EPA Extends Comment Period for Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessments
Sep 10th
EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of July 29, 2015, announcing the availability of draft guidance for public comment entitled: ‘‘Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for Screening Analysis.’’ EPA has extended this comment period for an additional 30 days, from August 28, 2015 to September 28, 2015. EPA is extending the comment period in response to requests for an extended comment period to allow for full participation.
Click here to read Federal Register notice of this action and for more details.
CRE Files Comments on EPA’s Proposed Use of HTP and ToxCast as EDSP Screens
Aug 19th
CRE’s comments included the following points.
First, CRE supports and commends EPA’s efforts to provide High Throughput Assays (HTP) and Toxicity Forecaster (ToxCast) as an alternative to the current EDSP Tier 1screening assays.
Second, EPA should not require products that have already undergone current Tier 1 screening to be rescreened and/or reevaluated through HTP and ToxCast.
Third, EPA should have another Science Advisory Panel review EPA’s conclusions about HTP/ToxCast and the Current Tier 1 uterotrophic screening assay.
State Pesticide Officials Meet
Aug 12th
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group, the Environmental Quality Issues and the Pesticides Operations and Management committees will hold a joint 2-day meeting, beginning on September 21, 2015 and ending September 22, 2015. These meetings will be held at EPA, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.) 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington, Virginia, 1st
Floor, South Conference Room.
Click here for more information.
FWS and NOAA/NMFS Extend Comment Period for Proposed ESA Listing Petition Regulation Revisions
Jul 22nd
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service have announced a 60-day extension to the public comment period for their proposed revisions to Endangered Species Act petition regulations. The proposed revisions were announced in May and are intended to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of the ESA petitioning processes.
EPA Seeks Comment on HTP and ToxCast Alternative
Jul 22nd
EPA seeks public comment on the Agency’s proposed use of an alternative scientific approach to screen chemicals for their ability to interact with the endocrine system. EPA believes that this new approach will improve the Agency’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandate to screen pesticide chemicals and other substances for their ability to cause adverse effects by their interaction with the endocrine system. EPA’s new proposed approach incorporates high throughput assays and a computational model and is intended to serve as an alternative for some of the current assays in EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Tier 1 battery.
EPA Seeks Comment on Measures to Protect Monarch Butterfly
Jul 8th
EPA’s document, EPA’s Risk Management Approach to Identifying Options for Protecting the Monarch Butterfly, outlines an approach for actions to protect the monarch butterfly. EPA is soliciting public comment on which potential action or a combination of actions would be most effective in reducing the impacts of herbicides on the monarch butterfly and its habitat. The agency is also requesting additional suggestions for protection measures for the monarch.
EPA invites stakeholders to comment on this document at www.regulations.gov in Docket# EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0389. EPA will accept public comments until July 24, 2015.
EPA Agrees to Settle ESA Claims for Four Pesticides
Jun 24th
EPA has sent out the following message about the Agency’s settlement of ESA pesticide litigation brought by the Center for Biological Diversity:
“EPA has reached agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity to revise a 2010 court order which established a schedule to complete effects determinations for 75 chemicals on 11 endangered or threatened species in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to determine whether an action (in this case, a pesticide registration) will adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their critical habitats.
NGO Plaintiffs Oppose Federal Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in ESA Pesticides Case
Jun 19th
The Center for Biological Diversity has sued the Fish and Wildlife Service in a San Francisco United States District Court. CBD alleges that FWS has violated the Endangered Species Act and other federal statutes by failing to complete timely consultation on EPA’s pesticide registrations for atrazine, 2,4-D and alachlor.
On May 15, 2015, the Federal Defendants filed a motion that asks the court to grant them judgment on the pleadings in this case.
The NGO Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to this motion. They summarize their opposition as follows:
Federal Defendants File Amended Answer in San Francisco ESA Pesticides Case
Jun 4th
The Center for Biological Diversity has sued the Fish and Wildlife Service in a San Francisco United States District Court. CBD alleges that FWS has violated the Endangered Species Act and other federal statutes by failing to complete timely consultation on EPA’s pesticide registrations for atrazine, 2,4-D and alachlor.
On May 28, 2015, the federal defendants filed their amended answer in the case. Their answer denies the plaintiffs’ allegations and claims and raises the following defenses:
“(1) The Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction over one or more of Plaintiff’s claims.
(2) Plaintiff lacks standing.
D.C. District Court Dismisses Enviros’ Pesticide ESA Consultation Claims on Jurisdictional Grounds
May 18th
The Center for Biological Diversity and other Enviro NGOs sued EPA in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming that EPA violated Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with the FWS and the NMFS before registering cyantraniliprole. The court recently granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the case, holding that only the U.S. Courts of Appeals have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims.
Click here to read the court’s decision.