By Timothy D. Backstrom, Lisa M. Campbell, and James V. Aidala
On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is registering a new insecticide, flupyradifurone, which EPA claims is “safer for bees” and will be “an alternative to more toxic products including pyrethroid, neonicotinoid, organophosphate and avermectin insecticides.” EPA has been under increasing pressure to take action to mitigate a decline in the viability of honeybee colonies known as colony collapse disorder or CCD. The neonicotinoid class of insecticides has been a subject of particular regulatory scrutiny, based on assertions that pesticides in this group are particularly toxic to pollinators. EPA has been reluctant to single out pesticide use as the dominant cause of CCD, and has suggested that habitat loss, infections with the varoa mite, and exposure to other pathogens are likely to be contributing factors as well.
In early 2013, the European Food Safety Authority released a risk assessment indicating that three neonicotinoids, clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam, pose an acute risk to pollinators, which led subsequently to a two-year suspension of the registrations for these three neonicotinoids in the European Union. Later that year, EPA informed registrants that it would require new labeling for neonicotinoids to mitigate risks to pollinators. In June 2014, President Obama issued a memorandum creating a federal task force to promote the health of honeybees and other pollinators, and directed EPA to assess the effects of pesticides, “including neonicotinoids,” on pollinator health.
Neonicotinoids have become more popular in large measure because of restrictions on organophosphate use that were intended to protect applicators and to reduce potential dietary risks from treated commodities. Although EPA has not expressly determined its view regarding how much neonicotinoids are contributing to CCD, EPA has been under pressure to take decisive action to address the risk to pollinators. By characterizing a newly registered insecticide primarily in terms of the risk that it poses to bees, EPA appears to be suggesting that alternatives to the neonicotinoids will become an important part of the regulatory response to CCD.
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Lara A. Hall, M.S., RQAP-GLP
On January 9, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) announced that it released a new draft guidance document in its effort to help expand the acceptance of alternative methods for acute toxicity testing. EPA states that the rapid advances in science and continual development of new technologies, it recognizes there is an increasing potential for the use of alternative methods in regulatory risk assessments.
EPA’s goals for alternative testing approaches include:
* Assessing a broader range and potentially more human-relevant adverse effects;
* Generating and reviewing data more quickly and less expensively; and
* Reducing use of laboratory animals in regulatory testing.
The draft guidance, Process for Establishing & Implementing Alternative Approaches to Traditional In Vivo Acute Toxicity Studies, describes the process for evaluating and implementing alternative methods of testing for acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity, along with skin and eye irritation and skin sensitization. Additionally, there is a discussion of the three major phases of the process, and the implications for reporting information under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2). Successfully putting this process into place will require an open dialogue with stakeholders, other regulatory organizations, and the scientific community.
This draft guidance is one step in the application of OPP’s strategic vision for implementing the 2007 National Research Council report on Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century.
By Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala, and Susan Hunter Youngren, Ph.D.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) January 5, 2015, release for public comment of the revised human health risk assessment of chlorpyrifos (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0195) reflects another step taken to implement its new spray drift and volatilization policies. These policies were long in the making and the subject of significant discussion and controversy over the years. EPA, with this assessment, has also taken a very public step to implement its controversial policy, announced in December 2009, to apply, effectively, Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) risk assessment techniques to pesticide uses not subject to FQPA, as part of its commitment to environmental justice.
The spray drift and volatilization policies were discussed in an October 2014 webinar and discussed in our September 17, 2014, memorandum. EPA’s Revised Risk Assessment Methods for Workers, Children of Workers in Agricultural Fields, and Pesticides with No Food Uses, issued in 2009, is discussed in our December 8, 2009, memorandum.
Spray Drift and Volatilization
EPA had been assessing spray drift and volatilization for chlorpyrifos for a number of years, and many of the EPA-derived spray drift and volatilization tools are based on chlorpyrifos data. The January 5 assessment updates the assessment conducted in 2011. This document assesses both potential risks to workers (mixing/loading/applying and re-entry) as well as potential risks to residents (bystanders and food/water consumption). The bystander assessment uses the new tools that EPA released in Spring 2014 to assess potential risks from volatilization and spray drift (as discussed in the B&C webinar). The buffer zones EPA had previously estimated to mitigate spray drift are reduced in the new assessment. The risks noted in the assessment were for workers and specific water areas.
FQPA Risk Assessment Methods Use for Non-FQPA Assessment
In addition to implementing its spray drift and volatilization policies, EPA also assessed exposure in a manner that appears intended to implement the 2009 policy that was the subject of much concern when released for public comment. In that policy, EPA stated its intent to apply risk assessment techniques developed in implementing FQPA’s “extra safety factor” to any pesticide product’s risk assessment, regardless of whether it falls under FQPA, “so long as application of the risk assessment technique is consistent with good scientific practice and is not otherwise prohibited by law.” EPA stated then that this would include “using an additional safety/uncertainty factor to protect children,” as well a number of other factors. EPA announced this policy originally as part of its commitment to considerations of environmental justice.
The chlorpyrifos assessment is based on a physiologically-based, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PBPK-PD) model to estimate the toxicologic Points of Departure (POD), thus deriving different toxicological values of concern based on the age, sex, and duration of exposure. The PBPK-PD model is also used to estimate intra-species uncertainty factors (UF), as there is no need for inter-species factors because the model estimates human red blood cell (RBC) acetylcholinesterase/cholinesterase (AChE/ChE) inhibition. Based on the PBPK-PD model, a 10X intra-species factor was used for females of childbearing years whereas it was 4X for all other groups assessed.
The worker of concern in the assessment is defined to be a female of childbearing years due to concern of not only RBC AChE/ChE inhibition, but also the potential for neurodevelopmental effects as seen in epidemiological studies. The epidemiological studies are controversial because there have been many questions about actual exposure to chlorpyrifos, particularly as two studies measured a biomarker that can be seen from exposure to other organophosphates (OP). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Science Advisory Panel (SAP) reviewed EPA’s assessments of these studies in 2008 and 2012. The SAP concluded that “chlorpyrifos likely played a role” in the observed neurodevelopmental outcomes. EPA determined that based on the weight of evidence (WOE) from animal studies and epidemiological studies, reduction of the 10x “FQPA Safety Factor (SF)” was not appropriate. The residential dietary assessments were compared to a Margin of Exposure (MOE) of 100 (10X FQPA SF x 10X intra-species factor) for women and an MOE of 40 (10X FQPA SF x 4X intra-species factor) for all other ages. The occupational assessments were compared to an MOE of 100 for women and 40 for all other age groups (with no explanation of the reasoning behind those values).
This is noteworthy and should be examined closely because EPA has effectively used an additional “FQPA factor” as a safety factor for occupational assessments. EPA stated in its press release announcing the assessment that potential restrictions may be necessary to protect workers and water.
There is a 60-day comment period for this document, which are due on or before March 16, 2015. Among the issues commenters are likely to address include:
Use of the PBPK-PD model to estimate PODs;
Use of the PBPK-PD model to estimate intra-species uncertainty factors;
Use of the epidemiological data; and
Use of a 10X SF for occupational exposure.
The full impact of this assessment is not yet clear, but it raises many issues of interest to registrants.
By Lisa M. Campbell
On December 19, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it is preparing in final the regulations on pesticide export labeling. The new proposed rule corrects the inadvertent removal of a provision that occurred in the January 2013 revisions to these regulations. EPA is restoring the provision that allows information required under the regulations to be placed on collateral labeling (such as bulletins, leaflets, circulars, brochures, data sheets, or flyers) attached to a shipping container of pesticide products rather than on the immediate package of each individual product in the shipment.
Producers of pesticide products and devices intended solely for export will meet EPA’s labeling requirements by attaching a label to the immediate product container, or by providing collateral labeling that is either attached to the immediate product being exported or that accompanies the shipping container of the product being exported at all times when it is shipped or held for shipment in the United States. Collateral labeling will ensure the availability of the required labeling information, while allowing pesticide products and devices that are intended solely for export to be labeled for use in and consistent with the applicable requirements of the importing country.
On January 18, 2013, EPA revised its export label regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 168 Subpart D) concerning the labeling of pesticide products and devices intended solely for export. The revisions were effective on March 19, 2013, with a compliance date of January 21, 2014. Industry stakeholders subsequently expressed concern to EPA that certain provisions no longer appeared in this Subpart, and the inability of registrants to use the labeling method allowed in the previous regulations could create trade barriers and increase costs. EPA agreed and on April 30, 2014, issued a direct final rule to replace the provision that was inadvertently removed. Since EPA received written adverse comment on the direct final rule, EPA withdrew that direct final rule, and issued a new proposed rule to seek public comment on the changes. EPA is now preparing the revisions in final to its export labeling regulations to replace the provision that was inadvertently removed.
The final revisions are available at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0607. Additional information on EPA requirements for importers and exporters is available at www2.epa.gov/importing-exporting.
On December 19, 2014, EPA opened the public comment period for 19 registration reviews. 79 Fed. Reg. 75801. The registrations are for: 3-methyl-cyclohexen-1-one (Case 6074); alkyl trimethylenediamines (ATMD) (Case 3014); boscalid (Case 7039); dikegulac sodium (Case 3061); ethoxyquin (Case 0003); fenpyroximate (Case 7432); flonicamid (Case 7436); fluazifop butyl, isomers (Case 2285); flufenpyr-ethyl (Case 7262); HHT (Grotan) (Case 3074); metolachlor & s-metolachlor (Case 0001); napthaleneacetic acid (Case 0379); oxadiazon (Case 2485); oxyfluorfen (Case 2490); pentachlorophenol (Case 2505); sodium fluoride (Case 3132); sulfonic acid salts (Case 7619); triclopyr (Case 2710); and yellow mustard seed (Case 7618). EPA will accept comments and information until February 17, 2015.
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Timothy D. Backstrom
On December 16, 2014, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and its affiliate the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), along with a coalition of other non-governmental organizations, brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit concerns a May 1, 2008, petition by these organizations requesting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take regulatory action concerning nanoscale silver (nanosilver) products, including classifying nanosilver as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since receiving the CFS/ICTA petition, EPA has taken a number of incremental steps to regulate nanosilver. After inviting comment concerning the petition, EPA referred scientific issues concerning risks from and exposure to nanosilver to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), announced that it would treat nanoscale pesticides (including nanosilver) as a separate pesticidal active ingredient, established new registration requirements for several specific nanosilver products, and initiated the registration review process for registered nanosilver products.
Notwithstanding these actions, EPA has not formally responded to the 2008 CFS/ICTA petition, and the petitioners have characterized the steps taken by EPA to date as “toothless.” Rather than contesting the suit, EPA may seek an agreement requiring EPA to respond formally to the petition by a specified date. Perhaps EPA will characterize the regulatory actions taken to date as a partial grant of the petition. On the other hand, many of the nearly 400 nanosilver products that CFS/ICTA claim EPA should regulate under FIFRA have no pesticidal claims or purpose or are being sold and distributed outside of the U.S. With respect to these products, EPA will likely respond that it has no authority to provide the relief sought by the petitioners.
By Lisa M. Campbell
On December 15, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) wrote a report to Congress on the status of Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation in pesticide regulation. EPA, USDA, FWS, and NMFS seek to refine their approach to pesticide consultations in an effort to protect endangered and threatened species.
The report was required by the 2014 Farm Bill and summarizes actions carried out by the agencies since receiving the April 2013 National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) report, entitled “Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides.”
Since receiving the NAS report, the agencies have:
* Built a collaborative relationship among the agencies;
* Clarified roles and responsibilities for the agencies;
* Improved stakeholder engagement and transparency during review and consultation processes;
* Held two joint agency workshops resulting in interim approaches for use in assessing risks to ESA-listed species from pesticides;
* Created a plan and schedule for applying the interim approaches to a set of pesticide compounds; and
* Hosted multiple workshops and meetings with stakeholders.
The full report is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/2014/esa-reporttocongress.pdf.
By James V. Aidala
On June 20, 2014, the White House issued a “Presidential Memorandum -- Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.” The strategy is directed to all federal agencies and is designed to “expand Federal efforts and take new steps to reverse pollinator losses and help restore populations to healthy levels.” The text of the memorandum lists a number of goals and comments on pollinator health, and has a focus on setting up a government-wide task force, along with directives about research into the factors affecting pollinator health and suggestions to improve pollinator habitat. The role and possible impacts of pesticides on pollinators are mentioned, but are not prominent. Specifically, the memorandum mentions that one of the strategies to consider is to include “identification of existing and new methods and best practices to reduce pollinator exposure to pesticides, and new cost-effective ways to control bee pests and diseases.” Finally, it directs the new federal task force to report back to President Obama in six months.
Six months from the date of the memorandum is drawing near (December 20) -- so now, where are we? In summary, remarks by those leading the task force (staff from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) report that the response to the memorandum is now planned to be sent to the White House in draft form around the due date (the Holidays probably allowing for some schedule wiggle room), and that the public will be allowed to comment on the suggestions. That might mean a public release of the draft plan sometime in early Spring 2015, a date that coincidentally could dovetail with the beginning of the use season for commercial honeybee services (the almond crop in California begins to need bees around February depending on weather, temperature, and related considerations). No public release of the strategy is expected for at least 90 days or more. Private conversations and trade press reports indicate some slowness in convening and coordinating such a large and diverse group of agencies, as some agencies appear reluctant to participate in significant ways or otherwise are not sure exactly how or what their contribution to the effort should be (that, of course, is one of the main points of the exercise).
EPA and USDA have hosted two “listening sessions” on the memo -- on November 12 and 17 -- in Washington, D.C. Little detail was presented by the hosts; mostly it was open microphone with no advanced sign-up, so participants gave remarks in person or by phone. EPA and USDA did tell the audience that they would receive written comments on the memorandum if submitted by November 24. All of this public input will apparently go into the process of formulating the strategy. Many commenters, in fact most of those who spoke, had a “for or against” opinion about pesticide use and any possible impact on pollinators. Very few spoke of habitat issues or the research issues, even though those concerns dominate the text of the President’s memorandum.
By Sheryl Lindros Dolan
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has “decided to postpone the [Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC)] meeting scheduled for December 11-12, 2014.” EPA notes that “this is a particularly busy time of year in [the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)] as we are working to complete several major decisions and projects by the end of the year/early next year. We want to keep the momentum going so that we can share our progress with you early in 2015.” At this time, EPA intends to hold a half-day update via the web in February 2015 to bring stakeholders “up-to-date on these activities.” According to EPA’s November 21, 2014, Federal Register notice announcing the December PPDC meeting, the PPDC Work Group on Integrated Pest Management and Work Group on Pollinator Protection were scheduled to meet on December 10, 2014. EPA has scheduled the next two PPDC “in-person” meetings for May 14-15, 2015, and October 22-23, 2015.
By Sheryl Lindros Dolan
On December 16, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will host a half-day workshop on the application process for the use of inert ingredients in pesticide products. The workshop will take place in Arlington, Virginia. The goal of the workshop is to clarify the necessary elements of an application for approval to use an inert ingredient in a pesticide product. Complete application packages save applicants time and money, and reduce the number of application rejections. The workshop will cover: selection of a Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) category, elements of an application, EPA’s evaluation process, and a retrospective review of inerts under PRIA. EPA will answer stakeholder questions throughout the workshop.
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On October 22, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested public comment on a proposal to remove 72 chemicals from its list of substances approved for use as inert ingredients in pesticide products. EPA reportedly is responding to petitions submitted by the Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and others that have asked EPA to issue a rule requiring disclosure of 371 inert ingredients found in pesticide products. EPA developed an alternative strategy designed to reduce the risks posed by hazardous inert ingredients in pesticide products more effectively than by disclosure rulemaking. EPA outlined its strategy in a May 22, 2014, letter to the petitioners, which is available online. Many of the 72 inert ingredients targeted for removal are on the list of 371 inert ingredients identified by the petitioners as hazardous. The 72 chemicals are not currently being used as inert ingredients in any pesticide product. The list of chemicals is available online.
Ingredients that are directly responsible for controlling pests such as insects or weeds are called active ingredients. An inert ingredient is any substance that is intentionally included in a pesticide that is not an active ingredient. Comments are due November 21, 2014. General information on inert ingredients can be found online.
By Susan Hunter Youngren, Ph.D.
On October 15, 2014, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) announced a voluntary program to document the effectiveness of agricultural pesticide spray application technologies on reducing pesticide spray drift. Under the Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) Program, agricultural equipment manufacturers would conduct (or make arrangements for a testing facility to conduct) studies to determine the percent drift reduction according to a verification protocol. Once completed, the manufacturer would submit the study to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review and evaluation. As verified, these reductions could then be quantitatively credited in the environmental risk assessments used to develop the drift reduction measures appearing on the label of the pesticide product. EPA will then review the manufacturers’ studies and, based on these data, it will assign spraying devices a rating on a four-star scale:
* Four stars: Device can reduce spray drift by 90 percent or more.
* Three stars: Device can reduce spray drift by between 75 percent to 89 percent.
* Two stars: Device can reduce spray drift by between 50 percent to 74 percent.
* One star: Device can reduce spray drift by between 25 percent to 49 percent.
* No stars: Device can reduce spray drift by less than 25 percent.
EPA allows pesticide manufacturers to include labeling on their products that contain dual-use instructions, one for farmers using devices that have received stars through the DRT program and another for those using devices that do not have a DRT rating.
By Sheryl Lindros Dolan
On September 30, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) redesigned the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 (PRIA 3) website. The new website is available at www2.epa.gov/pria-fees. The purpose of the redesign is to make PRIA 3 information more easily accessible to stakeholders and the public, regardless of the type of device being used. EPA made no technical or regulatory changes to PRIA 3.
By: Lisa M. Campbell and Susan Hunter Youngren, Ph. D.
Spray drift and volatilization issues increasingly are significant issues in pesticide product risk assessments. Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued drafts of key guidance documents, which focused on issues that were key in the chlorpyrifos petition response, and more recently, at least one registration review decision that reflects current and still evolving EPA policy on spray drift and volatilization issues.
How potential for spray drift and for volatilization are identified and then managed are likely to be key elements of ongoing and future risk assessments underlying forthcoming EPA registration and reregistration, with significant potential impact on these decisions. Registrants should monitor closely the policies, EPA decisions implementing them, and their potential impact on their products, particularly given the public interest in these issues.
The EPA documents issued in the past eight or so months are significant, particularly given the years of controversy and difficulty in past attempts to propose a clear and “simple” definition of “drift.” The perception by some advocacy groups is that EPA is not adequately addressing alleged harms posed by drift, and resulting appeals for court intervention will undoubtedly complicate the matrix of considerations influencing EPA’s policy. These reasons alone make monitoring the development of these policies critical for registrants.
By Timothy D. Backstrom
In a wide-ranging decision issued on August 13, 2014, in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) (often referred to as the “Mega ESA” case), Magistrate Judge Spero has dismissed most of the claims by the Plaintiffs that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to consult or to reinitiate consultation under Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) in connection with EPA’s registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of a variety of pesticides. This decision is significant not only for its findings concerning judicial review of consultations under the ESA, but also for the potential effect on challenges to generic reregistration decisions, and on individual product actions based on those EPA decisions. Registrants should carefully consider the impact of this decision on potential challenges to EPA actions involving their products. A copy of the decision is available online.
The ESA claims that were dismissed fall in three principal categories: (1) claims concerning Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (RED) for which the general six-year statute of limitations has expired; (2) claims concerning REDs that are reviewable only in the Court of Appeals under FIFRA Section 16(b) and that were not brought in that court within the applicable 60-day period; and (3) claims based solely on Plaintiffs’ allegations that EPA retains ongoing discretionary control over pesticide registration. Claims by the Plaintiffs that currently survive this decision, at least pending further submissions by the Parties, include claims concerning EPA’s reregistration of specific pesticide products, and claims concerning EPA’s failure to reinitiate consultation for any pesticidal active ingredients that were subject to prior Biological Opinions issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for which the process of reregistration is not yet complete.