By Lynn L. Bergeson and Sheryl Lindros Dolan
On October 4, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the availability of final guidance that helps to clarify FDA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jurisdiction over the regulation of mosquito-related products intended to function as pesticides, including those produced through the use of biotechnology. The notice was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2017. 82 Fed. Reg. 46500. Guidance for Industry #236, “Clarification of FDA and EPA Jurisdiction Over Mosquito-Related Products” (Guidance), provides information for industry and other stakeholders regarding the regulatory oversight of articles, including substances, for use in or on mosquitoes (mosquito-related products). FDA states that it is providing the Guidance to clarify circumstances under which such products are regulated by FDA as new animal drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and other circumstances under which such products are regulated by EPA as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Scope of Guidance
FDA notes that the Guidance is important in light of the public health urgency of countering the spread of mosquito-borne disease such as that caused by the Zika virus. While novel mosquito control technologies have gained greater attention, there has been confusion regarding FDA and EPA jurisdiction over such products. FDA, working collaboratively with EPA, is providing the Guidance to clarify the regulatory oversight of mosquito-related products. This includes, but is not limited to, those produced through biotechnology.
The Guidance includes the following examples of new animal drugs regulated by FDA:
- Products intended to reduce the virus/pathogen load within a mosquito, including reduction in virus/pathogen replication and spread within the mosquito and/or reduction in virus/pathogen transmissibility from mosquitoes to humans; and
- Products intended to prevent mosquito-borne disease in humans or animals.
Examples of pesticide products regulated by EPA are “[p]roducts intended to reduce the population of mosquitoes (for example, by killing them at some point in their life cycle, or by interfering with their reproduction or development).”
Guidance for Sponsors/Manufacturers of Products Intended for use on Mosquitoes
In the Guidance, FDA encourages sponsors of mosquito-related products, other than those that are “intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate mosquitoes by controlling a mosquito population,” to contact FDA early in the development process. FDA states that if a developer has a jurisdictional question, such as which agency or agencies would have oversight of a mosquito-related product that is expressly intended for both mosquito population control and human disease suppression, the developer may contact either or both agencies via the contacts listed. FDA and EPA will consult with each other on the jurisdictional question, “as is already common practice.” The agencies may suggest a joint meeting among EPA, FDA, and the sponsor to discuss appropriate pathways to market.
The guidance notes that FDA, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have committed to clarifying how the federal government intends to regulate genetically engineered insects as described in the September 2016 National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products. More information on the National Strategy is available in our September 21, 2016, memorandum White House Releases Proposed Update to the Coordinated Framework and National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products.
The new FDA guidance states that products intended to prevent mosquito-borne disease in humans or animals are regulated as new animal drugs subject to FDA jurisdiction, but products intended to control mosquito populations would be regulated by EPA as pesticides. That FDA and EPA are attempting to clarify their respective jurisdictions is appreciated. Potential commenters may wish to consider whether the guidance offers sufficient clarity for product development planning purposes. If “products intended to prevent mosquito-borne disease in humans or animals” are under FDA jurisdiction, the status of mosquito repellents currently registered by EPA that make claims about repelling mosquitoes that carry the Zika virus, the West Nile virus, or other viruses is unclear. Additionally, it would seem that the Oxitec mosquito is intended to reduce the mosquito population, among other goals. The Guidance is a good start, but further clarification likely will be needed to support emerging technologies.
More information is available in our memorandum FDA Guidance Addresses FDA and EPA Jurisdiction over Mosquito-Related Products.
By Sheryl Lindros Dolan and Heather F. Collins, M.S.
On September 29, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of two final test method Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for evaluating the efficacy of antimicrobials against spores of Clostridium difficile (C. diff):
EPA also released regulatory guidance for test criteria and pesticide claims for these products, specifically “Methods and Guidance for Testing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Products Against Spores of Clostridium difficile on Hard Non-Porous Surfaces.” EPA states that these test methods and guidance “provide a framework for registrants who seek to make a claim for antimicrobial pesticide products to control C. difficile spores on hard, non-porous surfaces.”
C. diff is an anaerobic, spore-forming bacterium and a frequent cause of hospital-acquired infections. The spores survive on hard surfaces such as glass, metals, and plastics that are commonly found in health-care settings. Hospitals and other health care facilities often use antimicrobial pesticides to reduce the number of spores on environmental surfaces. Registrants seeking antimicrobial product registrations with claims to control C. diff will need to carefully review these documents as they consider the efficacy data that EPA will likely require to support these claims, as well as the claims that can be made and supported for these products.
EPA MLB SOP MB-28 describes the test methodology for producing and storing standardized spore suspensions of C. diff based on ASTM E2839, Standard Test Method for Production of C. difficile Spores for Use in Efficacy Evaluation of Antimicrobial Agents (ASTM International). A spore suspension should be developed and qualified according to EPA MLB SOP MB-28 before an efficacy evaluation can be performed using method EPA MLB SOP MB-31. EPA MLB SOP MB-31 describes a quantitative method intended for evaluating the sporicidal efficacy of liquid disinfectants against spores of C. diff on inanimate, hard, non-porous surfaces.
EPA solicited comments on the clarity of the test method SOPs and the regulatory guidance in December 2016. EPA received comments from 12 entities. The primary areas of comment included the following:
- Test carrier interaction;
- Additional method validation;
- Verification testing;
- Soil load;
- Use of a standard setting organization to publish test methods;
- Proposed revisions to the guidance document; and
- Proposed revisions to the standard operating procedures.
EPA revised the drafts to incorporate suggested changes. EPA posted its response to those comments in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0753-0026.
Some of the changes to the guidance document based on submitted comments include clarifying:
- Three batches of test product should be tested on independent test days;
- The inclusion of the three-part soil load is used for all test, control, and test system control carriers; and
- The current document supersedes the previous 2014 guidance document.
The new guidance proposes updated standard label claims and special instructions that are intended to provide greater clarity to the user community.
EPA’s response to comments and other documents associated with this action are available in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0753 at www.regulations.gov. The methods and guidance also are found on EPA’s Antimicrobial Testing Methods & Procedures Developed by EPA's Microbiology Laboratory webpage, at the Methods tab as Method IDs MB-28 and MB-31, and at the Guidance tab as Sporicidal Claims Against Clostridium difficile.
C. diff is widely recognized as one of the most common causes of healthcare-acquired infection. C. diff infections, spread by transmission of bacterial spores, have proven difficult to prevent. EPA’s new guidance and test methods are intended to clarify the efficacy standards that pesticide products claiming to reduce C. diff spores must meet, as well as the associated claims that can be made. This guidance should bring more clarity to pesticide registrants seeking to register such products and to healthcare facilities in their identification of registered pesticide products that may help them to reduce C. diff spores and thus help with prevention efforts.
By Sheryl L. Dolan and Margaret R. Graham
On August 1, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of two final test method Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for evaluating the efficacy of antimicrobial pesticides against two biofilm bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus):
EPA also released regulatory guidance for test criteria and pesticide claims for these products, specifically Guidance for Testing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Products Against Biofilms on Hard, Non-Porous Surfaces. Drafts of the SOPs and the guidance were initially released in October 2016 for comment. EPA received comments from nine entities and revised the drafts to incorporate suggested changes. EPA posted its response to those comments in Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0357.
EPA states that the two methods are adapted from ASTM International (ASTM) standard methods. EPA MLB SOP MB-19 is used to generate the P. aeruginosa or S. aureus biofilm on coupons. EPA MLB SOP MB-20, the Single Tube Method, then is used to determine the effectiveness of an antimicrobial product in reducing bacteria in biofilm on the coupons.
Notable aspects of the test criteria and claims guidelines include:
- The mean log density for the test organisms of 8.0 to 9.5 for P. aeruginosa and 7.5 to 9.0 for S. aureus; and
- Product performance criterion of a minimum 6-log reduction.
The guidance lists several examples of claims for efficacy against public health biofilm that EPA states are acceptable.
EPA MLB SOP MB-20 is designed to evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial products that are water soluble powders or liquid formulations. If a company wishes to test a different type of product formulation, or test different target microorganisms, or make any other proposed modifications, it would be well advised to submit proposed alternatives to EPA for review and approval. EPA specifically cautions that the current methodologies are intended for data development to support claims for products registered for use on hard, non-porous surfaces and are not suitable for use sites associated with water systems.
The EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs’ (OPP) regulation of biofilms has been the subject of increasingly intense commercial interest for years and the availability of this testing guidance is welcome news. While not all will agree with the approach, the new guidance is a helpful addition to OPP’s testing guidance portfolio.
More information on antimicrobial pesticides is available on our blog under key phrase Antimicrobial Pesticide. More information on the methods and guidance is available on EPA’s website and in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0357.
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 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 Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On February 22, 2017, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced it was extending the filing date for applications to register products made from pesticide impregnated materials bearing pesticide claims from March 1, 2017, to July 1, 2017. Specifically, 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. DPR’s California Notice 2015-13 issued on December 11, 2015, informed pesticide product registrants and stakeholders of DPR’s intention to register products made with pesticide impregnated materials and bearing pesticide claims.
The February 22 notice also states the following in terms of the requirements:
- Each company with products made from pesticide impregnated material and sold under their own company name into or within California is required to register the product(s) as a pesticide;
- The product must bear a federally approved pesticide label; DPR will assign a separate California-only registration number for purposes of tracking sales and use of the products in California;
- Each company will need to obtain at least one registration for each use category of product sold (e.g., the apparel use category includes wearable items such as jackets, shirts, hats, socks, pants, and shorts; the non-apparel use category includes non-wearable items such as bedding, tents, seat covers, chopping blocks, shower curtains, and mouse pads); and
- If items are impregnated with different pesticides or different percentages of the same pesticide, separate registrations will be required.
The requirements set forth in this notice do not apply to products that satisfy the requirements to be a treated article, including the requirement that any claims be related to protection of the article/substance itself. The notice applies instead to those pesticide impregnated materials that include pesticidal claims that are not limited to protection of the material. More information on the December 2015 notice is available in our blog item California Issues Notice Requiring Registration for Products Made From Pesticide Impregnated Materials and Bearing Pesticide Claims.
By James V. Aidala and Margaret R. Graham
On January 12, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Policy to Mitigate the Acute Risk to Bees from Pesticide Products (Mitigation Policy) which describes methods for addressing acute risks to bees from pesticides. EPA states that this Mitigation Policy is “more flexible and practical than the proposed policy” that was issued on May 29, 2015, and it has “made modifications to its approach with the goal of better targeting compounds that pose an acute risk, and with the goal of reducing potential impact of this effort on growers.” EPA states that it will use its Tier 1 acute risk assessment to, in part, determine the products that trigger concerns about pollinator risk that the label restrictions are intended to address. EPA will begin implementing this Policy in 2017 by sending letters to registrants describing steps that must be taken to incorporate the new labeling. More information on the Mitigation Policy, including its supporting documents, and EPA’s response to comments submitted on the proposed policy, is available on www.regulations.gov under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818.
Also on January 12, 2017, EPA published preliminary pollinator-only risk assessments for the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, and an update to its preliminary risk assessment for imidacloprid, published in January 2016. EPA states that the preliminary assessments for clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran are similar to the preliminary pollinator assessment for imidacloprid, in that they showed that “most approved uses do not pose significant risks to bee colonies,” but “spray applications to a few crops, such as cucumbers, berries, and cotton, may pose risks to bees that come in direct contact with residue.” As for the updated imidacloprid assessment, EPA states that is looked at potential risks to aquatic species, and identified some risks for aquatic insects. Interested parties will have 60 days to comment on the preliminary risk assessments after notice is published in the Federal Register. In terms of comments, EPA states that it is especially interested in getting input from stakeholders “on the new method for assessing potential exposure and risk through pollen and nectar.” Links to risk assessment dockets for each individual insecticide are available on EPA’s website under Schedule for Review of Neonicotinoid Pesticides. EPA states it is hopes to release the final neonicotinoid risk assessments by mid-2018.
The revised Mitigation Policy has been long in coming since it was first released over eighteen months ago. The delay in revising its approach reflects the complexity of the comments submitted, and EPA’s deliberateness in more finely crafting its policies, given the passage of time and other considerations. This revised policy contains more flexibility and explicit discussion of the need for exceptions to blanket requirements in response to some of the comments received on the earlier proposal. There remains significant public and regulator concern about the possible impacts on pollinators from pesticide use, however, there is currently less of a manic tone to EPA’s statements and actions.
For example, when discussing how EPA will approach changing the labels of the affected universe of pesticide products, there is a much less onerous tone and no specific deadlines for registrants to submit revised labels “or else.” (The 2013 directives to registrants included demands for thousands of revised labels to be submitted within six weeks “or else” -- EPA would take “appropriate action” under FIFRA.) EPA reminds us all that it retains authority to impose these new requirements broadly, a statement that will strike some as regulatory overreach, but the tone and approach is more in line with past EPA “guidance” about how it will approach a new or revised regulatory concern.
Similar to what EPA previously concluded about imidacloprid, where that assessment concluded that the most controversial use -- corn seed treatments -- did not indicate a risk concern, EPA did include in its summary about the other three neonicotinoid pesticides that:
- 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.
This might unfairly be summarized as: after years of regulatory analysis EPA has concluded that if insecticides come into direct contact with insects, there is likely to be a risk to the exposed insect.
This conclusion would be too simplistic since EPA and other regulatory bodies have expressed concern about what unintended exposures to insecticides might cause, and more generally the possibility of colony level impacts on honeybee and other pollinator populations from pesticide use. Some critics will continue to insist that EPA broaden its regulatory approach to more than just pesticides used for crops under contracted pollinator services. The broader issue of pesticide drift and possible impacts on non-target species will continue to be a concern for all pesticides.
Perhaps the more deliberate consideration of needed data generation and assessment that seems to be the current approach will allow both more refined regulatory controls if needed, and a reduction in the sometimes hot rhetoric which has accompanied the pollinator issues.
Lastly, although this revised Mitigation Policy and the three new preliminary assessments are not unexpected next steps as part of the ongoing registration review program for pesticides, given their very late release -- less than ten days before the arrival of a new Administration -- some might question whether this is part of the “midnight regulations” pushing the political agenda of the outgoing Administration. The new leadership may revise what has been released, and may come to different conclusions about any needed restrictions. That said, the issue of whether certain pesticides are having a dangerous impact on honeybee populations will continue to be a concern for regulators both in the U.S. and globally.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi, and Margaret R. Graham
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently announced the availability of two proposed test methods and associated testing guidance for evaluating antimicrobial pesticides against two biofilm bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, for comments. EPA states that registrants of antimicrobial products with public health claims are “required to submit efficacy data to EPA in support of the product’s registration” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA is soliciting comments on the clarity of the standard operating procedures and the regulatory guidance. The two test methods are:
The Draft Guidance to Assess the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Pesticide Products Intended to Control Public Health Biofilms on Hard, Non-Porous Surfaces describes biofilms and their public health significance; the two test procedures for developing efficacy data supporting biofilm claims; products that may be eligible for biofilm claims; test criteria; data submission procedures for efficacy data; and labeling guidance.
The draft guidance states that the term biofilm “is reserved for claims against biofilm that contain specific bacteria that are directly or indirectly infectious or pathogenic to humans,” and “biofilm claims are considered to be public health claims for which the agency must review and approve appropriate efficacy data.” EPA states: “Examples of use sites that may be supported by the biofilm test methodologies herein, and found acceptable, include restrooms, shower stalls, sink basins or drains (excluding the drain pipe) and nearby hard, non-porous surfaces of walls, countertops, and instrument trays in patient care areas of hospitals. In contrast, claims against non-public health slimicides must also be supported by appropriate efficacy data, however, submission of the data is only required when requested by the EPA.”
The Draft Guidance also sets forth examples of acceptable label claims against public health biofilms and acceptable non-public health claims. The examples of acceptable label claims against public health biofilms are:
- Kills 99.9999% of bacteria* in biofilm on a hard, non-porous surface;
- Kills a minimum of 99.9999% of bacteria* in biofilm;
- Reduces at least 99.9999% of bacteria* growing in biofilm;
- Formulated to kill 99.9999% of bacteria* in biofilm;
- Other related claims:
- Kills biofilm bacteria*; and
- Penetrates biofilm, killing the bacteria* living there.
*[List of bacteria “tested as a biofilm”; at a minimum, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus].
Examples of acceptable non-public health claims supported by appropriate efficacy data include:
- Cleans away microorganism slime/grunge;
- Maintains control of slime; and
- Controls slime-forming microorganisms.
Comments will be accepted until December 5, 2016.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) recently proposed a regulation that it states is intended to “(1) provide minimum statewide standards for all agricultural pesticide applications near public K-12 schools and child day care facilities; (2) provide an extra margin of safety in case of unintended drift or when other problems with applications occur (e.g., equipment failure causes an unintended release of pesticide, or an abrupt change in weather conditions); (3) increase communication between growers and schools/child day care facilities; and (4) provide information to assist schools and child day care facilities in preparing for and responding to pesticide emergencies.”
This proposal has been long anticipated, is far reaching, and of significant concern to many growers and registrants.
In its Initial Statement of Reasons, DPR summarizes the proposed regulations, stating that they will: “require growers to notify public K-12 schools, child day care facilities (except family day care homes), and county agricultural commissioners when certain pesticide applications made for the production of an agricultural commodity near a schoolsite are planned in the coming year and also a few days prior to the applications.” The proposed regulation also would prohibit at certain times certain pesticide applications near these schoolsites. Specifically, the regulation is proposed to do the following:
- Prohibit many pesticide applications for the production of an “agricultural commodity” within a quarter mile of schoolsites from Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. “Schoolsites” are defined by Education Code section 17609(f) as: “‘any facility used as a child day care facility, as defined in Section 1596.750 of the Health and Safety Code, or for kindergarten, elementary, or secondary school purposes. The term includes the buildings or structures, playgrounds, athletic fields, vehicles, or any other area of property visited or used by pupils.” ‘Schoolsite’ does not include any postsecondary educational facility attended by secondary pupils or private kindergarten, elementary, or secondary school facilities.” DPR also proposed to exclude from the definition of schoolsite any family day care homes “because, unlike other schoolsites, the locations of these facilities are not publically available.” DPR states it considered other distances but proposed the one-quarter mile radius based on several factors, including but not limited the fact that this restriction is similar to the restrictions on fumigant labels that prohibit closer applications around schools and other difficult to evacuate sites and based on an analysis of pesticide illnesses due to drift from agricultural applications. The proposed prohibition would apply to applications by aircraft, sprinkler chemigation equipment, air-blast sprayers, and fumigant applications. In addition, dust and/or powder pesticide applications would also be prohibited during this time unless applied as a dust or powder using field soil injection equipment.
- Require California growers and pest control contractors to notify public K-12 schools and child day-care facilities and county agricultural commissioners (CAC) when certain pesticide applications are made within a quarter mile of these schools and facilities.
Under the proposed regulation, California growers would be required to provide two types of notifications to a school or child day-care facility:
An annual notification that lists all the pesticides expected to be used during the upcoming year. This must be provided to the school or child day care facility administrator by April 30 each year. The notice must include, among other things:
The name of pesticide products (and the main active ingredient) to be used;
A map showing the location of the field to be treated;
Contact information for the grower/operator and the County Agricultural Commissioner; and
The web address for the National Pesticide Information Center where additional sources of information or facts on pesticides may be obtained.
An application-specific notification which must be provided to the school or child day-care facility 48 hours before each application is made. This begins January 1, 2018, and must include, among other things:
- Name of pesticide products (and the main active ingredient) to be used;
- Specific location of the application and the number of acres to be treated; and
- Earliest date and time of the application.
Comments on the proposed regulation are due by November 17, 2016. DPR states that a final regulation is expected to become effective in September 2017.
Many have concerns with the proposed regulation, which DPR has been discussing publicly for some time. These concerns include what many believe are significant economic impacts to growers and others that they believe may not have been adequately considered and are not necessary for appropriate use of registered pesticides. Registrants and others should review the proposal carefully.