Article citationsMore>>

See 49 Fed. Reg. 37,916, 37,937 (Sept. 26, 1984) (proposed §152.10, replacing previous § 162.4, stating that treated wood, and other treated articles or substances, are “[p]roducts that are not pesticides because they do not have a pesticidal effect” (emphasis added)).

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Scope and Application of the FIFRA Treated Articles Exemption

  AUTHORS: Lawrence S. Ebner, David A. Webb

  KEYWORDS: Creosote, Wood Preservative, Railroad Crossties, Treated Wood, Registered, FIFRA Treated Article Exemption, Critical Infrastructure

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Transportation Technologies, Vol.10 No.1, December 12, 2019

  ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the U.S. Environmental Agency’s potential improper expansion of its authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal pesticide statute, to regulate not only the registration, labeling, and use of wood preservatives, but also treated wood products. EPA’s oversight of wood preservatives under FIFRA is extensive. In recent years, despite EPA’s own Treated Articles Exemption, 40 C.F.R. § 152.25(a), EPA has moved toward utilizing wood preservative labeling in a way that could impose restrictions on the end use of treated wood. Wood preservative registrant and user groups should be concerned and vigilant about this trend toward regulation of treated wood. At the same time, they should continue to interact with EPA in a constructive manner, in part to ensure that EPA respects its own regulatory boundary between wood preservatives, such as creosote, and treated wood, such as creosote-treated railroad crossties, which are a key component of the nation’s transportation critical infrastructure.