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.

By Lisa M. Campbell, Heather F. Collins, M.S. and Barbara A. Christianson

On March 5, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the release of a new list of EPA-registered disinfectant products that have qualified for use against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.  Products on EPA’s “List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2” are registered disinfectants qualified for use against SARS-CoV-2 approved through EPA’s Emerging Viral Pathogen Program (Program).  Currently there are 85 products listed that are qualified for use against SARS-CoV-2.  Of note, EPA states that if the directions for use for viruses/virucidal activity of the listed products provide different contact times or dilutions, the longest contact time or most concentrated solution should be used.

EPA issued guidance for the Program in 2016; the guidance was intended to “expedite the process for registrants to provide useful information to the public” regarding products that may be effective against emerging viral pathogens.  In the event of an outbreak, companies with pre-approved products can make off-label claims (e.g., technical literature distributed exclusively to healthcare facilities, physicians, nurses, and public health officials; 1-800 consumer information services; company websites (non-label related); social media) for use against the outbreak virus.  These emerging pathogen statements will not appear on marketed (final print) product labels.  Additional information on EPA’s activation of its Emerging Viral Pathogen Program is available on our blog.

Companies with EPA-registered disinfectants that wish to add their products to List N, should provide the information as outlined below to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  1. Ensure that the product has a previously approved emerging viral pathogen claim.
  2. Provide the product name and EPA Registration number.

It is important to note that in releasing today’s list of products, EPA states in red bold font: “Note: There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2.  EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.” 

In addition, EPA has updated other lists of antimicrobial products registered with EPA for claims against common pathogens:

  • List B: EPA Registered Tuberculocide Products Effective Against Mycobacterium tuberculosis;
  • List C: EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Human HIV-1 Virus;
  • List D: EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Human HIV-1 and Hepatitis B Virus;
  • List E: EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Mycobacterium tuberculosis Human HIV-1 and Hepatitis B Virus;
  • List F: EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Hepatitis C Virus;
  • List G: EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Norovirus;
  • List H: EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus faecalis or faecium (VRE);
  • List K: EPA’s Registered Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Clostridium Difficile Spores; and
  • List M: Registered Antimicrobial Products with Label Claims for Avian (Bird) Flu Disinfectants.

Additional information on EPA’s List of Antimicrobial Products Registered with EPA for Claims Against Common Pathogens is available here.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi and Barbara A. Christianson

On February 28, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of a new web portal that is available to the public to search for EPA guidance documents.  The EPA Guidance Portal (Portal) was created under Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents,” where agencies are to develop a central web portal for the public to review active guidance documents and the ability to request for modification or withdrawal of the guidance documents. 

Information available about each guidance document listed on the Portal includes:

  • A concise name for the guidance document;
  • The date on which the guidance document was issued;
  • The date on which the guidance document was posted to the web portal
  • An agency unique identifier;
  • A hyperlink to the guidance document;
  • The general topic addressed by the guidance document; and
  • A summary of the guidance documents’ content.

EPA states that the “guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, unless expressly authorized by statute or incorporated into a contract” and EPA “may not cite, use, or rely on any guidance that is not posted on this web area, except to establish historical facts.”

The portal is broken down by office, including regional offices:

  • Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
  • Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)
  • Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
  • Office of General Counsel (OGC)
  • Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA)
  • Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)
  • Office of Mission Support (OMS)
  • Office of Research and Development (ORD)
  • Office of Water (OW)
  • All EPA Regional offices

Currently, there are a total of 1,735 guidance documents listed under OCSPP.  Within the 1,735 documents, 117 appear to be specific to FIFRA. Examples of guidance documents included in the portal are:

  • Inert Ingredients Overview and Guidance;
  • Exporting Unregistered Pesticides: Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statements;
  • EPA's Regulation of Biotechnology for Use in Pest Management;
  • CPARD USER GUIDE: For State Lead Agency (SLA) and Tribal Representatives with Certification Plans (CPs);
  • Frequent Questions for the 2018 Series 810 – Product Performance Test Guidelines: Antimicrobial Efficacy Test Guidelines;
  • Pesticide Registration Manual;
  • Guidance on FIFRA 24(c) Registrations;
  • Design for the Environment Logo for Antimicrobial Pesticide Products;
  • Draft Guidance for Plant Regulator Label Claims, Including Plant Biostimulants;
  • Structured Product Labeling (SPL) Draft Implementation Guide with Validation Procedures and User Guide;
  • Reregistration and Other Review Programs Predating Pesticide Registration Review;
  • FIFRA Pesticides Export Policy: Questions & Answers Issue: Research and Development Pesticides; Active Ingredient Concentrations;
  • State FIFRA Issues, Research, and Evaluation Group Final Guidance for State Lead Agencies for the Development and Implementation of Managed Pollinator Protection Plans; and
  • E-FAST, Down the Drain Assessment Model.

Under OECA, there are six documents specific to FIFRA.  The guidance documents included in this portal are:

  • Compliance Advisory: High Number of Complaints Related to Alleged Misuse of Dicamba Raises Concerns;
  • Good Laboratory Practices - Questions and Answers;
  • EPA and Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) Advisory Notice on Pesticide-related E-Commerce;
  • Fact Sheet on Pesticides Sales in E-Commerce;
  • Documents with Questions and Answers on FIFRA Pesticides Export Policy; and
  • FIFRA Pesticide Export Policy: Interpretive Guidance: Multilingual Labeling.

Of note, the portal sets forth an option for petitioning EPA to modify or withdraw a guidance document from the Portal by completing an online form.  The required information to submit using the online form is name, email address, unique identifier of the guidance document, the office and/or region, and comments related to the withdrawal or modification of the guidance document.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

On March 2, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule on EPA’s procedures for conducting on-site civil inspections.  This final rule applies to on-site inspections conducted by EPA civil inspectors, federal contractors, and Senior Environmental Employment employees conducting inspections on behalf of EPA. 

This rule is effective March 2, 2020.

This rule explains how EPA inspectors should conduct on-site civil administrative inspections and addresses common elements applicable to on-site civil inspections for compliance with environmental laws. 

The elements of the process for conducting on-site civil inspections, and some EPA guidance regarding each element, is as follows. 

  • Timing of Inspections and Facility Notification -- EPA inspectors should generally conduct inspections during the facility's normal work hours and take reasonable steps to work with the facility to agree on a workable schedule for accessing areas for the inspection.
  • Inspector Qualifications -- EPA inspectors must hold a valid credential to perform the inspection, which are issued to inspectors that have completed relevant training.
  • Obtaining Consent to Enter -- Upon arrival at a facility, EPA inspectors shall present their valid EPA Inspector Credentials to a facility employee, describe the authority and purpose of the inspection, and where possible seek the facilities' consent to enter. Inspectors are required under certain statutes to advise facility personnel that they can deny entry, but EPA may then seek a warrant for entry. 
  • Opening Conference -- The EPA inspector shall request an opening conference with available facility representatives or employees, where practicable. The EPA inspector shall discuss the overall objectives of the inspection and may request access to/copies of facility records and request to interview facility employees, as necessary.
  • Physical Inspection -- EPA inspectors shall inspect the areas, units, sources and processes relevant to the scope of the inspection. The inspectors will generally document their observations with photos and notes.
  • Managing Confidential Business Information (CBI) -- Pursuant to existing statutory and regulatory requirements, inspectors shall complete appropriate, statute-specific, CBI training before managing CBI. The EPA inspectors shall manage all CBI claims made by a facility during an inspection in accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
  • Interview Facility Personnel -- EPA inspectors may conduct interviews of facility personnel as appropriate. Interviews may include, but are not limited to, the environmental contacts, process operators, contractors, maintenance personnel, process engineers, control room operators, and other employees working in the area(s) of interest.
  • Records Review -- Once the records requested by the EPA inspector are assembled, the EPA inspector shall review any records relevant to the facility inspection/field investigation. EPA inspectors may request copies of many different types of records (paper, electronically scanned, downloaded or recorded through other digital storage devices), when appropriate, and record copies of records taken from the facility. An EPA inspector may request records before, during, or after an inspection.
  • Sampling -- EPA inspectors may take samples when appropriate. Where applicable and practicable, during the opening conference, the inspector shall offer facility personnel the opportunity to obtain split samples or to collect duplicate samples.
  • Closing Conference -- EPA inspectors shall offer a closing conference with available facility employees, as practicable, to discuss any outstanding questions or missing documents and the process for follow up. EPA inspectors may also discuss next steps and how the facility will be contacted on the results of the inspection and identify the appropriate point of contact for further communication and coordination. EPA inspectors may also summarize any potential “areas of concern” identified in the inspection.
  • Inspection Reports -- After an inspection, EPA shall share an inspection report with the facility. The content and format of the report may vary depending on the facility, type of the inspection, and the statutory authority upon which the inspection is based.

Commentary

EPA states this rule was issued to fulfill the objectives outlined in Executive Order 13892 (Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication).  In addition to this rule, companies can find more detailed information in EPA’s FIFRA Inspection Manual, most recently updated in August 2019, and available here.


 

By Heather F. Collins, M.S. and Barbara A. Christianson

On February 12, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of 11 products that have been approved for use to disinfect surfaces against the emerging multidrug-resistant fungus Candida auris (C. auris).  C. auris can cause severe infections and spreads easily among hospitalized patients and nursing home residents.  The 11 products are approved for use against C. auris to disinfect surfaces in hospitals, nursing homes, and other healthcare facilities, to help reduce patient infections.  There were no antimicrobial pesticide products registered specifically for use against C. auris prior these new use registrations.

EPA worked in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal partners to ensure that the products would be effective against C. auris.  Previously, on October 16, 2019, EPA had granted public health exemptions under the provisions of section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, to the CDC, for uses of antimicrobial products, on hard, nonporous surfaces in healthcare settings for disinfection from C. auris.

The 11 products that are now registered for use against C. auris are:

  •  Avert Sporicidal Disinfectant Cleaner (EPA Reg. No. 70627-72);
  •  Blondie (EPA Reg. No. 67619-24);
  •  Dagwood (EPA Reg. No. 67619-25);
  •  Micro-Kill Bleach Germicidal Bleach Wipes (EPA Reg. No. 37549-1);
  •  Oxivir 1 (EPA Reg. No. 70627-74);
  •  Oxivir 1 Wipes (EPA Reg. No. 70627-77);
  •  Oxivir Wipes (EPA Reg. No. 70627-60);
  •  Oxycide™ Daily Disinfectant Cleaner (EPA Reg. No. 1677-237);
  •  Virasept (EPA Reg. No. 1677-226);
  • Wonder Woman Formula B Germicidal Wipes (EPA Reg. No. 9480-12); and
  •  Wonder Woman Formula B Spray (EPA Reg. No. 9480-10).

Because there are few products with C. auris claims at this time, CDC and EPA have identified additional products that are effective against C. auris. Although these products do not yet have formal EPA-registered claims for C. auris, testing at CDC has confirmed they are effective against C. auris.  The label on the product will not include instructions for C. auris.  CDC guidance states to “follow the instructions provided for C. albicans, if included, or else follow those for fungicidal activity.” These products include:

  •  Oxivir TB Spray (EPA Reg. No. 70627-56); and
  •  PDI Super Sani-Cloth (EPA Reg. No. 9480-4).

The CDC Guidance further states that, if none of the above-listed products are available, or any of the EPA-registered products that are newly approved for the specific claims against C. auris, CDC recommends use of an EPA-registered hospital-grade disinfectant effective against Clostridioides difficile spores, because CDC believes these products have been used effectively against C. auris (List K).

 Additional information on C. auris is available on EPA’s website and CDC’s website.


 

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

On February 6, 2020, Corteva Agriscience (Corteva), announced it will discontinue all production of the organophosphate (OP) insecticide chlorpyrifos by the end of the year.  Corteva and its corporate predecessor, Dow AgroSciences, have been the principal global manufacturers of chlorpyrifos.  Corteva announced that its decision to stop selling chlorpyrifos was based entirely on financial considerations.  This announcement came on the same day that Corteva had previously agreed it would end further sales of chlorpyrifos in California, and less than a week after the date the European Union (EU) ended all sales of chlorpyrifos in member states.  These actions followed a number of prior actions taken by other national and state governments to ban or severely restrict chlorpyrifos.  Corteva emphasized in its public statements that the science demonstrates that chlorpyrifos can be safely used, but that the company made a business decision based on the declining markets for the product.  In an interview reported by the Washington Post, Susanne Wasson, Corteva's President for Crop Protection said, “It’s a tough decision for us to make, but we don’t feel like it’s viable going forward.” In other statements, Corteva noted that in the last ten years their share of the global chlorpyrifos market had declined from 75% to less than 20%.

Chlorpyrifos has been registered for use in the U.S. for over 50 years, but has become increasingly controversial in the dozen years since the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a petition in 2007 to cancel all registrations and revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos.  Following a protracted court battle and a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take final administrative action concerning the 2007 petition, EPA proposed near the end of the Obama Administration to revoke all existing tolerances for chlorpyrifos.  A significant basis for this proposal was a controversial decision by a panel of EPA scientists that the default tenfold safety factor established by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) for infants and children, which EPA had previously waived based on studies establishing a threshold for acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition, should be reinstated.

The new EPA safety factor determination was based in large measure on epidemiology studies that reported an association between exposure to chlorpyrifos at levels below the presumed threshold for AChE inhibition and adverse neurodevelopmental effects in children.  Many industry scientists disputed the scientific basis for this EPA determination because confounding exposures and methodological biases in the epidemiology studies may have influenced the reported association with neurodevelopmental effects and because the EPA determination made unprecedented use of epidemiology data.  Beyond the effect on chlorpyrifos, the EPA decision will likely continue to be controversial because EPA included a similar safety factor determination for all OP pesticides, even though the mechanism responsible for the reported neurodevelopmental effects attributed to chlorpyrifos has not been identified and the other OP products were not studied in the epidemiology studies.

In the first year of the Trump Administration, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided not to adopt EPA’s previously proposed tolerance revocation and instead to deny formally the 2007 petition, citing unresolved scientific issues.  This reversal of course, however, was not accompanied by any new scientific assessment or by any explicit revision of the prior FQPA safety factor determination.  Later, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) decided to designate chlorpyrifos as a Toxic Air Contaminant, a decision that was noteworthy because it was based primarily on new toxicology studies that DPR stated reported neurodevelopmental effects well below the threshold for AChE inhibition.  DPR deemphasized the epidemiology data relied on in the EPA safety factor determination in its decision.  Although EPA later stated that it would address these new toxicology studies as part of an accelerated registration review process, there were intervening decisions by the EU and by California to ban new sales, which may have contributed to Corteva’s February 6, 2020, decision to cease chlorpyrifos production.

Commentary

The decision by Corteva to cease manufacturing chlorpyrifos reminds us that the decision to continue marketing any chemical substance cannot be based solely on the scientific data, but must also consider the regulatory climate and the economic viability of the product.  For those of us with a long memory, the decision by Corteva is reminiscent of the decision nearly 40 years ago by the Dow Chemical Company to pull the plug on 2,4,5-T and silvex, after Dow had expended millions of dollars and many years of effort to contest an emergency suspension and subsequent cancellation of these herbicides.  Dow made this decision even though it believed that the available data demonstrated the safety of those products.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on February 12, 2020, that it is seeking public input on a proposal to incorporate a new nanosilver pesticide product into textiles to combat odors, discoloration, and other signs of wear.  The proposed registration decision is for NSPW Nanosilver, and the proposed pesticide product, Polyguard-NSPW Master Batch (Polyguard), will be incorporated into textiles to suppress bacteria, algae, fungus, mold, and mildew, which cause odors, discoloration, stains, and deterioration.  According to EPA, based on its human health and ecological risk assessment, it has preliminarily determined that the new active ingredient in Polyguard meets the regulatory standard under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use as a materials preservative in textiles.  EPA invites public comment on its proposal and preliminary findings.  Comments are due March 13, 2020.  More information is available in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0043

EPA notes that NSPW Nanosilver was the active ingredient in a previous conditional registration that it granted in 2015, for use as a materials preservative in textiles and plastics.  As reported in our May 31, 2017, memorandum, that decision was challenged, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “vacated it on grounds that EPA’s public interest finding for granting the registration was without support in the record.”  EPA states that the currently proposed product “is solely for use in specified textiles; therefore, Polyguard will have a more limited use authorization than the previously vacated conditional registration.”  EPA notes that Polyguard will be formulated as a master batch, meaning that NSPW Nanosilver would be embedded within plastic beads or pellets, in contrast to the previous product registration, which was in the form of a liquid suspension.


 

By Kelly N. Garson and Carla N. Hutton

On January 27, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a notification for Project Number OA&E-FY20-0095, announcing that it will begin fieldwork to audit EPA’s adherence to pesticide registration risk assessment regulations, policies, and procedures.  In a memorandum addressed to EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), OIG stated that its objective is to evaluate EPA’s ability to address human health and environmental risks prior to pesticide product registration.  OIG will conduct the audit from EPA headquarters.  According to the memorandum, the anticipated benefits of this audit include determining whether EPA has adequate controls to address human health and environmental risks prior to pesticide product registration.

OIG is an independent office created by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.  Though located within EPA, Congress funds OIG separately to ensure independence as it conducts activities such as audits and investigations to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of EPA’s operations and programs.  Following the audit, OIG will prepare a report that may include recommendations for corrective actions OCSPP should take based upon OIG’s findings.  More information on OIG’s previous reports and audit system is available on OIG’s website.  Recent OIG reports regarding the implementation of FIFRA include:


 

By Timothy D. Backstrom

On February 3, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of an interim registration review decision for glyphosate.  EPA previously issued a proposed interim registration review decision (PID) for glyphosate for comment in April 2019.  At the time EPA issued the glyphosate PID for comment, EPA also issued a draft human health risk assessment and a preliminary ecological risk assessment for glyphosate.  After reviewing the comments received concerning these assessments, EPA has not made any revisions to either assessment.  EPA has determined that there are no dietary, residential, bystander, or occupational human health risks of concern associated with glyphosate use.   EPA has also determined that there are some potential risks to plants, birds, mammals, and invertebrates from glyphosate use, but that these can be appropriately mitigated by label changes requiring enforceable spray drift management measures and adding a warning concerning the potential hazards to non-target organisms.  EPA also has proposed some new measures to manage the development and spread of herbicide-resistant weeds.  EPA has generally retained the proposed labeling changes identified in the PID, except for some modest adjustments to the proposed language concerning droplet size restrictions and swath displacement restrictions for aerial applications, and removal of spray drift advisory language for airblast application.

Despite considerable publicity recently concerning purported carcinogenic risks for glyphosate, including allegations that human exposure to glyphosate can be linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, EPA has determined that glyphosate is not likely to be a human carcinogen and has steadfastly adhered to this basic conclusion.  EPA made this determination for glyphosate after convening a meeting of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate in 2016.

The general purposes of the PID process are to allow EPA to move forward with aspects of the registration review process that are essentially complete, and to adopt interim risk mitigation measures, even though some of the actions required prior to a final registration review decision are not yet complete.  As in the case of most recent PIDs, EPA states that it has not yet made a complete determination concerning potential effects or any required consultation for glyphosate under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), nor has it made a determination for glyphosate under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).  In addition, EPA is considering a pending petition to prohibit preharvest use of glyphosate on oats, and to reduce the tolerance for glyphosate in oats, that was filed in 2018 by the Environmental Working Group and others.  This petition is predicated on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate.  Finally, EPA is still evaluating the question of whether additional data will be needed to evaluate properly the potential effects of glyphosate use on pollinators.  

More information on glyphosate and EPA’s interim registration review decision is available here.

Commentary

EPA's interim registration review decision for glyphosate is predicated on EPA's prior determination that the best available scientific data do not substantiate the claims that glyphosate may be a human carcinogen.  As discussed above, the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate was thoroughly evaluated by the FIFRA SAP in 2016.  EPA's determination after that review that glyphosate is not a carcinogen has also been supported by other pesticide regulatory authorities.  Nonetheless, EPA's view conflicts with a cancer classification decision for glyphosate by the World Health Organization (WHO), and with some recent tort case decisions that were based on the premise that there is a credible linkage between glyphosate exposure and human cancer.  EPA recently announced that it would not permit or approve any cancer warning statements for inclusion in glyphosate labeling (including any statements that may be required pursuant to California's Prop 65) because EPA believes that such statements are false or misleading and would therefore cause the pesticides to be "misbranded."

It appears probable there will be continued litigation based on the purported carcinogenicity of glyphosate, along with various proposals to ban or restrict glyphosate use.  The pending petition to restrict use of glyphosate on oats that was filed by EWG, et al., is expressly predicated on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, so it appears probable that this petition will ultimately be denied by EPA.  Nonetheless, unless WHO decides to reverse or modify its classification determination, or the courts determine that the recent tort awards for glyphosate users cannot be scientifically substantiated, the battles over the claimed carcinogenicity of glyphosate may persist for years.

More information on glyphosate issues is available on our blog under keyword glyphosate.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi, and Barbara A. Christianson

On January 29, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has activated its Emerging Viral Pathogen Guidance for Antimicrobial Pesticides (Guidance) in response to the discovery of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).  According to the World Health Organization (WHO), coronaviruses cause numerous illnesses, from the common cold to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).  First identified in Wuhan, China, the 2019-nCoV coronavirus is a new strain that had not been previously seen in humans.

EPA developed its Guidance in 2016 to address emerging pathogens.  Under this Guidance, EPA provides pesticide registrants with a voluntary “two-stage process to enable use of certain EPA-registered disinfectant products against emerging viral pathogens not identified on the product label.”  These pathogens may not be identified on a label because the occurrence of emerging viral pathogens is less common and predictable than established pathogens and because the pathogens are often unavailable commercially and standard methods for laboratory testing may not exist.  EPA’s intent is for the Guidance to “expedite the process for registrants to provide useful information to the public” regarding products that may be effective against emerging viral pathogens associated with certain human or animal disease outbreaks.  Registrants with a pre-qualified emerging viral pathogen designation can include an efficacy statement in technical literature distributed to health care facilities, physicians, nurses, public health officials, non-label-related websites, consumer information services, and social media sites.  Additional information on the Guidance is available here and here.

EPA will likely work closely with registrants as they take steps to use these procedures to make claims related to coronavirus.  EPA notes that coronaviruses are enveloped viruses, meaning they are one of the easiest to kill with the appropriate disinfectant product, and thus using such products could help to limit the spread of these viruses.  Registrants that do not meet the criteria set forth in this Guidance yet make claims related to the coronavirus could face enforcement action for selling or distributing misbranded pesticides.  EPA states that it is working closely with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to identify and address 2019-nCoV in a timely manner and will continue to monitor developments closely.

Information on the coronavirus is available on CDC’s website.


 

By Heather F. Collins, M.S.

The March 1, 2020, deadline for all establishments, foreign and domestic, that produce pesticides, devices, or active ingredients to file their annual production for the 2019 reporting year is fast approaching.  Pursuant to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 7 (7 U.S.C. § 136e), “any producer operating an establishment registered [under Section 7] shall inform the Administrator within 30 days after it is registered of the types and amounts of pesticides and, if applicable, active ingredients used in producing pesticides” and this information “shall be kept current and submitted to the Administrator annually as required.” 

Reports must be submitted on or before March 1 annually for the prior year’s production.  The report, filed through the submittal of EPA Form 3540-16:  Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing and Device-Producing Establishments, must include the name and address of the producing establishment; and pesticide production information such as product registration number, product name, and amounts produced and distributed.  The annual report is always required, even when no products are produced or distributed.

EPA has created the electronic reporting system to submit pesticide producing establishment reports using the Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS).  Users will be able to use SSTS within EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) to submit annual pesticide production reports.  Electronic reporting is efficient, it saves time by making the process faster, and saves money in mailing costs and/or courier delivery and related logistics.

Link to EPA Form 3540-16, as well as instructions on how to report, and how to add and use EPA’s SSTS electronic filing system are available below.

Further information is available on EPA’s website.


 
‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›