NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION
TO RENEW REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES
The Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), pursuant to Title 3, California Code of Regulations
(3 CCR) section 6255, files this notice regarding the renewal of pesticide product registrations with the Secretary
of the Resources Agency to be posted for a period of 30 days for public inspection. DPR initially proposed to
renew pesticide products for the calendar year 2002 in a notice dated December 21, 2001.
DPR thoroughly evaluates each pesticide active ingredient substance before it is registered for the first time.
In addition, DPR endeavors to eliminate from use any pesticide that endangers the environment or is not beneficial
for the purpose for which it was sold or for which it was misrepresented.
The renewal of the registration of a pesticide for a subsequent year requires submission of a renewal application
and fee within one month of the December 31 expiration date. Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) section 12812 requires
a registration renewal fee of $200 per product. Late submissions incur a penalty fee as provided for in FAC section
12818. Renewal of registration automatically follows compliance with filing and fee payment requirements. If
a case for reevaluation of a registered pesticide is advanced, DPR evaluates the information to determine if a
reevaluation should be initiated.
Reevaluation of a pesticide product may occur as a result of input derived from many sources including:
1. DPR's evaluation of public and private research studies.
2. Regular consultation with DPR's Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee.
3. Daily registration activities and contact with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4. Registrant submitting adverse effects disclosures pursuant to FAC section 12825.5.
5. Public comments resulting from DPR's posting of notices of registration activities for review.
DPR posts notices of proposed reevaluations for 30 days to provide for public comment. DPR submits notices of
final reevaluation decisions to the Secretary of the Resources Agency to be posted for 30 days. DPR prepares and
makes available to the public semiannual reports on pesticide products under reevaluation or for which factual
information has been received.
Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Proposed Decision
The December 21, 2001, Notice and Public Report on the renewal of the registrations of pesticide products for the
calendar year elicited one comment. On February 8, 2002, Mr. Michael Graf submitted a letter and several scientific
articles on behalf of the Jumping Frog Research Institute, the League to Save Lake Tahoe, Californians for Alternatives
to Toxics and Michael Graf as an individual. Mr. Graf requested that DPR place eight pesticide active ingredients
into reevaluation - malathion, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, methidation, parathion, endosulfan, chlorothalonil, and
trifluralin. Mr. Graf based this request on the submitted studies, which he feels demonstrate that the continued
use and registration of these pesticides in California's Central Valley ".is likely to have a significant
impact on the viability of amphibian species located in the Sierra Nevada."
DPR's scientists reviewed all of the submitted data and information. The authors of many of the submitted articles
agree that some amphibian populations in the Sierra Nevada are in decline and that the decline is the result of
a multitude of factors. Declines and extinctions of certain amphibian populations have been reported worldwide,
not just in California. Not all amphibian populations in the Sierra Nevada are in decline. Populations of the
tree frog, Pseudacris (Hyla) regilla, do not appear to be in decline. While the submitted studies indicate that
pesticide residues may be one of many factors contributing to amphibian decline, there is no direct confirmed evidence
that pesticide residues are a major factor in amphibian deaths, or that a reduction or elimination of pesticide
residues would reverse amphibian declines. After evaluating the submitted data, other data on file with DPR, and
speaking with researchers studying amphibian populations, DPR determined that current data do not indicate a definitive
link between the use of the above eight pesticides in the Central Valley and amphibian declines in the Sierra Nevada.
A copy of Mr. Graf's submission and DPR's response can be obtained upon request.
The Director determined that those pesticides currently under reevaluation and those pesticides under consideration
for reevaluation constitute all of the pesticides for which sufficient information that would necessitate reevaluation
pursuant to 3 CCR sections 6220 and 6221 has been received or may have been received. DPR is currently conducting
risk assessments of certain pesticides, including methyl bromide, pursuant to the Birth Defect Prevention Act.
A risk assessment is more comprehensive than a reevaluation under CCR sections 6220 and 6221.
The decision to renew the registrations of those pesticide products registered in 2001 for the calendar year 2002
is adopted pursuant to FAC sections 12817-12820.