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 and Timothy D. Backstrom

On August 23, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Federal Register notice announcing the receipt of 10 applications to amend currently registered pesticide products to add hemp as a new use site.  The 10 application amendments are the result of the 2018 Farm Bill, signed in to law on December 20, 2018, that removed hemp from the Controlled Substances Act and legalized commercial use and production of hemp that contains less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

EPA states in the notice that Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 3(c)(4) does not require EPA to provide notice and opportunity to comment concerning these 10 applications because hemp falls within the terrestrial outdoor and residential outdoor use pattern previously approved for the pesticidal active ingredients in question, and approval of the applications would therefore not involve "a changed use pattern."  Instead, EPA states that it has decided to provide an opportunity to comment in this instance "because of the potential significant  interest from the public" and to be "completely transparent about these applications." EPA also states that it does not intend to provide notice or opportunity to comment for similar applications to add hemp that are likely to be submitted in the future.

EPA also states that the products with requested label amendments contain active ingredients for which EPA "has previously determined the residues will be safe under any reasonably foreseeable circumstances." Each active ingredient has an established tolerance exemption for residues on all raw agricultural or food commodities.

The 10 products for which EPA has received an application to add hemp are:

  1. Debug Turbo, EPA Registration No. 70310-5, active ingredients: azadirachtin and neem oil;
  2. Debug Optimo, EPA Registration No. 70310-7, active ingredients: azadirachtin and neem oil;
  3. Debug Trés, EPA Registration No. 70310-8, active ingredients: azadirachtin and neem oil;
  4. Debug-ON, EPA Registration No. 70310-11, active ingredient: neem oil;
  5. REGALIA Bioprotectant Concentrate, EPA Registration No. 84059-3, active ingredient: extract of Reynoutria sachalinensis;
  6. MBI-110 EP, EPA Registration No. 84059-28, active ingredient: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain F727;
  7. GH CMT, EPA Registration No. 91865-1, active ingredients: soybean oil, garlic, oil, and capsicum oleoresin extract;
  8. GH MPMT, EPA Registration No. 91865-2, active ingredient: potassium salts of fatty acids;
  9. GH DNMT, EPA Registration No. 91865-3, active ingredient: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747; and
  10. GH NAMT, EPA Registration No. 91865-4, active ingredient: azadirachtin.

Once public comments are received, EPA anticipates making its decision on adding hemp as a new use site on the specific products before the end of 2019, so that these products may be available for the 2020 growing season.

Commentary

Although the Federal government has legalized commercial production and use of hemp (as opposed to marijuana that contains higher levels of THC), not every State has changed its laws to conform to the new classification.  EPA took the unusual step of announcing receipt of the new amendment applications at Hemp Production Field Day at the University of Kentucky.  Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has long been a proponent of commercial hemp production, and about 1,000 growers in Kentucky now have licenses to grow hemp for commercial use.

As hemp production increases, there will also be increased demand for pesticides to combat weeds, insects, and plant diseases that pose a potential threat to this crop.  Although hemp fiber and oil have many potential industrial uses, hemp also has potential medicinal uses because extracts containing cannabidiol (CBD) are now being widely marketed for their purported health benefits.  This use of hemp means that EPA will have to consider whether new tolerances may be required for some active ingredients before they can applied to hemp.  As EPA has noted, the active ingredients in the 10 products for which EPA announced that applications are pending to add labeling for hemp already have tolerance exemptions, and therefore do not present this issue.

Comments are due on or before September 23, 2019.  The public can submit comments at www.regulations.gov in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0369.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Timothy D. Backstrom

On August 14, 2019, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) issued cancellation notices to thirteen California registrants of pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos, including Dow Agrosciences LLC (now Corteva).  Each of these notices is referred to as an "Accusation," and each affected registrant has 15 days to request a hearing concerning the proposed cancellation.  DPR's issuance of these notices followed a final decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deny an administrative petition to revoke the tolerances and cancel the U.S. registrations for chlorpyrifos.  DPR states: "Despite the Trump administration's reversal of a decision to ban the pesticide at the federal level, California continues to move forward to protect public health, workers, and the environment."  Although it is unusual for a State to act unilaterally to cancel a State registration for a pesticide that is still registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), FIFRA Section 24(a) provides that States may separately regulate Federally registered pesticides so long as they do not purport to authorize any sale or use that is otherwise prohibited under FIFRA.

The risk assessment that supports DPR's proposal to cancel chlorpyrifos products is based on five animal studies published in 2016, 2017, and 2018, that report neurotoxicity from chlorpyrifos at exposure levels that are considerably lower than the levels that cause acetylcholinesterase inhibition.  Based on its evaluation these studies, DPR has concluded that developmental neurotoxicity is the critical endpoint for chlorpyrifos and has derived a point of departure for chlorpyrifos risk assessment.  Based on this assessment, DPR previously concluded that chlorpyrifos should be designated as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC).  DPR presented its TAC findings to California's Scientific Review Panel at a meeting on July 30, 2018, and the Panel subsequently concluded that the DPR assessment of the developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos was "based on sound scientific knowledge, and represents a balanced assessment of our current scientific understanding."

On the same day DPR issued its cancellation notices for chlorpyrifos, DPR also announced it has established an Alternatives to Chlorpyrifos Work Group with experts from "agriculture, California universities, environmental justice groups, farmworker health and safety organizations, and pesticide manufacturers…"  DPR has asked this Work Group to develop short-term practical alternatives to chlorpyrifos, along with a five-year action plan.  The Work Group is supposed to conclude its work by the spring of 2020.  The budget for 2019-2020 approved by the California Legislature also includes $5 million in grant funding to develop sustainable alternatives to chlorpyrifos.

Commentary

The DPR decision to cancel chlorpyrifos relies primarily on new animal studies that report that chlorpyrifos causes neurodevelopmental effects at levels that are well below those that inhibit cholinesterase.  DPR refers in passing to the epidemiology studies for chlorpyrifos that EPA used to make its Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) determination for all organophosphate (OP) pesticides, but these data were not used by DPR to derive its point of departure for chlorpyrifos risk assessment.

EPA scientists have not yet prepared a formal evaluation of the new animal studies for chlorpyrifos, but EPA's decision to deny the petition to revoke tolerances and cancel registrations for chlorpyrifos states that EPA intends to evaluate the new animal studies as part of its registration review deliberations for chlorpyrifos.  The FIFRA registrations for chlorpyrifos may also be affected by pending judicial actions challenging EPA's decision to deny the petition to revoke the tolerances and cancel the registrations for chlorpyrifos.  In this complicated environment, it will be important to monitor the registrants’ and industry’s response to DPR's cancellation actions, as well as their efforts on the pending Federal court litigation and EPA's registration review process for chlorpyrifos.


 

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

On August 7, 2019, EPA took long awaited action concerning the inclusion of Prop 65 warning statements for glyphosate on EPA registered pesticide labels, which will likely impact the broader ongoing debate over EPA approval of Prop 65 warnings on pesticide labels.  EPA’s August 7, 2019, letter to glyphosate registrants states that EPA “will no longer approve labeling that includes the Proposition 65 warning statement for glyphosate-containing products.”  EPA stated further that “[t]he warning statement must also be removed from all product labels where the only basis for the warning is glyphosate and from any materials considered labeling under FIFRA for those products.”   Moreover, EPA unequivocally states that “pesticide products bearing the Proposition 65 warning statement due to the presence of glyphosate are misbranded” under FIFRA Section 2(q)(1)(A).  Registrants with glyphosate products currently bearing Prop 65 warning language, where the exclusive basis for such warning is based on the presence of glyphosate, must submit draft amended labeling that removes this language by November 5, 2019.

By way of background, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) listed glyphosate as a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer on July 7, 2017.  OEHHA’s listing of glyphosate as a substance under Prop 65 is based on the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC) classifying it as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”  EPA scientists subsequently completed an independent review of the available scientific data on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate and do not agree with the IARC classification. Additional information regarding glyphosate is available at B&C’s blog.

Also of note is a February 26, 2018, preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of California, in response to a motion filed by a coalition including Monsanto, CropLife America, and several growers associations alleging that the IARC classification decision for glyphosate is contrary to the international scientific consensus, that the required Prop 65 warning would be misleading to the ordinary consumer, that compelling the manufacturers of glyphosate to provide such a warning would violate the First Amendment because the warning is not factual and uncontroversial, and that the applicable criteria for injunctive relief were met.  The February 26, injunction precluded OEHHA from enforcing its Prop 65 warning requirements against glyphosate registrants that otherwise would have taken effect on July 7, 2018.  The Court did not rule that glyphosate should be removed from the Prop 65 list as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, but did state that products containing glyphosate would not be required to comply with the warning requirements.  In issuing the preliminary injunction, the Court stated that the required warnings are “false and misleading” and that plaintiffs “have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim, are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction, the court will grant plaintiffs’ request to enjoin [Prop 65]’s warning requirement for glyphosate.”  More information on that case is available at B&C’s blog.  That injunction has not been appealed and remains in place.

Although the glyphosate warning that EPA has refused to allow is based on OEHHA’s recent listing under Prop 65, Prop 65 warnings on pesticide labels generally have been a significant issue since 2016 when OEHHA issued revised regulations regarding the content and transmission of Prop 65 warnings.  As a result of these revisions, many registrants sought to add Prop 65 warning requirements to pesticide labels to meet Prop 65 requirements, but many registrants have not been able to obtain EPA approval for such warnings, resulting in much controversy and discussion.  More information regarding the changes to Prop 65 warning requirements also are available at B&C’s blog.

In its press release announcing its guidance to glyphosate registrants, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler states: “It is irresponsible to require labels on products that are inaccurate when EPA knows the product does not pose a cancer risk. We will not allow California’s flawed program to dictate federal policy.”  EPA states that its “independent evaluation of available scientific data included a more extensive and relevant dataset than IARC considered during its evaluation of glyphosate, from which the agency concluded that glyphosate is ‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’”  Wheeler is further quoted as stating: “It is critical that federal regulatory agencies like EPA relay to consumers accurate, scientific based information about risks that pesticides may pose to them. EPA’s notification to glyphosate registrants is an important step to ensuring the information shared with the public on a federal pesticide label is correct and not misleading.”

OEHHA immediately released its own press release on August 13, 2019, in which it “objects to US EPA’s characterization of any warning concerning glyphosate’s carcinogenicity as a false claim.’”  After reiterating OEHHA’s listing glyphosate based on the IARC determination, OEHHA states that EPA’s position “conflicts with the determination made by IARC” and that “it is disrespectful of the scientific process for US EPA to categorically dismiss any warnings based on IARC’s determinations as false.”

Commentary

The Court’s February 26, 2018, preliminary injunction was considered a significant development both for glyphosate specifically and perhaps for Prop 65 warning requirements generally, especially considering the recent influx to EPA of label amendments seeking EPA approval of revised Prop 65 warning language to address OEHHA’s revised regulatory changes.  EPA’s guidance is equally significant, as EPA has now rejected the inclusion of a Prop 65 warning that EPA believes is misleading on a federal pesticide product label.

FIFRA Section 24(b) expressly prohibits any State from requiring any label language for a registered pesticide product beyond the labeling approved by EPA, and EPA has now declined to approve pesticide labeling that includes the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate. In some instances, EPA has been willing as a courtesy to approve labeling changes requested by a State, but the glyphosate determination demonstrates that EPA will not accept any label revisions that conflict materially with its own determinations.  Although glyphosate is a fairly complex and controversial case, it will be important for registrants to monitor the evolution of EPA’s standard for when it will or will not approve a Prop 65 warning on a federal label, since this issue has been the subject of considerable controversy over the past several years.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell, Sheryl Lindros Dolan, and Margaret R. Graham, M.S.

On March 25, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted Draft Guidance for Plant Regulator Label Claims, Including Plant Biostimulants in Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0258.  EPA issued the notice of availability in the Federal Register on March 27, 2019.  84 Fed. Reg. 11538.  Comments on the draft guidance are due by May 28, 2019

EPA states that the draft guidance is intended to “provide guidance on identifying product label claims that are considered to be plant regulator claims” by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and thereby distinguish claims that would not subject plant biostimulants (PBS) to regulation under FIFRA as plant regulators.  While EPA has not yet promulgated a regulatory definition for a PBS, the draft guidance describes a PBS as “a naturally-occurring substance or microbe that is used either by itself or in combination with other naturally-occurring substances or microbes for the purpose of stimulating natural processes in plants or in the soil in order to, among other things, improve nutrient and/or water use efficiency by plants, help plants tolerate abiotic stress, or improve the physical, chemical, and/or biological characteristics of the soil as a medium for plant growth.”  EPA is seeking comment on the draft guidance itself, as well as on whether it should develop a definition for PBSs.  EPA states that there is currently no statutory definition for PBSs under FIFRA and that development of a definition for PBSs would require rulemaking.  The guidance also notes that the 2018 Farm Bill, enacted on December 20, 2018, does provide a statutory definition for PBSs, which is:  “a substance or micro-organism that, when applied to seeds, plants, or the rhizosphere, stimulates natural processes to enhance or benefit nutrient uptake, nutrient efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, or crop quality and yield.” 

In developing the draft guidance, EPA states that it “considered whether a PBS product, as understood by EPA, physiologically influences the growth and development of plants in such a way as to be considered plant regulators under FIFRA thereby triggering regulation as a pesticide” and that “a key consideration is what claims are being made on product labels.”  Further, as FIFRA Section 2(v) both defines plant regulator and explains which substances are excluded from the definition, “many PBS products and substances may be excluded or exempt from regulation under FIFRA depending upon their intended uses as plant nutrients (e.g., fertilizers), plant inoculants, soil amendments, and vitamin-hormone products.”

The draft guidance provides several examples of both product label claims that are considered plant regulator claims and claims that that are not considered plant regulator claims.  The examples are described in the Tables below.

  • “Product label claims generally considered ‘non-pesticidal’ (i.e. non-plant regulator claims),” including:  “plant nutrition-based claims” (Table 1a); “plant inoculant-based claims” (Table 1b); and “soil amendment-based claims” (Table 1c):

  • “Generic product label claims for products not covered by the exclusions in the FIFRA Section 2(v) definition of a plant regulator,” including “examples of generic product label claims generally considered by the Agency to be ‘non-pesticidal’” (Table 2):

  • “Plant regulator product label claims that are consistent with the FIFRA Section 2(v) plant regulator definition” including “examples of label claims that are considered … to be plant growth regulator claims that trigger regulation under FIFRA as a pesticide” (Table 3):

  • “EPA-registered, naturally-occurring, plant regulator active ingredients having modes of action and associated product label claims that are consistent with the FIFRA definition of a plant regulator” (Table 4):


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

On December 28, 2018, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) issued Notice 2018-26 changing its Notice of Decision (NOD) and public report documentation for proposed registration decisions to ensure continued compliance with its certified regulatory program obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  The new changes to the NODs and public report documentation will be effective May 1, 2019.

These changes are as a result of a 2014 lawsuit brought by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), et al. challenging DPR’s acceptance of label amendments for two previously registered dinotefuran pesticide products.  The First District Court of Appeal held that DPR’s NODs and public reports supporting the dinoteferan registration actions were deficient because DPR could not demonstrate that it properly considered certain factors specified in CEQA.  In essence, the court concluded that certain CEQA requirements that DPR construed as procedural in nature were actually substantive standards that DPR must meet and adequately document in its administrative record.  Specifically, the court found that DPR failed to include a checklist or other documentation with meaningful analysis explaining how DPR reached its conclusion that the approval of the proposed label changes would not cause a significant adverse impact to human health, flora, fauna, water, and air.”  The court also found DPR’s discussion of alternatives and cumulative impacts inadequate.  Information about that case is available in our blog item California Court of Appeal Reverses Trial Court Decision Denying PANNA’s Petition Challenging Approval by DPR of Pesticides Containing Dinotefuran.

Background

CEQA is intended to ensure projects permitted by public agencies consider the long-term protection of the environment.  DPR states that CEQA “requires state and local agencies to develop an environmental impact report (EIR) for any proposed or approved project that may have a significant effect on the environment (including human health) or a negative declaration if there is substantial evidence of no significant impacts.”  EIRs provide public agencies and the public “with detailed information about a proposed project’s significant effects on the environment, describe ways these effects can be minimized, and indicate alternatives to the proposed project.”  CEQA and its implementing regulations set forth in Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 Cal. Code Regs.) Sections 6254 and 6255, also require DPR to issue a weekly Notice of Proposed Decisions to Register Pesticide Products and Public Report, listing each proposed decision to register and amend pesticide products for a 30-day public comment period.  

Changes to the NOD and Public Report Documentation

To address concerns raised by the court and to protect its certified program status, on January 3, 2018, DPR issued California Notice 2018-01 (“Expanding Use of Pesticide Products Under Reevaluation”), providing that, effectively immediately, DPR “will not act upon an Application for Pesticide Registration or Application to Amend Pesticide Product if DPR determines the registration or acceptance would potentially ‘expand use’ … of an active ingredient or pesticide product currently under reevaluation until the conclusion of the reevaluation.”

With Notice 2018-26, DPR will change the documentation associated with its environmental analysis in the NODs and public reports.  According to Notice 2018-26, the revised NODs and public reports will address the following areas for each pesticide product noticed for registration:

  • Discussion of DPR’s certified program under CEQA;
  • Relevant DPR regulations for the proposed decision and public report;
  • Detailed description of the project;
  • Overview of the registration program, scientific evaluation process, and continuous evaluation;
  • Environmental and human health factors examined (i.e., checklist containing the following CEQA areas: human health, flora, fauna, water, and air);
  • Discussion of feasible alternatives and mitigation;
  • Discussion of existing environmental conditions and cumulative impacts; and
  • Conclusion explaining DPR’s analysis of potential significant adverse impacts to human health, flora, fauna, water, and air.

In addition, each public report will include the proposed label.  For label amendments, DPR will include both the proposed label and currently accepted label.

In summary, effective May 1, 2019, DPR “will no longer post new products and label amendments exiting the formal evaluation process as proposed to register for the 30-day public comment period until DPR completes a public report explaining why the new product or label amendment is not reasonably expected to cause a significant adverse impact to human health, flora, fauna, water, and air.”  New products and label amendments that exit the formal evaluation process prior to May 1, 2019, will be posted for the 30-day public comment period using the current NOD documentation.

The impact of these changes could be substantial from a timing and DPR workload perspective and, thus, of significant concern to registrants.  DPR has stated it is reviewing its internal processes and procedures and hiring additional staff to accommodate changes in workload as a result of the NOD and public report documentation changes.  This is based, in part, on the fact that if current evaluation reports are not available for each CEQA checklist area (i.e., human health, flora, fauna, water, and air), DPR staff may need to review prior evaluation reports, documentation in product files, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessments, and other available information to develop the public report.  Moreover, DPR states that if it does not have adequate information to address each CEQA checklist area, the product may need to reenter DPR’s formal evaluation process.  All of these factors could significantly extend the amount of time DPR takes to review a new product or amendment, as it must now develop these public reports prior to proposing registration decisions with a 30-day public comment period, and that time could be even longer in cases where DPR determines it requires additional evaluation of the product and/or data necessary to complete such public reports.


 

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

On May 2, 2018, during the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) meeting, EPA announced the progress of its electronic pesticide label data submission project, SmartLabel, and its electronic Confidential Statement of Formula (eCSF) submission project.  The SmartLabel and eCSF will be submitted through EPA’s Pesticide Submission Portal (PSP) on the Central Data Exchange (CDX).

EPA is developing the SmartLabel program to improve efficiencies in the submission, review, and approval of pesticide label information.  EPA believes creation of electronic master labels as structured data will improve the accuracy and clarity of pesticide label information and will allow it to be revised easily and efficiently. 

EPA indicated that the SmartLabel program will use CDX for the creation of labels in XML format.  Once uploaded through CDX’s PSP, the label will undergo an internal validation and move through an internal workflow.  EPA anticipates this will aid in faster approvals of labels.

The eCSF is an electronic version of EPA’s current paper CSF (EPA Form 8570-4).  This eCSF submission option will allow applicants to electronically submit product specification data and will:

  • Pre-populate information such as product properties and manufacturing/formulating site addresses from the PSP log in;
  • Link the eCSF to previous electronically submitted product information; and
  • Link chemical names to EPA information sources.

The electronic form is anticipated to result in significant time savings for the applicant and the EPA reviewer.  EPA stated that most submitted CSF actions are modifications to current formulations and not all fields will need to be re-entered when submitting a modification using eCSF.  Additional benefits that EPA believes will result are a reduction in time and effort needed for error corrections, electronic data validation, and less reliance on paper-based processes.

The SmartLabel and eCSF teams are continuing to work with Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Divisions to harmonize OPP-wide vocabularies and data validation rules.  The SmartLabel team and eCSF team are also working to harmonize overlapping vocabulary.  Nine registrants are conducting testing on software development and most likely will participate in additional testing of the software.   

EPA anticipates that the SmartLabel and eCSF programs will move EPA from a paper-based workplace to a paperless workplace.  The SmartLabel and eCSF builders are anticipated to be released for voluntary submissions in Summer 2018, and EPA encourages registrants to submit labels and CSFs using the new builders.

EPA stated that any questions or comments on SmartLabel should be sent to Patricia Parrott at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and questions or comments on eCSF should be sent to Diane Isbell at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or Jimmy Davis at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).  Registrants should monitor these initiatives closely, as they may result in significant changes to their own internal processes relating to registration submissions and recordkeeping. 


 

By Heather F. Collins, M.S.

On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has updated Chapters 3, 7, and 17 of the Pesticide Label Review Manual.  The three updated Label Review Manual chapters are:

  • Chapter 3:  General Labeling Requirements;
  • Chapter 7:  Precautionary Statements; and
  • Chapter 17:  Net Contents/Net Weight.

General Labeling Requirements (Chapter 3) changes include:

  • Updating web-distributed labeling by adding an example of container label directions;
  • Updating label submission requirements section to include e-submission methods depending on the type of application package (e.g., paper or electronic);
  • Adding a note that five copies of all draft labeling must be included in paper copy submissions for new registrations and amendments;
  • Updating the final printed labeling section to reflect current practices such as the practice of not requiring final printed labeling to be submitted to EPA until draft label texts have been provisionally accepted by the EPA;
  • Updating the Mode of Action (MOA) classification symbol reference from Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2001-5 to the current PR Notice 2017-1; and
  • Updating the first aid statement location per EPA’s February 27, 2018, guidance document “EPA’s Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Location of the First Aid Statement per 40 CFR 156.68.”

Precautionary Statements (Chapter 7) changes include:

  • Adding dermal sensitization to the acute toxicity categories in Table 1;
  • Reinstating first aid statements per PR Notice 2001-1, and updating location of first aid statements per the Feb. 27, 2018, First Aid Guidance Document “EPA’s Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Location of the First Aid Statement per 40 CFR 156.68”;
  • Adding “Contains the phosphine-producing active ingredient zinc phosphide. Probable mucosal damage may contraindicate the use of gastric lavage” as a Note to Physician for products containing zinc phosphide;
  • Updating the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) information in the first aid statements example in Table 9;
  • Changing “Labeling Options” section title to “Modified precautionary statements for diluted products (aqueous solutions only)”;
  • Removing redundant section on NPIC and referenced Chapter 15 for details; and
  • Removing “Optional Labeling/Deviations” section, as the directions moved to their respective sections.

Net Contents/Net Weight (Chapter 17) changes include:

  • Updating the introduction section to include notes on declaring net contents information on the EPA Application for PR Dorm (EPA Form No. 8570-1) and leaving net contents information blank on draft label for refillable containers; and
  • Updating the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) published “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality,” otherwise known as “NIST Handbook 130,” reference for Bag on Valve unit measurements.

Each updated chapter includes a new section identifying the changes in the updated version.  EPA states that it “also made editorial changes to all chapters, including updated cover pages; adding a table of contents; adding chapter editorial notes; updating hyperlinks; and reformatting text, style and layout for conciseness and readability.”

EPA directs registrants to submit questions or comments on the Label Review Manual by using its Pesticide Labeling Questions & Answers – Form.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

On March 8, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its release of final guidance clarifying where first aid statements should appear on the label of pesticide products.  EPA also posted a response to public comments.  Links to the final guidance and to the response to public comments documents are below:

EPA states that it was prompted to develop this guidance when it learned “that there was a discrepancy in how the ‘location of first aid statement,’ per [40 C.F.R. Section 156.68(d)] is interpreted by EPA and those in the pesticide registrant community.”  EPA notes that its review and approval of pesticide labeling is generally of a “master” label and thus does not always include a review of the location or placement of specific language on a label.

On December 7, 2016, EPA posted a memorandum for public comment entitled “EPA’s Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Location of the First Aid Statement and Clarification on Definition of Label ‘Panel’ per 40 CFR 156.68” to clarify the interpretation of the term “panel” in the context of 40 C.F.R. 156.68 and to clarify where first aid statements must appear on pesticide labels, based on their Toxicity Category.

In its final guidance, EPA states it “will continue to require that Toxicity Category I products have the first aid statements on the front panel except in cases where a variation has been approved.”  Further, based on comments received and the wide reliance by the regulated community on the interpretation that “any panel” includes inside panels, EPA is changing its position from its 2016 memorandum and now “will not require Toxicity Category II and III products to bear the first aid statements on a visible front, back or side panel.” 

EPA also listed three recommendations for registrants to consider when printing their container labels:

  1. For Toxicity Category I products, EPA strongly recommends that registrants consider placing duplicative first aid language on the very back page of the booklet/accordion/saddle stitch label that is immediately “stuck” to the container in case the booklet/accordion/saddle stitch label is accidentally removed.
  2. Regardless of whether a registrant chooses to place the first aid statements for Toxicity Categories II and III products on a visible front, back, side or inside panel, EPA recommends that duplicative first aid language appear on the very back page of the booklet/accordion/saddle stitch label that is immediately attached to the container in case the booklet/accordion/saddle stitch label is accidentally removed. EPA states that this recommendation is not intended to suggest other information that registrants typically include on the very back page should be moved elsewhere.
  3. EPA recommends that the registrant community consider designing new booklets/accordion/saddle stitch labels that are not easily removed from the containers.  Per 40 C.F.R. Part 156.10(a)(4), the labels are to be “securely attached” to the immediate container of the pesticide product.  EPA believes that in many instances these labels are easily removed which is why, EPA states, it believes many registrants have already chosen to put the duplicative first aid statements on the very last page of the label that is attached to the container.

Registrants should review this guidance carefully, as this issue has been the subject of concern and controversy for a number of registrants.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Christopher R. Bryant, and Margaret R. Graham

On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule (pre-publication version available here) to add hazardous waste aerosol cans to the category of universal wastes regulated under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations (Title 40 of the C.F.R., Part 273), entitled Increasing Recycling: Adding Aerosol Cans to the Universal Waste Regulations.  EPA cites as authority for this change Sections 2002(a), 3001, 3002, 3004, and 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act (HSWA).  EPA states the streamlined Universal Waste regulations are expected to:

  • Ease regulatory burdens on retail stores and other establishments that discard aerosol cans by providing a clean, protective system for managing discarded aerosol cans;
  • Promote the collection and recycling of aerosol cans;
  • Encourage the development of municipal and commercial programs to reduce the quantity of these wastes going to municipal solid waste landfills or combustors; and
  • Result in an annual cost savings of $3.0 million to $63.3 million.

As aerosol cans are “widely used for dispensing a broad range of products” including pesticides, the proposed rule may have implications for chemical companies that create and distribute pesticide products marketed in aerosol cans.  Hazardous waste aerosol cans that contain pesticides are also subject to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirements, including compliance with the instructions on the product label.  Under 40 C.F.R. Section 156.78, a flammability label statement is required for pressurized pesticide product products that states “Do not puncture or incinerate container,” but EPA’s 2004 determination (that will be posted to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0463 on www.regulations.gov for this proposed rule) allows for the puncturing of cans.  The proposed rule states:

  • EPA issued a determination that puncturing aerosol pesticide containers is consistent with the purposes of FIFRA and is therefore lawful pursuant to FIFRA section 2(ee)(6) provided that the following conditions are met:  
    • The puncturing of the container is performed by a person who, as a general part of his or her profession, performs recycling and/or disposal activities;
    • The puncturing is conducted using a device specifically designed to safely puncture aerosol cans and effectively contain the residual contents and any emissions thereof; and
    • The puncturing, waste collection, and disposal, are conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local waste (solid and hazardous waste) and occupational safety and health laws and regulations.
  • EPA anticipates that this 2004 FIFRA determination would not be affected by the proposed addition of hazardous waste aerosol cans to the universal waste rules.

Comments will be due 60 days after the proposed rule’s publication in the Federal Register. 


 

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

On February 26, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of California issued a memorandum and order on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Order) to “enjoin the listing of glyphosate under Proposition 65 (Prop 65) and the application of its attendant warning requirement pending a final judgment in this case and set a schedule for expedited final resolution of the case.”  The Order (1) grants plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the warning requirement of California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6 as to glyphosate; and (2) denies the request for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from listing glyphosate as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer under California Health & Safety Code § 25249.8.  Specifically, the Order states: “pending final resolution of this action, defendants … are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing as against plaintiffs … California Health & Safety Code § 25249.6’s requirement that any person in the course of doing business provide a clear and reasonable warning before exposing any individual to glyphosate.”  Although this is only a preliminary injunction while the case continues further resolution, it is extremely significant that, for now, glyphosate will continue to be listed on California’s Prop 65 list as a “chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer,” but products containing glyphosate will not be required to comply with the warning requirement.

Plaintiffs’ memorandum supporting its motion for preliminary injunction states that Prop 65’s requirement for products containing glyphosate to include a warning that glyphosate is “known to the State of California to cause cancer” is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and, if allowed to go into effect, will cause Plaintiffs’ “reputational, competitive, and economic harms for which they cannot be compensated.”  Plaintiffs state that the “legal merit of their First Amendment claim is indisputable and obvious on the face of the attached documents without any need for discovery, and thus the claim is appropriate for expedited judicial resolution.”  California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the agency responsible for implementing Prop 65, listed glyphosate as a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer on July 7, 2017, and the attendant warning requirement would have taken effect on July 7, 2018.

In support of denying the request for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from listing glyphosate under Prop 65, the court states that plaintiffs “have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the listing of glyphosate violates the First Amendment, because the listing is government speech, not private speech … [and it] is only the upcoming July 2018 deadline for providing the [Prop 65] warning that compels private speech.”  The court noted further that Plaintiffs “have not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm should the court fail to enjoin the listing of glyphosate, because any harm that plaintiffs might suffer is caused by the warning requirements of [Prop 65], rather than the listing itself.”  Accordingly, the court denied a preliminary injunction based on plaintiffs’ claim that the glyphosate listing violates the First Amendment.

On the other hand, in support of granting the request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the application of the attendant warning requirement, the court stated:

  • On the evidence before the court, the required warning for glyphosate does not appear to be factually accurate and uncontroversial because it conveys the message that glyphosate’s carcinogenicity is an undisputed fact, when almost all other regulators have concluded that there is insufficient evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.

The court also stated that the required warnings are “false and misleading” and that plaintiffs “have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim, are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction, the court will grant plaintiffs’ request to enjoin [Prop 65]’s warning requirement for glyphosate.”

This case, while not the end of the story, is a very significant development both for glyphosate specifically and perhaps for Prop 65 warning requirements generally.  Industry should follow this case closely given the implications for glyphosate and potentially other Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)-regulated pesticides and chemicals generally.  Some in industry have long been concerned that Prop 65 warning requirements contradict conclusions supported by the data and reached by other agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  This decision is a huge preliminary win for those with these concerns and, depending on the ultimate outcome of the case, could provide a precedent for additional challenges related to other substances.  The potential reach of the case beyond glyphosate, however, will likely be dictated heavily by the facts of each case. 


 
 1 2 3 >