Connecting the people of Washington State with research-based information on pest management choices for home and commercial use.
As of July 2017, we are posting news items relevant to our clientele exclusively on the WSU WSPRS Facebook page (Washington State Pest Management Resource Service) and Twitter account (@PICOL_mgr). Announcements and news items already posted on this page will remain for historical reference.
All other aspects on our site, e.g., links to databases and other programs, employee resources, etc. are remaining here and will be actively maintained; only news items and announcements are moving. Questions? Comments? You can reach us at firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com.
The Environmental Protection Agency is extending the time for registrants to submit revised labels for products with water soluble packaging. The new language is designed to correct misuse and protect handlers from exposure, and it will clarify that the changes only apply to large mix tanks, such as those often used in agricultural settings, versus smaller tanks, such as handheld or backpack sprayers. The deadline for submitting revised label instructions, originally April 5, has been extended to October 5, 2017.
When used properly, water soluble packaging can significantly reduce handler exposure during the mixing and loading of pesticides and qualifies as a closed mixing/loading system under the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard. However, some unintended practices in the field can actually increase the risks, negating the intention of the technology.
EPA worked with a task force of pesticide registrants and state officials to examine the issue and develop the improved language to eliminate misuse and to protect handlers.
The Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (a group formed by registrants of agricultural products to generate data to support registration) uncovered this problem while conducting exposure studies for water soluble packaging. They observed improper use of products in water soluble packaging, such as spraying the products with high pressure water and intentionally breaking water soluble bags. The task force notified EPA of their observations and offered to work with the agency to draft label language to address the improper use of the products.
EPA is re-opening a 60-day comment period on the ecological risk assessment for several pyrethroids (bifenthrin, cyfluthrins, cypermethrin, cyphenothrin, D-phenothrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, etofenprox, fenpropathrin, flumethrin, gamma-cyhalothrin, imiprothrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, momfluorothrin, permethrin, prallethrin, pyrethrins, tau-fluvalinate, tefluthrin and tetramethrin); due date is July 7, 2017.
For the chemical linuron, EPA is re-opening a 30-day comment period on the human health and ecological risk assessments; due date is June 7, 2017.
Docket numbers for each of the individual assessments is listed in Tables 1 and 2 in the May 8 Federal Register https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-05-08/pdf/2017-09179.pdf. Comments must be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, at http://www.regulations.gov, using the correct docket number.
EPA and the Dept. of the Army Announce Intention to Review the Clean Water Rule and Rescind or Revise It
As announced in the Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 42 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-03-06/pdf/2017-04312.pdf):
Through new rulemaking, the EPA and the Army seek to provide greater clarity and regulatory certainty concerning the definition of “waters of the United States,” consistent with the principles outlined in the [recent] Executive Order and the agencies’ legal authority.
Agencies have inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and to revise, replace or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by a reasoned explanation. Importantly, such a revised decision need not be based upon a change of facts or circumstances. A revised rulemaking based “on a reevaluation of which policy would be better in light of the facts” is “well within an agency’s discretion,” and “[a] change in administration brought about by the people casting their votes is a perfectly reasonable basis for an executive agency’s reappraisal of the costs and benefits of its programs and regulations.”
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. ET, EPA’s Center of Expertise for School IPM will offer a webinar titled, “Pests of Public Health Importance and the Role of Integrated Pest Management in Schools.” Recent developments in pest-borne diseases, such as the emergence of Zika virus and spread of Lyme disease, signal the need to continually assess the threat of pests to public health. Illnesses carried by insects, rodents, and other pests affect all races, ethnicities, ages and cultures. Vector-borne illnesses are an ever-present threat and efforts to prevent them are critical to protecting public health.
We strive to keep our school playgrounds and other outdoor environments free of pests. The control of vector-borne diseases hinges on understanding the pest and how it becomes established in an ecosystem and ultimately infects a susceptible host. Integrated pest management (IPM) is an approach that uses a hierarchy of practices, including education, pest exclusion, sanitation and other biological and mechanical methods, to reduce unnecessary pesticide exposure while providing sustainable pest control.
Join us as we discuss the primary pests of public health concern, review control strategies, and describe tactics to reduce exposure in your school district.
Our presenters will be:
- Richard Pollack, PhD, Harvard School of Public Health
- Pearl English, DNP, Nurse, School District of Philadelphia (PA)
- Marcia Anderson, PhD, EPA Center of Expertise for School IPM
Upcoming webinars include:
- More Than Just a Firm Handshake: Bid and Contract Guidance for Securing IPM-Based Services for Schools | February 21, 2017
- Feed the Kids, Not the Pests: Effective IPM for Cafeterias and Kitchen | March 14, 2017
- Contending with Invasive Plants on School Grounds | April 17, 2017
Actions you can take:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing safety measures to stop poisonings caused by ingestion of the herbicide paraquat, which can also cause severe injuries or death from skin or eye exposure.
Since 2000, there have been 17 deaths—three involving children—caused by accidental ingestion of paraquat. These cases have resulted from the pesticide being illegally transferred to beverage containers and later mistaken for a drink and consumed. A single sip can be fatal. To prevent these tragedies, EPA is requiring:
- new closed-system packaging designed to make it impossible to transfer or remove the pesticide except directly into the proper application equipment;
- special training for certified applicators who use paraquat to emphasize that the chemical must not be transferred to or stored in improper containers; and
- changes to the pesticide label and warning materials to highlight the toxicity and risks associated with paraquat.
In addition to the deaths by accidental ingestion, since 2000 there have been three deaths and many severe injuries caused by the pesticide getting onto the skin or into the eyes of those working with the herbicide. To reduce exposure to workers who mix, load and apply paraquat, EPA is restricting the use of paraquat to certified pesticide applicators only. Uncertified individuals working under the supervision of a certified applicator will be prohibited from using paraquat.
Paraquat is one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S. for the control of weeds in many agricultural and non-agricultural settings and is also used as a defoliant on crops such as cotton prior to harvest.
Learn more about paraquat and the new measures to reduce risk: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/paraquat-dichloride
Learn about EPA’s Certification and Training Rule: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/revised-certification-standards-pesticide-applicators
Learn about EPA’s Worker Protection Standard: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/revisions-worker-protection-standard
Register for the November 18, 2016 Webinar
In September 2016, EPA held a public symposium on data that support registration of plant incorporated protectants (PIPs). The information from that symposium will be rebroadcast as a webinar on Thursday, November 18, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The symposium provided a forum for PIP developers (e.g., registrants), the agricultural sector and the general public to get firsthand information on the scope of the scientific review process that determines the safety of PIPs and on the pesticide registration process as a whole. The majority of PIPs registered in the past 20-plus years use insecticidal traits of bacterial proteins to enhance the plant’s resistance to insect herbivores. In this webinar, EPA, FDA and USDA representatives give an overview of the regulatory system as it applies to biotechnology in the United States, specifically in the context of the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology.
For those interested in just the recording, EPA plans to post a recording of the webinar on their website in early December 2016.
The Southern Green Stink Bug is a new pest in Washington State, and we need your help to map its spread! Use the link below to submit relevant details regarding a sighting of the Southern Green Stink Bug in Washington State. The most reliable way for us to track this pest is for you to upload a picture of your suspect bug. Pictures allow us to verify the identification, which is important since some stink bugs can look very similar. You may also mail suspect specimens and collection information to WSU Extension, c/o Mike Bush, 2403 S 18th Street, Suite 100, Union Gap, WA 98903.
Following the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the registration of sulfoxaflor, EPA has reevaluated the data supporting the use of sulfoxaflor and is approving a registration that meets all requirements of the court. Sulfoxaflor will now have fewer uses and additional requirements that will protect bees. EPA will consider the other uses at a later date as data become available to support those uses. EPA made this decision after careful consideration of public comments and supporting science.
EPA is registering sulfoxaflor for use only on crops that are not attractive to pollinators or for crop-production scenarios that minimize or eliminate potential exposure to bees. The registration is very protective of pollinators and includes fewer crops than were allowed under sulfoxaflor’s previous registration. For those crops that are included and that are bee attractive, sulfoxaflor will be allowed only post bloom, when bees are not expected to be present, and will not be allowed on any crops grown for seed, including turf. These restrictions practically eliminate exposure to bees in the field, which reduces the risk below EPA’s level of concern such that no additional data requirements to protect bees are triggered.
EPA is also prohibiting application if wind speeds exceed 10 mph and requiring a 12-foot on-field buffer on the down-wind edge to protect bees from spray drift if there is blooming vegetation bordering the treated field. EPA is prohibiting tank mixing of sulfoxaflor with pesticides that have shown evidence of synergistic activity with sulfoxaflor. The product label directs applicators to more information and a list of these pesticides.
Sulfoxaflor is a sulfoximine, a new insecticide class that is an alternative to organophosphates, which are considered to be much harsher on non-target organisms and the environment. Sulfoxaflor will control a number of difficult insect pests and is proven to work against challenging pests that carbamate, neonicotinoid, organophosphate, and pyrethroid insecticides fail to control.
EPA Guidance on How to Comply with the Revised Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides
Today, EPA in conjunction with the Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative (PERC) is making available a guide to help users of agricultural pesticides comply with the requirements of the 2015 revised federal Worker Protection Standard. You should read this manual if you employ agricultural workers or handlers, are involved in the production of agricultural plants as an owner/manager of an agricultural establishment or a commercial (for-hire) pesticide handling establishment, or work as a crop advisor.
This “How to Comply” manual includes:
- details to help you determine if the WPS requirements apply to you;
- information on how to comply with the WPS requirements, including exceptions, restrictions, exemptions, options, and examples;
- “Quick Reference Guide”- a list of the basic requirements (excluding exemptions, exceptions, etc.);
- new or revised definitions that may affect your WPS responsibilities; and
- explanations to help you better understand the WPS requirements and how they may apply to you.
This updated 2016 WPS How to Comply Manual supersedes the 2005 version.
The public comment period for sulfonylurea herbicides—established in the July 14, 2016 Federal Register—has been extended until November 14, 2016.
The EPA has issued a proposed interim decision for 22 sulfonylurea herbicides including the following active ingredients:
To submit comments, access docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0774.
WSDA formally announced a new section of their website, Interested in Organic Certification? The new page features fact sheets and guides developed to assist both existing and prospective organic operations, as well as educate programs and organizations that support organic businesses. The page also features projects produced in partnership with USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Services National Organic Program. The projects were developed with a common goal to make organic certification more accessible, attainable and affordable for organic operations while upholding the integrity and value of the organic label.
WSDA’s Sound and Sensible Organic Certification Video Series includes three videos: Steps to Certification provides an overview of the organic certification process; Preventive Practices describes activities and techniques that help farmers avoid crop pest, weed, and disease problems; and Recordkeeping gives instruction for developing and maintaining good recordkeeping practices. Filmed in Washington State and applicable to viewers across the country in both English and Spanish, videos provide viewers with a practical approach to ensuring compliance. Additional videos, focused on livestock and handling requirements, are being filmed this season and will be available online next spring.
Curious about the cost of certification and other licenses that may be required for a farm or facility producing organic products? Direct businesses to the WSDA Organic Certification Calculator to help estimate certification costs and evaluate other requirements and licenses needed to operate in Washington State. Once a producer or handler has an understanding of the costs involved, they can easily access application forms and additional resources online.
USDA’s National Organic Program is the regulatory program responsible for developing national standards for organically-produced agricultural products. As the largest and oldest USDA-accredited state certifier in the nation the WSDA Organic Program has contributed to the success of the organic label in the Pacific Northwest and beyond. Supported by fees from certified operations, the Organic Program currently certifies 1,160 organic growers, handlers and processors of organic products, and registers 850 input materials for use in organic production.
EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers have published a final rule that defines “waters of the United States” in relation to the Clean Water Act (CWA).
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. and its implementing regulations, subject to the exclusions in paragraph (b) of this section, the term ‘‘waters of the United States’’ means:
(1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(3) The territorial seas;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States under this section;
(5) All tributaries, as defined in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section;
(6) All waters adjacent to a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section, including wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters;
(7) All waters in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (v) of this section where they are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. The waters identified in each of paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (v) of this section are similarly situated and shall be combined, for purposes of a significant nexus analysis, in the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (a)(6), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required.
(i) Prairie potholes. Prairie potholes are a complex of glacially formed wetlands, usually
occurring in depressions that lack permanent natural outlets, located in the upper Midwest.
(ii) Carolina bays and Delmarva bays. Carolina bays and Delmarva bays are ponded, depressional wetlands that occur along the Atlantic coastal plain.
(iii) Pocosins. Pocosins are evergreen shrub and tree dominated wetlands found predominantly along the Central Atlantic coastal plain.
(iv) Western vernal pools. Western vernal pools are seasonal wetlands located in parts of California and associated with topographic depression, soils with poor drainage, mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers.
(v) Texas coastal prairie wetlands. Texas coastal prairie wetlands are freshwater wetlands that occur as a mosaic of depressions, ridges, intermound flats, and mima mound wetlands located along the Texas Gulf Coast.
(8) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section and all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section where they are determined on a case-specific basis to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. For waters determined to have a significant nexus, the entire water is a water of the United States if a portion is located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section or within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (a)(6), they are an
adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required.
(b) The following are not ‘‘waters of the United States’’ even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(4) through (8) of this section.
(1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
(2) Prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
(3) The following ditches:
(i) Ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary.
(ii) Ditches with intermittent flow that are not a relocated tributary, excavated in a tributary, or drain wetlands.
(iii) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a water identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(4) The following features:
(iii) Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools created in dry land;
(iv) Small ornamental waters created in dry land;
(v) Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to mining or construction activity, including pits excavated for obtaining fill, sand, or gravel that fill with water;
(vi) Erosional features, including gullies, rills, and other ephemeral features that do not meet the definition of tributary, non-wetland swales, and lawfully constructed grassed waterways; and
(5) Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems.
(6) Stormwater control features constructed to convey, treat, or store stormwater that are created in dry land.
(7) Wastewater recycling structures constructed in dry land; detention and retention basins built for wastewater recycling; groundwater recharge basins; percolation ponds built for wastewater recycling; and water distributary structures built for wastewater
Full explanation of the rule, including how EPA responded to public comments, is detailed here http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-29/pdf/2015-13435.pdf
EPA is proposing mandatory pesticide label restrictions to protect contracted managed bees, e.g., honey bee colonies that are under contract to provide pollination services, from foliar applications of pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees on a contact exposure basis, i.e., those pesticides with an acutely lethal dose to 50% of the bees tested of less than 11 micrograms per bee, based on acute contact toxicity testing.
Although the likely outcomes are counterproductive for both the beekeeper (loss of honey bee stock) and the grower (diminished pollination services), many beekeepers and growers seem not to have found ways to avoid such outcomes. Consequently, EPA believes that strong regulatory measures should be in place for the contracted service
scenario to mitigate these potential problems. Therefore, EPA proposes to prohibit the foliar application of acutely toxic products during bloom for sites with bees on-site under contract, unless the application is made in accordance with a government-declared public health response. There would be no other exceptions to the bloom prohibition in the contracted-services scenario. Current neonicotinoid product labels include a 48-hr notification exception to the bloom prohibition. However, as part of this mitigation proposal, the 48-hr notification exception for crops under contracted pollination services during bloom for all neonicotinoid product labels would be removed.
For managed bees not under contract pollination services, EPA is not proposing to require any new language for pesticide labels. This does not alter EPA’s previous requirement for more specific restrictions on neonicotinoid pesticides for which EPA required language to address risks to bees not under contract for pollination services.
EPA is seeking comment on both the approach of label restrictions on products used for bees under contract for pollinator services, and for the approach to rely on state and tribal pollinator protection plans to bees that are not under contract for pollination services. Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0818, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov .
EPA is releasing Bulletins Live! Two, an upgraded version of Bulletins Live!, a web-based map application used to access geographically-specific threatened and endangered species protection Bulletins. This system is an important tool for pesticide users since it makes it easier to find pesticide use limitations for specific areas. Go to www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/bulletins.htm to view the new application. Please note, if you are using Internet Explorer and have accessed Bulletins Live! in the past, you will need to clear your history or set your browser to check for newer versions of stored pages.
Bulletins generated by the application contain enforceable, geographically-specific pesticide use limitations that are necessary to ensure using a pesticide will not harm a threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat designated under the Endangered Species Act. A reference to Bulletins on a pesticide label ensures that the Bulletin’s pesticide use limitations are enforceable under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Bulletins Live! Two has several new features, including
- an interactive map;
- different base maps (satellite, street, geographic, etc.) to help users determine if specific pesticide use limitations apply in areas where the pesticide is intended for use; advanced
- searches for active ingredient, product (by name or registration number), location (state, county, specific address); and
- an enhanced system to receive public comments on draft Bulletins.
The new Bulletins Live! Two application is intended to replace Bulletins Live! and includes all of the current pesticide limitations captured in Bulletins Live! including 113 county Bulletins for 10 states for the protection of 14 threatened and endangered species.
EPA is releasing an updated Salmon Mapper. The interactive map includes enhanced spatial resolution and the most recent geospatial data depicting salmon-supporting stream reaches where no-spray buffer zones apply in California, Oregon and Washington State for 12 pesticides that are subject either to the original 2004 injunction in Washington Toxics Coalition (WTC) v. EPA or the August 15, 2014, stipulated injunction in Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) v. EPA.
The pesticides included in the NCAP v. EPA stipulated injunction are carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion and methomyl. The pesticides that remain subject to the original WTC v. EPA injunctive relief order are 1,3-dichloropropene, bromoxynil, diflubenzuron, fenbutatin oxide, metolachlor, prometryn and propargite.
These buffer zones will remain in place for carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, and methomyl until EPA implements any necessary protections for Pacific salmon and steelhead based on reinitiated consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Services. Buffer zones for the remaining seven chemicals included in the WTC vs. EPA will remain in place until final Biological Opinions are completed. To view the no-spray buffer zones go to the Salmon Mapper.
For more information on the specific buffer zones and background on the NCAP case, visit http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus/ncap-v-epa.html.
For more information on the WTC case, go to http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/wtc/index.htm.
Read more about the buffers established by the WTC case http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/wtc/maps.htm#wtc1.
EPA Reinstates No-Spray Buffer Zones in California, Oregon and Washington to Protect Salmon as a Result of Final Settlement Agreement for Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides v. EPA
EPA is reinstating streamside no-spray buffer zones to protect endangered or threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead in California, Oregon and Washington State. No-spray buffer zones will be imposed for the pesticides carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion and methomyl in waters that support salmon. These buffer zones will remain in place until EPA implements any necessary protections for Pacific salmon and steelhead based on reinitiated consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Services.
This action is directed by a stipulated injunction (agreed to by the parties) that settles litigation brought against EPA by the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides and others in U.S. District Court in Washington State. On August 15, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington entered the stipulated injunction, reinstating the streamside no-spray buffer zones that were originally established in prior litigation, Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA. The reinstated buffers are part of the final court order; however, they will not be included as labeling requirements under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
For more information on the specific buffer zones and background on this court case, visit
The EPA today unveiled a new graphic that will be available to appear on insect repellent product labels. The graphic will show consumers how many hours a product will repel mosquitoes and ticks when used as directed.
The EPA’s new graphic will do for bug repellents what SPF labeling did for sunscreens. This new graphic will help parents, hikers and the general public better protect themselves and their families from serious health threats caused by mosquitoes and ticks that carry debilitating diseases. Incidence of these diseases is on the rise. The CDC estimates that there are nearly 300,000 cases of Lyme disease in the United States each year. Effective insect repellents can protect against serious mosquito- and tick-borne diseases.
The EPA is accepting applications from manufacturers that wish to add the graphic to their repellent product labels. The public could see the graphic on products early next year.
At the request of beekeepers and growers alike, the agency has posted the Residual Time to 25% Bee Mortality (RT25) Data online. Bees may be susceptible to harm from direct exposure to pesticides sprayed on flowering plants, but pesticide residues generally decrease in toxicity as the spray dries and time passes. Farmers and beekeepers can use EPA’s RT25 data to gauge the amount of time after application that a particular pesticide product remains toxic enough under real-world conditions to kill 25 percent of bees that are exposed to residues on treated plant surfaces. Some have used this information to select pesticide products with shorter periods in which the chemicals remain active and can affect bees.
EPA is announcing the availability of PR Notice 2014-1 which presents the Agency’s guidance on optional participation in WDL. The notice is intended to improve existing labeling by allowing users to download the portions of the pesticide labeling specific to their intended state and site of use.
Consideration of Spray Drift in EPA’s Pesticide Risk Assessment: Notice of Availability and Request for Comment
EPA is announcing the availability of two draft guidance documents for public comment. These documents describe how off-site spray drift will be evaluated for ecological and human health risk assessments for pesticides. Once final, these guidance documents will be posted on EPA’s Web site, to ensure consistent risk assessment practices and provide transparency for pesticide registrants and other interested stakeholders. Comments must be received on or before March 31, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0676, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
WSDA has added a web page(http://agr.wa.gov/pestfert/pesticides/pesticideuseonmarijuana.aspx) to assist growers authorized by I-502 or I-692 who choose to use pesticides for the production of marijuana in Washington. The page contains links to the relevant regulatory agencies and to the WSDA criteria for designating pesticide use on marijuana. A searchable list of these pesticides is available from the WSU Pesticide information Center Online (PICOL) database. Tutorials for using PICOL are available on YouTube.