Archive for January, 2013
NAS/NRC representatives have informed CRE that they now hope to publish the report in NAS/NRC’s review of Ecological Risk Assessment under FIFRA and ESA in February 2013. The NAS/NRC Review Committee intends to publish its report in final form, without allowing public comment on a draft report. The Committee’s website for this project is available online http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49396.
EPA has published a Federal Register notice soliciting public comment on the Agency’s proposed new regulations on the active and inert ingredients permitted in products eligible for the exemption from regulation for minimum risk pesticides. EPA proposes adding specific chemical identifiers that would make it clearer to manufacturers; the public; and Federal, state, and tribal inspectors which ingredients are permitted in minimum risk pesticide products. EPA is also proposing to modify the label requirements in the exemption to require the use of specific common chemical names in lists of ingredients on minimum risk pesticide product labels, and to require producer contact information on the label. EPA must receive any public comments on these proposals on or before April 1, 2013.
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. Several industry Interveners have moved to intervene in 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 NGO plaintiffs have filed an Opposition to the industry motion to intervene. Their Opposition makes the following arguments:
I. THE COURT SHOULD DENY INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT IN THE LIABILITY PHASE
Environmental NGOs are suing EPA, basically asking a California federal district court to take over EPA’s pesticide program because EPA allegedly failed to meet all its ESA consultation obligations under the Endangered Species Act. EPA has filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint in the case. The Plaintiffs have filed their opposition to EPA’s motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs’ opposition makes the following arguments:
I. Defendants’ Motions Improperly Elevate FIFRA above the ESA
II. EPA’s Continuing Authority over Pesticide Registrations is Ongoing Agency Action Subject to the ESA’s Consultation Requirement