Archive for May, 2012

CRE Requests SAP Review of EDSP

On May 29, 2012, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness filed comments supporting an industry petition critical of EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.  Among other comments, CRE requested that EPA have a FIFRA Science Advisory Panel review several aspects of the EDSP before EPA takes any further action on this program.

● Click below to read CRE’s comments supporting EDSP petition.


CRE Briefs NAS/NRC Review Committee on Data Quality Standards

The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council is reviewing ecological risk assessments for pesticides under FIFRA and the Endangered Species Act.  This review is being conducted at the request of EPA, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Agriculture.  EPA, NMFS and FWS do not always agree on data and analyses during their Section 7 consultations.

EPA, NMFS and FWS have not adequately briefed the NAS/NRC Committee on the Government-wide data quality protocols and standards that govern their ecological risk assessments under FIFRA and the ESA. Consequently, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness submitted a White Paper for the Committee’s review. This White Paper discusses:

EPA Criticizes NMFS’ Draft Dinitroaniline BiOp

In a letter dated May 11, 2012, EPA responded to NMFS’ draft biological opinion for three dinitroaniline herbicides’ effects on Pacific salmon, steelhead and their critical habitat, if designated.  The three herbicides are oryzalin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin. EPA criticized NMFS’s draft BiOp on several grounds, including NMFS’s “multiple conservative assumptions in exposure modeling leading to physically impossible results such as NMFS’ floodplain exposure results that exceeded chemical solubility limits.” 

● Click here to read EPA’s response to draft dinitroaniline BiOp.

NMFS Requests Comment on NMFS’ Thiobencarb BiOp

EPA requests comments by June 12, 2012, on draft Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Alternatives included in NMFS’ draft Biological Opinion on the potential effects from the pesticide thiobencarb on ESA-listed Pacific salmon and steelhead. NMFS’ draft BiOp also addresses the pesticide molinate. However at the request of the registrants all molinate uses were cancelled effective July 30, 2008, and the last use date was August 31, 2009.

●Click here to read EPA’s request for comments on NMFS’ draft BiOp for thiobencarb and molinate



California ESA Pesticides Court Issues Order on Industry Motions

Environmental NGOs are suing EPA, asking a California federal district court to essentially take over EPA’s pesticide program because EPA allegedly failed to meet all its pesticide obligations under the Endangered Species Act. At the Government’s and NGO’s request, the case has been stayed to allow settlement negotiations. Several industry Interveners filed motions to dismiss the NGO plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the case; to allow their intervention for all purposes in the case; and to lift the stay of the case. The Interveners include CropLife America and the American Chemistry Council. The court has not yet granted them full participation in the case. The Government Defendants and NGO Plaintiffs oppose the industry Intervener motions, and want the stay continued to allow settlement negotiations to continue.

EPA Hasn’t Got a Date for EDSP Tier 2 Test Orders

Many companies have already submitted their test results in response to EPA’s test orders under Tier 1 of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.  These companies now await EPA’s decision whether they have to conduct additional Tier 2 EDSP tests.  EPA representatives spoke at the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Meeting on May 3, 2012. They were repeatedly asked by PPDC members when EPA would decide which companies have to perform Tier 2 tests. The EPA representatives would not give a date for this decision.  They also said that a decision on Tier 2 tests would be made on the “weight of the evidence,” and not just Tier 1 test results.  They did, however, state that EPA will assume a product is not an endocrine disruptor if it does not test positive for endocrine disruption on Tier 1 tests.