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 Carla N. Hutton

On June 14, 2019, Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) began a public consultation on Discussion Document DIS2019-01, “Consultation on Inspecting Confidential Test Data for Post-market Reviews in the Reading Room.”  Before a pesticide can be registered for use in Canada, PMRA states that it reviews the available scientific test data to determine whether there are concerns for human health or safety, or the environment, when the product is used according to the label.  Some of the data reviewed by the PMRA scientists include confidential test data on:

  • Toxicology related to human health;
  • Bystander and occupational exposure;
  • Food residue trials;
  • Environmental toxicology and fate;
  • Product efficacy, crop tolerance, and benefits of the product; and
  • Other scientific data or studies submitted to, or considered by the PMRA.

According to PMRA, the purpose of the consultation document is to seek input on a proposal to expand access to confidential test data by inviting interested members of the public to inspect these data at the proposed decision stage for post-market reviews such as re-evaluations and special reviews.  Currently, PMRA prepares confidential test data for public inspection only after it makes a final decision.  PMRA proposes to allow interested parties seeking to understand the scientific basis for a proposed re-evaluation or special review decision to inspect the data used by PMRA earlier in the process.  PMRA states that by viewing these data earlier, comments submitted through the existing consultation process may be more well-informed.

PMRA notes that the proposed change would still require the inspection of confidential test data to take place at its National Head Office in Ottawa, Ontario.  PMRA states that it is aware that this could be burdensome and is investigating alternative approaches for the future that may allow the inspection of data through other means, such as satellite reading rooms or secure portals.  Publication of the consultation document began a 60-day comment period.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

On May 30, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) issued an order in National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, No. 17-70810 (filed Mar. 21, 2017) regarding the scope of its review of a petition challenging a 2017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice of Pesticide Registration.  This 2017 order addresses Dow AgroSciences LLC’s Enlist Duo product.  The Petitioners include the National Family Farm Coalition and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The May 30, 2019, order addresses whether the court could review two prior EPA orders, one issued in 2014 and one in 2015, regarding the registration of Enlist Duo.  Those 2014 and 2015 EPA orders had also been challenged in court, and subsequently remanded to EPA to consider additional information.  Following EPA’s consideration of this additional information, EPA increased the allowed use sites for the Enlist Duo registration to include cotton and increased the number of states authorized to use Enlist Duo from 15 to 34 states.

The Ninth Circuit’s May 30, 2019, order finds that the 2017 order “reissues the original Enlist Duo registration and amendment addressed in the 2014 and 2015 orders, thus making the full registration of Enlist Duo for GE corn, soybean and cotton for use in 34 states subject to [its] review.”  The court based its decision on the language of EPA’s 2017 order and EPA’s Final Registration Decision.  The court found persuasive, for example, that EPA’s 2017 order states that it “supercedes” EPA’s 2014 order, which the court stated is “consistent with our determination that the 2014 order previously remanded to EPA has now been finalized.”  Since EPA identified its 2017 order as final and had characterized its 2014 and 2015 orders as having an incomplete record, the court stated that it will “review the 2017 order on the combined records of the 2014, 2015 and 2017 orders, all of which is incorporated into the 2017 order’s record.”

The court further noted that EPA’s “2017 order also purports to extend the 2014 registration’s (and that of the 2015 amendment) initial 2020 expiration date by two years.”  Since the court found that nothing “suggests that this term is specific to the new uses on GE cotton in 34 states or GE corn and soybean in the additional 19 states,” the court stated that the 2017 EPA order could not have been limited to adding only these post-2015 uses as EPA had asserted. 

Following this determination, the Ninth Circuit stated that “submission of this case is deferred” pending additional briefing to address “all challenges to the initial registration (2014 order) and the original amendment (2015 order), as that registration and amendment has been reissued in the 2017 order -- including challenges to all supporting documentation” and “what relief [it] should provide if Petitioners’ claims are successful, ‘in whole or in part.’”  The timing for such briefing is as follows:

  • Counsel for each Petitioner is directed to file a supplemental brief of 7,000 words or less within 60 days of the date of the order (by July 30, 2019);
  • Counsel for Respondent and Intervenor are directed to file a responsive brief of 7,000 words or less within 60 days from the date of filing of Petitioners’ briefs; and
  • Petitioners may each file reply briefs not to exceed 3,500 words within 30 days from the date of the filing of Respondent’s brief. 

 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

On May 29, 2019, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released California Notice 2019-05: Changes to California Notice 2018-06: California-like Conditions for Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies (Notice 2019-05), which updates the guidance in California Notice 2018-06: California-like Conditions for Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies (Notice 2018-06).  

Notice 2018-06, issued in January of 2018, provided to applicants for California registration of new agricultural use pesticides guidance specifically related to the requirement to submit at least one terrestrial field dissipation (TFD) study conducted under “California or similar environmental use conditions.”  DPR states it is revising this guidance based on comments from the Western Plant Health Association.  The updated guidance is summarized below.

Notice 2019-05 also extends the effective date to July 1, 2020; for applications submitted July 1, 2020, or later, DPR states it will consider a TFD study to have been conducted under “California or similar environmental use conditions” if the study was conducted within or outside of California in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study guidelines and under certain criteria, as provided below.

1. Timing:  April 1 shall be the earliest study start date and September 30 shall be the latest start date. This timing ensures a potential leaching environment with respect to the amount of percolating water produced relative to evapotranspiration (ET).

2. Soil:

  • The study is conducted in a coarse-texture soil in accordance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification (see Table 1).  The minimum depth-weighted average sand content for representative samples taken across the test site should be no less than 68 percent as measured within the top 30 cm of soil.  The allowable minimum soil sand content that is included in the average is 61 percent.
  • The soils used for the study do not have a restrictive layer to the movement of water as indicated within the soil profile, such as a hardpan, compacted layer, or an abrupt change in texture.
  • The maximum depth-weighted average organic matter content for representative samples taken across the test site should be no greater than 1.4 percent as measured within the top 30 cm of soil.  The allowable maximum organic matter content that is included in the average is 1.6 percent.
  • Studies shall be conducted on bare soil plots.  Exceptions are possible for studies conducted in the presence of a crop or turf with sufficient justification.

3. Water Inputs:

  • Water applications to the study site are sufficient to create levels of percolating water that reflect the potential amount lost from crop irrigations (i.e., 160 percent of ET).  Approximately 60 percent of applied water is available for movement below the coring depth, which would equate to water applications of approximately 160 percent of ET.  Therefore, a scheduled water input would approximate the cumulative daily ET since the previous water input multiplied by an excess demand factor of 1.6.  For bare soil plots, ET can represent reference ET or, if preferred, soil evaporation when calculated using a scientifically defensible methodology. These water inputs supersede those in EPA’s guidance document for TFD studies.
  • The initial water application to the study site occurs within one week of chemical application.  Subsequent water applications shall be at seven-day intervals or less for the duration of the study.
  • Water inputs from rain are subtracted from scheduled water input amounts.

DPR states that if a TFD study submitted to DPR to meet the statutory requirement of having been conducted under “California or similar environmental use conditions” does not meet one or more of the above criteria, the applicant may include in its submission a justification for any different criteria to avoid a determination that the study is unacceptable.

Table 1.  USDA textural classes1 of soils acceptable for TFD studies

1Based on USDA particle-size classification.


 

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 February 6, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) issued an order granting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s (collectively EPA or Respondents) September 24, 2018, petition for an en banc rehearing concerning the Ninth Circuit’s August 9, 2018, decision that vacated an EPA order maintaining chlorpyrifos registrations and remanded the case to EPA with directions to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos within 60 days. 

The Ninth Circuit’s order granting the Respondent’s petition that the case be re-heard en banc does not provide an explanation for its decision.  The Ninth Circuit evidently found the arguments offered by Respondents and other interested parties that filed amicus curiae briefs more persuasive than Petitioners’ brief (including the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)), who argued against submission of certain amicus curiae briefs and also that, with limited exception, Respondent’s petition for rehearing lacked merit and should be denied. 

The en banc oral argument will be held March 26, 2019, at 2:30 p.m. (PST).

Arguments for Rehearing

Prior to the February 6, 2019, order, on October 15, 2018, three amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of EPA’s petition by CropLife America (CLA), Agribusiness Council of Indiana (Agribusiness), and Dow Agrosciences LLC (DAS).  Despite Petitioners’ objection to the motions of Agribusiness and CLA for leave to file amicus curiae briefs in support of Respondent’s petition for rehearing, on November 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit granted the motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs.

EPA’s petition for rehearing made multiple arguments as to why an en banc and panel rehearing should be granted, including the Panel’s lack of jurisdiction, the Panel’s order conflicting with applicable Supreme Court precedent, and specific modifications to be addressed to the order to comply with Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirements.  More information regarding EPA’s petition is available in our blog item “EPA Petitions for En Banc and Panel Rehearing in Ninth Circuit Chlorpyrifos Case.”

The amicus curiae briefs supported EPA’s arguments and also made arguments supporting rehearing in addition to those previously set forth by EPA.  CLA’s brief focused on the fact that the Panel’s decision disregarded FIFRA’s cancellation process, stating: “if EPA ultimately were to determine that any chlorpyrifos registration would need to be cancelled, such an action could not be accomplished in the way the panel majority prescribed:  by circumventing the procedures Congress required to ensure that pesticide cancellation decisions are not made unless and until these harms and the best science available are properly vetted.”  DAS’ brief addressed in detail the Panel’s violation of administrative law in dictating how EPA must act (i.e., cancel the chlorpyrifos registrations) and the potential violation of FIFRA by EPA if forced to comply with the Panel’s order regarding the timing for cancelling such registrations.  The amicus curiae briefs also sought to provide information on the practical consequences that chlorpyrifos registrants and users would face if the panel opinion is not revised.  For example, DAS discussed its proprietary interest in protecting its registrations and defending its product, while Agribusiness in its brief provided some background on the use and benefits of chlorpyrifos, the lack of viable alternatives, and the ramifications of the order on insect pest resistance and the ability to combat new invasive pests. 

Petitioners’ response to the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc argued that there was no basis for rehearing.  Petitioners noted that en banc review is “disfavored” and appropriate in limited “extraordinary circumstances” and in the face of “an irreconcilable conflict between the holdings of controlling prior decisions of this court.”  Petitioners argued that the Panel decision was in accord with precedent and that a request for rehearing “would only result in further delay.”  Petitioners did concede on two points:  (1) modifying the order to direct EPA to cancel the registrations under the FIFRA cancellation process, which necessitates more time than the 60 days set forth in the order; and (2) clarifying that the order is limited to cancelling registrations that can result in residues on food. 

EPA, chlorpyrifos registrants and users, and industry generally should be encouraged by the decision to grant an en banc rehearing in this case, but the outcome is far from certain.  Given the issues at stake, registrants should monitor this hearing closely.


 

By Sheryl Lindros Dolan and James V. Aidala

The Appropriations Bill that is expected to be signed into law on February 15, 2019, provides funding for the rest of Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and averts another federal government shutdown.  It does not, however, include either an extension of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act (PRIA 3) or Reauthorization, widely referred to as PRIA 4.  This omission was a surprise to industry and to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  On February 13, 2019, the Senate introduced a stand-alone PRIA 4 bill (S. 483).  Acting swiftly, the Senate passed the bill on February 14, 2019, by unanimous consent.  S. 483 directly references H.R. 1029, the Pesticide Registration Enhancement Act of 2017, from the last Congress, with amendments passed by the Senate on June 28, 2018.  

S. 483 has moved to the House, where the timing of a vote currently is unclear.  The House will go into a week-long recess after today.  It is possible that the bill will not further progress until the House reconvenes on February 25, 2019. 

The effect on EPA and the regulated community during this transition is also unclear.  Currently, EPA is sorting out applications and PRIA deadlines along with workload planning in the aftermath of the recently concluded federal government shutdown.  The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) provides for a reduction in applicable fees if PRIA is not reauthorized, but it is unclear if applications submitted during the transition will be assigned a PRIA review date.  If PRIA 4 is passed, we expect that the fee provisions will be retroactive and that EPA will send invoices to applicants for submissions made during the transition period for the difference between what was paid and the new PRIA 4 fee. 

More information on these topics is available in our blog items "Federal Budget Deal Negotiations Fail to Advance PRIA Reauthorization" and "Continuing Resolution to Re-open the Government Includes PRIA Extension."


 

By James V. Aidala, Sheryl Lindros Dolan, and Susan M. Kirsch

As reported in the trade press on February 14, 2019, following budget negotiations late on Wednesday, February 13, several legislative riders did not make it into the conference report for the final fiscal year (FY) 2019 omnibus spending package.  This purportedly includes an extension of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act (PRIA 3) or the long-awaited Reauthorization known as “PRIA 4.”  This may be the result of political pressure to avoid another government shutdown with a “clean bill” package capable of garnering the necessary votes.  The Senate and House are expected to vote on the omnibus package today, February 14, 2019, ahead of the expiration of the current budget resolution on February 15.  While much is still in flux, the final omnibus package, once passed, will provide a clearer picture on any PRIA implications.  At this time it appears that, contrary to past budget resolutions, PRIA 3 will not be extended.  More information on the recent PRIA extensions is available in our blog items Continuing Resolution to Re-open the Government Includes PRIA Extension and Registrants Face PRIA and Shutdown Issues.

In the event of a lapse, the “phase-down” provisions in the statute will mean that new submissions require a reduced fee schedule, but submissions will no longer have an associated PRIA deadline for a decision on the application.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will likely “clarify” in the coming days and weeks what this means for any expectation for an application submitted during this time.  During the recent shutdown, EPA stated that applications submitted during that temporary lapse only required the reduced fee.  At that time, however, since no deadline was required for such an application, EPA advised that applicants should expect guidance as to when to expect a decision (that is, in effect, do not bother to submit things during the shutdown period since PRIA actions with an associated deadline will have priority for the foreseeable future).  When the federal government reopened on January 28, however, EPA processed all applications received during the shutdown as PRIA actions submitted on January 28.

Now with PRIA likely not in effect after February 15, 2019, even with an approved EPA budget for FY2019, EPA will have to evaluate what to communicate to applicants about what to expect during the time of the PRIA 3 phase-down.  Any plans for this period may be affected by provisions in PRIA 4.  On February 13, 2019, the Senate introduced standalone PRIA 4 legislation (S. 483) with bipartisan support which could facilitate relatively quick Senate action on a PRIA 4 proposal.  The House would also need to take action to renew the program.

Because no PRIA action was taken in the budget agreement, important questions now swirl about the program, including:  

  • What happens to any new submissions?  
  • Will there be impacts on pending deadlines?  
  • What exactly will happen to any submissions made during the current “no PRIA” period?  
  • What might be the longer term impact of this (in)action on general pesticide program operations (e.g., staffing, contracts, schedules for non-PRIA actions)?

EPA will be addressing these and many other important questions over the next few days. 


 

By James V. Aidala

The short-term continuing resolution (CR) includes an extension of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act (PRIA 3) through the duration of the funding measure, February 15, 2019.  This was expected, and is welcome news to registrants who have delayed submittal of registration applications due to the shutdown.

The status of applications submitted during the shutdown period is uncertain at best.  As described in our earlier blog item Registrants Face PRIA and Shutdown Issues, registrants were advised to not submit applications during the shutdown as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously indicated that applications submitted during the shutdown would not be subject to any PRIA deadline.  During this period of budget battles and shutdown uncertainty, it would appear to be prudent to ensure that any applications for registration are submitted while EPA (and PRIA) are operational under appropriated funding.

While this is good news, the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of another shutdown at the end of this period not only makes planning difficult for registrants, it also creates workload management problems at EPA to deal with backlogs and unpredictable resources for processing pending and new applications.  EPA will have to clarify what the extended shutdown period means for processing times and priorities.  As of today, EPA is still literally sorting out applications and PRIA deadlines along with workload planning to determine how best to proceed.

Stay tuned …


 

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 Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

Due to the government shutdown and to the late notification to applicants, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has extended the annual maintenance fee submission date for pesticide registrants from January 15, 2019, to February 15, 2019.  Under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 4(i)(1)(A), each registrant of a pesticide must pay an annual fee by January 15 of each year for each registration; the fee for 2019 is $ 3,392.  The notification of the extension is only available if you call the Pesticide Maintenance Fee information line, however; EPA has provided the information in a voice message.  More information on the annual maintenance fees is available on EPA’s website.

On another note, on January 2, 2018, we understood that EPA had confirmed that Imports and Notice of Arrivals (NOA) were continuing to be processed by EPA Regional offices notwithstanding the shutdown. We were mistaken.  We now understand that EPA is not completely clear if NOAs are being processed during the shutdown.  The EPA Regional offices are working with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), but no additional information is available at this time on the processing of Imports and NOAs.


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›