Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. serves small, medium, and large pesticide product registrants and other stakeholders in the agricultural and biocidal sectors, in virtually every aspect of pesticide law, policy, science, and regulation.
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By  Lisa M. Campbell and Susan Hunter Youngren, Ph.D.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced on February 26, 2015, a revision to the process for evaluation of the potential for a pesticide to move off-site into surface water when the pesticide is used in an urban area. The former evaluation method followed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach with California specific parameters. This revision will continue to use the EPA approach but allow incorporation of a module specific for California urban settings.

Potential adverse impacts on surface water from use of pesticides are assessed in California by DPR’s Environmental Monitoring Branch’s Surface Water Protection Program (SWPP) using EPA methodology. The SWPP uses the EPA evaluation method for proposed agricultural pesticide registrations based on PE5 (PRZM-EXAMS version 5) and Tier 2 modeling scenarios but there have been no consistent methods for assessing potential pesticide runoff on impervious surfaces in an urban setting. The new California urban module includes the following improvements that are designed to be further representative of urban conditions in California:

* Introduction of four types of surfaces by permeability and water sources;
* Consideration of pesticide transport induced by dry-weather runoff from impervious surfaces;
* Separation of impervious and pervious portions in the modeling scenarios;
* Use of prescheduled lawn irrigation;
* Characterization of residential and commercial/industrial areas to reflect California urban conditions; and
* Aggregations of water, sediment, and pesticide yields for the urban watershed.

The urban model is designed particularly for evaluating pesticides applied outdoors in areas with large amounts of impervious surfaces such as residential areas, commercial/industrial facilities, and highway and road rights-of-way applications. Pesticide products of interest would be those that have the potential for impact to surface waters through overspray to impervious surfaces in these areas
 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, and James V. Aidala

Center for Food Safety v. EPA is a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (9th Circuit) that consolidates two petitions for review of a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to register the new herbicide product Enlist Duo for use in six Midwestern states. A group of non-governmental organizations filed one of the petitions and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a separate petition. Enlist Duo combines the active ingredients glyphosate and 2,4-D. The registrant Dow AgroSciences (Dow) has intervened in the case. The petitioners focus primarily on the purported failure of EPA to consider properly the effects of Enlist Duo on certain endangered species.

Each petitioner has now filed a motion to stay the EPA action registering Enlist Duo due to Endangered Species Act (ESA) challenges. The first stay motion filed by NRDC is based primarily on the risk to monarch butterflies, and that stay motion has now been fully briefed. The other petitioners filed a separate stay motion focusing on whooping cranes and Indiana bats, but they waited until two weeks after EPA and Dow filed their briefs opposing the first stay motion. Before either stay motion was filed, Dow filed a motion seeking transfer of the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Arguing that the two independent successive stay motions were abusive, Dow later filed a motion to hold the briefing on the second stay motion in abeyance, pending a ruling on its transfer motion.

The 9th Circuit denied Dow’s motion to hold the briefing on the second stay motion in abeyance only three days later. This procedural ruling does not dispose of the underlying transfer motion, but it does suggest that the court is not inclined to transfer the case. If the case is not transferred, the court will ultimately consider and rule on both pending stay motions. The court’s interim order does not suggest how it views the pending stay motions. The petitioners have a heavy burden to show both a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm to obtain the requested interim relief. EPA and Dow contend that the petitioners have not established either of these things. Overall, this ESA challenge to a new genetically modified organism (GMO) product may indicate a new front in the ESA litigation arena, since new products have generally not been challenged under ESA requirements. 2,4,-D itself is not a new herbicide, so this case is not quite a challenge to a totally new active ingredient; such a challenge was made recently in the case of cyantraniliprole. CBD, et al. v. EPA, No. 14-00942 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 10, 2014). Challenges to new active ingredients and GMO products, however, could threaten to hinder the introduction of new products into the marketplace.


 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson

Not a moment too soon, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) released a useful and clearly written Practical Guide on Biocidal Products Regulation, ECHA-14-B-19-EN. ECHA is the European Union (EU) agency tasked with implementing the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR), along with other EU chemical laws and regulations. Adopted in 2012, the BPR revised the Biocidal Products Directive and imposes requirements on producers of active substances and biocidal products. Starting on September 1, 2013, all legal entities producing active ingredients or biocidal products available in the EU are required to obtain an approval for each active substance in the biocidal product and an authorization for the biocidal product itself. The Guide provides a “how to” comply with the BPR to “help companies to better fulfill their obligations and tasks under the BPR.” The Guide is organized into sections and explains the obligations imposed on regulated entities, who is responsible for the obligations, what are the relevant timelines and the deadlines, which are the information requirements and procedures to follow, and the expected results of the process. The Guide also highlights the exceptions and cases for some of the processes, and lists the relevant fees for each obligation.

The Guide contains the following chapters:

■ Approval of active substance;
■ Article 95: list of active substances and suppliers;
■ Technical equivalence;
■ National authorizations;
■ Mutual recognition;
■ Renewal of national authorization and authorizations subject to mutual recognition;
■ Union authorization;
■ Simplified authorizations;
■ Changes of biocidal products;
■ Data sharing; and
■ Appeals (on ECHA decisions).

The following additional chapters are expected to be published at a later date:

■ Renewal of approval of active substance;
■ Review of an approval of active substance; and
■ Research and development.
 

Tags: BPR, ECHA

 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lisa M. Campbell

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) recently issued its Progress Report 2012-2014, which highlights DPR’s view of achievements under the leadership of Director Brian Leahy. Among the achievements noted are the following; others are also discussed in the report.

• Restricting sales of Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (SCAR). This action is described as having been “the catalyst for a national change, as the manufacturer agreed with U.S. EPA to phase out these products after DPR’s action.”

• Implementing surface water regulations for pyrethroids. This action is described as “an aggressive preventative measure for environmental protection starting at the first point of pesticide applications.”

• Committing more than $3 million in research for alternatives to field fumigants since 2012 and “reducing risks to the public from field fumigations,” as well as “protecting workers and the public from structural fumigations.”

• Efforts to reduce pesticide use in schools and child care centers.

• Collecting air monitoring data, regulating volatile organic compounds, as well as a number of other actions addressing environmental monitoring.

• Efforts to reevaluate neonicotinoids.

The Progress Report highlights and achievements reflect well many DPR priorities and the direction DPR is continuing to forge on a number of issues, some of which are subject to significant controversy.

 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lisa R. Burchi

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has extended, from February 27, 2015, to Friday, March 13, 2015, the submission of written comments following DPR’s January 14, 2015, Registration Fee Workshop where DPR discussed the potential increase in registration fees for pesticide products pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) § 12812(a).

Under the proposal, DPR would increase fees for applications and renewals from $750 to $1,150, decrease fees for certain label amendments supported by scientific data from $100 to $25, and create a new fee of $25 for label amendments not supported by scientific data, including substantive label amendments, non-substantive label amendments, label changes required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or any other federal or state agency, amendments to the formulation of the pesticide product, and notifications.

The Registration Fee Workshop presentation and the meeting minutes from the Registration Fee Workshop can be viewed on DPR’s Web site. Comments may be submitted via email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). DPR states it plans to make a final decision by April 2015 and have the revised fees effective by July 2015.
 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lisa M. Campbell and James V. Aidala


On January 28, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has made available for public comment its proposal to improve the corn rootworm insect resistance management program currently in place for registrations of plant-incorporated protectants (PIP) derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in corn. The EPA framework contains a number of controversial provisions, including the following proposed restriction of soil applied insecticides (SAI): “SAIs must be prohibited from use in combination with Bt corn for controlling corn rootworm. This can be done via bag tag language, grower guides, and terms of registration.” Concerns with the process by which this and other provisions can or should be developed and published for public comment are among the issues of concern. Comments are due March 16, 2015.
 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson

The Environmental Law Institute will host a complimentary webinar, “Neonicotinoids and Colony Collapse Disorder: Regulating and Product Stewardship in the Face of Uncertainty,” on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, from 12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. (EST). The webinar is open to the public but registration is required.

Fraught with both scientific uncertainty and the potential for significant agricultural and ecological consequences, the debate over neonicotinoid regulation is at the forefront of environmental policy discussions, raising important issues about regulation and product stewardship in the face of scientific uncertainty paired with significant risk. This webinar will address the current questions regarding neonicotinoid pesticides and their regulation, including:

          ■ What is the state of the science around the role neonicotinoids may play in pollinator decline?

          ■ What other factors may be significant causes?

          ■ What should be the approach of regulators and company product stewards given the scientific uncertainty?

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s (B&C®) Senior Government Consultant James V. Aidala will moderate the webinar. Mr. Aidala, former Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) (now the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention) is a leading expert on the policy and regulatory issues associated with the confluence of pollinators and pesticides. He writes and speaks frequently on the subject; recent works include “Presidents and Pesticides: What’s Up with the Presidential Memo on Pollinators?,” “Neonicotinoids: EPA’s New Get-Tough Measures,” and the keynote address at the 2014 Spring Board Meeting of the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials. Mr. Aidala is also a regular contributor to B&C’s Pesticide Law and Policy Blog.
 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson

On January 30, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released drafts of new guidelines for animal testing of the endocrine disrupting effects of pesticides and other chemicals. The proposed guidelines outline how scientists can use Japanese quail, medaka fish, or amphibian larvae to conduct various endocrine tests. EPA reportedly also considered including mysid crustaceans on its list of non-mammals acceptable to use in endocrine testing, but did not because the data were not deemed "fully reliable" across all endpoints. Comments are due March 31, 2015.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

March 12, 2015
2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. (EST)

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is pleased to host a complimentary webinar on recent compliance and enforcement issues regarding the importation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2014 revisions to its Notice of Arrival (NOA) form (EPA Form 3540-1), coupled with EPA's increasing scrutiny of pesticide imports, indicate that this is an issue of growing interest to EPA and could result in a rise of enforcement cases or, at a minimum, business disruption for shipments that are refused entry.

Speakers who will be highlighting recent developments and steps for importers to take to ensure compliance and avoid potential enforcement include: Eileen B. Salathé Gernhard, Lead Counsel -- Regulatory and EH&S at Dow AgroSciences, LLC, B&C's Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi, and attorney Jon Jacobs, a 25-year veteran of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, now in private practice at Jacobs Stotsky PLLC. There will be 45 minutes of presentation followed by a 15 minute Q&A period.

Please save the date -- registration details will follow.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Christopher R. Bryant

On February 10, 2015, the European Union’s (EU) chief negotiator on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement released the EU’s initial proposal for the “legal text” of the all-important regulatory cooperation chapter. The text was tabled for discussion with the United States in the negotiating round on February 6, 2015, and released to the public shortly thereafter. The text of the final agreement will be a result of negotiations between the EU and U.S. Among the 16 “Articles” in the chapter is Article 14-Establishment of the Regulatory Cooperation Body,” or RCB, to monitor and facilitate the implementation of the provisions in the TTIP chapter on regulatory cooperation. While short on details, the tone and general content of the chapter is encouraging. The EU’s initial draft contains two sets of proposals: one on good regulatory practices, including transparency, impact assessment, stakeholder participation, and how to make them operational, and another on steps to reinforce and make more effective current cooperation on types of legislation and regulatory initiatives that have a significant impact on EU-U.S. trade or investment. The EU Commission also released on February 10 a document titled TTIP and Regulation: An Overview. The document includes a section on horizontal provisions, including a section on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and a section on sectoral provisions, including “chemicals.” The documents are available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230#regulatory-cooperation.

 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lisa M. Campbell and Timothy D. Backstrom

On February 12, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in El Comite Para El Bienestar De Earlimart v. EPA, a case challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of provisions in a State Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by California under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that regulate emissions of pesticides (primarily fumigants like methyl bromide) that potentially may contribute to possible exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The El Comite case is the latest action in a series of challenges to California’s regulation of emissions of pesticides considered to be volatile organic compounds (VOC) stretching back to 2004. The case will consider substantive issues pertaining to the enforceability of the limits on pesticide VOC emissions in the SIP and the adequacy of those limits to attain compliance with the NAAQS. Of significant interest, it will also include a novel argument that EPA’s conclusion under CAA Section 7410(a)(2)(E) that the SIP did not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is unsupported by the record.

The Plaintiffs will confront a stiff burden in litigating their Civil Rights claim. The Supreme Court has held that Title VI is violated only when actions have a discriminatory impact and such discrimination is intentional. EPA contends that California gave sufficient assurances that the pesticide controls in the SIP do not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and that it was reasonable for EPA to rely on those assurances when it approved the SIP. The Plaintiffs point to a preliminary finding made in 2011 by the EPA Office of Civil Rights (OCR) concerning the Angelina C. complaint, where OCR determined that emissions of methyl bromide during the years 1995-2001 had a disparate impact on Latino school children. This preliminary finding was later withdrawn following a settlement with California. The Plaintiffs say that given this history, EPA should have required California to provide a more detailed explanation of why its current regulation of pesticide emissions is not violative of Title VI. The Plaintiffs recently attempted to bolster their Title VI argument by asking the Court to take judicial notice of a report on pesticide use near schools issued by the California Environmental Health Tracking program in 2014, but EPA has opposed consideration of this report because it was not part of the administrative record when EPA approved the SIP revisions in 2012.
 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lisa R. Burchi

The European Commission (EC) Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed has issued a guidance document entitled Draft Guidance Document on the Interpretation of the Transitional Measures for the Data Requirements for Chemical Active Substances and Plant Protection Products according to Regulation (EU) No. 283/2013 and Regulation (EU) No. 284/2013. Following the adoption in 2009 of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products (PPP), additional regulations were adopted to establish the necessary data requirements for active substances and PPPs. In 2013, Regulation (EU) No. 283/2013 (amended by Regulation (EU) No. 1136/2014) updated the data requirements for active substances, while Regulation (EU) No. 284/2013 updated data requirements for products. These Regulations include transitional measures to explain when certain applications can rely upon former data requirements and when the updated data requirements must be satisfied.

The Guidance provides two charts describing the transitional measures for: (1) applications for approval, renewal, or approval or amendment of approval of Active Substances; and (2) applications for authorization, renewal of authorization, or amendment of authorization of Plant Protection Products. Each chart describes the type of application at issue and the resulting data requirements. For authorization applications, the Guidance divides the types of applications and resulting data requirements into four active substances categories: (1) AIR-2 active substances; (2) AIR-3 active substances/substances not yet renewed; (3) new active substances; and (4) mixtures.

The Guidance was developed to assist EU Member States in consistently applying and interpreting these transitional measures. Many of the data requirement decisions depend on the type of active substances and whether an application is submitted before or after December 31, 2015, so companies considering or planning to submit applications should review the Guidance carefully to determine what data requirements may be applicable.
 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi, and James V. Aidala

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its new more “user-friendly” website for minimum risk pesticides. Under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 25(b)(2) and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 152.25(f), pesticides meeting certain criteria (e.g., containing only specified, listed active and inert ingredients, not bearing public health claims) are determined by EPA to pose little to no risk to human health or the environment and exempt from FIFRA registration requirements. EPA states the website “highlights the most-requested information and has been redesigned based on historic website traffic, with a focus on stakeholders who are interested in manufacturing, selling or distributing minimum risk pesticides.” Specifically, the website is now focused on four main areas:

          *   About Minimum Risk Pesticides;
          *  Conditions to Qualify as a Minimum Risk Pesticide Product;
          *  Clarifications about Minimum Risk Active and Inert Ingredients; and
          *  Regulation and Enforcement of Minimum Risk Pesticides.

Although the scope of application of minimum risk pesticides has been the focus of proposed regulatory changes in recent years, EPA states that this website is not intended to include any regulatory changes or new requirements. There is, however, a December 2010 rule proposing changes to the minimum risk pesticide requirements that has yet to be issued in final. It is noteworthy that EPA has highlighted and clarified its Section 25(b) policies, but has not yet issued a final rule. A memorandum regarding EPA’s proposed rule is available at http://www.lawbc.com/regulatory-developments/entry/epa-proposes-revisions-to-minimum-risk-exemption-for-pesticides/.

Instead, EPA states it has included more information to be clearer about the conditions that a product must meet to be considered minimum risk. Any clarifications of the applicable requirements could be helpful for manufacturers that are responsible for ensuring compliance at the federal level for minimum risk pesticides since EPA does not review or approve such registrations. It is important to note that minimum risk pesticides exempt from EPA registration are still frequently subject to registration requirements at the state level, and state regulators perennially identify non-compliance by products asserting eligibility for minimum risk status. Any outreach that makes the eligibility and compliance requirements clearer should assist companies in navigating both federal and state requirements.

The address for the new website is www2.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides.


 


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lisa R. Burchi

An ad hoc committee of the National Research Council (NRC) released a report, Review of California's Risk-Assessment Process for Pesticides, following its scientific and technical evaluation of the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment process for pesticides.

The NRC committee review, which commenced in October 2013, examined documents provided by the California EPA’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) regarding the processes it uses for hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response analysis, and risk characterization. The Report discusses the following issues:

                  ■ Setting Priorities Among Pesticides: The NRC committee generally supported DPR’s process under which pesticides are reviewed as candidates for risk assessment, but made recommendations for DPR to: (1) update and provide more details regarding its documentation of the priority setting process; (2) provide more explicit documentation and support for how pesticides are categorized into groups of high, medium, and low priority; and (3) develop a more objective and structured approach for ranking high-priority pesticides.

                  ■ Risk Assessment Methods and Practices: The NRC committee reviewed DPR’s risk assessment guidance documents as well as three recently completed risk assessments for chloropicrin, carbaryl, and methyl iodide. The NRC committee found DPR’s documents to be comprehensive but questioned “whether the extensive effort needed to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment independently of EPA is justified in light of DPR’s resources.” The Committee recommended that DPR: (1) determine whether an independent and comprehensive evaluation of pesticides is required in every case where a risk assessment is performed; (2) incorporate problem formulation and other relevant elements recommended in the 2009 NRC report Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment into its risk assessment process; and (3) update its guidance documents “regularly and perhaps develop additional reference materials to reflect the most current risk-assessment practices.”

                 ■ California Data to Inform Priority-Setting and Risk Assessment: The NRC committee found DPR’s practice of supplementing its exposure assessments with California-specific information to be “among the most valuable contribution to DPR’s risk-assessment process.” The committee suggests expanding DPR’s current Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) program to include all licensed pesticide applicators and, if resources allow, “PUR data should be reviewed in relation to air-monitoring data and pesticide-illness surveillance data to determine whether any patterns are evident and to judge the accuracy of exposure assumptions or models.” The committee also had recommendations to improve the reporting of pesticide-related illnesses, including, for example, improving the training of physicians and searching electronic health records.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lisa R. Burchi

On January 27, 2015, the European Union (EU) Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed agreed to a proposed list of 77 pesticide active substances to be classified as Candidates for Substitution (CFS). The draft list of CFS is available online.  A Question and Answer (Q&A) document regarding the CFS list is available online. Additional information regarding the proposed list is also available online.

This list is an important and long-awaited development under the Plant Protection Product (PPP) Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. The Standing Committee clarifies that the CFS active substances are not banned and that approved CFS active substances will remain on the EU market, although there are potentially significant consequences for those listed active substances. Most challenging is the requirement that Member States do the following for new applications for authorization of PPPs containing CFS active substances that are submitted after August 1, 2015: (1) conduct a comparative assessment when evaluating an application for authorization for a PPP containing an active substance approved as a CFS; and (2) not authorize or restrict the use of a PPP containing a CFS for use on a particular crop where the comparative assessment weighing up the risks and benefits demonstrates that safer alternatives exist. In addition, substances not evaluated by the Standing Committee (e.g., substances approved after January 1, 2013) can be identified as a CFS under Article 24 of the PPP Regulation. In those cases, any approval will be limited to a maximum of seven years, compared to 10 or 15 years for other active substances.

The next step will be review and adoption of the CFS list by the European Commission, and then publication of the list as a Commission Regulation in the Official Journal.
 

 


 
‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 >