By Lisa R. Burchi and James V. Aidala
On October 6, 2020, the California Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) announced it will be meeting on December 11, 2020, to discuss the possible developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) of 22 chemical substances and chemical groups, including glyphosate and its salts, and three neonicotinoid pesticides (acetamiprid, clothianidin, and imidacloprid). DARTIC is composed of scientists who advise California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) on the prioritization of chemicals for potential Proposition 65 (Prop 65) listing and identification of chemicals that have been shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause reproductive toxicity.
Public comments on the 22 substances will be accepted until November 16, 2020, and OEHHA will forward those comments to DARTIC members prior to its meeting.
The full list of chemicals and chemical groups that DARTIC will discuss are:
- Bisphenol S;
- Domoic acid;
- Glyphosate and its salts;
- Neonicotinoid pesticides;
- Butyl paraben;
- Isobutyl paraben;
- Methyl paraben;
- Propyl paraben;
- Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS);
- Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA);
- Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS);
- Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA);
- Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA);
- Titanium dioxide nanoparticles;
- Vinpocetine; and
OEHHA’s document, Prioritization: Chemicals Identified for Consultation with the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee, presents information on these chemicals or chemical groups for DARTIC’s consideration. Specifically, OEHHA states: “For each, an initial, abbreviated appraisal of the scientific information identified through the screening-level literature search and the preliminary toxicological evaluation is presented.” With regard to glyphosate and its salts, OEHHA provides “a brief overview of the relevant studies published within the last five years and those included in the Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate by ATSDR (ATSDR 2020) that were identified during the preliminary toxicological evaluation.”
No listing decisions will be made by DARTIC at the December meeting. If OEHHA moves forward to propose to list any substances, it will separately issue a notice and seek public comments.
The fact that OEHHA is seeking DARTIC’s review of glyphosate is particularly interesting, as glyphosate is already listed under Prop 65 based on a finding that glyphosate is a chemical known to cause cancer. That listing is in jeopardy, however, based on a June 2020 court decision that prohibits OEHHA from requiring Prop 65 warnings because the basis for the listing, a determination by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that the glyphosate is “probably” carcinogenic to humans, is not consistent with the findings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies. Additional information regarding glyphosate’s Prop 65 listing is available here. If OEHHA is not successful in its appeal of the court’s ruling and is successful in listing glyphosate based on its potential to cause developmental and reproductive toxicity effects, the result would be a new basis upon which to impose Prop 65 warning requirements. At the same time, EPA’s registration review of glyphosate encompasses, in EPA’s view, a health risk assessment, which includes a pesticide’s potential risks of developmental and reproductive effects. As a result, it is not clear if EPA’s arguments that its FIFRA labeling authority prohibits Prop 65 warnings also would apply to its registration review of health risks, which includes possible developmental and reproductive effects.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, and Lisa R. Burchi
On June 22, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment for the Plaintiffs in National Association of Wheat Growers et. al. v. Becerra, and entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of a Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning label for pesticide products containing glyphosate. The court found that requiring the registrants of glyphosate products to include such a warning could not be justified as a valid restriction on commercial speech and therefore is contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution. The same District Court had previously entered a preliminary injunction against the Prop 65 warning in 2018, and the required warning has consequently never been in effect. (See our February 28, 2018, blog entitled “Eastern District of California Rules on Motion to Enjoin Prop 65 Listing and Warning on Glyphosate Products.”) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has stated that it would not allow a Prop 65 warning to be added to the labeling for any registered glyphosate product because such a warning is misleading and would cause the product to be “misbranded” under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 2(q)(1)(A). (See our August 15, 2019, blog entitled “EPA Issues Guidance Regarding Prop 65 Labeling Requirements for Glyphosate Products and OEHHA Responds.”)
A Prop 65 warning is required when the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) determines that a product contains a substance that has been classified as a human carcinogen by certain authoritative bodies, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Based on an IARC determination that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” in humans, OEHHA listed glyphosate in July 2017 as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, thereby triggering Prop 65 warning requirements. Despite the IARC determination, every other authoritative body that has considered the matter (including EPA, the European Commission, and the World Health Organization) has reached a contrary determination that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans. California’s imposition of a Prop 65 warning for glyphosate was challenged in 2018 by the registrant Bayer and a coalition of farming groups and industry stakeholders, who obtained a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the warning.
Before entering the new permanent injunction, the District Court considered whether California’s regulation of commercial speech should be scrutinized under the lower standard set by the Supreme Court in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel or the intermediate standard set by Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission. The Zauderer standard only applies to mandatory disclosure of “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” and the Court found that the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate is “misleading” and therefore neither factual nor uncontroversial. Under the Central Hudson level of scrutiny, a governmental agency may only restrict commercial speech when the restriction directly advances an important governmental interest and where the restriction is not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. The Court found that the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate is misleading, and therefore does not directly advance the interest of the state in informing consumers regarding potential cancer hazards, and that the asserted state interest could be effectively advanced by other measures that do not burden freedom of speech in the same manner.
California argued that no Prop 65 warning would actually be required for glyphosate in practice because OEHHA has set a quantitative “safe harbor” level for glyphosate exposure, but the court found that this would not prevent parties other than California from bringing separate enforcement actions to enforce the listing. Since a Prop 65 warning only needs to be “clear and reasonable,” California also proposed several alternative forms for a warning that would meet state requirements, but the court found these alternate warnings to all be misleading as well. Based on all of these factors, the court decided to enjoin permanently the enforcement of Prop 65 warning requirements for glyphosate as an unconstitutional burden on commercial speech.
Under FIFRA Section 24(b), no state may impose any labeling for a registered pesticide that differs from the labeling approved by EPA. Although EPA has sometimes been willing to accommodate state labeling requirements or preferences within the labeling approved under FIFRA, there are necessary limits to this practice. When label language sought by a state becomes misleading, approving it would also be expressly contrary to FIFRA. How much precedential effect this decision may have with respect to other state requirements for labeling in the future is an issue that registrants should monitor closely.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi and Barbara A. Christianson
On April 3, 2020, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced it would allow enforcement discretion by County Agricultural Commissioners (CAC) for licensing and certification requirements for pesticide applicators who perform sanitization services to control the spread of COVID-19.
DPR states in its announcement that, under normal circumstances, a “Pest Control Business (PCB) must always have a Qualified Applicator License (QAL) holder to supervise pest control services. Generally, where a PCB performs sanitization services, the QAL must also be certified in Category A, P, or K” described as follows:
- Category A allows PCBs to perform sanitization or disinfection in residential, industrial, or institutional (RII) use settings such as hospitals, schools, or prisons;
- Category P allows PCBs to perform microbial pest control in RII use settings; and
- Category K allows PCBs to perform health related pest control services under a government-sponsored program.
DPR acknowledges that due to Governor Newsom’s March 4, 2020, “Stay at Home” Executive Order, DPR cannot proctor in-person licensing examinations to certify licensees. DPR thus announced that it will use enforcement discretion by allowing “licensed and registered PCBs to perform sanitization services for the control of COVID-19 if they have a designated individual at each business location with a valid QAL in any category” (emphasis added by DPR). DPR specifies that enforcement discretion applies when all of the following conditions are met:
- The professional sanitization service is performed for COVID-19 control and only during the next 90 days.
- The PCB without the specific QAL license category notifies the CAC in writing with an explanation for why the sanitization work is necessary.
- Examples of necessary work may include situations in which the PCB is the only licensee registered to do business in the county or where other properly licensed PCBs are unavailable to perform COVID-19-related work.
- The QAL holder ensures that all applicators applying antimicrobials are properly trained and are in strict compliance with label directions and all other applicable laws and regulations.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, and James V. Aidala
On February 6, 2020, Corteva Agriscience (Corteva), announced it will discontinue all production of the organophosphate (OP) insecticide chlorpyrifos by the end of the year. Corteva and its corporate predecessor, Dow AgroSciences, have been the principal global manufacturers of chlorpyrifos. Corteva announced that its decision to stop selling chlorpyrifos was based entirely on financial considerations. This announcement came on the same day that Corteva had previously agreed it would end further sales of chlorpyrifos in California, and less than a week after the date the European Union (EU) ended all sales of chlorpyrifos in member states. These actions followed a number of prior actions taken by other national and state governments to ban or severely restrict chlorpyrifos. Corteva emphasized in its public statements that the science demonstrates that chlorpyrifos can be safely used, but that the company made a business decision based on the declining markets for the product. In an interview reported by the Washington Post, Susanne Wasson, Corteva's President for Crop Protection said, “It’s a tough decision for us to make, but we don’t feel like it’s viable going forward.” In other statements, Corteva noted that in the last ten years their share of the global chlorpyrifos market had declined from 75% to less than 20%.
Chlorpyrifos has been registered for use in the U.S. for over 50 years, but has become increasingly controversial in the dozen years since the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a petition in 2007 to cancel all registrations and revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos. Following a protracted court battle and a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take final administrative action concerning the 2007 petition, EPA proposed near the end of the Obama Administration to revoke all existing tolerances for chlorpyrifos. A significant basis for this proposal was a controversial decision by a panel of EPA scientists that the default tenfold safety factor established by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) for infants and children, which EPA had previously waived based on studies establishing a threshold for acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition, should be reinstated.
The new EPA safety factor determination was based in large measure on epidemiology studies that reported an association between exposure to chlorpyrifos at levels below the presumed threshold for AChE inhibition and adverse neurodevelopmental effects in children. Many industry scientists disputed the scientific basis for this EPA determination because confounding exposures and methodological biases in the epidemiology studies may have influenced the reported association with neurodevelopmental effects and because the EPA determination made unprecedented use of epidemiology data. Beyond the effect on chlorpyrifos, the EPA decision will likely continue to be controversial because EPA included a similar safety factor determination for all OP pesticides, even though the mechanism responsible for the reported neurodevelopmental effects attributed to chlorpyrifos has not been identified and the other OP products were not studied in the epidemiology studies.
In the first year of the Trump Administration, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided not to adopt EPA’s previously proposed tolerance revocation and instead to deny formally the 2007 petition, citing unresolved scientific issues. This reversal of course, however, was not accompanied by any new scientific assessment or by any explicit revision of the prior FQPA safety factor determination. Later, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) decided to designate chlorpyrifos as a Toxic Air Contaminant, a decision that was noteworthy because it was based primarily on new toxicology studies that DPR stated reported neurodevelopmental effects well below the threshold for AChE inhibition. DPR deemphasized the epidemiology data relied on in the EPA safety factor determination in its decision. Although EPA later stated that it would address these new toxicology studies as part of an accelerated registration review process, there were intervening decisions by the EU and by California to ban new sales, which may have contributed to Corteva’s February 6, 2020, decision to cease chlorpyrifos production.
The decision by Corteva to cease manufacturing chlorpyrifos reminds us that the decision to continue marketing any chemical substance cannot be based solely on the scientific data, but must also consider the regulatory climate and the economic viability of the product. For those of us with a long memory, the decision by Corteva is reminiscent of the decision nearly 40 years ago by the Dow Chemical Company to pull the plug on 2,4,5-T and silvex, after Dow had expended millions of dollars and many years of effort to contest an emergency suspension and subsequent cancellation of these herbicides. Dow made this decision even though it believed that the available data demonstrated the safety of those products.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Timothy D. Backstrom
On August 14, 2019, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) issued cancellation notices to thirteen California registrants of pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos, including Dow Agrosciences LLC (now Corteva). Each of these notices is referred to as an "Accusation," and each affected registrant has 15 days to request a hearing concerning the proposed cancellation. DPR's issuance of these notices followed a final decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deny an administrative petition to revoke the tolerances and cancel the U.S. registrations for chlorpyrifos. DPR states: "Despite the Trump administration's reversal of a decision to ban the pesticide at the federal level, California continues to move forward to protect public health, workers, and the environment." Although it is unusual for a State to act unilaterally to cancel a State registration for a pesticide that is still registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), FIFRA Section 24(a) provides that States may separately regulate Federally registered pesticides so long as they do not purport to authorize any sale or use that is otherwise prohibited under FIFRA.
The risk assessment that supports DPR's proposal to cancel chlorpyrifos products is based on five animal studies published in 2016, 2017, and 2018, that report neurotoxicity from chlorpyrifos at exposure levels that are considerably lower than the levels that cause acetylcholinesterase inhibition. Based on its evaluation these studies, DPR has concluded that developmental neurotoxicity is the critical endpoint for chlorpyrifos and has derived a point of departure for chlorpyrifos risk assessment. Based on this assessment, DPR previously concluded that chlorpyrifos should be designated as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). DPR presented its TAC findings to California's Scientific Review Panel at a meeting on July 30, 2018, and the Panel subsequently concluded that the DPR assessment of the developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos was "based on sound scientific knowledge, and represents a balanced assessment of our current scientific understanding."
On the same day DPR issued its cancellation notices for chlorpyrifos, DPR also announced it has established an Alternatives to Chlorpyrifos Work Group with experts from "agriculture, California universities, environmental justice groups, farmworker health and safety organizations, and pesticide manufacturers…" DPR has asked this Work Group to develop short-term practical alternatives to chlorpyrifos, along with a five-year action plan. The Work Group is supposed to conclude its work by the spring of 2020. The budget for 2019-2020 approved by the California Legislature also includes $5 million in grant funding to develop sustainable alternatives to chlorpyrifos.
The DPR decision to cancel chlorpyrifos relies primarily on new animal studies that report that chlorpyrifos causes neurodevelopmental effects at levels that are well below those that inhibit cholinesterase. DPR refers in passing to the epidemiology studies for chlorpyrifos that EPA used to make its Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) determination for all organophosphate (OP) pesticides, but these data were not used by DPR to derive its point of departure for chlorpyrifos risk assessment.
EPA scientists have not yet prepared a formal evaluation of the new animal studies for chlorpyrifos, but EPA's decision to deny the petition to revoke tolerances and cancel registrations for chlorpyrifos states that EPA intends to evaluate the new animal studies as part of its registration review deliberations for chlorpyrifos. The FIFRA registrations for chlorpyrifos may also be affected by pending judicial actions challenging EPA's decision to deny the petition to revoke the tolerances and cancel the registrations for chlorpyrifos. In this complicated environment, it will be important to monitor the registrants’ and industry’s response to DPR's cancellation actions, as well as their efforts on the pending Federal court litigation and EPA's registration review process for chlorpyrifos.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, Lisa R. Burchi, and James V. Aidala
On August 7, 2019, EPA took long awaited action concerning the inclusion of Prop 65 warning statements for glyphosate on EPA registered pesticide labels, which will likely impact the broader ongoing debate over EPA approval of Prop 65 warnings on pesticide labels. EPA’s August 7, 2019, letter to glyphosate registrants states that EPA “will no longer approve labeling that includes the Proposition 65 warning statement for glyphosate-containing products.” EPA stated further that “[t]he warning statement must also be removed from all product labels where the only basis for the warning is glyphosate and from any materials considered labeling under FIFRA for those products.” Moreover, EPA unequivocally states that “pesticide products bearing the Proposition 65 warning statement due to the presence of glyphosate are misbranded” under FIFRA Section 2(q)(1)(A). Registrants with glyphosate products currently bearing Prop 65 warning language, where the exclusive basis for such warning is based on the presence of glyphosate, must submit draft amended labeling that removes this language by November 5, 2019.
By way of background, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) listed glyphosate as a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer on July 7, 2017. OEHHA’s listing of glyphosate as a substance under Prop 65 is based on the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC) classifying it as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” EPA scientists subsequently completed an independent review of the available scientific data on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate and do not agree with the IARC classification. Additional information regarding glyphosate is available at B&C’s blog.
Also of note is a February 26, 2018, preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of California, in response to a motion filed by a coalition including Monsanto, CropLife America, and several growers associations alleging that the IARC classification decision for glyphosate is contrary to the international scientific consensus, that the required Prop 65 warning would be misleading to the ordinary consumer, that compelling the manufacturers of glyphosate to provide such a warning would violate the First Amendment because the warning is not factual and uncontroversial, and that the applicable criteria for injunctive relief were met. The February 26, injunction precluded OEHHA from enforcing its Prop 65 warning requirements against glyphosate registrants that otherwise would have taken effect on July 7, 2018. The Court did not rule that glyphosate should be removed from the Prop 65 list as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, but did state that products containing glyphosate would not be required to comply with the warning requirements. In issuing the preliminary injunction, the Court stated that the required warnings are “false and misleading” and that plaintiffs “have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim, are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction, the court will grant plaintiffs’ request to enjoin [Prop 65]’s warning requirement for glyphosate.” More information on that case is available at B&C’s blog. That injunction has not been appealed and remains in place.
Although the glyphosate warning that EPA has refused to allow is based on OEHHA’s recent listing under Prop 65, Prop 65 warnings on pesticide labels generally have been a significant issue since 2016 when OEHHA issued revised regulations regarding the content and transmission of Prop 65 warnings. As a result of these revisions, many registrants sought to add Prop 65 warning requirements to pesticide labels to meet Prop 65 requirements, but many registrants have not been able to obtain EPA approval for such warnings, resulting in much controversy and discussion. More information regarding the changes to Prop 65 warning requirements also are available at B&C’s blog.
In its press release announcing its guidance to glyphosate registrants, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler states: “It is irresponsible to require labels on products that are inaccurate when EPA knows the product does not pose a cancer risk. We will not allow California’s flawed program to dictate federal policy.” EPA states that its “independent evaluation of available scientific data included a more extensive and relevant dataset than IARC considered during its evaluation of glyphosate, from which the agency concluded that glyphosate is ‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’” Wheeler is further quoted as stating: “It is critical that federal regulatory agencies like EPA relay to consumers accurate, scientific based information about risks that pesticides may pose to them. EPA’s notification to glyphosate registrants is an important step to ensuring the information shared with the public on a federal pesticide label is correct and not misleading.”
OEHHA immediately released its own press release on August 13, 2019, in which it “objects to US EPA’s characterization of any warning concerning glyphosate’s carcinogenicity as a false claim.’” After reiterating OEHHA’s listing glyphosate based on the IARC determination, OEHHA states that EPA’s position “conflicts with the determination made by IARC” and that “it is disrespectful of the scientific process for US EPA to categorically dismiss any warnings based on IARC’s determinations as false.”
The Court’s February 26, 2018, preliminary injunction was considered a significant development both for glyphosate specifically and perhaps for Prop 65 warning requirements generally, especially considering the recent influx to EPA of label amendments seeking EPA approval of revised Prop 65 warning language to address OEHHA’s revised regulatory changes. EPA’s guidance is equally significant, as EPA has now rejected the inclusion of a Prop 65 warning that EPA believes is misleading on a federal pesticide product label.
FIFRA Section 24(b) expressly prohibits any State from requiring any label language for a registered pesticide product beyond the labeling approved by EPA, and EPA has now declined to approve pesticide labeling that includes the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate. In some instances, EPA has been willing as a courtesy to approve labeling changes requested by a State, but the glyphosate determination demonstrates that EPA will not accept any label revisions that conflict materially with its own determinations. Although glyphosate is a fairly complex and controversial case, it will be important for registrants to monitor the evolution of EPA’s standard for when it will or will not approve a Prop 65 warning on a federal label, since this issue has been the subject of considerable controversy over the past several years.
By Lisa M. Campbell 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).
- 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 and Lisa R. Burchi
On May 28, 2019, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) posted a new presentation identifying the top ten agricultural pesticide use violations of 2018. Its announcement states that “DPR suggests reviewing these common violations of pesticide laws and regulations to help ensure … compliance.” The presentation, “Top 10 Agricultural Pesticide Use Violations of 2018,” is available here. The violations are listed from the least common (number 10) to the most common (number 1):
10. Handler Training, regulated under Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (C.C.R.) § 6724. Examples of handler training violations listed in the presentation are: not updating employee training before a new pesticide is handled; and not providing employees handler training before they work on or repair equipment previously used to apply pesticides.
9. Application-Specific Information (ASI) for Fieldworkers, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6761.1. Examples of violations listed in the presentation are: not including a specific description of the location of the ASI on the Pesticide Safety Information Series (PSIS) A-9 leaflet so that workers have unimpeded access; and not displaying the ASI before fieldworkers work in a treated field.
8. Hazard Communication for Fieldworkers, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6761. Examples of these types of violations listed in the presentation are: not retaining Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for the pesticides listed in the pesticide use records within the past two years; and not informing employees or the Farm Labor Contractor (FLC) of the location of the pesticide use records before the employees enter a treated field.
7. Handler Decontamination Facilities, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6734. Examples of these types of violations listed in the presentation are: not having an emergency eye flush station able to rinse the eye gently for 15 minutes at the mix and load site, when protective eyewear is required by the pesticide labeling; and handlers using hand sanitizer for decontamination instead of soap and water.
6. Availability of Labeling, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6602. Examples of labeling availability violations listed in the presentation are: not having relevant Special Local Needs (SLN) labeling at the site when mixing, loading, or applying; and not having the labeling booklets on-site when mixing, loading, or applying.
5. Service Container Labeling, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6678. Examples of service container labeling violations listed in the presentation are: not including the signal word on a service container label; and not including the address of the company or person responsible for the container on the label.
4. Annual Registration with County Agricultural Commissioner by Anyone Who Intends to Advertise, Solicit, or Operate as a Pest Control Business in California, regulated under California Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 11732. An example of a violation is performing pest control activities in a county before registering with the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC).
3. Emergency Medical Care Requirements, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6726. Examples of violations listed in the presentation are: not taking employees suspected of a pesticide illness to the doctor immediately; and failure to post the handler emergency medical care information.
2. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Requirements, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6738. Examples of violations listed in the presentation are: storing PPE in the same place pesticides are stored; and an employer not providing the proper PPE required by the labeling.
1. Labeling and Permit Conditions Compliance, regulated under FAC § 12973. Examples of violations listed in the presentation are: not following the pesticide storage requirements listed on the labeling; and applying a pesticide to a site or crop not listed on the labeling.
Additionally, DPR has created an informative presentation about the 2019 license renewal process to help spread awareness to those renewing this year (last names and business names starting with M-Z). DPR states that it encourages continuing education (CE) sponsors, CAC staff, and others to use the presentation to inform license and certificate holders renewing this year about DPR’s renewal process, CE requirements, important dates, and the benefits of renewing early. The 2019 Renewal Process presentation is available here.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On May 8, 2019, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) announced that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) will be initiating cancellation proceedings of chlorpyrifos. In its press release, CalEPA states that the decision to commence cancellation proceedings “follows mounting evidence, including recent findings by the state’s independent Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants, that the pesticide causes serious health effects in children and other sensitive populations at lower levels of exposure than previously understood.”
DPR’s decision, following years of review in California of chlorpyrifos, is sure to garner significant controversy, comments, and, potentially, litigation.
Chlorpyrifos first entered the comprehensive risk assessment process after being designated by DPR with a “high” priority status in 2011, and some of the DPR documents supporting the current action were issued in 2011.
In December 2015, DPR released a draft risk assessment for public comment. Since the risk assessment identified potential human exposure to spray drift (via inhalation or deposition) as a concern, DPR entered chlorpyrifos in its formal evaluation process to determine the scientific evidence for listing it as a pesticide Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) (CA Food & Agric. Code §§ 14021-14027).
DPR’s assessments were intended to evaluate chlorpyrifos as a pesticide TAC as defined in California regulations (Title 3, Section 6864). The determination of a pesticide TAC is based on whether the air concentrations, either measured or modeled, exceed the reference concentration (RfC) divided by ten. Under the applicable California statutory provisions, designation of an active ingredient as a TAC is based on an evaluation that assesses the following:
- The availability and quality of data on health effects;
- The potency, mode of action, and other relevant biological factors;
- An estimate of the levels of exposure that may cause or contribute to adverse health effects; and
- The range of risks to humans resulting from current or anticipated exposure (CA Food & Agric. Code § 14023(a)).
DPR published its draft revised report entitled "Evaluation of Chlorpyrifos as a Toxic Air Contaminant" in December 2017 and an addendum to that report in June 2018. DPR issued its final TAC evaluation in July 2018. The July 2018 evaluation concludes that “chlorpyrifos meets the criteria of TAC designation by using either the developmental neurotoxicity endpoint or the [acetylcholinesterase (AChE)] inhibition endpoint, even without the additional 10x uncertainty factor necessary to account for the fact that the developmental neurotoxicity effects occur at a lower level than AChE inhibition.”
DPR’s findings, public comments, and responses to those comments were reviewed by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) on TACs. SRP’s findings on chlorpyrifos issued in August 2018 “unanimously concluded that the report, with the revisions requested by the Panel, is based on sound scientific knowledge, and represents a balanced assessment of our current scientific understanding.”
In April 2019, chlorpyrifos was listed in California as a TAC, which triggered a DPR requirement to “develop control measures to protect the health of farm workers and others living and working near where the pesticide is used.” In its press release announcing the cancellation proceedings, CalEPA states that “DPR has determined, in consultation with CDFA, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), that sufficient additional control measures are not feasible.”
DPR’s announcement is the beginning of what DPR estimates could be a two-year cancellation proceeding, although in reality the process may take even longer. Other actions proposed in conjunction with the cancellation proceeding include:
- DPR to consult with county agricultural commissioners and local air pollution control districts before filing for cancellation.
- DPR to support “aggressive” enforcement of existing restrictions on the use of chlorpyrifos, including a ban on aerial spraying, quarter-mile buffer zones, and limiting use to crop-pest combinations that lack alternatives.
- DPR and CDFA to convene a cross-sector working group to identify, evaluate, and recommend safer and more practical and sustainable alternative pest management solutions to chlorpyrifos.
- California Governor Gavin Newsom to propose $5.7 million in new budget funding “to support the transition to safer, more sustainable alternatives.
DPR’s action must also be viewed in conjunction with various federal and state reviews and resulting litigation regarding chlorpyrifos’ continued registration and use. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for example, is conducting its own registration review of chlorpyrifos, and was ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to issue, within 90 days of the April 19, 2019, order, its final decision regarding the continued registration of chlorpyrifos.
Other states are also taking action to ban chlorpyrifos, notably Hawaii, which enacted legislation in 2018 to ban the use of chlorpyrifos in Hawaii by 2022; and New York, whose legislature approved bills in April 2019 to ban chlorpyrifos use in New York by 2021.
Stakeholders should review all these issues closely, as these unprecedented decisions are likely to provide multiple opportunities to comment or otherwise participate to ensure that regulatory requirements are indeed being met for cancellation.
More information concerning chlorpyrifos is available on our blog.
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.
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.