIC Circular

Chlordane CAS: 57-74-9

Party1 Date

Benin 06/2004 Bosnia and Herzegovina 12/2007 Botswana 06/2008 Croatia 06/2008 Djibouti 06/2005 Equatorial Guinea 06/2004 Eritrea 12/2005 Georgia 06/2007 Guinea-Bissau 12/2008 Lesotho 12/2008 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 06/2004 Maldives 06/2007 Marshall Islands 06/2004 Moldova, Republic of 06/2005 Namibia 12/2005 Ukraine 06/2004

114 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordimeform (CAS number: 6164-98-3)

Listing of all importing responses received from Parties

Chlordimeform CAS: 6164-98-3 Argentina Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 consent under Conditions for Import: The Degree 3489/1958 established that all products conditions determined for treatment and control of enemies of animals and plants cultivated or used, which are commercialized in the country, must be registered in the National Register of Plant Therapy. The Resolution SAGPy A No.; 350/99 established the registration requirements for phytosanitary products in the Republic of Argentine. Remarks: Product not commercialized in Argentine.

Armenia Interim decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent

Australia Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 consent under Conditions for Import: Subject to approval, registration, exemption or permit conditions under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Code Act 1994, noting that all uses were cancelled in 1988. Legislative or administrative measures: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Code Act 1994.

Bolivia Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Brazil Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Remarks: There is no pesticide registered for any purpose, no intention of acceptance. Legislative or administrative measures: Law No. 7.802 of 11 July 1989 and Decree No. 4.074 of 04 January 2002 - Pesticides and its compounds need to be registered by the Federal Authority prior to produce, export, import, trade or use.

Burkina Faso Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Results of the Sahelian Pesticides Committee (CSP) meeting.

Burundi Final decision on import Published: 06/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: This substance is probably carcinogenic for human beings; for this reason, the Ministerial Ordinance N. 710/838 of 29th October 2001 prohibits the importation, sale, distribution and use of Chlordimeform as a pesticide for agricultural purposes. It is listed in the register of agricultural pesticides prohibited in Burundi under N. 2001-08-P001.

Canada Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

115 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordimeform (CAS number: 6164-98-3)

Chad Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Chile Final decision on import Published: 12/1999 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Through the Resolution No. 2179 of 17 July 1998, it was decided to prohibit to import, to manufacture, to sell, to distribute, and to use chlordimeform in agriculture.

China Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent

Côte d´Ivoire Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The product has not been registered since 1998. Therefore all use is prohibited in order to protect human health and the environment.

Legislative or administrative measures: National Decision in force under Resolution 268/1990 of the Ministry of Public Health

Dominica Final decision on import Published: 01/1996 no consent

Dominican Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent Republic Ecuador Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

El Salvador Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Ethiopia Interim decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent Remarks: Never used in Ethiopia. Legislation pending.

116 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordimeform (CAS number: 6164-98-3)

European Final decision on import Published: 06/2005 no consent Community Revised: 10/2008 Member States: Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to place on the Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, market or use chlordimeform as a plant protection product or as a biocide. The Cyprus, Czech Republic, chemical was not included in the Community programme for evaluation of Denmark, Estonia, existing substances under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 Finland, France, Germany, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L230 of Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 19.8.1991, p.1). Nor has the chemical been identified or notified under the Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Community review programme for evaluation of existing active substances Luxembourg, Malta**, under Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 Netherlands, Poland, February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ Portugal, Romania, L123, 24.4.1998, p.1). In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work Sweden, United Kingdom programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European of Great Britain and Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on Northern Ireland the market the chemical is not allowed to be placed on the market for use as a biocidal product.

Gabon Interim decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: additional time is needed for a final decision

Gambia Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent

Ghana Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticides Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528).

Guinea Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1) Decision No 2395/MAE/SGG/2001 of 6/06/2001 restricting and/or prohibiting the use of active substances in agriculture. 2) National policy on health and environment protection, pesticide management. 3) National weakness in the toxicological and ecotoxicological analyses.

India Interim decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: No application for registration.

Iran (Islamic Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Republic of) Legislative or administrative measures: Never registered in I.R. Iran.

Jamaica Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

117 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordimeform (CAS number: 6164-98-3)

Japan Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 consent under Conditions for Import: For agricultural pesticide, a domestic importer is conditions required to register with both the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare or the Prefectural Governor. No consent to import of pesticide except agricultural uses. Legislative or administrative measures: 1. Agricultural Chemicals Regulation Law 2. Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Law 3. Pharmaceutical Affairs Law

Jordan Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent

Kazakhstan Final decision on import Published: 07/1996 no consent

Kenya Final decision on import Published: 06/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The pest control products act cap 346 - laws of kenya empowers The pest control products board to make final decisions

Korea, Republic Final decision on import Published: 01/1997 no consent of Remarks: The use of chlordimeform was banned because of carcinogenicity in 1977.

Kuwait Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Not registered. Decree No. 95/1995.

Lebanon Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Liberia Interim decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent

Liechtenstein Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Madagascar Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: The product has never been used, at least on a large scale, in the country. Need more time to reach final decision.

Malaysia Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent Remarks: Except for small quantities for research/ educational uses through import permit.

118 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordimeform (CAS number: 6164-98-3)

Mauritius Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Mexico Final decision on import Published: 01/1997 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

Mongolia Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent Remarks: Not included in approved list of pesticides for 1994-2000.

Nepal, Federal Final decision on import Published: 01/1995 no consent Democratic Remarks: No record of use. Republic of New Zealand Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Niger Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent

Nigeria Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Norway Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Oman Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Pakistan Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent

Panama Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered. Prohibited for use in agriculture.

Paraguay Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 Response did Remarks: No registered use in the country. not address Decision: Response did not address Importation Importation

Peru Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

Philippines Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Qatar Final decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticide Law No (10), 1968 Article No. (26) Environment Law (30), 2002

Rwanda Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 consent

Samoa Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

119 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordimeform (CAS number: 6164-98-3)

Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision based on recommendation from the relevant technical departments.

Senegal Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Chlordimeform has not been registered by the Sahelian Pesticides Committee and is not listed in the National Profile of Chemicals management of Senegal.

Singapore Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 consent under conditions Revised: 10/2008 Conditions for Import: A hazardous Substance License is required for the import of the chemical.

Sri Lanka Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Sudan Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Suriname Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree negative list imports and exports, September 1, 1999, SB 34 (State Gazette).

Switzerland Final decision on import Published: 01/1995 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

Syrian Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent Republic Tanzania, United Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Republic of Remarks: Product not registered.

Thailand Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Togo Interim decision on import Published: 07/1994 consent Remarks: Product not included in inventory of pesticides in Togo for past 10 years.

Uganda Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered

United Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent Emirates

120 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordimeform (CAS number: 6164-98-3)

Uruguay Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: There is no legislative or administrative measure banning the use of Chlordimeform, it is not registered in the country and therefore cannot be imported for marketing under Decree 149/977.

Viet Nam Interim decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

Yemen Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: List of Banned and Severely Restricted Pesticides in Yemen.

121 Importing responses received from parties - Chlordimeform (CAS number: 6164-98-3)

Listing of cases of failure to transmit a response by Parties - and date on which the Secretariat first informed the Parties of each case, through the PIC Circular

Chlordimeform CAS: 6164-98-3

Party1 Date

Benin 06/2004 Bosnia and Herzegovina 12/2007 Botswana 06/2008 Cameroon 06/2004 Croatia 06/2008 Djibouti 06/2005 Equatorial Guinea 06/2004 Eritrea 12/2005 Georgia 06/2007 Guinea-Bissau 12/2008 Korea, Democratic People´s 06/2004 Republic of Lesotho 12/2008 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 06/2004 Maldives 06/2007 Marshall Islands 06/2004 Moldova, Republic of 06/2005 Namibia 12/2005 Ukraine 06/2004 Venezuela 12/2005

122 Importing responses received from parties - Chlorobenzilate (CAS number: 510-15-6)

Listing of all importing responses received from Parties

Chlorobenzilate CAS: 510-15-6 Argentina Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree NO.2121/90 Published on the Congressional Record October 16, 1990. Prohibits: importation, manufacturing, processing, commercialisation and use of agriculture application products, on the basis of Clorobencilato (active ingredient).

Armenia Interim decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent

Bosnia and Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Herzegovina Brazil Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Directive No. 82, of October 1992 - Ministry of Agriculture -Prohibits production, import, export, trade and use of chlorobenzilate for agricultural use.

Directive nº 11, of 8 January 1998 - Ministry of Health, National Surveillance - Exclude the chlorobenzilate from the list of toxics substances, which can be authorized as pesticides.

Law No. 7.802 of 11 July 1989 and Decree No. 4.074 of 04 January 2002 - Pesticides and its compounds need to be registered by the Federal Authority prior to produce, export, import, trade or use.

Burkina Faso Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Results of the Sahelian Pesticides Committee (CSP) meeting.

Burundi Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

Canada Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

123 Importing responses received from parties - Chlorobenzilate (CAS number: 510-15-6)

Chad Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Final decision pending passage of pesticide control decree.

China Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Côte d´Ivoire Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Chlorobenzilate is prohibited in the Côte d'Ivoire. It is therefore prohibited to import, to locally produce, place on the market, sell or use this product in order to protect human health and the environment. The product has not been registered since 1998.

Legislative or administrative measures: National Decision in force under Resolution 268/1990 of the Ministry of Public Health

Dominican Final decision on import Published: 06/2007 consent Republic Ecuador Final decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent

El Salvador Final decision on import Published: 06/2000 no consent

European Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Community Revised: 10/2008 Member States: Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to use or place on the Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, market all plant protection products containing chlorobenzilate. The chemical Cyprus, Czech Republic, was excluded from Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the Denmark, Estonia, placing of plant protection products on the market and authorizations for plant Finland, France, Germany, protection products thus had to be withdrawn by 25 July 2003 (Commission Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Regulation 2076/2002 of 20 November 2002 (OJ L 319, 23.11.2002, p.3) Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, extending the time period referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive Luxembourg, Malta**, 91/414/EEC and concerning the non-inclusion of certain active substances in Netherlands, Poland, Annex I to that Directive and the withdrawal of authorizations for plant Portugal, Romania, protection products containing these substances). Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and **: These countries are currently PARTICIPATING STATES to the Rotterdam Northern Ireland Convention. They are however listed here since they are Member States of the European Community (EC), which is a Party and whose import responses, in accordance with EC legislation, cover all its Member States

124 Importing responses received from parties - Chlorobenzilate (CAS number: 510-15-6)

Gambia Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: It has never been registered.

Ghana Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticides Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528).

Guinea Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1) Decision No 2395/MAE/SGG/2001 of 6/06/2001 restricting and/or prohibiting the use of active substances in agriculture. 2) National policy on health and environment protection 3) National weakness in the toxicological and ecotoxicological analyses.

India Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 consent under conditions Conditions for Import: General conditions apply. Remarks: Chlorbenzilate is banned for use in agriculture. It can be imported by governmental or semi-governmental organizations for use on folbex strips to control honey bee mites.

Iran (Islamic Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Republic of) Conditions for Import: Import for Agricultural use is prohibited. Based on the Resolution of 4 August 1980, under the Pesticide Control Act 1968 (Ministry of Jihade-Agriculture) Legislative or administrative measures: Import for agricultural is prohibited, based on résolution of 14 August 1980. Under the pesticide Control Act 1968.

Jamaica Interim decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered. No application for registration has been received.

Japan Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 consent under Conditions for Import: For agricultural pesticide, a domestic importer is conditions required to register with the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. No consent to import of pesticide except agricultural uses. Legislative or administrative measures: 1. Agricultural Chemicals Regulation Law 2. Pharmaceutical Affairs Law

Jordan Final decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent Remarks: The decision was taken by the Pesticide registration committee due to the information received from the PIC.

Kazakhstan Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Kenya Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered. Other pesticides available for similar use.

Korea, Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Democratic Legislative or administrative measures: This pesticide is prohibited for using People´s as plant protection chemical by "The Law for Environment Protection" (April 9, 1984) and "The National Regulation of Pesticide Management", because of its Republic of high toxicity to human and animals, and also its environment pollution effects.

Korea, Republic Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent of Remarks: Banned in 1990 because of carcinogenicity.

125 Importing responses received from parties - Chlorobenzilate (CAS number: 510-15-6)

Kuwait Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree No. 95/1995.

Kyrgyzstan Final decision on import Published: 06/2007 no consent

Liberia Interim decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent

Madagascar Interim decision on import Published: 07/1997 no consent Remarks: No known use. Need more time to reach final decision.

Malaysia Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Import and manufacture of all pesticides are controlled under the Pesticides Act 1974 through a registration scheme. The Act is implemented by the Pesticides Board of Malaysia. Chlorobenzilate is not registered under the above Act. This means that it cannot be imported, manufactured, sold or used in the country.

Mauritius Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Mexico Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Compound not registered and no request for registration.

New Zealand Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Remarks: Small-scale use of this substance in a laboratory for research and development or teaching is exempt from a HSNO approval provided all the requirements of Section 33 of the HSNO Act are met. Legislative or administrative measures: There are no approvals for pesticide formulations containing ethylene dichloride under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO)

Nigeria Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

126 Importing responses received from parties - Chlorobenzilate (CAS number: 510-15-6)

Norway Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Never approved in Norway.

Oman Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: - According to Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries legislations.

- Royal Decree No. 46/95. Issuing the Law of Handling and Use of Chemicals.

Pakistan Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971. Agricultural Pesticide Rules 1971.

Panama Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Paraguay Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Remarks: Requests technical assistance to reach final decision.

Peru Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent

Philippines Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Conditions for Import: Only in cases of emergency as determined by FPA.

Rwanda Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Remarks: All uses are forbidden in the country. Product never registered

Samoa Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Legislative or administrative measures: Ministerial decision based on recommendation from the relevant technical departments.

Senegal Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Chlorobenzilate has not been registered by the Sahelian Pesticides Committee and is not listed in the National Profile of Chemicals management of Senegal.

Singapore Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 consent under conditions Revised: 10/2008 Conditions for Import: A hazardous Substance License is required for the import of the chemical.

127 Importing responses received from parties - Chlorobenzilate (CAS number: 510-15-6)

Sri Lanka Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: no history of registration or use

Suriname Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decree negative list imports and exports, September 1, 1999, SB 34 (State Gazette).

Switzerland Final decision on import Published: 12/1999 no consent Remarks: No products and formulations containing Chlorobenzilate are authorized in the Index of Plant protection Products 1998.

Syrian Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Republic Tanzania, United Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Republic of Remarks: Not registered / importation prohibited.

Thailand Final decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The Notification of Ministry of Industry entitled "List of Hazardous Substances (No. 2)". In this list, chlorobenzilate has been identified as type 4 hazardous substance which is prohibited for import, production, distribution, possession or use in Thailand.

Togo Interim decision on import Published: 01/1998 consent under Conditions for Import: For scientific experiments. conditions Legislative or administrative measures: Law 96-007/PR of 3 July 1996 concerning plant protection in Togo.

Uganda Final decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: Not registered

United Arab Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Emirates Uruguay Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: There is no legislative or administrative measure banning the use of Chlorobenzilate, it is not registered in the country and therefore cannot be imported for marketing under Decree 149/977.

Viet Nam Final decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Decision No 165/1999/QD-BNN- BVTV dated on 13th January 1999, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). Not registered.

Yemen Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: List of Banned and Severely Restricted Pesticides in Yemen.

128 Importing responses received from parties - Chlorobenzilate (CAS number: 510-15-6)

Listing of cases of failure to transmit a response by Parties - and date on which the Secretariat first informed the Parties of each case, through the PIC Circular

Chlorobenzilate CAS: 510-15-6

Party1 Date

Benin 06/2004 Bolivia 06/2004 Botswana 06/2008 Cameroon 06/2004 Congo, Democratic Republic 12/2005 of the Congo, Republic of the 12/2006 Cook Islands 12/2004 Croatia 06/2008 Djibouti 06/2005 Dominica 06/2006 Equatorial Guinea 06/2004 Eritrea 12/2005 Ethiopia 06/2004 Georgia 06/2007 Guinea-Bissau 12/2008 Lebanon 06/2007 Lesotho 12/2008 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 06/2004 Liechtenstein 12/2004 Maldives 06/2007 Marshall Islands 06/2004 Moldova, Republic of 06/2005 Mongolia 06/2004 Namibia 12/2005 Nepal, Federal Democratic 06/2007 Republic of Qatar 06/2005 Ukraine 06/2004 Venezuela 12/2005

129 Importing responses received from parties - DDT (CAS number: 50-29-3)

Listing of all importing responses received from Parties

DDT CAS: 50-29-3 Argentina Final decision on import Published: 12/2002 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1) Decree NO.2121/90 Published on the Congressional Record October 16, 1990. Prohibits: importation, manufacturing, processing, commercialisation and use of agriculture application products, on the basis of DDT active ingredient (Dichlorodiphenil- trichloroetane). 2) Resolution SS NO.133/91 November 19, 1991. Prohibits use of DDT in human medicine.

Armenia Interim decision on import Published: 06/2001 no consent

Belize Interim decision on import Published: 12/2005 no consent Statement of active consideration: Not classified as an approved pesticide in the Official Register of Pesticides for Belize. Agreement needs to be sought with the Ministry of Health regarding the use of alternatives to DDT in their vector control program. Not currently being imported nor used by the Ministry of Health.

Benin Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Bolivia Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 consent under Conditions for Import: Only when certified by Ministry of Health for public conditions health use. Remarks: Vector control in malaria; prohibited for agricultural use.

Brazil Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Directive No. 329 of 2 September 1985 - Ministry of Agriculture - Prohibit the trade, use and distribution of the pesticides for agricultural use, including DDT.

Directive nº 11, from January 8, 1998 - Ministry of Health, National Surveillance - exclude the DDT from the list of toxics substances, which can be authorized as pesticides.

Law No. 7.802 of 11 July 1989 and Decree No. 4.074 of 4 January 2002 - Pesticides and its compounds need to be registered by the Federal Authority prior to produce, export, import, trade or use.

Burkina Faso Final decision on import Published: 12/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Results of the Sahelian Pesticides Committee (CSP) meeting.

130 Importing responses received from parties - DDT (CAS number: 50-29-3)

Burundi Final decision on import Published: 06/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Its long persistence, the bioaccumulation in animal tissues and milk as well as its carcinogenic effects have determined the prohibition of the importation and use of DDT. It is prohibited by Ministerial Ordinance N. 710-838 of 29th October 2001 and is listed in the register under N. 2001-01-P002

Cameroon Interim decision on import Published: 12/2008 consent under conditions Remarks: Please send us the reasons and studies leading to DDT being listed in Annex III.

Canada Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent

Cape Verde Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Chad Final decision on import Published: 01/1994 no consent

Chile Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: This action is based on the absence, for this chemical substance, of the authorization as a pesticide in agriculture, without which it is not allowed to import, manufacture, distribute, sell or use this substance in Chile. To obtain this authorization, it is necessary to follow strict national regulations that reflect many procedures and information needed to obtain the permission.

China Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Congo, Final decision on import Published: 07/1995 no consent Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent of the Cook Islands Final decision on import Published: 01/1995 no consent

Côte d´Ivoire Final decision on import Published: 06/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: The use of DDT in agriculture has been banned since 1988 to protect human health and the environment. As for its medical use, DDT was replaced in 1997 by other products to combat malaria. Since that date, the use of DDT for any purpose has been banned in the Côte d'Ivoire.

Legislative or administrative measures: National Decision in force under Resolution 268/1990 of the Ministry of Public Health

Dominica Final decision on import Published: 01/1996 no consent

131 Importing responses received from parties - DDT (CAS number: 50-29-3)

Ecuador Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

El Salvador Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Ethiopia Interim decision on import Published: 07/1994 consent under Conditions for Import: Permit from Ministry of Agriculture. conditions Remarks: Emergency malaria control only. Legislation pending.

European Final decision on import Published: 06/2005 no consent Community Legislative or administrative measures: It is prohibited to produce, place on the market or use DDT. The chemical, whether on its own, in preparations or as Member States: a constituent of articles, was banned by Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic Cyprus, Czech Republic, pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, p.5). Denmark, Estonia, Member States may however allow the existing production and use of DDT as a Finland, France, Germany, closed-system intermediate for the production of dicofol until 1 January 2014. Greece, Hungary, Ireland, The Commission will review this exemption by 31 December 2008 in the light of Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the outcome of the evaluation of that substance in the framework of Directive Luxembourg, Malta**, 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products Netherlands, Poland, on the market (OJ L230 of 19.8.1991, p.1). Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom **: These countries are currently PARTICIPATING STATES to the Rotterdam of Great Britain and Convention. They are however listed here since they are Member States of the Northern Ireland European Community (EC), which is a Party and whose import responses, in accordance with EC legislation, cover all its Member States

Gabon Interim decision on import Published: 06/1999 no consent Remarks: additional time is needed for a final decision

Gambia Interim decision on import Published: 12/2008 consent under conditions Remarks: The interin decision to allow import has been taken as an emergency measure in the fight against malaria. A final decision will be taken evaluation of risk assessment of DDT.

Legislative or administrative measures: Use is strictly limited to indoor residual spraying for malaria vector control under the Ministry of Health

Import is strictly limited to the Ministry of Health as required by Pesticide Control Management Act 1994

Ghana Final decision on import Published: 12/2003 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Pesticide Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528)

Guinea Final decision on import Published: 06/2006 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1) Decision No 2395/MAE/SGG/2001 of 6/06/2001 restricting and prohibiting the use of active substances in agriculture. 2) the product is listed in the group of organic product persistent in the environment "POP" 3) National weakness in the toxicological and ecotoxicological analyses. Information issued by international conventions, regional legislation or institutions.

Guyana Interim decision on import Published: 12/2007 no consent

India Interim decision on import Published: 07/1993 consent Remarks: Need more time to reach final decision. Permitted in public health programme. Use in agriculture banned except under special circumstances.

132 Importing responses received from parties - DDT (CAS number: 50-29-3)

Iran (Islamic Final decision on import Published: 06/2005 no consent Republic of) Legislative or administrative measures: Banned for all kind of uses.

Jamaica Final decision on import Published: 07/1998 no consent Remarks: Not registered.

Japan Final decision on import Published: 12/2004 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: 1. Agricultural Chemicals Regulation Law 2. Poisonous and Deleterious Substances Control Law 3. Pharmaceutical Affairs Law

Jordan Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Kazakhstan Final decision on import Published: 07/1996 no consent

Kenya Interim decision on import Published: 07/1993 consent Remarks: Imported only by Ministry of Health for public health use.

Korea, Republic Final decision on import Published: 01/1997 no consent of Remarks: Banned because of residue since 1977.

Kuwait Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Not registered. Decree No. 95/1995.

Lebanon Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Liberia Interim decision on import Published: 12/2001 no consent

Liechtenstein Final decision on import Published: 07/1993 no consent

Madagascar Final decision on import Published: 01/1998 consent under Conditions for Import: Use only for control of vectors of malaria under the conditions supervision of services of the Ministry of Health. Legislative or administrative measures: Decree N. 6225/93 of 30 November 1993. Use of all DDT-based products for agricultural practices discontinued.

Malaysia Final decision on import Published: 12/2000 no consent Legislative or administrative measures: Import and manufacture of all pesticides are controlled under the Pesticides Act 1974 through a registration scheme and the Act is implemented by the Pesticides Board of Malaysia. No DDT is permitted to be imported, manufactured, sold or used in the country except for purposes of research or education, where certain conditions apply. Entry into force of the final regulatory action: 1 May 1999

133 Importing responses received from parties - DDT (CAS number: 50-29-3)

Mali Final decision on import Published: 12/2007 consent under Conditions for Import: Authorisation from relevant environment services conditions

Legislative or administrative measures: Decree nº 01-2699/MICT-SG of 16th October 2001 listing the products the import and export of which are prohibited.

Mauritius Final decision on import Published: 01/1995 consent Remarks: Restricted use by public health service only.

Mexico Interim decision on import Published: 07/1993 consent under Conditions for Import: Direct import by Secretariat of Health for public health conditions campaigns.

Mongolia Final decision on import Published: 07/1994 no consent Remarks: Not included in the approved list of pesticides for 1994-2000.