By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi, and James V. Aidala
On July 18, 2017, a panel of three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying petitioners’ Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (Petitioners) Motion for Further Mandamus in the chlorpyrifos proceedings. In that motion, Petitioners asked the court to grant further mandamus relief, asserting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) denial of Petitioners’ petition to revoke all food tolerances and cancel all chlorpyrifos registrations was inadequate because it contained “no new safety findings” and no “final determination as to whether chlorpyifos food tolerances must be revoked.” More information on the motion is available in our blog item Petitioners File Motion for Further Mandamus Relief in Response to EPA’s Order Denying Petition to Ban Chlorpyrifos.
In its order, the panel held that since the prior mandamus proceedings “addressed the timing, not the substance, of EPA’s response,” EPA had “complied with the panel’s previous orders by issuing a ‘final response to the petition.’” The mandamus motion thus was “premature, and its substantive objections to the EPA’s denial must first be made through the administrative process mandated by statute.”
The demand imposed by the court earlier was to make a decision, and EPA met that deadline with its denial. This is a significant win for industry, but is far from the end of this debate, which will continue in a number of different forums. More information on the proceedings is available on our blog under key word chlorpyrifos.
By Lisa R. Burchi, Timothy D. Backstrom, and James V. Aidala
On June 30, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Case No. 14-1036, resolving jurisdictional and substantive issues following complaints alleging that EPA violated Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to make an effects determination or to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) before registering cyantraniliprole (CTP) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Regarding the jurisdictional issue and the appropriate court in which to bring such a challenge, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 14, 2015, had dismissed the ESA complaint of CBD, the Center for Food Safety, and the Defenders of Wildlife (Conservation Groups), finding that the Conservation Groups’ “Complaint gives rise to an ‘actual controversy as to the validity’ of the FIFRA Registration Order and is therefore governed by that Act’s jurisdictional grant.” The D.C. Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s ruling to dismiss the ESA petition on jurisdictional grounds, concluding that FIFRA “grants the court of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review an ESA claim that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a challenge to a pesticide registration order.”
The D.C. Circuit also, however, granted the Conservation Groups’ FIFRA petition, finding that EPA registered CTP without having made an effects determination or consulting with the FWS and/or the NMFS as required under ESA Section 7(a)(2). The court remanded the case to EPA for further proceedings, but allowed the CTP registration order to remain in effect until it is replaced by an order consistent with the court’s opinion.
Considering the growing number of complaints that allege a failure to consult with the FWS and/or the NMFS under the ESA, this decision could have broad reaching implications for how these complaints are filed and reviewed.
On February 29, 2012, EPA announced that it had received applications to register pesticide products containing CTP under FIFRA. On June 6, 2013, EPA announced its proposal to register CTP as a pesticide under FIFRA. As part of its review, EPA prepared an “Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration of the New Chemical Cyantraniliprole” in which EPA states that CTP is “highly toxic or very highly toxic” to multiple taxonomic groups, including terrestrial invertebrates such as butterflies and beetles.
On January 24, 2014, EPA registered CTP as a pesticide under FIFRA and approved fourteen end-use products containing CTP. At issue in this case was EPA’s decision to register CTP without having made an effects determination or consulting with the FWS and/or the NMFS as required by ESA Section 7(a)(2) and implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. § 402.13-14).
Under the ESA citizen-suit provision, “any person” may “commence a civil suit on his own behalf … to enjoin any person, including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency … who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter or regulation issued under the authority thereof.” 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1). “The district courts … have jurisdiction” of ESA citizen suits, id., but no action may be commenced “prior to sixty days after written notice of the violation has been given to the Secretary, and to any alleged violator.” Id. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i).
FIFRA’s citizen-suit provision at 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b) provides the federal circuit court with exclusive jurisdiction to affirm or set aside an EPA pesticide registration order following a public hearing, provided a challenge is filed within 60 days of the registration decision.
With potentially conflicting statutory provisions regarding the court in which to file a complaint and the timing to do so, the Conservation Groups initiated two actions: a complaint against EPA in D.C. District Court under the ESA’s citizen-suit provision; and a petition for review in D.C. Circuit Court pursuant to FIFRA’s citizen-suit provision.
The D.C. Circuit first addressed the jurisdiction issue, which involved a determination of standing and a resolution of the “dueling jurisdictional provisions of the ESA and of FIFRA.”
On the issue of standing, the D.C. Circuit found that petitioners did in fact have standing, as not only did EPA make procedural omissions through “its failure to make an effects determination and to consult,” but the plaintiffs show that EPA’s failure affected the plaintiffs’ members’ “concrete aesthetic and recreational interests.”
With regard to the appropriate court in which to bring this claim, the D.C. Circuit found that “FIFRA vests the courts of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction over controversies arising from an EPA pesticide registration, so long as, inter alia, registration follows a public hearing.” The court thus also found:
- Because FIFRA’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the court of appeals to review registration orders is more specific than the ESA’s citizen-suit provision, we believe the Conservation Groups must bring their ESA section 7(a)(2) challenge to us if 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b) is satisfied. And the Conservation Groups do satisfy the requirements of 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b): they are adversely affected by the registration of CTP; they challenge the validity of the CTP registration order based on the EPA’s failure to make an effects determination and to consult; and their challenge comes after a “public hearing” by way of three notice and comment periods. We therefore have “exclusive jurisdiction” to review their claim under FIFRA and the district court correctly dismissed their ESA citizen suit. (citations omitted).
While the ESA citizen suit was dismissed, the FIFRA citizen suit remained under the D.C. Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction and review. The court found that EPA violated ESA Section 7(a)(2) by registering CTP before making an effects determination or consulting with the FWS or the NMFS.
Significantly, the court decided to remand the case to EPA for further proceedings without vacating the CTP registration. The court stated that remand without vacatur is appropriate in this case because “[n]otwithstanding the EPA’s failure to make an effects determination and to engage in any required consultation, it did not register CTP in total disregard of the pesticide’s potential deleterious effects; indeed, the Conservation Groups themselves rely heavily on the EPA’s ‘Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration of the New Chemical Cyantraniliprole.’” The court further stated that “allowing the EPA’s CTP registration order to remain in effect until it is replaced by an order consistent with our opinion will maintain ‘enhanced protection of the environmental values covered by the CTP registration order.’”
This case is significant in at least two respects and should have implications in other cases being brought under ESA and FIFRA citizen suit petitions. First, the court provides the same answer concerning the “dueling jurisdictional provisions of the ESA and of FIFRA” as prior decisions in the Ninth Circuit, finding that FIFRA’s jurisdictional grounds take precedence and that the Courts of Appeal have exclusive jurisdiction to review cases claiming ESA violations in the context of an approved FIFRA pesticide registration. The court found the Conservation Groups’ arguments to the contrary “unavailing,” including but not limited to their argument that the public notice and comment periods that were provided did not constitute a “public hearing” under FIFRA Section 16(b) as well as their argument that the ESA challenge was not “inextricably intertwined” with FIFRA, even though the Conservation Groups were challenging the CTP registration order itself. It also is significant that the court, while remanding the registration order to EPA for further actions under the ESA, did not immediately vacate the existing CTP registration order.
Some observers of the extensive ESA-FIFRA litigation over recent years wondered whether the CTP registrations would be vacated once challenged for conformity to ESA requirements. EPA effectively admitted that it did not follow the full consultation process with FWS and NMFS, in this case substituting a relative risk argument that CTP was an improvement that would provide more species protection compared to the compounds it is expected to replace in the marketplace. The remand without vacatur does not resolve what some have called the “train wreck” scenario, where the need to complete ESA consultation, combined with time and resource constraints at the respective agencies, will result in a virtual freeze on new pesticide product registrations. The court makes it clear that, if EPA makes an affirmative ESA effects determination for CTP, consultation with the FWS and/or the NMFS must follow.
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
In June 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) National Program Manager Guidance for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-2019, which sets forth the strategies and actions that EPA and its state and tribal partners will undertake to protect human health and the environment via six key programmatic activities. EPA uses an Annual Commitment System (ACS) to track annual regional performance information and results. Below is a listing of the six programmatic activities and their ACS measures, if applicable:
- Strengthening state and tribal partnerships through continued effective management of pesticide cooperative agreements. The guidance states that the “National Pesticide Program depends on cooperative agreements with states and tribes to implement many of the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and to help ensure [EPA’s] regulatory decisions and programs achieve intended protections. For the ACS measure, the commitment target is 100 percent of pesticide program required activities included in grantee work plans completed under pesticide program portion of the FIFRA Grant Guidance. More information on the activities is listed in the guidance.
- Assisting in national, regional, and local pollinator protection efforts. EPA states that “through risk assessment, mitigation, education, and outreach, EPA’s Office of Pesticides Programs’ goal for pollinator protection is to ensure all pollinators, including managed pollinators such as honey bees, and native pollinator including Monarch Butterflies, are protected from adverse effects of pesticide exposure.” More information on the activities is listed in the guidance. EPA is not proposing any ACS measures to be associated with this area of focus for FY2018-2019.
- Effectively implementing the revised pesticides worker protection standard rule. More information on this rule is available on our blog under key phrase Worker Protection Standard. EPA states that no ACS measure is proposed to be associated with this area of focus for FY2018-2019 to “allow regional offices the flexibility to direct their efforts where they are most needed, and to select the activities and level of effort appropriate for the needs of their region.”
- Effectively implementing the revised certification of pesticide applicators rule. Same as above, EPA states that no ACS measure is proposed to be associated with this area of focus for FY2018-2019 to “allow regional offices the flexibility to direct their efforts where they are most needed, and to select the activities and level of effort appropriate for the needs of their region.” More information on this rule is available on our blog under key phrase pesticide applicators.
- Focusing region-specific pesticide priorities on those areas of greatest need nationally. EPA states that region-specific pesticide priority areas “support the agency’s national pesticide program efforts. In addition, these projects support one or more of the agency’s Strategic Plan goals and strategies, and directly benefit states and/or tribes. The region-specific pesticide priority areas to choose from are: (1) promotion of state and tribal pesticide program coordination and communication; (2) bed bug outreach and assistance; (3) promotion, development or support of integrated pest management efforts; (4) support of water quality risk assessment and mitigation; (5) spray drift outreach and incident data collection; and (6) support of emerging public health pesticide issues. The ACS measure commitment target is one project or initiative contributing to the implementation and enhancement of the region-specific pesticide program priority areas.
- Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). For the TRI program, EPA includes three ACS measures on the number of TRI data quality checks:
- The TRI-1 measure allows EPA to track performance of the TRI program, and aid in improving the accuracy and reliability of environmental data. This measure will provide valuable information as more than 21,000 facilities report to the TRI program annually.
- For FY2018, TRI-1 is a non-commitment measure of data quality calls and emails to 600 facilities in total across all regional offices.
- For FY2019, TRI-1 will be a commitment measure of data quality calls and email to 600 facilities in total across all regional offices.
By J. Brian Xu, M.D., Ph.D., DABT®
On June 1, 2017, in the People’s Republic of China (China), the newly revised Regulation on Pesticide Administration (RPA) became effective. The newly revised RPA was approved during the 164th executive meeting of the State Council of China on February 8, 2017, and published as Decree Number 677 of the State Council of China (China Decree 677) on April 1, 2017. It requires the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) to formulate relevant rules and measures for its implementation.
The first set of five implementation rules was initially released for public comment on March 17, 2017, and made final on June 21, 2017. The five implementation rules include: Pesticide Registration Management Measures (MOA Order No. 3, 2017), Measures for the Management of Pesticide Production License (MOA Order No. 4, 2017), Measures for the Administration of Pesticide Business License (MOA Order No. 5, 2017), Measures for the Management of Tests Used for Pesticide Registration (MOA Order No. 6, 2017), and Measures for the Administration of Pesticide Labels and Manuals (MOA Order No. 7, 2017). They will become effective on August 1, 2017.
On June 30, 2017, the MOA released the second set of six implementation rules for public comment under the new RPA, which include Data Requirements on Pesticide Registration (Draft); List of Pesticides with Restricted Uses (Draft); Measures for the Management of QR Code Pesticide Label (Draft); Review Rules of Pesticide Production License (Draft); Review Rules of the Test Institutes that Conduct Tests Used for Pesticide Registration (Draft); and Quality Management Practices of Tests Used for Pesticide Registration (Draft). The comment period will end on July 30, 2017, but an implementation date was not provided.
The MOA Order No. 3, 2017 requires that chemistry and toxicology tests should be completed in Chinese laboratories approved by the MOA or overseas laboratories that have a mutual recognition agreement with the relevant Chinese Authority, and that the tests for efficacy, residue, environment, and others that are closely related to environmental conditions and Chinese specific species shall be conducted in China. Since China is not a member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD) system, this requirement could reject all test reports from overseas for pesticide registration in China.
The requirements that literature or data in a foreign language shall be translated to Chinese are moved from the Pesticide Registration Management Measures (Draft) to the new Data Requirements on Pesticide Registration (Draft), but it is still not clear if whole articles/reports or only summaries should be translated into Chinese. In addition, the new Data Requirements on Pesticide Registration (Draft) would add a new category of registration, “Pesticides for Overseas Uses Only.” The registration of “Pesticides for Overseas Uses Only” requires only chemistry and toxicology data for the products at issue; the data that must be submitted include information on the production process, component analysis, quality specifications and analytical methods, acute “six-pack,” Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), Acute Reference Dose (ARfD), and other safety and toxicology information. The new draft rules would not require any efficacy, residue, or environment tests for registration of “Pesticides for Overseas Uses Only.” The timeline for the second set of six implementation rules under the new RPA is not provided. Considering it took only three months for the first set of five implementation measures to proceed from drafts for public comments to final versions that will become effective about one and half a months later (August 1, 2017), it is expected that the second set of six implementation rules will become effective by the end of the year.
The new RPA and its implementation rules significantly change registrations for pesticides in China. Temporary pesticide registration is no longer an option, and pesticide registration now requires a full set of data, including two-year stability data in the initial submission, and requires that many of the tests must be conducted in China. With these new requirements, the new pesticide registration process may extend the time for manufacturers to bring products to the Chinese market. Because of many ambiguities in the new RPA and its implementation rules, many questions and uncertainties regarding the process for pesticide registration under the new RPA remain.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, and James V. Aidala
A noteworthy development in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ongoing and controversial consideration of the potential use of epidemiological data in its pesticide risk assessments occurred on May 25, 2017, when EPA placed in the public dockets for certain organophosphate (OP) pesticides an “update” of the September 15, 2015, Literature Review and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) determination, along with a response to comments on the original document. These documents were signed by EPA scientists on December 29, 2016, prior to the new Administration, but were placed in the docket only last month, under the new Administration. The documents attempt to rebut the various criticisms of EPA’s assessment of the epidemiology studies for chlorpyrifos and the original FQPA safety factor determination for OP pesticides, and they reaffirm the policy embodied in the original Literature Review. Because these new documents were signed in the last days of the Obama Administration, they may be viewed by some industry stakeholders as an effort by some at EPA to “lock in” the prior policy concerning OP pesticides.
The public release of the “updated” Literature Review and response to comments must be considered in the context of the ongoing chlorpyrifos battles that have received significant public attention. During the five months between the date that these “update” documents were signed and the date that EPA placed them in the public docket, EPA Administrator Pruitt issued a decision on March 29, 2017, to deny the petition filed by the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) requesting that EPA revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos products. See EPA Denies Petition to Ban Chlorpyrifos. In his denial decision, Administrator Pruitt concluded it would be appropriate for EPA to defer determining whether chlorpyrifos is likely to cause neurodevelopmental effects at exposure levels below the levels that cause acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition until the completion of the registration review process for chlorpyrifos. Administrator Pruitt based his decision on the premise that “the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved” and that “significant uncertainty … exists regarding the potential for chlorpyrifos to cause adverse neurodevelopmental effects.”
Some industry stakeholders may argue that the decision by the EPA scientists who prepared the “updated” Literature Review which concluded that EPA should retain the 10X FQPA uncertainty factor for OP pesticides can be reconciled with Administrator Pruitt’s subsequent denial decision, because the “updated” FQPA safety factor determination does not preclude further scientific discussion concerning the potential for neurodevelopmental effects from OP pesticide exposures. On the other hand, other industry stakeholders may be concerned about the immediate adverse impact of this “updated” FQPA determination on the risk assessments prepared by EPA for OP pesticides and the measures that will be demanded by EPA to mitigate purported risks.
On April 5, 2017, PANNA and NRDC responded to Administrator Pruitt’s March 29, 2017, decision to deny their petition to revoke the tolerances and cancel the registrations for chlorpyrifos by submitting to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a Motion for Further Mandamus Relief. That motion was substantially based on the premise that EPA does not “suggest that it has reconsidered its finding that chlorpyrifos is unsafe.” The briefing on the new mandamus motion was completed on May 5, 2017, several weeks before EPA disclosed the documents concerning the “updated” FQPA determination. Nevertheless, petitioners could try to argue that these documents constitute further evidence supporting their key premise that EPA has not actually revisited its prior determination that chlorpyrifos exposures are unsafe.
The legal and policy issues posed by EPA’s evaluation of the epidemiological data for chlorpyrifos and by EPA’s determination that these data create sufficient uncertainty to warrant retention of the FQPA 10X safety factor for all OP pesticides will be a continued source of controversy, and will be watched with interest by all stakeholders.
More information and updates on chlorpyrifos, the epidemiological data, and their surrounding legal issues is available on our blog item under keyword chlorpyrifos.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, and James V. Aidala
On June 22, 2017, a complaint was filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by American Oversight, a nonprofit organization (Plaintiff), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint asks the court to compel EPA to provide information in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by the Plaintiff on April 11, 2017, “seeking communications between certain individuals at each agency and certain outside entities related to chlorpyrifos or other pesticides.” The records requested included: (1) a copy of any decision memoranda and attachments associated with the decision to deny the petition to ban chlorpyrifos; and (2) all communications between certain individuals involved with EPA’s Administration as well as certain transition team members, and the following listed entities:
- Any agricultural or other trade group with an interest in pesticides, including but not limited to CropLife, the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers, or the Oklahoma Farm Bureau;
- Any pesticide manufacturer or anyone acting on behalf of a pesticide manufacturer, including but not limited to Dow Chemical or Dow AgroSciences;
- Any member of Congress or anyone acting on behalf of a member of Congress (including both personal and committee staff) regarding agricultural issues or pesticides; and
- Any think tanks, including but not limited to the Heritage Foundation, regarding agricultural issues or pesticides.
The complaint asserts that although EPA responded to the FOIA request by stating that it was “proceeding with the search,” EPA “has not taken any additional actions,” and as of June 14, 2017, had not provided any of the requested records. Plaintiff claims that EPA has failed to comply with the applicable time-limit provisions of FOIA and the complaint contains two Counts: Count I: Failure to Conduct Adequate Search for Responsive Records; and Count II: Wrongful Witholding of Non-Exempt Records. Based on these alleged violations, Plaintiff asks the court to order EPA to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all records responsive to the FOIA request; order EPA to produce any and all non-exempt records responsive to the FOIA request and indexes justifying the withholding of any responsive records withheld under claim of exemption; and enjoin EPA from continuing to withhold any and all non-exempt records responsive to the FOIA request.
This Plaintiff appears to be seeking the responsive records to demonstrate that some kind of untoward or inappropriate communication occurred between the incoming Administration and outside groups leading to the chlorpyrifos petition response that allowed continued use of chlorpyrifos products, pending the completion of the registration review process. Given the record that the Obama Administration constructed to propose the revocation of the chlorpyrifos tolerances, environmental advocates were disappointed that the new EPA leadership decided to postpone a decision. EPA in its petition response articulated its rationale for its decision, but the Plaintiff may believe that these documents would likely show the “politics” behind the decision. This is somewhat ironic since many stakeholders in the agricultural user community are convinced that the initial proposal to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances issued during the prior Administration was itself an example of “politics over science.”
In this instance, it does not appear that EPA has made any determination yet whether any of the requested records are exempt from disclosure. Moreover, the Plaintiff appears to be seeking decision memoranda and communications between EPA employees and other parties outside of EPA; this fact could affect EPA’s consideration of the applicability of the “deliberative process” privilege set forth in FOIA Exemption 5 to try to withhold any of the requested records, an issue that could be controversial.
The Plaintiffs contend that EPA has not met the mandatory time limits applicable to a FOIA request. This is a common problem, particularly when multiple individuals must participate in the search for responsive records, the records requested are voluminous, or exempt material like confidential commercial information must be redacted from otherwise responsive records. Unless EPA ultimately determines that some records can and should be withheld, and Plaintiff disagrees, this suit may become moot in the event that EPA produces the requested documents before the case can be adjudicated. Regardless of the outcome, Plaintiff has succeeded in keeping EPA’s controversial chlorpyrifos decision in the spotlight.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Margaret R. Graham
On June 14, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of a final test guideline, Laboratory Product Performance Testing Methods for Bed Bug Pesticide Products; OCSPP Test Guideline 810.3900, part of a series of test guidelines established by the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) for use in testing pesticides and chemical substances. 82 Fed. Reg. 27254. EPA states that this test guideline provides “guidance for conducting a study to determine pesticide product performance against bed bugs, and is used by EPA, the public, and companies that submit data to EPA,” and “recommendations for the design and execution of laboratory studies to evaluate the performance of pesticide products intended to repel, attract, and/or kill the common bed bug (Cimex lectularius) in connection with registration of pesticide products under the [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)].” EPA states that this guidance applies to products “in any formulation such as a liquid, aerosol, fog, or impregnated fabric, if intended to be applied to have a pesticidal purpose such as to attract, repel, or kill bed bugs.” This guideline provides appropriate laboratory study designs and methods for evaluating the product performance of pesticides against bed bugs and includes statistical analysis and reporting.
EPA issued the draft guideline on February 14, 2012. This original document was the subject of FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) review conducted on March 6-7, 2012. EPA indicates that the final version of the guideline reflects revisions to the original draft based on comments from the SAP and the public. EPA states that the revisions include the following:
- Decreasing the number of individuals and replicates tested;
- Rescinding the recommendation to test each field strain for its resistance ratio; and including a resistance management statement;
- Clarifying the agency's Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) requirements;
- Reducing the recommended length of time individuals are exposed to insecticides;
- Recommending individuals to be observed up to 96 hours after treatment; and
- Revising the statistical analyses recommendations.
EPA has also placed two other relevant documents in the docket:
By J. Brian Xu, M.D., Ph.D., DABT®
On June 1, 2017, in the People’s Republic of China (China), a newly revised Regulation on Pesticide Administration (RPA) became effective. The newly revised RPA was approved during the 164th executive meeting of the State Council of China on February 8, 2017 and published as Decree Number 677 of the State Council of China (in Chinese only) (China Decree 677) on April 1, 2017.
The first version of the RPA became effective on May 8, 1997, and was revised on November 29, 2001, by China Decree 326. China Decree 677 makes significant changes to the current version of RPA (China Decree 326), and requires the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) to formulate relevant rules and measures for its implementation. The revised RPA includes eight chapters: General Provisions; Pesticide Registration; Production of Pesticides; Distribution of Pesticides; Uses of Pesticides; Supervision and Management; Legal Liability; and Supplementary Provisions.
On March 17, 2017, the MOA released five implementation measures for public comments (in Chinese only) but did not provide an implementation date. The measures include: Pesticide Registration Management Measures (Draft); Measures for the Management of Pesticide Production License (Draft); Measures for the Administration of Pesticide Business License (Draft); Measures for the Administration of Pesticide Labels and Manuals (Draft); and Measures for the Management of Tests Used for Pesticide Registration (Draft).
The new RPA is intended to: streamline the administration process; implement licensing systems for pesticide production and distribution; promote the reduction of pesticide uses and enhance the management of highly toxic pesticides; clarify the responsibilities of manufacturers, sponsors of the contracted manufacturers, and distributors for the safety, efficacy, and quality of pesticides; establish pesticide recall and pesticide waste recycling systems; and prevent and punish the adulteration of pesticides. The new RPA also revises the registration process and labeling requirements of pesticides, removes temporary pesticide registration, includes increased fines and blacklisting, and requires that manufacturers and distributors/retailers of pesticides establish a tracking system and maintain the required records for at least two years.
The new RPA significantly changed registrations for pesticides in China. Temporary pesticide registration is no longer an option. There were two registration review committees: the Temporary Pesticide Registration Review Committee that held a review meeting every two months; and the Full Pesticide Registration Review Committee that held a review meeting every six months, before the new RPA became effective. The two committees are being replaced by the National Pesticide Registration Review Committee, but no frequency of review meetings was provided. It is expected that the National Pesticide Registration Review Committee will meet less frequently than once every two months, which may result in a longer timeline for review and approval. Without temporary pesticide registrations, a full set of data will be required with every pesticide registration, including two-year stability data in the initial submission. Therefore, the new pesticide registration process may extend the time for manufacturers to bring products to the Chinese market.
The new RPA requires the foreign registration of active ingredients; possibly new formulations will obtain the registration in another country before registering it in China.
In addition, the Pesticide Registration Management Measures (Draft) requires that chemistry and toxicology tests should be completed in laboratories approved by the MOA or overseas laboratories maintaining mutual recognition agreements with the Chinese Government and complying with Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), and that efficacy, residue, and environment tests shall be conducted in China. Since China is not a member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD) system, this proposed requirement could reject all test reports from overseas for pesticide registration in China. It also requires that literature or data in a foreign language shall be translated to Chinese, but is not clear if the whole article/reports or only the summary should be translated into Chinese. The timeline for new data requirements on pesticide registration under the new RPA is not provided. Many questions for pesticide registration under the new RPA remain.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Jason E. Johnston, M.S., and James V. Aidala
On May 25, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the release of ecological risk assessments for four neonicotinoid active ingredients for public comment as well as the Registration Review Update for Four Neonicotinoid Insecticides (Update). 82 Fed. Reg. 24113. The ecological risk assessments are:
EPA states that public comments “could address, among other things, the Agency’s risk assessment methodology and assumptions applied to its draft risk assessments, such as its methodology for estimating colony-level risk to bees from exposure to bee bread.” Comments on the three ecological risk assessments are due by July 24, 2017.
The main focus of the Update document is EPA’s efforts to harmonize the risk assessment and management of the four neonicotinoids during registration review. EPA has identified additional pollinator exposure data and pollinator toxicity data needs; registrants have committed to producing the needed data, and most of the data will be submitted in 2017. EPA plans to produce final pollinator risk assessments for both agricultural and non-agricultural uses in 2018. Release of non-pollinator risk assessments (i.e., aquatic organisms, terrestrial mammals, and birds) is planned for 2017. Human health risk assessments are also scheduled to be issued in 2017. EPA has stated that mitigating risk from the uses of all neonicotinoids may be considered for all four compounds at the same time to ensure consistent risk management and to prevent unnecessary shifts in usage between the compounds without a reduction in risk. EPA intends to release final pollinator assessments and proposed interim decisions for registration review for all four neonicotinoids in 2018.
From the EPA website, the following general statement summarizes what EPA has found so far:
- The assessments for clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, similar to the preliminary pollinator assessment for imidacloprid showed: most approved uses do not pose significant risks to bee colonies. However, spray applications to a few crops, such as cucumbers, berries, and cotton, may pose risks to bees that come in direct contact with residue.
To some degree, it is reassuring that widespread adoption of the neonicotinoid products appears not to be an overwhelming or altogether unanticipated risk to pollinators. For insecticides, that foliar spray applications could be harmful is not good news, as any direct contact of an insect (bees) and insecticides usually is not good for the health of the insect.
Another point some may find reassuring is that EPA has not found seed treatment with neonicotinoid products to be of significant risk. This is ironic to some degree, since one of the fundamental assumptions not long ago among many beekeepers was that the seed treatment products were a singular and significant cause of the increase in colony decline and loss.
EPA’s description of the registration review status of these products also indicates that a great volume of additional data concerning possible pollinator risks is due to arrive over the next six to 18 months. Obviously, the results of these additional studies will fundamentally inform the EPA risk assessment conclusions. At the same time, one legacy of the Obama Administration in this space, the development of state Manage Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3), also will be impacted by what EPA discovers from this volume of soon-to-arrive data.
Until then, and until the new political leadership of the agency indicates any direction on pollinator issues, it is unclear whether the pollinator issue will remain one of the priority issues for program attention, or be folded into the general timeline and normal course or registration review over the next few years.
By Jason E. Johnston, M.S.
On May 31, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the release of its Food Contact Sanitizing Solutions Model (FCSSM), a pesticide risk assessment model that has been developed to “estimate indirect dietary exposure to components of sanitizing solutions used in commercial settings.” EPA states that “the model offers guidance for estimating exposure where there may be inadvertent transfer of residue to edible items prepared or transported on surfaces treated with these pesticides.” The model consists of spreadsheets that automatically calculate dietary exposure and risk estimates based on data entered by the user. The model estimates exposures to antimicrobial active ingredients listed under 40 C.F.R. § 180.940(b) and 40 C.F.R. § 180.940(c), where 940(b) includes uses in dairy processing equipment and food processing equipment and utensils, while 940(c) excludes dairy processing equipment. FCSSM does not apply to active ingredients listed under 40 C.F.R. § 180.940(a), which are used on food contact surfaces in public eating places as well as dairy and food processing equipment. For this case, EPA’s established methodology remains in place. Compared to the simple calculation method used previously for these use scenarios, the major new feature of the FCSSM is the separate calculations of both acute and chronic dietary exposures for the general U.S. population and eight subpopulations. EPA also released a user guide that provides background information on the model and familiarizes users with the inputs required to run the model.
More information about the FCSSM as well as other models used for pesticide risk assessments is available on EPA’s website.
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit responded to two petitions for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) conditional registration of a nanosilver pesticide product and vacated the conditional registration. NRDC v. EPA, No. 15-72308. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as well as the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) filed petitions in 2015 asking the court to set aside EPA’s final order granting a conditional registration for a nanosilver-containing antimicrobial pesticide product named NSPW-L30SS (NSPW). The court vacated the conditional registration because, according to the court, “EPA failed to support its finding that NSPW is in the public interest.”
When EPA granted the conditional registration, EPA did so on the basis that NSPW had a lower application rate and a lower mobility rate when compared to conventional-silver pesticides, and thus had the potential to reduce environmental loading and risk caused by silver release. Petitioners disputed these facts. While the court found that substantial evidence supports EPA’s findings that NSPW has lower application and mobility rates, the court agreed that the third premise, that current users of conventional-silver pesticides will switch to NSPW and/or that NSPW will not be incorporated into new products, “impermissibly relies on unsubstantiated assumptions.” According to the court, EPA cites no evidence in the record to support its assumption that current users of conventional-silver pesticides will switch to NSPW (“the substitution assumption”), but contends that it will occur as a “logical matter.” The court states that the lack of evidence supporting the substitution assumption is problematic in light of EPA’s other unsupported assumption, that there will be no new products. The court notes that EPA assumes current users of conventional-silver pesticides will switch to NSPW because of its benefits, but that these same benefits will not prompt manufacturers to incorporate NSPW into new products. EPA could have proved these assumptions, but without evidence in the record to support the assumptions, the court states that it “cannot find that the EPA’s public-interest finding is supported by substantial evidence as required by [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)].” According to the court, the public interest finding is an “essential prerequisite to conditional registration,” and EPA failed to support that finding for NSPW with substantial evidence. The court vacated the conditional registration in whole, and did not consider the remaining issues raised by petitioners.
More information will be available in Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s memorandum Appellate Court Vacates Conditional Nanosilver Registration.
By Susan M. Kirsch
On May 24, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017, by 256-165 vote. H.R. 953, which is similar to bills introduced in the past three congresses, would overturn a 2009 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision requiring Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for pesticide spraying activities into, over, or near waters. The legislation would eliminate NPDES permitting for pesticide spraying that complies with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Proponents of the legislation assert that the addition of CWA regulation is duplicative, burdensome, and costly for industry without resulting in any additional environmental benefits. Opponents argue that the bill would strip clean water protections for waters already listed as impaired for pesticides. Championed by Representative Bob Gibbs (R-OH), the recent vote received significant bipartisan support, with twenty-five Democrats voting in support of the bill. Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) introduced companion legislation in the Senate (S. 340), which currently awaits action by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The prospects for a Senate vote are mixed in light of the number of confirmations in the queue for political appointees, as well as big ticket legislative priorities, such as health care and tax reform. If legislation is enacted, it would only apply to the four states (Idaho, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Massachusetts), tribal lands, and other federally managed areas that are governed by the federal NPDES permit. Forty-six states administer state versions of pesticide permits. Mmany states would be expected to phase out permitting if the federal requirement is eliminated, however.
More information regarding CWA NPDES issues is available on our blog under key word NPDES.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On May, 24, 2017, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) issued guidance regarding its Notice 2015-13 to applicants registering pesticide impregnated materials bearing pesticide claims to be sold and distributed into or within California, per Notice 2015-13, issued December 11, 2015. Each retailer (or authorized representative) of an affected product must submit an Application for Pesticide Registration (DPR-REG-030) to DPR by July 1, 2017.
The guidance includes information on the registration requirements, as well as:
More details on the requirements are available in our blog items California Issues Notice Requiring Registration for Products Made From Pesticide Impregnated Materials and Bearing Pesticide Claims and California DPR Extends Filing Date to Register Pesticide Impregnated Products.
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
In a May 11, 2017, letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Acting Assistant Administrator Wendy Cleland-Hamnett to the CEO of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) posted by Bloomberg’s BNA Daily Environment Report, Cleland-Hamnett states that it is appropriate to grant NASDA’s request to delay implementation of all revised provisions to the agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) “until the necessary guidance and training have been completed which would allow state lead pesticide agencies to successfully implement the rule changes.” EPA has not yet issued any formal delay notifications.
The May 11, 2017, letter was sent in response to a February 17, 2017, letter from NASDA (February 21, 2017, per the NASDA website) that requested EPA to extend the WPS “until at least January 2, 2018, or until adequate enforcement guidance, educational materials, and training resources have been completed and the state lead agencies have the tools, time, and resources necessary to effectively implement the rule changes and assist the regulated community with compliance activities.” This letter was not submitted in the WPS docket in response to a request for comment, but pursuant to a NASDA membership decision. NASDA states in the letter that the new WPS regulations require “significant additional staff time to provide sufficient outreach to workers, handlers, applicators, agricultural employers, trainers and other stakeholders,” and that “the enhanced compliance and record keeping requirements require a robust delivery and understanding of educational resources and training materials to assist [state lead agencies] and the regulated community in understanding, complying, and enforcing the new requirements.”
The WPS final rule including updates and revisions to the existing worker protection regulations for pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) became effective on January 1, 2016, and on January 4, 2017, agricultural employers and handler employers were required to comply with all of the new requirements set forth in the final rule – with the exception of two requirements that would be implemented not before January 2018. More information on the final rule is available in our blog item EPA Publishes Worker Protection Standard Final Rule.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Lara A. Hall, and Margaret R. Graham
On May 8, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its invitation for public input regarding the “Strategic Roadmap: New Approaches to Evaluate the Safety of Chemicals and Medical Products” (Roadmap), the development of which was coordinated by the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). ICCVAM states that the vision of the Roadmap is to “establish new approaches for evaluating the safety of chemicals and medical products in the United States that will increase confidence in alternative methods and improve their relevance to human health outcomes while maximizing efficiency and maintaining a commitment to replace, reduce, and refine animal use.” ICCVAM’s Roadmap effort was introduced in March 2016. A detailed presentation on the development of the Roadmap is available here.
ICCVAM, a permanent committee of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) under the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), is composed of representatives from 16 U.S. federal regulatory and research agencies that require, use, generate, or disseminate toxicological and safety testing information. As a participating member of ICCVAM, EPA states that its role is to “encourage the development and use of alternatives to animal test methods, ensure that new methods are valid, review test method recommendations, and as appropriate, adopt these alternatives in our own regulatory programs.”
There are also three upcoming public meetings that will provide additional opportunities to comment on topics relevant to this effort:
- ICCVAM Public Forum: May 23, 2017, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland;
- NTP Board of Scientific Counselors meeting: June 29, 2017, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; and
- Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods meeting: September 18-19, 2017, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
As ICCVAM’s commitment to replace, reduce, and refine animal use continues to draw public comment and gain support, there is an increasing need to demonstrate the utility and harmonization of predictive approaches in toxicology testing with the conventional safety evaluation of chemicals and medical products. Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) continues to monitor the development, validation, and implementation of alternative in vitro and in silico test methods, high throughput screening assays, and computational models as they are integrated into global regulatory frameworks.