Tag Archive for: EPA

EPA Proposes Registration of Nootkatone, A New Active Ingredient in Insect Control

This original announcement was published by the EPA on July 1, 2020. Click here for more! 

EPA is seeking public comment on the proposed registration of a new active ingredient called nootkatone, which was discovered and developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and can be used as an insect repellent. The agency’s proposal adds a new active ingredient that can be used to protect people from biting insects and ticks.

Nootkatone is a naturally occurring substance found in minute quantities in Alaskan yellow cedar trees and grapefruit skin. It is responsible for the characteristic smell and taste of grapefruit and is widely used in the fragrance industry to make perfumes and colognes. Nootkatone is considered a biopesticide, or a pesticide derived from nature.

EPA currently has no applications to register consumer products containing nootkatone. Companies interested in developing insect repellents or insecticides with it as the active ingredient will be required to submit a registration package to EPA for review. Based on registration timeframes under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, new products using nootkatone could be available as early as 2022.

To read more about the proposed registration of nootkatone, see docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0122 in www.regulations.gov. The public comment period will be open for 15 days, closing on July 14, 2020.

EPA to Improve the Endangered Species Act Consultation Process for Pesticides

This original announcement was published by the EPA on June 27, 2020. Click here for more!

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in collaboration with federal partners, met a congressional commitment by submitting its second report to Congress highlighting the progress achieved to date with creating a more efficient and effective review process regarding pesticide impacts under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Highlights of the report include:

  • How a new method announced in March 2020 for conducting biological evaluations under the ESA will assure that pesticide registration review actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) do not jeopardize endangered species. The updated method ensures that—when available—the agency will use high-quality historical data that reflects where and how certain pesticides are used;
  • How incorporating recent revisions to regulations associated with the ESA consultation process helps with efficiency across agencies; and,
  • What the agencies are doing to improve communications and outreach, and how they are actively soliciting stakeholder feedback and engagement during the consultation process.

The ESA is a proven and critical tool for ensuring the recovery and protection of the nation’s most vulnerable species and habitats. However, for decades EPA’s approach for assessing pesticides risks to endangered species resulted in costly, time-consuming litigation and delays in pesticide registration decision-making.

As directed by Congress through the 2018 Farm Bill, EPA, the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality established an interagency working group (IWG) in 2018 tasked with providing recommendations and implementing a strategy to improve the Endangered Species Act of 1973 consultation process for pesticides.

The first report from the IWG was submitted to Congress on December 2019 and identified several proposals to improve the ESA consultation process for pesticide registration and registration review, plans for implementation of those proposals, and areas of consensus and continuing topics of debate.

EPA Releases Guidance on Pesticide Safety Training Requirements During COVID-19

This original announcement was published by the EPA on June 19, 2020. Click here for more.

We made a correction to a link in this email.

Agricultural workers and pesticide handlers directly support the nation’s agricultural production and food supply and EPA is committed to ensuring they are protected from workplace hazards.

EPA has released guidance regarding the annual pesticide safety training requirements outlined in the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) that offers flexibility during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The Agency is aware that COVID-19 may make it difficult for agricultural employers and handler employers to provide WPS pesticide safety training or hire agricultural workers and pesticide handlers who have been trained in the last 12 months, as required by the WPS.

In response, the guidance aims to inform agricultural employers and handler employers of flexibilities available under the WPS to allow continued protection for employees and agricultural production:

  • EPA encourages in-person training if workplace protections to maintain a healthy work environment are able to be implemented. For example, an employer may be able to provide pesticide safety training outside, in smaller than usual groups with well-spaced participants.
  • Alternatively, WPS training can be presented remotely, provided all WPS training requirements are met.
  • The employer is ultimately responsible for ensuring the training meets all requirements outlined in the WPS. For example, the training must still be presented in a manner the trainees can understand, in an environment reasonably free from distractions, and cover the full training content using EPA-approved training materials.
  • Once the training ends, the employer must document successful completion under a qualified trainer.

To read the guidance in full and to learn more about EPA’s Worker Protection Standard, visit our webpage.

EPA Providing Excess PPE for Fighting COVID

This original announcement was published by the EPA on June 13, 2020. Click here for more. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to transfer an additional 22,000 pieces of excess personal protective equipment (PPE) to emergency and health professionals on the COVID-19 frontlines. The Agency maintains a supply of PPE for mission-critical work such as the laboratory work conducted at EPA’s Environmental Science Center at Fort Meade, Md., as well as responding to emergencies, including chemical, oil, radiological and biological incidents.

“Having sufficient personal protective equipment is crucial for the emergency services personnel and health professionals on the frontlines of combatting COVID-19,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “EPA is making excess PPE available to these responders, and we also stand ready to perform missions we may be called upon to fulfill in this ongoing fight.”

“EPA is committed to ensuring any excess equipment we have on hand be made available to first responders combatting the coronavirus.” said EPA mid-Atlantic Regional Administrator Cosmo Servidio. “We are actively working with FEMA officials to provide what limited quantities of equipment we have to those who need it most.”

“EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is proud to donate 8,800 pieces of PPE to help protect those who are tirelessly working on the front lines to slow the spread of COVID-19,” said Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Alexandra Dapolito Dunn. “Whether it is donating PPE, practicing social distancing, or using an EPA-approved disinfectant that is effective against the novel coronavirus, we all have a part to play in this public health emergency.”

EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Office partnered with EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s Microbiology and Analytical Chemistry Laboratories to identify excess personal protective equipment after assessing how much equipment would be needed to support EPA’s essential functions. Among the items are protective disposable gloves, eye protection, lab coats and full-body protective coverall suits. EPA will donate excess equipment while still maintaining its emergency response readiness.

About EPA’s Microbiology Laboratory:

The Microbiology Laboratory, located at Fort Meade, Md., is an integral part of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The laboratory is responsible for the standardization of existing test methods and the development and validation of methods for new uses and emerging pathogens for antimicrobial products with public health claims—products used to kill or suppress the growth of pathogenic microorganisms on inanimate objects and surfaces.

About EPA’s Analytical Chemistry Laboratory:

The Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, located at Fort Meade, Md., also provides EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention with scientific, laboratory, and technical support through chemical analyses of imported products and other materials for pesticides and related chemicals.

To view EPA’s list of disinfectants for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, visit https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2 .

For information about EPA’s involvement with the COVID-19 response, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates Dicamba Registrations

This original article was published on June 4, 2020 by AgriPulse. You can access the original article here. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the registrations of three dicamba herbicides — Bayer’s Xtendimax, BASF’s Engenia and Corteva’s FeXapan — after finding that EPA substantially understated or failed to consider the social and economic costs.

When it granted conditional registrations in October 2018, “EPA underestimated by as much as 25 percent the amount of DT [dicamba-tolerant] soybeans planted and, commensurately, the amount of dicamba herbicides applied in 2018,” which caused more than 1 million acres of damage in 18 states, the court said in its 56-page decision.

Loss of the herbicides in the middle of growing season will likely find growers scrambling to find alternatives. The court’s decision does not address Tavium, Syngenta’s dicamba herbicide.

We acknowledge the difficulties these growers may have in finding effective and legal herbicides to protect their DT crops if we grant vacatur,” the court said. “They have been placed in this situation through no fault of their own. However, the absence of substantial evidence to support the EPA’s decision compels us to vacate the registrations.”

An EPA spokesperson said it is “currently reviewing the court decision and will move promptly to address the court’s order.”

“EPA recognized that there had been an enormous increase in dicamba complaints in 2017 and 2018, but it purported to be agnostic as to whether those complaints under-reported or over-reported the amount of dicamba damage,” the court said. “In fact, record evidence shows that the complaints substantially under-reported the actual amount of damage.”

“EPA also entirely failed to acknowledge a social cost that had already been experienced and was likely to increase,” the court said. “The record contains extensive evidence that [over-the-top] application of dicamba herbicides has torn apart the social fabric of many farming communities.”

The decision was praised by the environmental groups that brought the case — the National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America.

“The court found that EPA ‘refused to estimate the amount of dicamba damage’ by characterizing it as ‘potential’ and ‘alleged,’ when in fact the record showed that ‘dicamba had caused substantial and undisputed damage,'” the groups said in a news release. “Similarly, EPA ignored the consensus views of scientists, farmers, and even EPA officials that formal complaints of dicamba damage understated actual damage, solely because Monsanto had claimed the contrary.”

“This is a massive victory that will protect people and wildlife from uses of a highly toxic pesticide that never should’ve been approved by the EPA,” said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program.

Bayer said, “We strongly disagree with the ruling and are assessing our options,” according to a company statement. “If the ruling stands, we will work quickly to minimize any impact on our customers this season. Our top priority is making sure our customers have the support they need to have a successful season.”

The company also said EPA had “conducted an extensive review and considered all relevant science prior to issuing the current registration for XtendiMax” and said it “stands fully behind our XtendiMax product.”

The court also found problems with the label used for the 2019 and 2020 growing seasons. “Extensive evidence in the record indicates that there is a risk of substantial non-compliance with the EPA-mandated label,” the court said.

“Even before the additional restrictions were added to the 2018 label, many industry professionals had been dismayed by the difficulty in complying with the complex and onerous label requirements,” the court said. “By October 2018, there was substantial evidence that even conscientious applicators had not been able consistently to adhere to the label requirements.”

In its Oct. 31, 2018, decision approving over-the-top use of dicamba on dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton, “EPA nowhere acknowledged the evidence in the record showing there had been substantial difficulty in complying with the mitigation requirements of earlier labels,” the court said. “Nor did it acknowledge the likelihood that the additional mitigation requirements imposed by the 2018 label would increase the degree of non-compliance.”

The court also said EPA had “entirely failed to acknowledge the substantial risk that the registrations would have anticompetitive economic effects in the soybean and cotton industries.”

EPA Releases Temporary Guidance on Respiratory Protection During COVID-19

This original announcement was published by the EPA on June 1, 2020. Click here for more. 

There is no higher priority for EPA than protecting the health and safety of Americans, especially during the COVID-19 public health emergency. EPA has heard from states and stakeholders about Personal Protective Equipment shortages in the agricultural sector. To respond to these reports and to help ensure the health and safety of America’s farmers, EPA is providing temporary guidance regarding respiratory protection requirements for agricultural pesticide handlers. Our guidance aligns with recent OSHA memos on respirators while addressing EPA’s responsibilities under FIFRA and the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS).

Additional Information

The temporary guidance outlines approaches to address the unavailability of required respiratory protection and respiratory fit testing that should first be exhausted before considering any alternative options. Options include:

  • Use alternative NIOSH-approved respirators offering equivalent or greater respiratory protection than those required on the pesticide label;
  • Hire commercial applicator services with enough respirators and respiratory protection capabilities;
  • Opt to use agricultural pesticide products that do not require respirators; or
  • Delay pesticide applications until another compliant option is available.

If the above options are exhausted, EPA’s guidance provides additional options with strict terms, conditions, and exhaustion requirements to minimize potential incremental risks to workers:

  • Reuse and extended use of disposable N95 filter facepiece respirator;
  • Use of “expired” respirators;
  • Use of respirators certified in certain other countries or jurisdictions meeting protective conditions outlined; or
  • Delay the annual respirator “fit test.”

This is a temporary policy. EPA will assess the continued need for and scope of this temporary guidance on a regular basis. To read the guidance in full and to learn more about EPA’s Worker Protection Standard, visit this webpage.

EPA Proposes Registration of New Biopesticide and Product

This original announcement was published by the EPA on May 23, 2020. Click here for more.

EPA is opening the 15-day comment period on a proposal to register the new active ingredient Ea peptide 91398 and the biopesticide product PHC-91398, which would contain this new active ingredient.

Ea peptide 91398 was derived from a naturally occurring bacterium and induces natural plant defenses. This response activates a hypersensitive response in treated plants, which enables resistance to bacterial and fungal infection, as well as suppression of nematode egg production. Nematodes are pests that can attack root systems, causing crop losses.

The product PHC-91398 is intended for use on a wide range of agricultural crops and residential “home and garden” uses. Product applications include: 1) pre-plant foliar or root dip; 2) foliar application for both greenhouse and field applications using conventional spray, drip or aerial equipment; and 3) seed treatment.

Based on data submitted in support of Ea peptide 91398, EPA does not expect toxicity or allergenicity to humans, nor does the Agency expect adverse effects to non-target organisms.

EPA encourages input on the proposed decision from all parties, including pesticide users; registrants; public interest organizations; and state, tribal and local governments. EPA routinely receives registration applications, such as this, and evaluates them to determine any risks to human health and the environment.

The proposed decision is included in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0687 at www.regulations.gov. Comments are due on June 5, 2020.

EPA Reopens Public Comment Period on Proposed Interim Decisions for Neonicotinoids

This original announcement was published by the EPA on May 21, 2020 and can be accessed here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the public comment period for 30 days on the proposed interim decisions for the neonicotinoids acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam.

EPA is taking this action to extend the comment period after receiving public comments requesting additional time to review the Neonicotinoids’ Proposed Interim Registration Review Decisions and supporting materials citing the quantity and complexity of the Proposed Interim Decisions and supporting documents, as well as addressing time and resource constraints. Upon publication of the Federal Register notice, EPA invites comments on the proposed interim decisions for 30 days. After carefully considering public input, EPA will issue the interim decisions.

EPA first announced availability of the proposed interim decisions for the neonicotinoid pesticides on Jan. 30, 2020. The proposed interim decisions contain new measures to reduce potential ecological risks, particularly to pollinators and aquatic invertebrates, and to protect public health.

Comments are accepted in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0750 at www.regulations.gov. More information available on EPA’s proposed interim decisions for neonicotinoids.

EPA Addresses Supply Chain Issues for Food-Contact Surface Sanitizer Products

This original announcement was published by the EPA on May 16, 2020. Click here for more. 

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its third temporary modification to Pesticide Registration Notice 98-10 to include food-contact surface sanitizer products containing the active ingredient isopropyl alcohol.

This new time-limited amendment to PRN 98-10 extends some of the supply chain flexibilities in the April modification to products used in the food manufacture and preparation industries. Specifically, this temporary amendment expands these flexibilities to manufacturers of food-contact surface sanitizer products containing isopropyl alcohol. Additionally, isopropyl alcohol has been added to the list of active ingredients considered to be commodity chemicals by the temporary amendment.

These isopropyl alcohol sanitizer products are not to be applied directly to food. Instead, they are used to sanitize equipment and surfaces used in food manufacturing and food preparation.

EPA intends for these flexibilities to increase the availability of products for use against the novel coronavirus. In addition, EPA is responding to feedback from the food manufacture and preparation industries that they are experiencing challenges acquiring sanitizers used in production facilities processing low-moisture products like cereal, flour, and industrial baked goods.

Click here for more information. 

EPA Makes it Easier for Consumers to Find Disinfectant Products for Novel Coronavirus

This original announcement was published by the EPA on May 12, 2020. Click here for more information. 

WASHINGTON (May 12, 2020) —  Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its List N Tool, a new web-based application (app)  that allows smart phone users and others to quickly identify disinfectant products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The agency also announced new actions to ensure that new disinfectant products that are safe and effective to use against SARS-CoV-2 can be added to EPA’s List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 as quickly as possible.

“In support of President Trump’s plan to reopen America, EPA is working to ensure that all Americans can easily access the best information on surface disinfectants as we work together to fight the spread of the novel coronavirus,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “This new app will help put important information in the hands of businesses, governments, and American consumers when they are making decisions about how best to clean and disinfect buildings.”

For more than two months, EPA has provided the public with List N, a list of more than 400 surface disinfectant products that meet the agency’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. This week, the agency transformed the data from the List N webpage into a browser-based web app that allows users to rapidly identify the disinfectant products best suited for their needs. Users can search by use site (e.g., home, business, health care, etc.), surface type (e.g., hard, non-porous surfaces like countertops; porous surfaces like fabrics), contact time (i.e., the time the product needs to be visibly wet), EPA registration number, active ingredient, or product name.

EPA is also continuing its efforts to ensure that List N is updated as quickly as possible with new disinfectant products that are safe and effective to use against SARS-CoV-2. Building on the agency’s previously announced expedited review for EPA-registered disinfectants that do not require review of new efficacy data, today, the agency announced an expedited review process for other products that would like to qualify for EPA’s List N. These other products include currently registered products that require a data review and applications for new disinfectant products.

EPA’s Expedited Review of Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) Submissions for Products Eligible for Inclusion on List N: Submission Information for Registrants also contains important information to submitters on how to submit a product for expedited review. This does not replace the review process of all other submitted antimicrobial products.

EPA may also consider expedited review of new active ingredients or new uses for currently registered active ingredients (including higher application rates, new application methods such as fogging and electrostatic sprayers, or use sites such as porous surfaces).

When using an EPA-registered disinfectant, follow the label directions for safe, effective use. Make sure to follow the contact time, which is the amount of time the surface should be visibly wet. Read our infographic on how to use these products.