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

On October 23, 2015, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other environmental groups including the Center for Food Safety (CFS, et al.) (together, Petitioners) filed separate opening briefs in Case Nos. 14-73353 and 14-73359 (consolidated) arguing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to register Dow AgroScience’s Enlist Duo herbicide (a combination of glyphosate and 2,4,-D) for use on Enlist corn and soybeans should be overturned because it violates the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).   EPA approved Enlist Duo for use in six states on October 15, 2014, and granted an amendment on March 31, 2015, to authorize use in an additional nine states.  On August 11, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied motions for a stay pending review that were filed by these same environmental Petitioners on December 18, 2014, and February 6, 2015.   SeeNinth Circuit Denies Requests to Stay Use of Enlist Duo Herbicide During Judicial Review.”

In its brief, NRDC notes that when EPA proposed to register Enlist Duo, it stated that no new assessment is needed for glyphosate because use of glyphosate on herbicide-resistant crops is not a new use.  NRDC argues that there are many new studies concerning glyphosate’s human health effects and impacts on monarch butterflies since EPA reregistered glyphosate and last prepared comprehensive environmental and human health assessments in 1993. NRDC argues that “By failing to consider up-to-date science on glyphosate’s cancer risk, EPA again violated its statutory duty to ensure that registration of Enlist Duo would not cause ‘unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,’ which includes an unreasonable risk to human health.”

In their brief, CFS, et al. argue that EPA violated FIFRA by ignoring its own modelling indicating that risks to wildlife from Enlist Duo exceed EPA’s risk thresholds.  CFS, et al. also focus on purported violations of the ESA, arguing that EPA improperly failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the potential impacts of Enlist Duo on protected species and their critical habitat, and that EPA applied an “unlawful approach” to determine whether registration of Enlist Duo “may affect” listed species or critical habitats.

NRDC also filed a motion to supplement the record with three documents that it states were submitted to EPA, but it contends were not considered by EPA before it issued its registration decision for Enlist Duo.  The documents include an article published by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer stating that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”; a statement published by WHO in conjunction with its cancer finding, and a letter from NRDC and other concerned parties calling on EPA to reconsider its initial decision to register Enlist Duo in light of the WHO’s cancer finding.

Discussion

Petitioners’ arguments in these opening briefs are not unexpected, as pesticide products containing glyphosate have been challenged and controversial for many years.  In briefs opposing the prior stay motions by the Petitioners, EPA and the registrant Dow AgroSciences argued that registration of Enlist Duo will not lead to any increase in the use of glyphosate, and that EPA also considered all of the human health effects of 2,4-D before granting the registration.  The Petitioners acknowledge that EPA did not state when it last conducted environmental and human health assessments for glyphosate, and EPA is likely to object to Petitioners' inference that EPA has not reviewed the environmental and health effects of glyphosate since 1993.  In the fact sheet concerning its decision to register Enlist Duo, EPA states that it conducted a “rigorous analysis” of all the scientific studies, considered all public comments, and used worst-case estimates when assessing the safety of Enlist Duo.  In addition, the Petitioners do not discuss the determination by the the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), that three varieties of herbicide resistant corn and soybeans on which Enlist Duo will be applied are no longer considered regulated articles under regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms, because they are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.

EPA and Dow AgroSciences’ answering briefs are due December 18, 2015, and reply briefs are due January 15, 2016.  Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

 

 


 

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

On October 27, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report on an evaluation conducted by OIG entitled “EPA Needs Policies and Procedures to Manage Public Pesticide Petitions in a Transparent and Efficient Manner” (OIG Report).  OIG evaluated how EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) tracks the receipt, disposition and resolution of public petitions, focusing on OCSPP’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and its policies and procedures used to ensure consistency and transparency when responding to pesticide-related public petitions.  Although pesticide petitions can be submitted to EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or any combination of these authorities, OIG’s “At a Glance,” a document summarizing the OIG Report, states that OPP “does not have policies or procedures to ensure transparency when managing public pesticide petitions.” 

OIG’s Report outlines three main areas for improvement in communication, stating that OPP has not effectively communicated with petitioners in the following manner:  (1) acknowledging petition receipt; (2) providing updates about the agency’s work to resolve petitions; and (3) providing petition decisions.  For example, OIG noted that since FIFRA does not set forth requirements for EPA to respond to a petition within a specific timeframe, petitioners in many circumstances filed lawsuits claiming EPA had not responded within a reasonable amount of time as required under the APA.

In addition, OIG states that OPP lacks policies and procedures to manage petitions in a generally efficient or effective manner, specifically noting:  (1) petition documentation is not readily accessible, which was inconsistent with each of the EPA’s Records Management Policies in place during the timeframe of OIG’s review; (2) some petition data are inaccurate, which results in the duplication of work to confirm data; (3) according to OPP, petitions may take weeks to arrive at the correct office for action, because there is no guidance on how to submit petitions directly to OPP; and (4) OPP does not provide guidance to the public on how to submit complete petitions, which results in some petitioners providing supplemental information, therefore increasing the time and resources to reach petition decisions.

The report makes four recommendations of actions that should be taken by the Assistant Administrator for OCSPP that OIG believes will address the issues.  In a memorandum attached to the OIG report, OCSPP agreed with these recommendations, provided corrective actions, and estimated completion dates.  OIG’s recommendations and OCSPP’s Corrective Actions in response to them are as follows:

Recommendation 1:  Develop policies and standard operating procedures to manage public petitions received by OPP in a transparent and efficient manner, which includes direct communication with petitioners by:

  • Providing a letter to the petitioner acknowledging receipt of the petition;
  • Communicating petition decisions to the petitioner in writing; and
  • Providing updates to petitioners about the status and progress of pending petitions.

Corrective Action 1:  OCSPP’s OPP will develop appropriate policies and standard operating procedures (SOP) to manage public petitions received by OPP in a transparent and efficient manner.  The procedures will include the direct communication protocols listed in the OIG’s recommendation.  Estimated date of completion:  October 2016.

Recommendation 2:  Train staff managing public pesticide petitions to adhere to the EPA’s Records Management Policy.

Corrective Action 2:  The SOPs described in Corrective Action 1 will address maintaining appropriate records for covered petitions.  When the SOP is final, OPP will issue a memorandum informing appropriate staff and management of their responsibilities for maintaining these records, and directing the use of the SOPs to meet their responsibilities under the Agency’s Records Management Policy.  Estimated date of completion:  November 2016.

Recommendation 3:  Develop and implement an effective petition tracking system for public pesticide petitions.

Corrective Action 3:  The SOPs described in Corrective Action 1 will include procedures for tracking petitions not covered by certain regulations, including petitions seeking FIFRA and APA rulemaking or cancellation of registrations.  Estimated date of completion:  October 2016.

Recommendation 4: Provide criteria and guidelines for submission of public pesticide petitions that provide sufficient information for EPA review.

Corrective Action 4:  OCSPP commits to develop and post to the Agency Pesticides website criteria and guidelines for public submission of pesticide petitions not covered by 40 CFR § 180.7.  Estimated date of completion:  October 2017.

Commentary

Petitions under FIFRA have been a relatively obscure tool in the past because of some of the issues this report seeks to address.  With no deadline for a response, some petition responses have languished for many years (reportedly up to seven years in some cases).  This partly becomes a “chicken and egg problem;” since it was not clear if and when a response would be forthcoming, it was a relatively unused tool.  Indeed, as OIG’s report points out, only 40 pesticide petitions were submitted between FY2005 and 2014, with almost half (17) still pending.

In recent years, the Obama Administration has made it a point to respond more timely to FIFRA petitions, and as a result, petition filings may have become more attractive to various stakeholders.  One practice that has been a vulnerability for OPP in the past is that not responding whatsoever would more likely lead to a successful “unreasonable delay” suit.  OSCPP’s agreement with the OIG Report recommendations to more clearly state rules of engagement and how to frame expectations about a petition response process appears to be a continuation of the emphasis of EPA leadership on responding to petitions in a timely and more predictable manner.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Margaret R. Graham

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has launched a new pesticides website:  http://www2.epa.gov/pesticides, and a new biopesticides website:  http://www2.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides, among others.  EPA states that this gradual move to new versions of its content is part of a larger EPA effort to build a more user-friendly website. 

The updated biopesticides website focuses on providing general information on biopesticides, as well as tools to assist applicants for registration, and is organized into the following areas:

  • What are biopesticides?;
  • Biopesticide registration information;
  • Plant incorporated protectants (PIPs); and
  • Where can I find more information on biopesticides?

With this transition, web page addresses will be different which may cause links and bookmarks to break.  EPA states that it is working to fix any broken links.  The majority of the old pesticide pages will redirect to the new web areas, but bookmarks will still need to be updated.  EPA’s new “Page Not Found” notification will help website users find what they are looking for by providing suggested search terms, links to the A-Z index, and other helpful links.  The search feature available on every EPA web page and in the archive (archive.epa.gov) can also be useful in finding content. 

Other updated pesticide related links are:


 

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

On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced revisions to its worker protection standard.  EPA states that these revisions are intended to “enhance the protections provided to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers, and other persons under the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) by strengthening elements of the existing regulation, such as training, notification, pesticide safety and hazard communication information, use of personal protective equipment, and the providing of supplies for routine washing and emergency decontamination.”

Among the changes to the WPS are the following:

  • Training:  The final rule retains proposed content expansions that have been the subject of considerable discussion and concern (e.g., provisions that EPA intends to reduce take-home exposure) and the requirement for employers to ensure that workers and handlers receive pesticide safety training every year (increased from existing rules that require training every five years).  EPA has eliminated the proposed training “grace period,” that would have allowed employers to delay providing full pesticide safety training to workers under certain circumstances. 
  • Notification:  The final rule retains the proposed requirements for employers to:  (1) post warning signs around treated areas in outdoor production when the product used has a restricted-entry interval (REI) greater than 48 hours; and (2) provide to workers performing early-entry tasks (i.e., entering a treated area when an REI is in effect), information about the pesticide used in the area where they will work, the specific task(s) to be performed, the personal protective equipment (PPE) required by the labeling, and the amount of time the worker may remain in the treated area.  EPA has not promulgated the proposed requirement for employers to keep a record of the information provided to workers performing early-entry tasks.
  • Hazard Communication:  The final rule requires employers to post pesticide application information and a safety data sheet (SDS) for each pesticide used on the establishment at a central location on the establishment (the “central display”).  This is a departure from the proposal to eliminate the existing requirement for a central display of pesticide application-specific information.  The final rule also requires the employer to maintain and make available to workers and handlers, their designated representatives, and treating medical personnel upon request, the pesticide application-specific information and the SDSs for pesticides used on the establishment for two years.  EPA has eliminated the proposed requirement for the employer to maintain copies of the labeling for each product used on the establishment for two years.
  • Requirements During Pesticide Applications:  The final rule requires an “application exclusion zone,” that is, the area immediately surrounding the application equipment, from which workers and other persons must be excluded.  An application exclusion zone of 100 feet horizontally from the application equipment in all directions applies when the pesticide is applied by any of the following methods:  (1) aerially; (2) air blast application; (3) as a spray using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of smaller than medium (volume median diameter of less than 294 microns); or (4) as a fumigant, smoke, mist, or fog.  An application exclusion zone of 25 feet horizontally from the application equipment in all directions applies when the pesticide is sprayed from a height of greater than 12 inches from the planting medium using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of medium or larger (volume median diameter of 294 microns or greater).  This “application exclusion zone” differs from the proposed “entry-restricted areas,” that would have extended a specified distance around the entire treated area during application based on the application equipment used.  The final rule requires handlers to suspend application, rather than cease application, if they are aware of any person in the application exclusion zone other than a properly trained and equipped handler involved in the application.
  • Minimum Age:  The final rule increases the minimum age for handlers and workers performing early-entry tasks from a proposed 16 years old to at least 18 years old.  EPA states it increased the minimum age from 16 to 18 based on “comments received and an evaluation of existing literature related to adolescents’ development of maturity and judgment.”  EPA provides an exemption from minimum age requirements for adolescents working on an establishment owned by an immediate family member.  The final rule does not require the employer to record workers’ or handlers’ birthdates as part of the training record, but does require the employer to verify they meet the minimum age requirements.
  • PPE:  The final rule cross-references certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for respirator use for which employers will be required to comply.  In response to comments, the final rule expands the respirators subject to fit testing beyond the proposal to include filtering facepiece respirators.  The final rule maintains the existing exception from the handler PPE requirements when using a closed system to transfer or load pesticides, and adopts a general performance standard for closed systems, which differs from the specific design standards based on California’s existing standard for closed systems discussed in the proposal.

EPA received a significant number of comments on the proposed rule, which has generated significant controversy.  While it appears that EPA has modified the final WPS in certain respects in response to concerns raised, there remain many provisions that are controversial and will require significant work, with significant costs, by agricultural and handler employees to meet. 

Controversy regarding these new requirements is longstanding.  At its most simple form, critics of increasing the stringency of the current regulations ask why significant changes were needed after twenty years of greater protection offered by the existing regulatory requirements.  In addition, over the intervening years, for a variety of reasons, many (not all) of the most hazardous pesticides have been removed from the market or otherwise are used less.  More complex concerns address potential jurisdictional overreaches and the paltry record supporting what some view as expansive and expensive regulatory requirements.  Others, not surprisingly, cite the number of reported (and unreported) incidents as proof for the need nonetheless to improve the extent and effectiveness of the current regulations.  What EPA has issued here as the final revisions to the regulations attempts to balance these views. 

Some believe that, in similar situations, where industry and activist groups criticize an action, albeit for very different reasons, the EPA action at issue must have struck the correct balance of disparate views.  This breezy measure of success in an important health protection program such as this rule addresses by definition is not likely to satisfy either perspective, and complaints about the new requirements can be expected to continue, especially about the economic impact of the new requirements for some, and for others, how the occupational risks of pesticides remain too high and deserve even greater restrictions. 

Outside the boundaries of the worker protection regulations, some of the underlying logic and regulation of the updated requirements indicate that EPA, at least under the current Administration, will continue its emphasis on the broader goals of environmental justice and protecting “children” from the hazards of pesticide exposure.  (For example, among the most controversial elements of the changes is the prohibition on certain activities for those under the age of 18, while beforehand the cutoff age was 16; this seems partly a result of EPA’s attempt to make its policy of prohibiting testing of pesticides on children consistent with its policy of who might be exposed in occupational settings.)

The final rule will become effective 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register, but agricultural employers and handler employers will not be required to comply with most of the new requirements in the final rule until 14 months after the effective date.

For more information, please see Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s (B&C®) memorandum Predictions and Outlook for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) 2015 and James V. Aidala Comments on EPA’s Worker Protection Standards.  More information is also available on EPA’s Worker Protection Standard webpage.


 

By Sheryl L. DolanLisa M. Campbell, and Henry M. Jacoby, M.S.

On September 22, 2105, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice in the Federal Register listing its revised registration service fees applicable to specified pesticide applications and tolerance actions for fiscal year (FY) 2016 that are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA) established FIFRA Section 33, creating a registration fee-for-service system for certain types of pesticide applications, establishment of tolerances, and certain other regulatory decisions under FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  Section 33 also created a schedule of decision review times for applications covered by the service fee system.  EPA began administering the registration service fee system for covered applications received on or after March 23, 2004.

PRIA has been reauthorized twice, most recently by the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act (PRIA 3) signed on September 28, 2012.  PRIA 3 revised FIFRA section 33, reauthorized the service fee system through fiscal year 2017, and established fees and review times for applications received during fiscal years 2013 through 2017.  The registration fees for covered pesticide registration applications received on or after October 1, 2015, increase by five percent from the fees published for fiscal year 2015 in the Federal Register notice issued September 26, 2013, Pesticides; Revised Fee Schedule for Registration Applications.  The new fees became effective on October 1, 2015

The notice retains the format of prior PRIA tables; it identifies the registration service fees and decision times and is organized according to the three Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) registration divisions within EPA, with the additional sections for inert ingredients and other actions added as part of PRIA 3.  Thereafter, the categories within main sections of the table are further organized according to the type of application being submitted, including new active ingredients, new uses, new products, and registration amendments  There are 189 categories of activities spread across the three OPP divisions:  Registration Division (63 categories), Antimicrobial Division (39 categories), and Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (69 categories), plus ten inert ingredient and eight miscellaneous categories.  Each has its own decision review time and service fee for FY 2016-2017.  The scale of the fees differs between the three registration divisions.  We note that not all submissions are subject to PRIA 3; generally speaking, any submission requiring data review will be subject to PRIA 3. 

The notice also provides information on how to pay fees, how to submit applications, and the addresses for applications.

More information on the registration fees is available on EPA’s webpage FY 2016/17 Fee Schedule for Registration Applications.


 

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

On September 1, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the debut of a new electronic system for pesticide applications, the Pesticide Submission Portal.  According to EPA, this debut is the first step in a phased approach that ultimately will allow EPA to accept all pesticide applications electronically -- a move that will help modernize the pesticide registration process, increase operational efficiencies, and reduce paper waste.  EPA will continue to accept paper, CD and DVD applications, but encourages applicants to take advantage of what EPA states is the new, more efficient option.

The following types of applications will now be accepted through the Pesticide Submission Portal:

  • New pesticide active ingredients;
  • New pesticide products containing already-registered pesticide active ingredients;
  • Amendments to registered pesticide products;
  • Experimental use permits;
  • Inert ingredient requests;
  • Pre-application;
  • Petitions for food or feed tolerance, and
  • Distributor products.

The Portal is accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) Network and requires user registration.  For registrants currently submitting CDs or DVDs using the e-Dossier downloadable tool or their own builder tools using EPA’s XML guidance, they may use the Portal and forego the courier costs to send to EPA. 

For electronic submissions, applicants do not need to submit multiple copies of any pieces of their application, as the requirement for multiple copies of data and five copies of draft labeling only applies to paper submissions.  Additional benefits of using the Portal include a status indicator that allows registrants to track the movement of their submissions and automatically generated MRID numbers.

Additional information on the Portal, including a user guide and updated XML guidance, is available on EPA’s Electronic Submission for Pesticide Applications page.

Applicants will need to invest some time and resources up-front to register with CDX and become familiar with the electronic submission requirements.  With that investment, however, EPA’s secure portal should make the submission process more efficient for applicants.  Additionally, as EPA now scans all paper submissions upon receipt, electronic submissions should increase efficiencies and reduce the opportunity for error during EPA’s front-end processing -- always a good thing.


 

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

The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) extended the comment date on its draft guidance, Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening Analysis, in a Federal Register notice published on August 28, 2015.  EPA’s draft framework provides guidance on how the EPA will screen groups of pesticides for cumulative evaluation.  EPA proposes using a two-step approach, beginning with the evaluation of available toxicological information and, if necessary, followed by a risk-based screening approach.  This framework supplements the existing guidance documents for establishing common mechanism groups (CMG) and conducting cumulative risk assessments (CRA).  Additionally, EPA is also seeking comments on a draft copy of the human health risk assessment where the cumulative assessment was conducted in conjunction with pending actions for abamectin.

EPA has described a process that is data intensive and that requires sophisticated knowledge and modeling.  EPA acknowledges that “the level of refinement provided by this approach is not necessary or even feasible for all existing pesticide classes.”  The policy documents for conducting the first step in the process, “developing CMGs,” are still being refined.

This document provides the guidance for screening information to identify candidate CMGs and does not outline how actually to conduct CRAs.  Rather, this document relies on policies and principles provided in other documents found on the EPA cumulative risk assessment website.  These additional policies and principles were developed during the conduct of five CRAs for chemical groups such as the organophosphates and carbamates.

One of the major questions raised by the issuance of this document is the extent of the information that EPA will require for each chemical to determine if there are CMGs.  The five CMGs currently assessed have relatively well defined mechanisms of action.  It is not clear, however, what EPA will consider to be adequate justification that there are no other chemicals with the same mechanism of action for other chemicals of concern.

Requirements for EPA to determine and assess the risks of possible common mechanism of action among groups of similar pesticides was one of the most far-reaching new requirements imposed by the Food Quality Protection Act.  Some observers expected a larger impact on pesticide use than what has occurred to date; whether EPA’s new approach results in more groupings or otherwise leads to restrictions on more groups of pesticides remains to be seen.

Comments on the draft guidance are due September 28, 2015.  More information regarding EPA’s assessment of pesticide cumulative risk is available online.


 

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

On August 24, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposal to revise the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule.  EPA is proposing stricter standards for people certified to use “restricted use” pesticides (certified applicators).  Restricted use pesticides are not available for purchase by the general public, require special handling, and may only be applied by a certified applicator or someone working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

The proposed stricter standards include:

  • Certified applicators must be at least 18 years old;
  • Those working under the supervision of certified applicators would now need training on using pesticides safely and protecting their families from take-home pesticide exposure;
  • Certifications would have to be renewed every 3 years;
  • Additional specialized licensing for certain methods of application that can pose greater risks if not conducted properly, such as fumigation and aerial application; and
  • Updates to the requirements for States, Tribes, and Federal agencies that administer their own certification programs to incorporate the strengthened standards. 

Currently, the majority of certification programs have no renewal requirements.  Thus, this requirement will put additional burdens on States and Tribes administering certification programs to not only strengthen their standards under this new proposal but to incorporate a time-keeping process to ensure applicators’ renewals are kept up to date, and sufficient certification programs are available for re-certifying purposes.  In addition, for some certification programs, the specialized licensing programs will need to be developed, tested, and instituted.

EPA’s proposal to update certification and training requirements comes along with the parallel effort to revise the worker protection standards (WPS), where a final rule updating those requirements are expected sometime in September.  Like the revised WPS, revising the training requirements has been on EPA’s agenda for many years, and this part of the updated requirements for worker protection is expected to be less controversial than some of the changes to the WPS.  In particular, since EPA has emphasized the protection of children as part of its pesticide regulatory program, making the minimum age 18 for pesticide applicators is part of that agenda.

EPA encourages public comment on the proposed improvements.  Comments on the proposal are due November 23, 2015.

More information about certification for pesticide applicators is available here.


 

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

On August 11, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a motion for a stay pending review filed on December 18, 2014, by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), as well as a subsequent stay motion filed on February 6, 2015, by the Center for Food Safety and other petitioners (Case Nos. 14-73353 and 14-73359, consolidated).  Both motions requested that the court stay an October 15, 2014, decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to register Enlist Duo herbicide (a combination of glyphosate and 2,4,-D) for use on corn and soybeans in six Midwestern states.

NRDC and CFS, et al. (Petitioners), filed these stay motions in a case consolidating petitions for review challenging EPA’s decision to register Enlist Duo.  The registrant of Enlist Duo (Dow AgroSciences) has intervened in the consolidated case.  The Petitioners argue that EPA failed to consider the impacts of increased glyphosate use on monarch butterflies, and did not fully assess the potential human health effects from 2,4-D.  In response, both EPA and Dow AgroSciences argue that approval of Enlist Duo will not lead to increased use of glyphosate, and that EPA fully considered all of the human health effects of 2,4-D before granting the registration.

The motions for a stay filed by the Petitioners were effectively motions for preliminary injunctive relief, an extraordinary remedy requiring that those seeking such relief show that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that there is likely to be irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips sharply in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.  In denying the stay motions, the court cited Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008).  In the Winter case, the Supreme Court held that irreparable injury must be likely and that a mere possibility of irreparable injury will not suffice in awarding injunctive relief.  Although the court did not opine further on its rationale for denying the Petitioners’ stay motions, it may be inferred that the court determined that the Petitioners had not satisfied the rigorous prerequisites for injunctive relief.

While this decision avoids an immediate disruption in the marketing of pesticides, the potential for disruption to the registration remains until the court challenge has been resolved.  As Enlist is a new product designed for use with crops genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate and 2,4,-D, any disruption now would be especially impactful to the registrant and customers of the product.  Further, it could also have a chilling effect on efforts to introduce similar new or pending products if growers perceive too great a risk of uncertainty for this or similar pesticides.

 


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

On July 24, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Federal Register notice extending the public comment period regarding its proposed Antimicrobial Pesticides Use Site Index (USI) from July 31, 2015 to August 31, 2015.  The initial Federal Register notice announcing the availability of EPA’s guidance on the USI was issued on July 1, 2015.

By way of background, in 2014, EPA issued a final rule on Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides amending the regulations setting forth the data requirements that support an application to register a pesticide product.  The final rule contains the data requirements specifically applicable to antimicrobial pesticides that were codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 158, subpart W.  The final rule lists 12 antimicrobial use patterns in 40 C.F.R. § 158.2201.  The data requirements applicable to a pesticide product depend in part on the product’s use pattern.  The general use patterns are broad designations, and are used as columns in the antimicrobial data requirements tables to identify which data requirements might be pertinent to the particular pesticide use site.

EPA has developed the USI to assist antimicrobial pesticide applicants and registrants and to assist EPA staff to identify the use pattern that applies to a pesticide product, and thus the data requirements that must be met to register the product.  EPA states that the USI serves as a compilation of the specific use sites that are commonly listed on antimicrobial labels and links these commonly listed use sites with the twelve general use patterns.

The posting of this proposed guidance document for public comment is intended to satisfy a condition of the March 2, 2015, settlement agreement between EPA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) that followed ACC’s July 2013 initiation of a legal challenge to the data requirements regulation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

In addition to extending the comments, EPA also published in the docket a Question and Answer document on the USI Webinar for questions submitted to EPA prior to the July 14, 2015, webinar.  Additional information regarding the USI is available in EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0302.

 


 
‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 >