Pest Management Professional, March 2014

Loud and Clear How PMPs can voice their opinions during product registration Throughout the years the pest management industry has lost many of its tools The argument against those products usually referred to the risk potential they posed to humans nontarget animals and the environment But the question for pest management professionals PMPs is whether their voice was part of the decision making process Current U S Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act FIFRA regulations require the review of each registered pesticide at least every 15 years to ensure each continues to meet safety standards says Anita Pease associate director of the Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide Programs at the U S Environmental Protection Agency EPA Pease spoke at the American Mosquito Control Association AMCA annual conference held in Seattle last month Pease says that to date there are about 750 chemical cases comprising more than 1100 active ingredients and it takes five to seven years on average to review each case The first 15 year cycle must be completed by Oct 1 2022 according to FIFRA All reviews include national level Endangered Species Act ESA Effects Determinations The stages of the review process are r GPDVT NFFUJOH r PQFO EPDLFU r QSFMJNJOBSZ SJTL BTTFTTNFOU XIJDI JODMVEFT BO JOGPSNBM 4 POTVMUBUJPO BOE r àOBM SJTL BTTFTTNFOU BOE QSPQPTFE EFDJTJPO XIJDI includes a formal ESA consultation At each stage of the review process theres an opportunity for enhanced stakeholder input The public input stage is where PMPs have the opportunity to share their thoughts Public input is invited from all interested parties during r JOJUJBM EPDLFU PQFOJOHT r TJHOJàDBOU SJTL BTTFTTNFOUT r BMM QSPQPTFE EFDJTJPOT BOE r ESBGU CJPMPHJDBM PQJOJPOT S P O N S O R E D B Y For mosquito management this input is vital to ensure assessment accurately reflects use Theres much relevant data that professionals can provide including r application method aerial ground truck perimeter USFBUNFOU SFTJEFOUJBM PVUEPPS GPHHJOH NJTUFST r application frequency and interval typical vs high FOE FYQPTVSF TDFOBSJPT FTQFDJBMMZ GPS SFTJEFOUJBM VTF r application rate its difficult to quantify some residential use rates in terms of model inputs pounds of BDUJWF JOHSFEJFOU QFS BDSF GPS FYBNQMF r application conditions wind speed temperature TFBTPO FUD r geographic differences application methods might WBSZ CZ SFHJPO r deposition rate what fraction of application rate is deposited on foliage ground in and beyond the USFBUNFOU BSFB r drift m BNPVOU PG QFTUJDJEF ESJGU PGG TJUF r follow up monitoring data for pesticide runoff and surface water According to Pease the participation from professionals would be most valuable during two stages r work plan stage when label and use patterns will ESJWF SJTL BTTFTTNFOUT BOE r risk assessment stage when geographic locations of use and available monitoring data might refine endangered species assessment PMP Dan Jacobs Contributor To learn more about the registration review process visit www epa gov oppsrrd1 registration_ review Specific pesticide information is available at www epa gov pesticides chemicalsearch www mypmp net Pest Management Professional March 2014 MM15