DOCSLIB.ORG

January 27, 2010 Sent Via Fed Ex and Email Lisa Jackson, Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
January 27, 2010 Sent Via Fed Ex and Email Lisa Jackson, Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios January 27, 2010 Sent via Fed Ex and Email Lisa Jackson, Administrator Sam Hamilton, Director United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish and Wildlife Service Ariel Rios Building 1849 C Street, NW 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20240 Mail Code: 1101A [email protected] Washington, DC 20460 [email protected] Dr. James W. Balsiger Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Ken Salazar National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Secretary of the Interior Administration 1849 C Street, NW 1315 East-West Highway Washington, DC 20240 Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] [email protected] Gary Locke Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 5516 Washington, D.C. 20230 [email protected] Re: Notice of Violations of the Endangered Species Act Related to the Registration of Pesticides On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, I hereby provide notice, pursuant to section 11(g) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §1540(g)(2)(A)(i), that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is in violation of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1521, et seq. Specifically, EPA has failed to satisfy its ESA Section 7 consultation requirements that apply to pesticide registrations and reregistrations. Attached to this Notice of Intent to Sue (“NOI”), as Exhibit A, are charts identifying threatened and endangered species and the registered pesticides whose concentrations in the environment may exceed Levels of Concern (“LOCs”) to those species and/or that are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to those species. The pesticides included in Chart 1 may exceed LOCs for mammals and/or are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to mammals and therefore “may affect” the endangered and threatened mammalian species listed in Chart 1. The pesticides included in Chart 2 may exceed LOCs for birds and/or are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to birds and therefore “may affect” the endangered and threatened avian species listed in Chart 2. The Arizona • California • Nevada • New Mexico • Alaska • Oregon • Montana • Illinois • Minnesota • Vermont • Washington, DC Justin Augustine • 351 California St., Suite 600 • San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-436-9682 x302 • Fax: 415-436-9683 • [email protected] pesticides included in Chart 3 may exceed LOCs for fish and/or are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to fish and therefore “may affect” the endangered and threatened fish species listed in Chart 3. The pesticides listed in Chart 4 may exceed LOCs for amphibians and/or are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to amphibians and therefore “may affect” the endangered and threatened amphibian species listed in Chart 4. The pesticides listed in Chart 5 may exceed LOCs for mollusks and/or are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to mollusks and therefore “may affect” the endangered and threatened mollusk species listed in Chart 5. The pesticides listed in Chart 6 may exceed LOCs for crustaceans and/or are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to crustaceans and therefore “may affect” the endangered and threatened crustacean species listed in Chart 6. The pesticides listed in Chart 7 may exceed LOCs for insects and/or are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to insects and therefore “may affect” the endangered and threatened insect species listed in Chart 7. The pesticides listed in Chart 8 may exceed LOCs for plants and/or are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to plants and therefore “may affect” the endangered and threatened plant species listed in Chart 8. The pesticides listed in Chart 9 may exceed LOCs for reptiles and/or are “highly” to “very highly” toxic to reptiles and therefore “may affect” the endangered and threatened reptile species listed in Chart 9. For each of these pesticides, EPA must conduct an effects determination and, if necessary, initiate consultation with the appropriate wildlife agency (FWS or NMFS).1 EPA is also in violation of Section 9 of the ESA for the take of listed species which is resultant from pesticide applications. Furthermore, EPA has failed to comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 2(c) of the ESA. Finally, EPA is in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act due to the take of birds that is caused by registered pesticides. LEGAL BACKGROUND A. The Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) was enacted, in part, to provide a “means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved . [and] a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species . .”2 The ESA vests primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the statute with the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior. The Secretaries of Commerce and Interior have delegated this responsibility to the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) and the U.S. Fish and 3 Wildlife Service (“FWS”) respectively. 1 This NOI does not cover pesticide/species combinations for which effects determinations, and ESA section 7 consultations, are already in progress (or may soon be) as a result of a court order (e.g., Washington Toxics (salmonids), and Center for Biological Diversity (Barton Springs salamander, California red-legged frog, 11 Bay Area species)) However, to the extent that those effects determinations, and consultations, are geographically constrained, this NOI does address species/pesticides combinations for any geographic area not addressed by the effects derminations and consultations. 2 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b) 3 50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b) 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue re Pesticides Page 2 January 27, 2010 Section 2(c) of the ESA establishes that it is “the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.”4 The ESA defines “conservation” to mean “the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.”5 Similarly, Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs that the Secretary review “…other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”6 In order to fulfill the substantive purposes of the ESA, federal agencies are required to engage in consultation with FWS (and/or NMFS) to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the adverse modification of habitat of such species . determined . to be critical . .”7 Section 7 consultation is required for “any action [that] may affect listed species or critical habitat.”8 Agency “action” is defined in the ESA’s implementing regulations to include “(b) the promulgation of regulations; (c) the granting of licenses, contracts, leases, easements, rights-of- way, permits, or grants-in-aid; or (d) actions directly or indirectly causing modifications to the land, water, or air.”9 At the completion of consultation, FWS or NMFS issues a biological opinion that determines if the agency action is likely to jeopardize the species. If so, the opinion may specify reasonable and prudent alternatives that will avoid jeopardy and allow the agency to proceed with the action.10 FWS and NMFS may also “suggest modifications” to the action during the course of consultation to “avoid the likelihood of adverse effects” to the listed species even when not necessary to avoid jeopardy.11 An agency’s duty to avoid jeopardy is continuing, and “where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law,” the agency must in certain circumstances reinitiate formal consultation:12 4 16 U.S.C. § 1531(c)(1) 5 16 U.S.C. § 1532(3) 6 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(1) 7 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (“Section 7 consultation”) 8 50 C.F.R. § 402.14 9 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 10 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b) 11 50 C.F.R. § 402.13 12 50 C.F.R. § 402.16 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue re Pesticides Page 3 January 27, 2010 (a) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (c) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (d) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. Section 7(d) of the ESA, provides that once a federal agency initiates consultation on an action under the ESA, the agency, as well as any applicant for a federal permit, “shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the agency action which has the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures which would not violate subsection (a)(2) of this section.”13 The purpose of Section 7(d) is to maintain the environmental status quo pending the completion of consultation. Section 7(d) prohibitions remain in effect throughout the consultation period and until the federal agency has satisfied its obligations under Section 7(a)(2) that the action will not result in jeopardy to the species or adverse modification of its critical habitat. B. Relationship Between the Endangered
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Funding (Total $2,552,481) $15,000 2019
    CURRICULUM VITAE TENNESSEE AQUARIUM CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 175 BAYLOR SCHOOL RD CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 RESEARCH FUNDING (TOTAL $2,552,481) $15,000 2019. Global Wildlife Conservation. Rediscovering the critically endangered Syr-Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon. $10,000 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Propagation of the Common Logperch as a host for endangered mussel larvae. $8,420 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Monitoring for the Laurel Dace. $4,417 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Examining interactions between Laurel Dace (Chrosomus saylori) and sunfish $12,670 2019. Trout Unlimited. Southern Appalachian Brook Trout propagation for reintroduction to Shell Creek. $106,851 2019. Private Donation. Microplastic accumulation in fishes of the southeast. $1,471. 2019. AZFA-Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Mayfly propagation for captive propagation programs. $20,000. 2019. Tennessee Valley Authority. Assessment of genetic diversity within Blotchside Logperch. $25,000. 2019. Riverview Foundation. Launching Hidden Rivers in the Southeast. $11,170. 2018. Trout Unlimited. Propagation of Southern Appalachian Brook Trout for Supplemental Reintroduction. $1,471. 2018. AZFA Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Climate Change Impacts on Headwater Stream Vertebrates in Southeastern United States $1,000. 2018. Hamilton County Health Department. Step 1 Teaching Garden Grants for Sequoyah School Garden. $41,000. 2018. Riverview Foundation. River Teachers: Workshops for Educators. $1,000. 2018. Tennessee Valley Authority. Youth Freshwater Summit $20,000. 2017. Tennessee Valley Authority. Lake Sturgeon Propagation. $7,500 2017. Trout Unlimited. Brook Trout Propagation. $24,783. 2017. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. Assessment of Percina macrocephala and Etheostoma cinereum populations within the Duck River Basin. $35,000. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status surveys for conservation status of Ashy (Etheostoma cinereum) and Redlips (Etheostoma maydeni) Darters.
    [Show full text]
  • First Evidence of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Fish in German
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1385-8 ADVANCEMENTS IN CHEMICAL METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH First evidence of anticoagulant rodenticides in fish and suspended particulate matter: spatial and temporal distribution in German freshwater aquatic systems Matthias Kotthoff1 & Heinz Rüdel2 & Heinrich Jürling1 & Kevin Severin1 & Stephan Hennecke1 & Anton Friesen3 & Jan Koschorreck3 Received: 27 September 2017 /Accepted: 24 January 2018 # The Author(s) 2018. This article is an open access publication Abstract Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) have been used for decades for rodent control worldwide. Research on the exposure of the environment and accumulation of these active substances in biota has been focused on terrestrial food webs, but few data are available on the impact of ARs on aquatic systems and water organisms. To fill this gap, we analyzed liver samples of bream (Abramis brama) and co-located suspended particulate matter (SPM) from the German Environmental Specimen Bank (ESB). An appropriate method was developed for the determination of eight different ARs, including first- and second-generation ARs, in fish liver and SPM. Applying this method to bream liver samples from 17 and 18 sampling locations of the years 2011 and 2015, respectively, five ARs were found at levels above limits of quantifications (LOQs, 0.2 to 2 μgkg−1). For 2015, brodifacoum was detected in 88% of the samples with a maximum concentration of 12.5 μgkg−1. Moreover, difenacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and flocoumafen were detected in some samples above LOQ. In contrast, no first generation AR was detected in the ESB samples. In SPM, only bromadiolone could be detected in 56% of the samples at levels up to 9.24 μgkg−1.A temporal trend analysis of bream liver from two sampling locations over a period of up to 23 years revealed a significant trend for brodifacoum at one of the sampling locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacokinetics of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Target and Non-Target Organisms Katherine Horak U.S
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Publications Health Inspection Service 2018 Pharmacokinetics of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Target and Non-target Organisms Katherine Horak U.S. Department of Agriculture, [email protected] Penny M. Fisher Landcare Research Brian M. Hopkins Landcare Research Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Life Sciences Commons Horak, Katherine; Fisher, Penny M.; and Hopkins, Brian M., "Pharmacokinetics of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Target and Non- target Organisms" (2018). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 2091. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/2091 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff ubP lications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Chapter 4 Pharmacokinetics of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Target and Non-target Organisms Katherine E. Horak, Penny M. Fisher, and Brian Hopkins 1 Introduction The concentration of a compound at the site of action is a determinant of its toxicity. This principle is affected by a variety of factors including the chemical properties of the compound (pKa, lipophilicity, molecular size), receptor binding affinity, route of exposure, and physiological properties of the organism. Many compounds have to undergo chemical changes, biotransformation, into more toxic or less toxic forms. Because of all of these variables, predicting toxic effects and performing risk assess- ments of compounds based solely on dose are less accurate than those that include data on absorption, distribution, metabolism (biotransformation), and excretion of the compound.
    [Show full text]
  • BYE, BYE BIRDIE Introduction
    BYE, BYE BIRDIE introduction Humankind is now precipitating the extinction of large numbers Studies For Our Global Future of animals, birds, insects, and plants. Despite human activity, extinction occurs at a natural rate of about one to three species per year. Current estimates suggest that we are losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural rate. This means that concept dozens of species could be going extinct every day. Between The rate of wildlife endangerment is human impact on the natural world and issues brought on by an increasing and difficult decisions are required increasingly warm climate, over 500 known species could face to determine how to prioritize efforts to save 1 extinction by 2040. endangered species. objectives Scientists believe that many of the species being lost carry untold potential benefits for the health and economic stability Students will be able to: of the planet. With limited funding available for conservation, • Develop and apply a list of criteria that can many believe that humanity should make some tough choices be used to make decisions about protecting and decide which species can and should be saved. endangered species. • Conduct research on an endangered species Vocabulary: biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and effectively communicate to classmates endangered species, extinction, indicator species, IUCN Red List its importance and why it should be saved. of Threatened Species, keystone species, poaching, umbrella subjects species Environmental Science (General and AP), Biology, English Language Arts materials skills Critical thinking, researching, comparing and • Research Guide (provided) evaluating, public speaking, decision making method Students determine a list of criteria to use procedure when deciding the fate of endangered species, then conduct research on a specific species 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Ecosystems Investigations Program
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist ECOSYSTEMS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM Stuart W. McGregor Director WATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL MONITORING IN BOBCAT AND MATTHEWS CAVES, REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA, 1990-2014 OPEN-FILE REPORT 1411 By Stuart W. McGregor and Patrick E. O’Neil with geochemical analyses by Mirza A. Beg, Rick Wagner, and Robert E. Meintzer Prepared in cooperation with U. S. Army, Redstone Arsenal Environmental and Cultural Resources Directorate Under Contract No. W9124P-13-P-0180 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2014 CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................2 Study area.........................................................................................................................................3 Methods............................................................................................................................................3 Results and discussion .....................................................................................................................4 Water quality ..............................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • RRAC Guidelines on Anticoagulant Rodenticide Resistance Management Editor: Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) of Croplife International Aim
    RRAC guidelines on Anticoagulant Rodenticide Resistance Management Editor: Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) of CropLife International Aim This document provides guidance to advisors, national authorities, professionals, practitioners and others on the nature of anticoagulant resistance in rodents, the identification of anticoagulant resistance, strategies for rodenticide application that will avoid the development of resistance and the management of resistance where it occurs. The Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) is a working group within the framework of CropLife International. Participating companies include: Bayer CropScience, BASF, LiphaTech S. A., PelGar, Rentokil Initial, Syngenta and Zapi. Senior technical specialists, with specific expertise in rodenticides, represent their companies on this committee. The RRAC is grateful to the following co-authors: Stefan Endepols, Alan Buckle, Charlie Eason, Hans-Joachim Pelz, Adrian Meyer, Philippe Berny, Kristof Baert and Colin Prescott. Photos provided by Stefan Endepols. Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Classification and history of rodenticide compounds ..............................................................................................3 3. Mode of action of anticoagulant rodenticides, resistance mechanisms, and resistance mutations ......................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Cave Biodiversity of the Southern Cumberland Plateau Kirk S
    b-3-guidebook_Guidebook3 6/18/2014 10:01 PM Page 159 Cave Biodiversity of the Southern Cumberland Plateau Kirk S. Zigler, NSS 62696; Matthew L. Niemiller, NSS 53235; and Danté B. Fenolio The South Cumberland Region of Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia (Figure 1) is known for its tremendous diversity of caves, including huge pits, massive stream passages, and tight crawls. Less well known is that the region also supports tremendous cave biodiversity (Niemiller, Zigler, and Fenolio, 2013). Here we discuss many of the species that inhabit caves of the region, focusing on the southern Cumberland Plateau. Cave Biodiversity Four ecological classes of organisms can be found in caves: trogloxenes, subtroglophiles, eutroglophiles, and troglobionts (Culver and Pipan, 2009). Trogloxenes are not typically found in caves and cannot persist there for long periods of time. They must either find their way back to the surface or ultimately perish. Subtroglophiles are commonly found in caves but are associated with surface habitats for at least part of their life cycle. Some are seasonal inhabitants of caves and others move back and forth from cave to surface habitats for feeding, such as cave-roosting bats, cave crickets, and Allegheny Woodrats (Neotoma magister). Eutroglophiles are commonly found underground but can be found in surface habitats. Unlike trogloxenes and subtroglophiles, eutroglophiles can complete their entire life cycle Figure 1 - The South Cumberland Region at the junction of underground. Examples include the Cave Salamander Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia. Figure courtesy of Nick Hollingshead. (Eurycea lucifuga) and the Cave Orbweaver (Meta ovalis). Troglobionts are obligate, permanent residents of subterranean habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • California Freshwater Shrimparesmall.Females Areusually (Corpus)
    Endangered SpecU.S. Environmental iesFacts Protection Agency California Freshwater Shrimp Syncaris pacifica Description and Ecology Status Endangered, listed October 31, 1988. of Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties. They are still found in all three counties but in much fewer numbers and fewer Critical Habitat Not designated. streams. The distribution of the shrimp has been separated Appearance The California freshwater shrimp is a 10- into four drainage units: 1) tributary streams of the lower legged crustacean belonging to the atyid family. Of the three Russian River drainage, that flow westward to the Pacific other atyid members in North America, two are also listed Ocean, 2) coastal streams flowing westward directly into as endangered (Kentucky cave shrimp (Palaemonias ganteri) the Pacific Ocean, 3) streams draining into Tomales Bay, Female California freshwater shrimp with egg s, courtes y of Larr y Serpa and Alabama cave shrimp (Palaemonias alabamae)) and one and 4) streams flowing southward into San Pablo Bay. While which once inhabited coastal streams in California is believed California freshwater shrimp in laboratories can tolerate The California freshwater shrimp to be extinct (Pasadena shrimp (Syncaris pasadenae)). brackish waters, they are unable to tolerate ocean salinities. is an endangered species. These species were believed to have been isolated from a It is thought that the isolated streams that harbor these Endangered species are marine environment during the Jurassic period. They are shrimp were once connected, but later separated by geologic plants and animals that are anatomically distinguished from other shrimp by the length of uplift and rising sea level. in immediate danger of their pincer-like claws (chelae) and the bristles (setae) at the Habitat Within the low elevation-low gradient streams tips of the first two chelae.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in Conjunction with Its Application for Renewal of the BFN Ols, As Provided for by the Following NRC Regulations
    Biological Assessment Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Review Limestone County, Alabama October 2004 Docket Numbers 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed License Renewal for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC implementing regulations. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN) pursuant to NRC operating license (OL) numbers DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, which expire on December 20, 2013, June 28, 2014, and July 2, 2016, respectively. TVA has prepared an Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in conjunction with its application for renewal of the BFN OLs, as provided for by the following NRC regulations: C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” Section 54.23, Contents of application - environmental information (10 CFR 54.23). C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” Section 51.53, Postconstruction environmental reports, Subsection 51.53(c), Operating license renewal stage (10 CFR 51.53(c)). The renewed OLs would allow up to 20 additional years of plant operation beyond the current licensed operating term. No major refurbishment or replacement of important systems, structures, or components are expected during the 20-year BFN license renewal term.
    [Show full text]
  • Justification for the Renewal of the Approvals for the Anticoagulant
    Justification for the renewal of the approvals for the anticoagulant rodenticides brodifacoum, bromadiolone, chlorophacinone, coumatetralyl, difenacoum, difethialone, flocoumafen and warfarin Rodent control is essential, and in many cases a legal requirement, to prevent disease transmission, consumption and contamination of food and feedingstuffs, structural damage and to remove social abhorrence. Currently, the anticoagulant rodenticides (also referred to as AVKs) are the dominant and most effective substances for rodent control. Therefore, the current AVK active substances approved for PT 14 will continue to be essential for efficient and effective rodent control in order to maintain good public hygiene and protect public health. The original evaluations for first approval at EU level recognised the need of the AVKs. The corresponding Assessment Reports for the AVKs acknowledged this when they concluded that: According to the Annex I inclusion criteria referred to in Article 10 of the Directive and TNsG on Annex I inclusion, AVKs should not be included in Annex I. However, in the decision making also benefits of using the active substance in the biocidal products have to be considered (Paragraph 96 in Annex VI of the Directive). It is concluded that AVKs are needed as rodenticides for human hygiene and public health reasons. In this exceptional case the benefit should take precedence over the risks and AVKs should be included in Annex I. [The text above is a generalised extract based on the conclusions of the Assessment Reports of the AVKs] All of the AVKs meet one of the exclusion criteria under Article 5(1) of the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR), which prohibits their approval unless one or more of the derogations provided for in Article 5(2) are met.
    [Show full text]
  • SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING PERMITS Valid: One Year from Date of Issuance Resident - Nonresident
    SCP – Page 1 SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING PERMITS Valid: one year from date of issuance Resident - Nonresident Alabama Game, Fish and Wildlife Law; Article 12; beginning with 9-11-231 PRIVILEGE: • An INDIVIDUAL, EDUCATIONAL OR AGENCY SCP authorizes permit holder to collect any wild invertebrate or vertebrate species or their eggs in this state for propagation or scientific purposes. • A FEDERAL / STATE PROTECTED SCP authorizes permit holder to collect endangered / protected species (copy of USFWS permit must be submitted if required by federal law). PERMITS TYPES: • INDIVIDUAL SCP: for an individual collector. • EDUCATIONAL SCP: for a professor/teacher and their current students. • AGENCY MEMBER SCP: for an agency and their current members. • FEDERAL / STATE PROTECTED SCP: Issued in addition to an Individual, Educational or Agency SCP. STUDENTS / AGENCY MEMBERS: • Each student / agency member must complete the Educational & Agency SCP Dependent Information Form and be approved to work under an Educational or Agency SCP. (See The SCP section online at https://www.outdooralabama.com/licenses/commercial-licenses-permits) COLLECTIONS: • A SCP Collection Data Form must be completed and faxed for approval prior to any scheduled collection. (See The SCP section online at https://www.outdooralabama.com/licenses/commercial-licenses-permits) • Annual reports required. Must be submitted prior to renewal requests. RESTRICTIONS: • Must have a SCP to obtain a Federal / State Protected Species permit. • Federal / State Protected permit must meet strict guidelines prior to issuance. • No species collected are to be sold. NOTE: • Electronic system processes all applications and reports. • For areas under Marine Resources jurisdiction, call (251) 861-2882. • Applicant should allow 3 weeks for processing and issuance.
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0
    Version 1.1.0 Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0 Introduction Through the implementation of our standards, Fair Trade USA aims to promote sustainable livelihoods and safe working conditions, protection of the environment, and strong, transparent supply chains.. Our standards work to limit negative impacts on communities and the environment. All pesticides can be potentially hazardous to human health and the environment, both on the farm and in the community. They can negatively affect the long-term sustainability of agricultural livelihoods. The Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS) seeks to minimize these risks from pesticides by restricting the use of highly hazardous pesticides and enhancing the implementation of risk mitigation practices for lower risk pesticides. This approach allows greater flexibility for producers, while balancing controls on impacts to human and environmental health. This document lists the pesticides that are prohibited or restricted in the production of Fair Trade CertifiedTM products, as required in Objective 4.4.2 of the APS. It also includes additional rules for the use of restricted pesticides. Purpose The purpose of this document is to outline the rules which prohibit or restrict the use of hazardous pesticides in the production of Fair Trade Certified agricultural products. Scope • The Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List (PRPL) applies to all crops certified against the Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS). • Restrictions outlined in this list apply to active ingredients in any pesticide used by parties included in the scope of the Certificate while handling Fair Trade Certified products.
    [Show full text]