EPA Withdraws Glyphosate Interim Decision

This announcement was originally published by the EPA on September 24, 2022. Click here for more information.

 

Today, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing its withdrawal of all remaining portions of the interim registration review decision for glyphosate. Pesticide products containing glyphosate continue to remain on the market and be used according to the product label and are unaffected by this action. 

Glyphosate is undergoing registration review, a periodic reevaluation of pesticide registrations to ensure that existing pesticide products continue to perform their intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), each pesticide must be reviewed every 15 years.  

On Feb. 3, 2020, EPA published the Glyphosate Interim Registration Review Decision (ID). The ID did not identify any human health risks of concern from exposure to glyphosate but did identify potential ecological risks. The ID included interim risk mitigation measures in the form of label changes, including labeling to manage spray drift and herbicide resistance. It concluded that the benefits of glyphosate outweigh the potential ecological risks when glyphosate is used in accordance with the labels. 

On March 20, 2020, the glyphosate ID was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioners challenged EPA’s analysis of human health and ecological risk, the weighing of such risks against the benefits of glyphosate and the interim risk mitigation measures and alleged that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On May 18, 2021, EPA sought partial voluntary remand without vacatur of the ecological portion of the ID so the Agency could revisit aspects of its analysis in light of EPA’s November 2020 draft biological evaluation for glyphosate and recent court decisions for other herbicides, among other reasons.  

On June 17, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the human health portion of the glyphosate ID and held that EPA’s registration review decision under FIFRA was an ‘action’ that triggered ESA obligations. The court also granted EPA’s request for voluntary remand, without vacatur, of the ecological portion of the ID but imposed an Oct. 1, 2022, deadline for EPA to issue a new ecological portion. EPA sought relief from this deadline, which the court denied on Aug. 5, 2022. 

EPA has determined that withdrawal of the glyphosate ID is appropriate in consideration of the Ninth Circuit’s June 17, 2022, decision. The Agency is unable to finalize a new ecological portion in a registration review decision for glyphosate by the court-imposed Oct. 1, 2022, deadline because of the time needed to address the issues for which EPA sought remand of the ecological portion and satisfy ESA requirements. EPA initiated formal ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) for glyphosate in November 2021, and consultation is ongoing. Moreover, before issuing any decision, EPA must first prepare a proposed decision, publish for a 60-day public comment period, and consider any comments received. EPA cannot complete these processes by the court-imposed deadline.  

EPA’s underlying scientific findings regarding glyphosate, including its finding that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, remain the same. In accordance with the court’s decision, the Agency intends to revisit and better explain its evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate and to consider whether to do so for other aspects of its human health analysis. For the ecological portion, EPA intends to address the issues for which it sought remand, including: to consider whether additional or different risk mitigation may be necessary based on the outcome of ESA consultation for glyphosate, prepare an analysis of in-field effects of glyphosate on monarch butterfly habitat, consider whether there are other aspects of its analysis of ecological risks and costs to revisit, and consider what risk mitigation measures may be necessary to reduce potential risk following completion of analyses left outstanding in the ID. EPA also intends to complete ESA consultation with the Services, make a determination under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, and respond to an administrative petition regarding glyphosate before issuing a final registration review decision.

A copy of the Withdrawal of the Glyphosate Interim Registration Review Decision is posted to the glyphosate registration review docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361 at https://www.regulations.gov. For more information about glyphosate, visit EPA’s website.  

EPA Awards Grants to Advance Smart, Sensible, and Sustainable Pest Control in Agriculture

This original announcement was published by the EPA on September 15, 2022. Click here for more information.

 

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the selection of six recipients that will receive a total of $780,000 from the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) grant competition. The selected grantees will explore the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in agriculture over the course of two years to reduce the risk of pests and pesticides.

While traditional pest control involves the routine application of pesticides, IPM focuses on pest prevention and only using pesticides as needed. IPM provides a more effective, environmentally sensitive approach to pest management—especially for historically underserved communities that are disproportionately impacted by unnecessary exposure to pests and pesticides. Furthermore, IPM has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. IPM strategies often use fewer pesticides resulting in less fuel consumption for pesticide application.

“As EPA works to protect human health and the environment, we’re eager to promote IPM, demonstrate its value, and provide tools to those interested in establishing IPM programs,” said Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “The work done under this grant has the potential to minimize economic, health and environmental risks and we’re excited to see how the grantees will advance our understanding of what sustainable pest management can look like.”

The grantees are:

  • Oregon State University: Through outreach and educational efforts, this project seeks to slow the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds, preserve the useful life of current herbicides, and increase the adoption of IPM practices. The project will deliver herbicide resistance training through web-based and in-person workshops to Pacific Northwest agricultural professionals.
  • Purdue University: This project aims to increase grower adoption of integrated pest and pollinator management tactics on watermelon farms to protect pollinators. Through a statewide scouting program, project directors will partner with Illinois and Indiana growers to implement integrated pest and pollinator practices on their farms. This project aims to support 200 watermelon growers.
  • University of Florida: This project will create a process for ornamental plant growers to produce and market their products as wildlife friendly based on compatibility with pollinators and other beneficial wildlife. The project will also develop and deliver educational resources, Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management certification programs, and training opportunities for ornamental plant producers in the southeastern U.S.
  • University of Tennessee: This project seeks to improve pollinator protection and health by developing a national framework to assess the effectiveness of pollinator protection trainings. Through targeted surveys, trainings (in English and Spanish) and evaluations of trained pesticide applicators across at least 12 states, this project will assess how knowledge transfer can be successful in affecting the behavioral practices of pesticide applicators.
  • University of Vermont: This project aims to help reduce neonicotinoid seed treatments applied to row crops in Vermont by providing education in English and Spanish to more than 1,000 growers on IPM practices. The project will also provide hands-on training to 250 farmers, including tribal members and women, to assist them in making informed decisions about whether seed treatment is needed to avoid crop losses.
  • West Virginia University: This project will further educate English- and Spanish-speaking growers and pesticide applicators about pesticides and IPM tactics utilizing several outreach programs already established at West Virginia University. This includes providing pesticide workshops and sharing educational videos for hundreds of growers and applicators.

To learn more about the grantees’ projects and the work they are doing to advance sustainable agriculture, visit EPA’s webpage.

EPA Releases Data on Leaching of PFAS in Fluorinated Packaging

This original announcement was published by the EPA on September 8, 2022. Click here for more information. 

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking the next step to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) related to packaging potentially used to house pesticides and other substances. EPA is releasing the results from its evaluation of several fluorinated containers to determine the potential for PFAS to leach into the contents of these containers.

Previously, EPA learned of potential PFAS contamination in a small number of mosquitocide products. Prompted by this concern, from December 2020 through January 2021, EPA studied several samples of used and unused fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers. In March 2021, EPA released the data that preliminarily determined PFAS was most likely formed from a chemical reaction during the container fluorination process, which then leached into the pesticide product.

To build upon the initial findings, EPA completed another study to test the leaching potential of PFAS over a specific time into test solutions packaged in different brands of HDPE fluorinated containers. The results from this study indicate:

  • Water or methanol used as surrogates for pesticide formulations (or other solutions similar to water or methanol) stored in fluorinated containers had quantifiable PFAS levels, which indicated that PFAS from container walls leached into the contents of the container.
  • The total amount of leached PFAS at each point in time varied for different brands of fluorinated containers, which is likely a reflection of different fluorination levels and techniques used to fluorinate these containers.
  • The total PFAS leached into the solutions increased gradually over the 20-week test period.
  • Higher amounts of total PFAS were found in methanol solution than in water for the same containers, an observation consistent with the chemistry of methanol as a stronger solvent in dissolving organic compounds.

Based on these results, EPA has determined that liquid products packaged in HDPE containers treated with fluorination technology could leach certain PFAS into products from the container walls, even with water-based products. In addition, the total amount of PFAS leached into the products could increase over storage time and cause undisclosed levels of PFAS in a pesticide (or other) product. It is unclear at this time if PFAS would be present in all fluorinated containers treated by different fluorination technologies (since this study did not test all containers made using such technologies).

EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap renewed the Agency’s commitment to using sound science and investing in research to proactively stop PFAS chemicals from entering the environment. Studies like this one advance EPA’s understanding of PFAS and shape further studies that can help determine the risk to human health and the environment from PFAS contamination.

EPA remains committed to using all available regulatory and non-regulatory tools to continue tackling PFAS. Most recently, EPA announced the removal of certain PFAS-related compounds from being authorized for use as inert ingredients in pesticides. This action adds to EPA’s commitment to better manage potential PFAS-related exposures to pesticides.

EPA continues to ask companies using fluorinated containers and entities providing container fluorination services to examine their distribution chains to identify potential sources of contamination. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act section 6(a)(2), pesticide registrants should report to EPA additional factual information on unreasonable adverse effects, including metabolites, degradates and impurities (such as PFAS).

EPA considers any level of PFAS to be potentially toxicologically significant. 6(a)(2) information about impurities must be received by EPA no later than the 30th calendar day after the registrant first possesses or knows of the information.

Furthermore, EPA considers the manufacturing of certain PFAS from the fluorination of polyolefins to be subject to EPA’s 2020 long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) significant new use rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, the SNUR requires industry to notify EPA at least 90 days before starting manufacturing or processing of these chemical substances for this significant new use, so that EPA could review any associated risks and impose any needed protections. The failure to submit such a notification would be a violation of TSCA.

If companies find PFAS in their products, they should notify EPA and take action to remove contaminated products. If product packaging is suspected as a source and replacing the packaging is being considered, please consult with EPA on data to be submitted for review prior to distribution of the pesticide product with the alternative packaging.

As more information becomes available, EPA will continue to work with other federal entities to provide guidance to states and localities that may be affected by PFAS in pesticide containers.

To review the leaching testing results and to learn more, please visit https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/pfas-packaging.

EPA Proposes to Stop Authorized Use of Certain PFAS in Pesticide Products

This original announcement was published by the EPA on September 2, 2022. Click here for more!

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to remove 12 chemicals identified as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from the current list of inert ingredients approved for use in pesticide products to better protect human health and the environment.

“Exposure to PFAS is an urgent public health and environmental issue in our country and we’re continuing to work aggressively to reduce the use of these dangerous chemicals,” said Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “Ensuring that these 12 chemicals can no longer be used in pesticides is an important step to protect workers, the public, and our planet from unnecessary PFAS exposure.”

Under the PFAS Strategic Roadmap, EPA committed to taking a renewed look at previous PFAS decisions, and, as part of this review, undertook a thorough review of its list of chemical substances that have been approved for use as inert ingredients in pesticide products. EPA then used its authority to take quick action on PFAS inert ingredients not currently used in registered pesticide products.

Pesticide products contain at least one active ingredient and other intentionally added inert ingredients. Inert ingredients play key roles in pesticide effectiveness and product performance including extending the product’s shelf life or improving the ease of application by preventing caking or foaming. EPA reviews safety information for inert ingredients before they can be included in a pesticide.

While these PFAS are no longer used in any registered pesticide products, EPA determined it is important to remove these 12 chemicals from the list of approved inert ingredients to allow for an updated review of available information for these chemicals to be required, if their future use in pesticide products is requested:

  • 2-Chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 2837-89-0);
  • α-(Cyclohexylmethyl)-ω-hydropoly(difluoromethylene) (CAS Reg. No. 65530-85-0);
  • Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 1320-37-2);
  • Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro- (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6);
  • Hexafluoropropene, polymer with tetrafluoroethylene (CAS Reg. No. 25067-11-2);
  • Montmorillonite-type clay treated with polytetrafluoroethylene (No CAS Reg. No.);
  • Poly(difluoromethylene), α-chloro-ω-(1-chloro-1-fluoroethyl) (CAS Reg. No. 131324-06-6);
  • Poly(difluoromethylene), α-chloro-ω-(2,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethyl)- (CAS Reg. No. 79070-11-4);
  • Poly(difluoromethylene), α-(2,2-dichloro-2-fluoroethyl)-, ω-hydro- (CAS No. 163440-89-9);
  • Poly(difluoromethylene), α-fluoro-ω-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2- propenyl)oxy]ethyl]- (CAS Reg. No. 65530-66-7);
  • Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-hydro-ω-hydroxy-, ether with α-fluoro-ω-(2-hydroxyethyl)poly(difluoromethylene) (1:1) (CAS Reg. No. 65545-80-4); and
  • Propane, 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoro- (CAS Reg. No. 431-89-0).

Upon publication of the Federal Register notice, EPA will accept public comments on this proposal for 30 days in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-0542 at www.regulations.gov. If removed from the list, any proposed future use of these chemicals as inert ingredients will need to be supported by data which may include studies to evaluate potential carcinogenicity, adverse reproductive effects, developmental toxicity, genotoxicity as well as data on environmental effects.

Pesticide registration decisions are based on extensive data requirements as outlined in 40 CFR 158 which applies to both active ingredients and the inert materials contained in end use products. EPA continues to evaluate all pesticide active ingredients to determine if any meet the current  structural definition of PFAS or are part of other related chemistries that have been identified by stakeholders as being of concern. EPA will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available.

To read a prepublication version of this proposal and for more information on inert ingredients approved for use in pesticide products visit the Inert Ingredients Overview and Guidance page.

EPA Accepting Public Comments on Nominees for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel

This original announcement was published by the EPA on July 28, 2022. Click here for more information.

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting public comments on nominations for membership on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP). The FIFRA SAP serves as a primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and is structured to provide independent scientific advice and recommendations to EPA on health and safety issues related to pesticides. The FIFRA SAP is a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator after being nominated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This action follows EPA’s request for nominations for the FIFRA SAP from NIH and NSF on March 24, 2022.

The Agency anticipates selecting new members to serve on the panel to replace members whose terms will soon expire. Current members of the FIFRA SAP are also eligible for reappointment during this period. Therefore, the appointments completed over the next year may include a mix of newly appointed and reappointed members.

Public comments on the nominees should be submitted to docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0602 at www.regulations.gov on or before August 29, 2022. These comments will be used to assist the Agency in selecting the new members for the chartered panel. Biographies for each of the nominees are available in the docket. For additional information, please see the Federal Register notice or contact Steven Knott (knott.steven@epa.gov), M.S., DFO, Office of Program Support, Environmental Protection Agency (202-564-0103).

EPA Extends Application Period for Cooperative Agreement for the Pesticide Inspector Residential Training (PIRT) Program

This original announcement was published by the EPA on July 27, 2022. Click here for more information.

 

EPA has extended the application deadline for applications to implement the Pesticide Residential Inspector Training (PIRT) Program for CY 2023 through 2027. EPA must receive proposals through Grants.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 8, 2022. To apply, go to grant opportunity EPA-HQ-OECA-2022-001 at Grants.gov.

Eligible applicants include states, federally recognized Indian tribes, Alaska Native Villages, inter-tribal consortia, and state and tribal institutions. Under this program EPA will provide financial assistance on an annual basis to carry out a pesticide inspector residential training program. This pesticide-related training is intended for inspectors, scientists, supervisors, and managers of pesticide regulatory programs from state/tribes and U.S. territories working under FIFRA Cooperative Agreements with EPA throughout the United States.

The Agency expects to provide an estimated $220,000-250,000 annually, depending on the Agency’s budget, for a total of up to $1,780,000 for five years (CY 2023 through 2027) depending on the Agency’s budget. EPA. EPA also expects to provide a onetime additional allocation of $530,000 at the start of the grant.

EPA Releases Draft Assessment of Effects of Sulfoxaflor on Endangered Species for Public Comment

This original announcement was published by the EPA on July 20, 2022. Click here for more information.

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing its draft biological evaluation (BE) that contains EPA’s analysis of the potential effects of the insecticide sulfoxaflor on federally listed endangered and threatened (listed) species and designated critical habitats. The draft BE will be available for comment for 60 days.

Sulfoxaflor was first registered in 2013 and is used on a variety of crops to target difficult pests, such as aphids and tarnished plant bugs (lygus), as an alternative to older insecticides, including carbamates, neonicotinoids, organophosphates and pyrethroids. The draft assessment finds that, overall, when compared to insecticides like the neonicotinoids imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and the organophosphate insecticides malathion, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, sulfoxaflor is less persistent and less toxic to most species, which generally leads to lower risks to human health and the environment.

The BE is part of EPA’s efforts to meet its obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This work furthers the goals outlined in EPA’s April 2022 ESA Workplan to provide practical protections from pesticides for listed species.

Background on sulfoxaflor

In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s 2013 sulfoxaflor registration, citing inadequate data on the effects of sulfoxaflor on bees. Following the court’s decision, EPA issued a cancellation order on Nov. 12, 2015, prohibiting the distribution or sale of sulfoxaflor.

In 2016, EPA issued a new, limited registration for sulfoxaflor, allowing its use only on crops that are not attractive to pollinators or in situations that minimize or eliminate potential exposure to bees. These new restrictions practically eliminated exposure to bees in the field, and EPA was able to register certain uses of sulfoxaflor while protecting pollinators.

In 2019, after completing a comprehensive risk assessment of the effects of sulfoxaflor that utilized a large suite of data on potential honey bee effects, EPA expanded the sulfoxaflor registration to include uses on alfalfa, corn, cacao, grains, pineapple, sorghum, teff, teosinte, tree plantations, citrus, cotton, cucurbits, soybeans, and strawberries. EPA also amended instructions for uses that were registered in 2016.

Draft biological evaluation

EPA’s draft BE finds that sulfoxaflor is likely to adversely affect certain listed species and designated critical habitats. The “likely to adversely affect” (LAA) determination means that EPA reasonably expects that at least one individual animal or plant, among a variety of listed species, may be exposed to sulfoxaflor at a sufficient level to have an adverse effect. This is the case even if a listed species is almost recovered to a point where it may no longer need to be listed.

In this BE, EPA further refined its analysis to predict the likelihood that sulfoxaflor use could lead to jeopardy for certain listed species or adverse modification of designated critical habitats. In contrast to its LAA determinations, EPA’s draft likelihood of jeopardy and adverse modification predictions examine effects of sulfoxaflor at the species scale (population as opposed to an individual of a species). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively “the Services”) will make the final determination as to whether sulfoxaflor use could lead to jeopardy or adverse modification.

As part of its assessment, EPA evaluated the effects of sulfoxaflor on over 1,700 listed species and over 800 designated critical habitats in the United States, determining that sulfoxaflor, without further mitigation:

  • Will cause no effect to 36 percent of listed species and 52 percent of critical habitats;
  • May affect but is not likely to adversely affect 30 percent of listed species and 35 percent of critical habitats;
  • Is likely to adversely affect but EPA predicts the likelihood that use will not:
    • Cause jeopardy to 27 percent of listed species; or
    • Adversely modify 9 percent of critical habitats; and
  • Is likely to adversely affect and EPA predicts the likelihood that use may:
    • Cause jeopardy to 7 percent of listed species; and
    • Adversely modify 4 percent of critical habitats.

EPA has begun discussions with the registrant to determine what additional mitigation measures could be implemented in the near term to protect listed species and critical habitats. In response, the registrant recently proposed additional amendments to sulfoxaflor product labels that include certain mitigation measures. EPA may consider mitigations in addition to those proposed by the registrant, such as adding or increasing buffers, imposing geographical use limits, or incorporating additional methods to reduce pesticide drift. EPA encourages public comments on the proposed label amendments and other mitigation measures that may be appropriate.

In this draft BE, EPA used historical insecticide usage data for certain use patterns and use areas to better understand where and how farmers use insecticides that target a similar group of pests as sulfoxaflor. This allowed EPA to better understand where listed species could be exposed to sulfoxaflor. The Agency is also interested in stakeholder comments regarding the usage data that EPA incorporated in the BE.

After considering public comments on the draft BE and any additional mitigations that are agreed upon with the sulfoxaflor registrant, EPA will make any appropriate changes and issue a final BE. If EPA determines in its final BE that sulfoxaflor is not likely to adversely affect listed species and/or critical habitats given the agreed-upon mitigation measures, EPA will enter informal consultation with the Service(s) for their concurrence. If EPA determines that sulfoxaflor is likely to adversely affect listed species and/or critical habitats, EPA will initiate formal consultation and share its findings with the Services. During formal consultation, the Services use EPA’s effects determinations to inform their biological opinions (BiOps), which will include the final determinations of whether a pesticide jeopardizes each relevant listed species and/or adversely modifies designated critical habitats. Through the formal consultation process, the Service(s), EPA, the sulfoxaflor registrant, and other stakeholders may develop additional mitigation measures to protect listed species and/or designated critical habitats.

The draft BE will be available for public comment for 60 days in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889.

EPA Issues Proposed Registration Review Decisions for Several Pesticides  

This original announcement was published by the EPA on July 13, 2022. Click here for more information.

 

oday, EPA is releasing the proposed interim decisions for pesticides undergoing registration review as part of fiscal year 2022 quarter 3 actions. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to review pesticides every 15 years to ensure that risk assessments reflect the best-available science.

Registration review ensures that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, the pesticide continues to meet the statutory standard of causing no unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. When EPA identifies risks of concern to human health or the environment, it amends pesticide labels to mitigate these risks.

The proposed interim decisions (PIDs) propose mitigation measures based on findings in the draft human health and ecological risk assessments (DRAs) and feedback submitted during the DRAs’ public comment period. The PIDs released today are for the following pesticides:

Biopesticides:

  • 2-methyl-1-butanol;
  • Calcium acetate;
  • Candida oleophilaI;
  • Cedarwood oil;
  • Citral;
  • Heptyl butyrate; and
  • l-carvone.

Conventional pesticides:

  • Chlorflurenol methyl ester;
  • Sedaxane;
  • Tebuconazole; and
  • Triadimefon and Triadimenol.

With the publication of the Federal Register notice, the PIDs are now available for public comment in each respective pesticide registration review docket at www.regulations.gov. Public comments will be accepted for 60 days.

After considering comments on the PIDs, the next step in the registration review process will be the interim decision, which finalizes any required risk mitigation measures to address human health and ecological risks of concern.

Visit EPA’s website for more information on the registration review process and the schedule of upcoming registration review actions.

Children’s Environmental Health: A Workshop on Future Priorities for Environmental Health Sciences

This original post was published by the EPA on July 12, 2022. Click here for more information.

 

August 1-4, 2022

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is hosting a free, virtual public workshop to discuss the state of science and knowledge about children’s environmental health.

The workshop will bring together experts in epidemiology, toxicology, dose response methodology, and exposure science to explore advancements in understanding the health effects from early life exposures to environmental hazards with effects across the life course, and implications for future priorities.

The workshop will feature invited presentations and discussion that may include:

• The state of knowledge on the vulnerabilities of different lifestages (prenatal, infancy, early childhood, adolescence) to environmental exposures.

• Science areas that may be important to advance the understanding of vulnerabilities across early lifestages, including exposures of people of childbearing age.

• Opportunities that may be critical to address and improve consistent application of children’s environmental health in risk assessment and regulatory decision making based on existing science.

• Implications of the state of the science to improve policies and programs to protect children’s environmental health.

This virtual workshop is scheduled to take place August 1-4, with half-day sessions starting mid-day Eastern Time.

More information and registration for this event. 

EPA Seeks Public Comment on Additional Ecological Mitigation Measures for Atrazine

This announcement was published by the EPA on June 30, 2022. Click here for more information.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing proposed revisions to the Agency’s September 2020 atrazine interim decision (ID) for public comment. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to periodically re-evaluate pesticides through registration review to ensure that risk assessments and pesticide decisions reflect the best available science. The ID in the registration review process allows EPA to begin implementing measures to mitigate risks of concern before a final decision is issued.

Atrazine is one of the most widely used herbicides in the United States. It is used to control broadleaf and grassy weeds in a variety of agriculture crops, such as field corn, sweet corn, sorghum, and sugarcane. Atrazine is also used in non-agriculture settings, including nurseries, ornamentals, and turf. The herbicide is an important tool in agricultural production because it is economical, has a flexible use pattern, has long residual herbicidal activity, and is effective against a broad spectrum of weeds. Atrazine is also an important tool in herbicide resistance management, both in controlling weeds resistant to other herbicides and maintaining the effectiveness of other herbicides to control weeds.

In its 2016 atrazine ecological risk assessment, EPA determined that the scientifically derived concentration equivalent level of concern (CE-LOC) for atrazine, measured as a 60-day average, was 3.4 micrograms per liter (µg/L). This is the concentration of atrazine that, when exceeded, presents a greater than 50 percent chance of negatively affecting an aquatic environment. The CE-LOC is based on effects to aquatic plant communities; however, by ensuring protection of primary producers, the CE-LOC is intended to also provide protection for the entire aquatic ecosystem, including fish, invertebrates and amphibians.

In October 2019, EPA released a memo entitled Regulatory Update on the Registration Review of Atrazine, later cited in the September 2020 ID, that announced a policy decision that an atrazine concentration of 15 μg/L as a 60-day average triggers required monitoring and/or mitigation to protect aquatic plant communities from atrazine runoff. This policy decision did not supplant the scientifically derived CE-LOC of 3.4 μg/L. The currently proposed mitigations, if finalized, would supersede the October 2019 memo.

In October 2020, EPA received a petition alleging that the Agency violated its duties under FIFRA by issuing the atrazine ID without substantial evidence supporting the decision. In August 2021,  EPA sought a voluntary partial remand in light of President Biden’s executive order on protecting public health and the environment and restoring a commitment to science and scientific integrity. On December 14, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA a voluntary partial remand, which provided the Agency the opportunity to reevaluate the policy decision to use 15 μg/L as the level of regulation for aquatic plant communities.

Based on its review of the substantial evidence associated with the atrazine ecological risk assessment and a consideration of growers’ need for flexible and manageable mitigation measures, EPA is now proposing, for public comment, additional mitigation to protect aquatic plant communities. EPA is proposing the following measures for all atrazine labels in order to decrease atrazine runoff from treated fields:

  • Prohibit application when soils are saturated or above field capacity (i.e., the soil’s ability to retain water);
  • Prohibit application during rain or when a storm event, likely to produce runoff from the treated area, is forecasted to occur within 48 hours following application;
  • Prohibit aerial applications of all formulations; and
  • Restrict annual application rates to 2 pounds of active ingredient or less per acre per year or less for applications to sorghum, field corn, and sweet corn.

In addition, EPA is proposing to add a “picklist” to labels that would require growers to select a combination of application rate reductions and/or runoff control measures when using atrazine in watersheds with atrazine concentrations that exceed the CE-LOC of 3.4 μg/L. The number of runoff control practices from the picklist that a grower would be required to implement depends on the estimated atrazine concentration in the watershed where the field is located and that watershed’s vulnerability to atrazine runoff, as well as the grower’s selected application rate. The higher the application rate and the higher the estimated atrazine concentration in the watershed, the greater the number of mitigation practices that may be necessary.

  • There are no picklist requirements for fields located in watersheds with predicted atrazine concentrations below 3.4 μg/L (approximately 82 percent of the total number of watersheds nationwide).
  • Fields located in watersheds with predicted atrazine concentrations between 3.4-9.8 µg/L (approximately 8 percent of watersheds) would generally be required to choose 1-4 picklist requirements, depending on application rate, crop, region, and soil erodibility.
  • Fields located in watersheds with predicted atrazine concentrations of above 9.8 µg/L (approximately 10 percent of watersheds) would have the highest level of required picklist mitigations to select.

The picklist approach provides growers with the flexibility to select the runoff control practices that would be least burdensome to adopt. The practices a grower selects may depend on a variety of factors including crop, geographic region, and field topography. The picklist mitigation requirements are tailored geographically, down to the watershed level, in order to focus the mitigation on the areas with the greatest risk and vulnerability.

The public comment period is now open for the Proposed Revisions to the Atrazine Interim Registration Review Decision in the atrazine registration review docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266 at www.regulations.gov. Public comments will be accepted for 60 days upon publication of the Federal Register notice.

After considering comments on the proposed revisions to the atrazine ID, EPA will determine if any changes are warranted to the proposed revisions and then release its decision on this re-evaluation. The Agency also intends to seek external peer review of the risks to the aquatic plant community that underlies this proposed risk management strategy. This is in line with the Agency’s commitment to science and scientific integrity, and will incorporate the feedback it receives into its final revisions to the ID.

More information on the registration review process is available here.