Pesticide Product Performance Data Requirements for Products Claiming Efficacy Against Certain Invertebrate Pests, 15362-15396 [2021-05137]
Download as PDF
15362
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 158
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0124; FRL–10011–06]
RIN 2070–AJ49
Pesticide Product Performance Data
Requirements for Products Claiming
Efficacy Against Certain Invertebrate
Pests
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to codify
product performance data requirements
to support registration of pesticidal
products claiming efficacy against three
categories of invertebrate pests: Those
identified to be of significant public
health importance (e.g., ticks,
mosquitoes, cockroaches, etc.), wooddestroying insects (e.g., termites), and
certain invasive invertebrate species
(e.g., Asian longhorned beetle). The
latter two categories are pests
considered to be of significant economic
or ecological importance. Product
performance data (efficacy studies)
document how well the pesticide
performs the intended function, such as
killing or repelling, against an
invertebrate pest.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 21, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0124,
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Please note that due to the public
health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room
was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will
continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For
further information on EPA/DC services,
docket contact information and the
current status of the EPA/DC and
Reading Room, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Kemme, Mission Support Division
(7101M), Office of Program Support,
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
The proposed numerical performance
standards specify the level of efficacy
that would need to be achieved for EPA
to deem the submitted data as
acceptable for a product bearing the
specified claim(s) against the
invertebrate pest. For the most part, the
I. Executive Summary
data requirements that EPA is proposing
for codification are consistent with
A. Does this action apply to me?
EPA’s current practices in data
You potentially may be affected by
supporting applications for registration
this action if you are a producer or
of a pesticide product that bears a
registrant of pesticide products making
pesticidal claim against one or more of
claims against the specified categories of these pests.
invertebrate pests. The North American
This proposed rule presents the data
Industrial Classification System
requirements in tabular format. These
(NAICS) codes are provided to assist
tables link the efficacy claim on the
you and others in determining if this
label of a pesticide product with the
action might apply to certain entities.
data needed to substantiate that claim.
This listing is not intended to be
EPA is proposing that the studies
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
submitted by an applicant demonstrate
for readers regarding entities likely to be the product’s efficacy in studies using
regulated by this action. Other types of
specified test species and with results
entities not listed could also be affected. demonstrating that the product achieved
Potentially affected entities may
a specified level of performance, called
include, but are not limited to,
a performance standard. Numerical
• Chemical Producers (NAICS 32532), performance standards, such as the
e.g., pesticide manufacturers or
percent mortality, percent repellency,
formulators of pesticide products,
percent knockdown, or complete
pesticide importers or any person or
protection time would need to be
company who seeks to register a
achieved to deem the data acceptable for
pesticide.
the purpose of supporting a product
• Research and Development in the
making a claim against an invertebrate
Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences pest. The Agency believes that codifying
(NAICS code 541712), e.g., research and essential elements relating to test
development laboratories or services
species and performance standards will
that perform efficacy testing for
provide the regulated community a
invertebrate pests.
better understanding of the data EPA
• Colleges, universities, and
believes to be necessary to support
professional schools (NAICS code
registration of a product that claims
611310), e.g., establishments of higher
efficacy against invertebrate pests.
learning which are engaged in
EPA is proposing to:
development and marketing of products
• Codify a new subpart R in 40 CFR
for invertebrate pest control.
part 158 entitled, ‘‘Product Performance
for Products Claiming Effectiveness
B. What action is the Agency taking?
Against Invertebrate Pests;’’
EPA is proposing to codify product
• Rename 40 CFR part 158, subpart E
performance data requirements for
to ‘‘Product Performance for Products
pesticide products claiming efficacy
Claiming Effectiveness Against
against three categories of invertebrate
Vertebrate Pests, Products with Prionpests: Those identified to be of
related Claims, and Products for Control
significant public health importance
of Organisms Producing Mycotoxins’’ in
(e.g., ticks, mosquitoes, cockroaches,
order to add specificity to the title and
etc.), wood-destroying insects (e.g.,
reduce the potential for confusion with
termites), and certain invasive
the proposed subpart R; and
invertebrate species (e.g., Asian
• Revise the data requirements for
longhorned beetle). The latter two
biochemicals in 40 CFR 158.2070 and
categories are considered to be of
microbials in 40 CFR 158.2160 to clarify
significant economic and/or ecological
the requirements for claims that would
importance.
be subject to both subpart R and either
Product performance data (efficacy
subpart U or V.
Additionally, EPA proposes to update
studies) document how well the product
performs the intended function, such as 40 CFR 158.1(c) to insert references to
the subparts to categorize them under
killing or repelling, against an
the ‘‘scope of the subparts’’ section. EPA
invertebrate pest. The product
is also proposing to update subpart W
performance data requirements being
proposed would inform the data needed at 40 CFR 158.2200(b) to insert a cross
reference to the proposed subpart R to
to substantiate pesticidal claim(s) made
clarify the status of a product that bears
on the label of the pesticide products.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460–0001; telephone number: (703)
347–8533; email address: kemme.sara@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
both an antimicrobial claim and a nonantimicrobial claim against one of the
pests specified in proposed subpart R.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
C. What is EPA’s authority for taking
this action?
This action is issued under the
authority of sections 3, 5, 10, 12, and 25
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C.
136–136y), as amended. Under FIFRA
section 3(c)(2)(A), EPA is required to
specify ‘‘the kinds of information which
will be required to support the
registration of a pesticide and shall
revise such guidelines from time to
time.’’ EPA’s codification of these data
requirements is in 40 CFR part 158.
Additionally, the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Extension Act
of 2018 (PRIA 4) (7 U.S.C. 136 note, 133
Stat. 484) was enacted into law on
March 8, 2019. PRIA was developed by
a coalition of pesticide stakeholders
representing seven different trade
groups within the pesticide industry
and public interest groups reflecting the
environmental and farmworker safety
communities. The result of this
collaboration is that there are elements
of PRIA 4 important to all the
represented stakeholder entities in the
coalition. PRIA 4 specifically establishes
a new maintenance fee set-aside of up
to $500,000/year to develop and finalize
rulemaking and guidance for product
performance data requirements for
certain invertebrate pests of significant
public health or economic importance.
Specific to this rule, PRIA 4 requires
EPA to finalize product performance
data requirements by September 30,
2021. Specifically, the Act states that,
‘‘The Administrator shall, not later than
September 30, 2021, issue regulations
prescribing product performance data
requirements for any pesticide intended
for preventing, destroying, repelling, or
mitigating any invertebrate pest of
significant public health or economic
importance specified in clauses (i)
through (iv) of paragraph (B) [bed bugs;
premise (including crawling insects,
flying insects, and baits), pests of pets
(including pet pests controlled by spotons, collars, shampoos, powders, or
dips), and fire ants].’’
This proposed rule includes product
performance data requirements for the
categories of invertebrate pests specified
in PRIA 4 and, thus, is intended to
satisfy the aforementioned rulemaking
requirement. EPA notes that this
proposed rule covers some invertebrate
pests in addition to those specified in
PRIA 4 due to their public health,
economic, or ecological significance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
D. Why is EPA taking this action?
The following objectives were
considered by EPA in developing this
proposed rule:
1. Obtaining reliable data to make the
statutory finding. The data submitted to
EPA for review and evaluation as a
result of this rule, once final, are
expected to improve the Agency’s
understanding of the effectiveness of
pesticides that make claims against
pests of public health or significant
economic importance.
2. Provide clear and transparent data
requirements. Once final, the regulatory
text proposed in this rule is intended to
identify the specific data requirements
that apply to pesticides making claims
against certain categories of invertebrate
pests. As with the original design of part
158 in 1984, and continued in 2007,
given the variations in pesticide
chemistry, exposure, and hazard, this
proposal for product performance data
requirements is intended to be clear and
transparent while retaining sufficient
flexibility to account for special
circumstances.
E. What are the estimated incremental
impacts?
In conjunction with this proposed
rulemaking, EPA prepared an economic
analysis entitled, ‘‘Cost Analysis of the
Proposed Product Performance Rule’’
(Ref. 1) which presents an analysis of
the effects of codifying data
requirements for product performance,
as well as the effects of changes to label
claim data requirements published
simultaneously.
As noted previously, FIFRA mandates
the Agency to register pesticides,
including those used against
invertebrate pests of public health
importance, invertebrate wood
destroying pests, and invasive
invertebrate pests, under conditions of
use such that the pesticide is of a
composition to warrant the proposed
claims. To make this finding, the
Agency requires that registrants submit
data demonstrating product efficacy
against invertebrate pests of public
health importance, invertebrate wood
destroying pests, and invasive
invertebrate pests. The product
performance data requirements
historically sought by the EPA and those
being proposed in the rule are for claims
against pests that either pose a threat to
human health (e.g., mosquitoes and
cockroaches) or have significant
economic impacts, against which the
efficacy of a pesticide cannot be readily
determined by the user (e.g., termites
and emerald ash borers). In those
situations, market forces may operate
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15363
too slowly to remove ineffective
products. The proposal, once final,
would codify data requirements for
support of label claims that have, to
date, been necessary, as determined on
a case-by-case basis, to conduct
assessments of product performance.
This will provide needed clarity to firms
seeking to develop and market products
to control invertebrate pests of public
health importance, invertebrate wood
destroying pests, and invertebrate
invasive pests.
This rule, when finalized, will clarify
data requirements and therefore
improve efficiency and effective use of
resources by both the Agency and
industry. Moreover, this rule-making
measure will serve the public by
ensuring that appropriate efficacy data
are available to substantiate public
health pest claims. While experience
over time has led to a fairly
standardized set of data requirements
for invertebrate pests of significant
public health importance, wooddestroying insects, and invasive pests,
codifying these data needs will ensure
that new entrants to the field are clear
about the information necessary to
support registration. As a result, this
rule, when finalized, would help
alleviate uncertainties in the regulatory
process and enhance transparency for
stakeholders. The Agency is specifying
data requirements for invertebrate pests
of significant public health importance,
wood-destroying insects, and invasive
invertebrate pests to better indicate
when certain data are needed or not.
Consistent with 40 CFR 158.45 and
proposed 40 CFR 158.1707, on a caseby-case basis the Agency may consider
alternative data that are more
appropriate than the proposed
requirements considering the intended
purpose and pesticidal claims of a
pesticidal product.
EPA estimates that the proposed rule
would result in cost savings of one
million dollars annually across all
registrants seeking label claims against
invertebrate pests of significant public
health importance, wood-destroying
insects, and invasive invertebrate pests,
equivalent to about $17,000 in savings
per data package submitted to the
Agency (Table 1). The average savings
per registrant is $5,500 annually,
considering that registrants do not
submit products for review every year.
This impact is expected to remain
consistent over the next ten years, with
total cost savings to industry of $1
million annually using either a 3% or a
7% discount rate. Over ten years, this
amounts to about $8.5 million in
savings at a 3% discount rate or about
$7 million in savings at a 7% discount
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15364
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
rate. The most expansive estimate of
registrant cost savings of the proposed
rule, including all likely impacts of the
publication of the rule and the impact
of changes in data requirements
published concurrently with the rule, is
$1.7 million annually. The estimated
worst case is a cost increase to
registrants of $600,000 annually.
EPA’s registration program and
efficacy review has substantial benefits
for consumers. It ensures product
efficacy and label consistency across
products, increases consumer
confidence in product efficacy, and
reduces consumer search costs for
effective products. This may help
reduce the incidence of vector-borne
diseases and damage from wooddestroying and invasive pests. Clarity in
data requirements would enhance the
efficiency of the registration process and
aid new products to market, providing
consumers with more product choices.
TABLE 1—BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule
Cost savings per data package submitted .........
Cost savings per registrant submitting data
packages.
Annualized Cost Savings ....................................
Qualitative Effects ...............................................
• Average impact per submitted data package of $17,000.
• Average annual impact per registrant of $5,500.
•
•
•
•
$1 million at both 3% and 7% discount rates.
This projection assumes 60 data packages submitted annually to the Agency.
For registrants: Quicker label changes, lower discovery costs, lower barriers to innovation.
For consumers: Ensuring product efficacy and label consistency; increased consumer confidence in product efficacy; reduced search costs for effective products; and reduction in
damage from covered pests.
Expected Costs of the Proposed Rule
No increased risk to human health or the environment is expected from publication of the proposed rule. No increased costs to registrants or
consumers are expected from publication of the proposed rule. Expected direction of costs for the Agency from the proposed rule are unknown.
Other Impacts
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Small Business Impacts .....................................
F. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When preparing and submitting your
comments, see the commenting tips at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
comments.html.
II. Statutory Framework
As a general matter, no person may
distribute or sell an unregistered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
• No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
• Affected NAICS codes contain up to 5,438 small entities. No increased costs to small entities expected, and cost savings may be relatively larger for small firms who do not have experience with the registration process for invertebrate pests of public health importance, invertebrate wood destroying pests, and invertebrate invasive pests.
pesticide in the U.S. (FIFRA section
3(a)). The process for obtaining a
registration for a pesticide so that it may
be distributed or sold begins with
submission to EPA of an application
with the necessary data to review the
application request. Taking into account
the information submitted, EPA must
grant the requested registration, if it
concludes, when considered with any
restrictions imposed, that:
• Composition of the proposed
pesticide is such as to warrant the
proposed claims for it;
• Labeling for the proposed pesticide
and other material required to be
submitted comply with the
requirements of FIFRA;
• The proposed pesticide will
perform its intended function without
unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment; and
• When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized
practice, the proposed pesticide will not
generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment.
FIFRA section 3(c)(5) further provides
that EPA ‘‘may waive data requirements
pertaining to efficacy, in which event
the Administrator may register the
pesticide without determining that the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pesticide’s composition is such as to
warrant proposed claims of efficacy.’’
The proposed regulations identify the
data requirements EPA believes are
necessary to determine whether the
proposed claims of efficacy are
warranted, the opportunity for waiver is
covered by 40 CFR 158.45 and proposed
40 CFR 158.1707.
EPA notes that ‘‘unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment’’ means ‘‘any
unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, taking into account the
economic, social, and environmental
costs, and benefits of the use of any
pesticide . . .’’ as described in FIFRA
section 2(bb). That definition was
amended in 1998 as part of the Food
Quality Protection Act, requiring EPA to
consider ‘‘the risks and benefits of
public health pesticide separate from
the risks and benefits of other
pesticides. In weighing any regulatory
action concerning a public health
pesticide under this Act, the
administrator shall weigh any risks of
the pesticide against the health risks
such as the disease transmitted by the
vector to be controlled by the
pesticide.’’ While this rule proposes to
codify product performance data
requirements for invertebrate pests of
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
significant public health importance,
(Ref. 2) this rule does not address
classification of pesticides as ‘‘public
health pesticides’’ as that term is
defined in FIFRA section 3(nn). The
data requirements proposed in this rule
will be used to make appropriate
determinations under the FIFRA
‘‘unreasonable adverse effects’’
standard.
To determine whether the proposed
use of the pesticide will not cause
unreasonable adverse effects, EPA
generally considers the maximum
proposed use of a new pesticide to
estimate the maximum exposure
potential, evaluates the hazard data on
the pesticide, and compares the rates at
which effects are found based on well
conducted studies with the maximum
exposure estimate. However, for
pesticides intended for use against pests
of public health or economic
importance, EPA has for some time
considered whether the pesticide may
cause human health, environmental or
economic harm if its use as proposed
will not work as intended or claimed.
Data on the pesticide’s performance
under the conditions of use proposed
are essential to make this determination.
A. Registration
Section 3 of FIFRA contains the
requirements for granting and
maintaining registration. FIFRA section
3(c)(2) provides EPA broad authority,
before and after registration, to require
scientific testing and submission of the
resulting data to the Agency. Under this
authority, EPA requires such testing and
submission of data through rulemaking,
see, 40 CFR part 158 or, for existing
registrations, through issuance of a
‘‘data call-in.’’ (See, FIFRA section
3(c)(2)(B)). EPA may also request further
data if the data submitted fail to
adequately address an issue necessary
for making the requisite statutory
findings. (See, 40 CFR 158.75).
Consistent with the requirements EPA
has imposed and the data that have been
identified as needed to review
applications for registration of
pesticides of significant health or
economic importance, an applicant for
registration must furnish EPA with data
on the pesticide, its composition,
toxicity, potential human exposure,
environmental properties and ecological
effects, as well as its product
performance (efficacy).
B. Registration Review
FIFRA section 3(g) mandates that the
registrations of all pesticides are to be
periodically reviewed. Periodic review
is needed as changes in science, public
policy, and pesticide use practices occur
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
over time. The registration review
program was implemented via a
regulation promulgated on August 9,
2006 (71 FR 45719) (FRL–8080–4).
Therefore, starting in 2006, registration
review began to replace EPA’s
reregistration program as the
mechanism for systematic review of
existing pesticides. The registration
review process begins by reviewing the
available information in the possession
of the Agency and then determining if
and what data are needed to assess the
current risks of a particular pesticide.
Thus, as with registration, the data
needed and the scope and depth of the
Agency’s review for registration review
continue to be tailored to the specific
circumstances and use of the registered
pesticide. Section 3(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA
authorizes EPA to require generation
and submission of additional data
necessary for registration review
pursuant to its authority under FIFRA
section 3(c)(2)(B).
III. Regulatory Framework
The existing regulatory data
requirements for product performance
for pesticides are contained in 40 CFR
part 158, subpart E, and for the most
part the table in 40 CFR 158.400(d) is
specific to vertebrates (e.g., birds,
rodents, etc.); 40 CFR part 158 subpart
W also contains pesticide data
requirements for antimicrobials.
However, subpart E does not
specifically require submission of
product performance data for those
pesticide products claiming
effectiveness against invertebrate pests
(e.g., insects, spiders, etc.). Instead, the
test note in 40 CFR 158.400(e)(1)
contemplates requiring the submission
of product performance data on a caseby-case basis, consistent with the
general authority in 40 CFR 158.75 to
require additional data as part of the
registration process, if the information
that is required and submitted for
registration is not sufficient to make the
requisite statutory findings. EPA has
relied on these authorities for some
years to obtain needed product
performance data for conventional
pesticides intended for use against
certain invertebrate pests of public
health or economic significance.
Although the updating of 40 CFR part
158 regulations began years ago, EPA
made no changes to the product
performance data requirements at 40
CFR part 158, subpart E, as they relate
to the invertebrate pests covered in this
action. (72 FR 60934, October 26, 2007)
(FRL–8106–5). However, EPA did make
some changes to the data requirements
for biochemical and microbial
pesticides by codifying product
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15365
performance data requirements for
biochemical and microbial pesticides in
40 CFR 158.2070 and 158.2160, subparts
U and V, respectively (72 FR 60934,
October 26, 2007) (FRL–8106–5). That
final rule adopted the requirement for
applicants to submit product
performance data to support registration
of biochemical and microbial products
claiming effectiveness against
invertebrate species.
This rulemaking proposes to create a
new subpart R for invertebrate product
performance requirements to capture
the updates to the product performance
data requirements for pesticides, and to
make conforming edits to subparts E, U,
V, and W.
IV. Background
Since the early years of the
registration program, EPA has waived
the need for product performance data
for many pesticides, consistent with the
congressional authority in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5), to waive such data and
to not make the finding that a proposed
pesticide’s ‘‘composition is such as to
warrant the proposed claims for it.’’ (44
FR 27932, May 11, 1979) (FRL–2767–8).
However, EPA did not codify its early
intent not to waive product performance
data for pesticides intended for use
against certain invertebrate pests.
Specifically, in May of 1979, EPA
initially announced the need for
product performance data for
‘‘[i]nvertebrate control products
intended for use in or on humans (or in
or on pets for control of pests which
attack humans) to control pests such as
fleas, mites, lice, ticks, biting flies, and
mosquitoes’’ and for‘‘[i]nvertebrate
control products intended for use either
in premises or in the environment to
control pests of sanitary or public health
significance such as mosquitoes, biting
flies, ticks, fleas, houseflies,
cockroaches, fire ants, hornets, wasps,
poisonous spiders, scorpions,
centipedes, and bedbugs.’’ (44 FR
27932, May 11, 1979) (FRL–2767–8). In
contrast, in other subsequent
rulemaking actions, EPA announced its
intent to require product performance
data only for products ‘‘where lack of
control would clearly result in adverse
health effects’’ (47 FR 40659, September
15, 1982) (FRL–2138–1) or where
‘‘control cannot reasonably be observed
by the user . . .’’ (47 FR 40659, 40661)
because other pests were more of an
aesthetic and nuisance problem rather
than one of public health.
Ultimately, EPA’s final part 158 rule
announced that EPA had ‘‘decided to
rescind the proposed efficacy data
waiver with respect to vertebrate control
agents intended for control of pests that
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
15366
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
directly or indirectly transmit disease to
humans’’ and included a test note
indicating that EPA waived product
performance data ‘‘unless the pesticide
product bears a claim to control pest
microorganisms that pose a threat to
human health and whose presence
cannot readily be observed by the user
including, but not limited to,
microorganisms infectious to man in
any area of the inanimate environment,
or a claim to control vertebrates (such as
rodents, birds, bats, canids, and skunks)
that may directly or indirectly transmit
diseases to humans. However, each
registrant must ensure through testing
that his/her product is efficacious when
used in accordance with label directions
and commonly accepted pest control
practices. The Agency reserves the right
to require, on a case-by-case basis,
submission of product performance data
for any pesticide product registered or
proposed for registration.’’ (49 FR
42856, 42875, October 24, 1984) (FRL–
2591–5); 40 CFR 158.400(e)(1). That
provision remains largely unchanged
today, although in the subsequent
updates to the data requirements for
microbial and biochemical pesticides,
EPA made clear that the submission of
efficacy data would be required if ‘‘the
pesticide product bears a claim to
control . . . invertebrates (including but
not limited to: mosquitoes and ticks)
that may directly or indirectly transmit
diseases to humans.’’ (40 CFR
158.2160). Thus, existing EPA
regulations for conventional pesticides
continue to presume the waiver of
product performance data for
invertebrate pests unless EPA exercises
its discretion to require on a case-bycase basis submission of the data to
support claims against pests, including
pests of significant public health
importance.
In 2002, EPA issued Pesticide
Registration Notice (PRN) 2002–1 in
compliance with the requirement in
FIFRA section 28(d) to coordinate with
United States Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) and United
States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) in identifying pests of
significant public health importance.
The list of pests identified in that PRN
was ‘‘derived in large part from review
of the pesticide/pest combinations for
which efficacy (product performance)
data are generally required to be
submitted and reviewed prior to
registration.’’ (Ref. 2). EPA is the process
of updating this document and has
recently made an updated draft
available for public comment (Ref. 2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
A. Why does product performance
matter?
The primary goal of this proposal is
to assure that pesticide products
claiming effectiveness against an
invertebrate pest of significant public
health or economic importance perform
effectively. This action addresses both
health concerns and economic
consequences stemming from pesticide
products that might not perform as
claimed on the label. EPA acknowledges
that use of the term arthropod would
include all the pests identified in this
document. However, product
performance data for additional
invertebrate species, such as (but not
limited to) gastropods (snails and slugs)
that serve as intermediate parasite hosts
or invasive mussels of ecological
concern could be needed in the future.
To account for the potential for future
data needs, EPA will use the terms
invertebrates or invertebrate pests in
reference to pests in all three categories
(pests of significant public health
importance, invasive species, and wooddestroying insects).
Consistent with the regulatory text in
40 CFR 158.400(e)(1) and as noted in
PRN 2002–1 and PRN 96–7: Termiticide
Labeling, (Ref. 3). EPA has regularly
exercised its discretion to require
submission of product performance data
for pesticides intended for use against
invertebrate pests of significant public
health importance and of product
performance data on pesticides
intended for use against invertebrate
pests of significant economic
importance. Since 1984, particularly for
insect repellents, the awareness of the
incidence and severity of mosquito- and
tick-borne diseases in the U.S. has
changed. Mosquitoes and ticks are not
merely nuisance pests: The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
has determined that a single bite can
transmit sufficient infectious material,
i.e., a sufficient amount of pathogen, to
cause serious, and sometimes fatal,
disease. (Ref. 4). This is true for both
mosquito-borne diseases such as West
Nile Virus, St. Louis Encephalitis, and
the Zika virus, and tick-borne diseases
such as Lyme Disease. (Refs. 5 and 6).
If a person can become ill because of
a single insect bite, a person using an
ineffective insect repellent may not have
the opportunity to realize that the insect
repellent did not work as expected and
then correct the situation by purchasing
another product. Given the nature of
these and other mosquito- and tickborne diseases, an ineffective insect
repellent can have serious and
sometimes fatal consequences to a
person’s health.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Consequences can also include both
health and economic impacts. For
example, the common bed bug (Cimex
lectularius) has long been a pest, feeding
on blood, causing itchy bites and
generally irritating their human hosts.
EPA, CDC, and the USDA all consider
bed bugs a pest of significant public
health importance. Bed bugs can cause
a variety of negative physical health,
mental health, and economic
consequences. Effects can include:
• Allergic reactions to the bed bug
bites, which can range from no reaction
to a small bite mark to, in rare cases,
anaphylaxis (severe, whole-body
reaction).
• Secondary infections of the skin,
such as impetigo, ecthyma, and
lymphangitis.
• Mental health impacts on people
living in infested homes. Reported
effects include anxiety, insomnia and
systemic reactions. (Refs. 7 and 8).
Bed bug infestations are also an
economic burden on society. The
economic losses from health care, lost
wages, lost revenue and reduced
productivity can be substantial. The cost
of effectively eliminating bed bugs may
be significantly more than the cost of
eliminating other pests because bed bug
control usually requires multiple visits
by a licensed pest control operator and
diligence on the part of those who are
experiencing the infestation. Control in
multi-family homes is much more
difficult than in single family homes
because bed bugs frequently travel
between units, either by direct transport
by humans or through voids in the
walls. Thus, there are additional costs
and complexities associated with
coordinating and encouraging
participation from multiple residents.
Also, if the pesticide product claiming
to treat bed bugs is not effective and
families are forced into repeated (and
expensive) cycles of re-treatment, then
serious health and economic impacts
can occur.
While wood-destroying insects/
structural pests are not pests of
significant public health importance,
they are similar in that the
consequences of ineffective treatments
can be severe. Unfortunately, the
effectiveness of a treatment to protect a
wooden structure is not readily
apparent to the applicator at the time of
application or during the occupancy of
the building or home. It is only after the
damage becomes apparent that the
extent of needed repairs is determined.
There is a potential for significant
financial loss to the property owner.
Thus, demonstrating the efficacy of
pesticides intended to control structural
pests has a unique importance. Data on
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
the level of economic damage caused by
structural pests on an annual basis are
difficult to obtain but several authors
have attempted to quantify it. The
economic costs of termite property
damage, preventative treatments, and
structural repairs can be quite severe,
with estimated cost at approximately $5
billion annually. (Refs. 9 and 10). While
these estimates are indicative of the cost
nationwide, the costs borne by an
individual property owner can be
significant in their own right, up to and
including, loss of the structure.
B. Labels
1. Label requirements. Pesticide
product labeling provides information
to users on, among other things, the
product’s intended uses, and how to
handle and apply the produEPA’s
labeling regulations are contained in 40
CFR part 156. EPA reviews pesticide
labels to determine whether the labeling
is consistent with EPA’s regulations,
and is accurate, clear and enforceable.
The accuracy of the information on the
labeling is of particular importance for
products making a claim to kill or repel
pests of significant public health
importance and wood-destroying pests.
Such pests, if uncontrolled, can transmit
disease pathogens, thus posing a widely
recognized and significant risk to
human health, and can result in
significant economic impacts.
Consumers purchase products that
claim effectiveness against a pest of
significant public health importance
precisely to avoid the harm these pests
can cause. Consumers have a reasonable
expectation that the claims on the
pesticide label have a scientific basis,
i.e., are based on valid evidence, and are
neither false nor misleading. Such
claims should be expressed using
wording or graphics that are easily
understood and require little or no
interpretation by the consumer. To
ensure that labeling provides consumers
with accurate information concerning
how long and how well the product
works, EPA reviews and evaluates
product performance (efficacy) data.
Once the data have been reviewed and
evaluated, then the Agency works to
ensure that the labeling use directions
and labeling claims are clear and
consistent with the results of the
supporting product performance data.
EPA believes that having reliable
information concerning the
effectiveness of pesticide products that
claim effectiveness against invertebrate
pests results in sound regulatory
decisions and accurate information on
the labeling. Accurate labeling claims
provide consumers with information
they need concerning the effectiveness
of the pesticide.
2. Label Review Manual. Consistently,
the Agency has in the Label Review
Manual explained the historical need
for product performance data for
products intended for invertebrate
control. The Label Review Manual has
for some time summarized the Agency’s
current practice of requiring product
performance data to support claims for
pesticides intended for use in or on
humans (or in or on pets for control of
pests which attack humans such as
fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, and biting flies)
and in premises or in the environment
to control pests of sanitary or significant
public health importance such as
termites, wasps, scorpions, poisonous
spiders, fire ants, cockroaches,
centipedes, and bedbugs. (Ref. 11).
C. EPA’s Harmonized Test Guidelines
for Invertebrate Product Performance
1. Existing Guidelines. EPA has
established a unified library for test
guidelines issued by the Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention (OCSPP) for use in testing
chemical substances to develop data for
submission to EPA under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
FIFRA. This library of test guidelines
represents an Agency effort that began
in 1991 to harmonize the test guidelines
within OCSPP, as well as to harmonize
the OCSPP test guidelines with those of
the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, which
includes representation of countries,
including the U.S., throughout the
world. The process for developing and
amending the test guidelines includes
several opportunities for public
participation and extensive involvement
of the scientific community, including
peer review by the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP), the Science
Advisory Board (SAB), and other expert
15367
scientific organizations. New or revised
guidelines are typically presented to
SAP for peer review. The purpose for
harmonizing these guidelines into a
single set of OCSPP guidelines is to
standardize testing procedures that
should be performed to meet the
Agency’s data requirements under
FIFRA and TSCA. EPA’s Invertebrate
Control Agents, Product Performance
Guidelines are listed in Table 2.
The guidelines themselves do not
impose requirements. Instead, they
provide recognized methods for
conducting acceptable tests, guidance
on reporting data, and definitions of
terms. Since these are guidance,
pesticide registrants are not required to
use these guidelines to fulfill data
requirements. Applicants may instead
seek to fulfill the data requirements by
other appropriate means or by using a
non-guideline protocol. The applicant
may submit a protocol of his own
devising for the Agency to review. EPA
notes that there is a PRIA fee category
for submitting a protocol for EPA to
review.
The guidelines identify thresholds for
determining whether a product is
effective. Since these thresholds are in
guidance (not codified requirements),
they are considered recommendations
and not mandatory. EPA also
acknowledges that the older (1998)
guidelines, in particular, generally lack
adequate, up-to-date guidance on
efficacy data development, test
protocols, and representative test
species.
EPA notes that the Product
Performance Guideline 810.1000
entitled, ‘‘Overview, Definitions, and
General Considerations,’’ discusses that
product performance data are needed
for any product that ‘‘bears a claim to
control pests that may pose a threat to
human health.’’ This is specifically
stated to include:
Public health uses of invertebrate
control agents including, but not limited
to, agents intended to control the
following: Mosquitoes, biting flies, ticks,
fleas, houseflies, cockroaches, fire ants,
hornets, wasps, poisonous spiders,
scorpions, biting midges, centipedes,
bedbugs, human lice, and dust mites.
(Ref. 12).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 2—EPA’S SERIES 810, GROUP C—INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS, PRODUCT PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES
OCSPP guideline No.
810.3000
810.3100
810.3200
810.3300
810.3400
810.3500
Guideline Title (Date)
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
General Considerations for Efficacy of Invertebrate Control Agents (1998).
Soil Treatments for Imported Fire Ants (1998).
Livestock, Poultry, Fur- and Wool-Bearing Animal Treatment (1998).
Treatments to Control Pests of Humans and Pets (March 1998).
Mosquito, Black Fly, and Biting Midge (Sand Fly) Treatments (1998).
Premise Treatments (2019).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15368
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—EPA’S SERIES 810, GROUP C—INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS, PRODUCT PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES—
Continued
OCSPP guideline No.
810.3600
810.3700
810.3800
810.3900
Guideline Title (Date)
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
Structural Treatments (1998).
Insect Repellents to Be Applied to Human Skin (2010).
Methods for Efficacy Testing of Termite Baits (2004).
Laboratory Product Performance Testing Methods for Bed Bug Pesticide Products (2017).
D. Guideline Modifications Needed for
the Future
Those guidelines from 2004 and
before require revision to remove any
stated performance standards. Until the
revisions can be made, this rule would
supersede any species requirements or
performance standards stated, or
implied, in the guidelines applicable to
invertebrate pests. EPA intends that any
inconsistency that may exist between
the guidelines and this rule should be
resolved in favor of the regulations,
once those regulations are finalized.
V. Selection of Pest Categories for
Subpart R
EPA has selected three pest categories
for this proposed rule: Pests of
significant public health importance,
wood-destroying insects, and invasive
species. The rationale for selection of
these three categories follows.
A. Pests of Significant Public Health
Importance.
1. Background. As previously noted,
in 2002, EPA issued Pesticide
Registration Notice (PRN) 2002–1 (Ref.
2), which presented the ‘‘List of Pests of
Significant Public Health Importance.’’
This document is currently under
revision within the Agency. The 2002
list was derived in large part from
review of the pesticide/pest
combinations for which product
performance data have been required on
a case-by-case basis to be submitted and
reviewed prior to registration. This list
was developed cooperatively by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, USDA, and EPA, with
input from some non-governmental
entities. EPA’s Office of Pesticide
Programs coordinated the review by
experts in public health and/or
pesticide use patterns to compile this
list.
As indicated in PRN 2002–1 (page 1),
the criteria for inclusion on the list were
defined ‘‘broadly, to include pests that
pose a widely recognized risk to
significant numbers of people.’’
The listing of invertebrate pests (pages
6–9) is specified by the taxonomic
name, as not all members of a particular
taxon may be considered a pest of
significant public health importance.
EPA takes this approach when only
certain members of a taxonomic group
may be of public health significance
because labels usually do not identify
specific individual species. However,
even if the label did identify a specific
species, most product users are not able
to distinguish among the members of a
taxonomic group (i.e., identifying one
tick species from another).
The invertebrate species of significant
public health importance identified in
this proposed rule as requiring
submission of product performance data
are derived from the invertebrate pest
list identified in PR Notice 2002–1.
Differences that exist between the
species identified in the PR Notice and
this proposed rulemaking represent the
evolution of our understanding of the
testing required to support claims
against pests of public health concern.
These invertebrate pests pose a threat of
injury, disease transmission and/or
pathogen transfer, and allergen
production. Table 3 provides the
rationale for inclusion in this rule of an
invertebrate pest as a pest of significant
public health importance.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 3—PESTS OF SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HEALTH IMPORTANCE FROM PRN 2002–1
Invertebrate pest
(common species name)
Rationale for inclusion
Mites ..........................................................
Produces allergens, Triggers asthma, Scabies, Itching and skin irritation with risk of secondary infection.
Itching and skin irritation with risk of secondary infection.
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme Disease, Ehrlichiosis.
Venomous sting.
Venomous bite.
Venomous bite.
Skin irritation and rashes, Epidemic typhus, Trench fever.
Annoying bites, allergic reactions, and rash, Plague.
Allergies, Transmission of Salmonella, Fecal contamination, Hepatitis.
Infest host and live under the skin with risk of secondary infection.
Carry pathogens, Food-borne illness.
West Nile Virus, Dengue Fever, Malaria, Encephalitis, Yellow Fever, Chikungunya Fever, Zika.
Painful or annoying bites with allergic reactions.
Leishmaniasis.
Allergic reactions, Chagas disease.
Bites and allergic reactions
Stings to painful stings;, May be accompanied by severe or life-threatening reactions.
Painful stings that may cause life-threatening reactions
Painful stings that may cause life-threatening reactions
Chiggers .....................................................
Ticks ...........................................................
Scorpions ...................................................
Spiders .......................................................
Centipedes .................................................
Lice ............................................................
Fleas ..........................................................
Cockroaches ..............................................
Bot Flies .....................................................
Filth Flies ...................................................
Mosquitoes .................................................
Biting Flies .................................................
Sand Flies ..................................................
Triatomine Bugs .........................................
Bed Bugs ...................................................
Ants ............................................................
Bees ...........................................................
Wasps, Hornets, and Yellowjackets ..........
2. Disease Pressures. EPA’s proposal
to establish product performance data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
requirements for pesticide products
claiming to control invertebrate pests
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reflects the most up-to-date science and
is responsive to the improved
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
understanding of the diseases being
transmitted by invertebrates and the
prevalence of these diseases. Since
1984, additional vector borne diseases
have emerged. Mosquitoes and ticks can
no longer be considered as merely
annoying insects.
West Nile Virus was first identified in
the U.S. in New York in 1999. Since
then, West Nile Virus spread throughout
the country and cases have been
reported in the 48 contiguous states.
West Nile Virus is carried by common
mosquitoes (primarily species of Culex,
though Aedes and Anopheles can also
carry the virus).
• Serious Symptoms in a Few
People—Approximately one in 150
people infected with West Nile Virus
will develop severe illness. The severe
symptoms can include high fever,
headache, neck stiffness, stupor,
disorientation, coma, tremors,
convulsions, muscle weakness, vision
loss, numbness and paralysis. These
symptoms may last several weeks, and
neurological effects may be permanent.
This is referred to as neuroinvasive
West Nile disease and may result in
death.
• Milder Symptoms in Some
People—Up to 20 percent of the people
who become infected have symptoms
such as fever, headache, and body
aches, nausea, vomiting, and sometimes
swollen lymph glands or a skin rash on
the chest, stomach and back. Symptoms
can last for as short as a few days,
though even healthy people have
become sick for several weeks. This is
referred to as West Nile Fever.
• No Symptoms in Most People—
Approximately 80 percent of people
(about 4 out of 5) who are infected with
West Nile Virus will not show any
symptoms at all.
Today, experts believe West Nile
Virus is established as a seasonal
epidemic in North America that flares
up in the summer and continues into
the fall. Persons over 50 years of age
have the highest risk of severe disease.
(Ref. 13).
The Zika virus spreads to people
primarily through the bite of an infected
Aedes species mosquito (Ae. aegypti
and Ae. albopictus). Zika can be passed
from a pregnant woman to her fetus,
which can cause certain birth defects.
There is no vaccine for Zika. In 2015
and 2016, large outbreaks of Zika virus
occurred in the Americas, resulting in
an increase in travel-associated cases in
the U.S., including widespread
transmission in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and limited local
transmission in Florida and Texas. In
2018 and 2019, there were no reports of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
Zika virus transmission by mosquitoes
in the continental U.S. (Ref. 14).
In the past 20–25 years, Lyme Disease
has increased in geographical
distribution and in number of cases. The
disease is carried by blacklegged (deer)
ticks (Ixodes scapularis and Ixodes
pacificus). The number and distribution
of Lyme Disease cases correlates with
the number and distribution of white
tail deer, among other animal hosts.
(Ref. 15). Deer populations have risen
steadily in the last two decades,
especially in suburban areas. (Refs. 16
and 17).
The first sign of infection is usually a
circular rash, occurring in
approximately 70 to 80% of infected
persons. It begins at the site of a tick bite
after a delay of 3–30 days and may
gradually expand over a period of
several days. The center of the rash may
clear as it enlarges, resulting in a bull’seye appearance. Patients also experience
symptoms of fatigue, chills, fever,
headache, and muscle and joint aches,
and swollen lymph nodes. In some
cases, these may be the only symptoms
of infection.
Untreated, the infection may spread to
other parts of the body within a few
days to weeks, producing an array of
discrete symptoms. These include loss
of muscle tone on one or both sides of
the face (called facial or Bell’s palsy),
severe headaches and neck stiffness due
to meningitis, shooting pains that may
interfere with sleep, heart palpitations
and dizziness due to changes in
heartbeat, and pain that moves from
joint to joint. Many of these symptoms
will resolve, even without treatment.
After several months, approximately
60 percent of patients with untreated
infection will begin to have intermittent
bouts of arthritis, with severe joint pain
and swelling. Large joints are most often
affected, particularly the knees. In
addition, up to 5 percent of untreated
patients may develop chronic
neurological complaints months to years
after infection. These include shooting
pains, numbness or tingling in the
hands or feet, and problems with
concentration and short-term memory.
Most cases of Lyme Disease can be
cured with antibiotics, especially if
treatment is begun early in the course of
illness. However, a small percentage of
patients with Lyme disease have
symptoms that last months to years after
treatment with antibiotics. (Refs. 18 and
19).
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever is the
most severe tick-borne rickettsial illness
in the U.S. This disease is caused by
infection with the bacterial organism
Rickettsia rickettsii; it is carried
primarily by dog ticks (Dermacentor
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15369
variabilis) and wood ticks (Dermacentor
andersoni). The initial symptoms of
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever include
fever, nausea, vomiting, muscle pain,
lack of appetite, and severe headache.
Later symptoms include rash,
abdominal pain, joint pain, and
diarrhea. Pain and fluid loss can be so
severe that hospitalization may be
required. (Refs. 20 and 21).
EPA believes that tick and mosquito
repellents have roles in disease
prevention. Today, there is renewed
interest in methods of preventing
transmission of these diseases. CDC and
other public health authorities have
determined that efficacious insect
repellents have a primary role in a
multi-barrier approach in protecting the
public from insect or tick-borne
diseases. CDC recommends several
personal protective practices to prevent
tick and mosquito bites: One of the most
prominent and consistent messages is to
use an insect repellent containing an
EPA-registered active ingredient. (Refs.
22 and 23).
2. Bed Bugs. The U.S. has experienced
a resurgence in the population of bed
bugs. Bed bugs can impact people’s
physical and mental health. Physical
impacts can include mild and severe
allergic reactions to the bites, and
secondary infections of the skin.
Reported mental effects include anxiety
and insomnia. (Refs. 7 and 8).
Both the EPA and the CDC believe
that an integrated pest management
program that combines both chemical
and non-chemical treatments is the most
effective way to control bed bugs.
Among the integrated pest management
methods, use of an effective pesticide
product, labeled for use against bed
bugs, applied according to the label
directions is often necessary to control
the population of bed bugs. (Ref. 8).
3. Other pests of significant public
health importance. Other invertebrate
pests cause painful bites and stings,
provoke allergic responses, and transmit
serious diseases. As discussed in PRN
2002–1, ‘‘cockroaches are controlled to
halt the spread of asthma, allergy, and
food contamination’’ and lice are
controlled to prevent the ‘‘occurrence of
louse-borne diseases such as epidemic
typhus, trench fever, and epidemic
relapsing fever in the United States.’’
(Ref. 2).
B. Wood-Destroying Insects
As previously explained, structural
pests differ from pests of significant
public health importance because health
of individuals is not imperiled.
However, the effectiveness of the
treatment is not readily apparent to the
applicator at the time of application or
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15370
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
during the occupancy of the building or
home, and a potential for significant
financial loss to the property owner
exists. EPA has generally required
submission of product performance data
for wood-destroying insects for over 40
years. USDA registered pesticides prior
to establishment of the EPA and also
required product performance data in
support of wood-destroying insects. The
Agency issued PRN 96–7, entitled
‘‘Termiticide Labeling,’’ (October 1,
1996) (Ref. 3) to provide guidance on
label statements and minimum levels of
product performance for soil treatment
use of termiticide products. According
to the PRN:
The Agency believes that registration of a
[termiticide] product demonstrating less than
five (5) years of efficacy for control of
termites is generally not appropriate from a
safety or efficacy standpoint, considering the
costs of treatment and the potential damage
that could occur. The Agency does not
believe that the homeowner should be
subjected to such costly protection as would
occur with products that are only efficacious
for one year. Such products could, quite
possibly, pose unreasonable adverse effects
to the environment and/or humans because
of higher risks than longer-acting
alternatives. The more frequent treatments
required could result in greater exposure and
risk, or lower benefits, because of being less
effective if not retreated, or more expensive
if retreated.
*
*
*
*
*
EPA has always required efficacy data to be
submitted by registrants to demonstrate that
termiticides perform their intended function
as claimed. EPA has reviewed such data prior
to registration to assure that the benefits of
the use would outweigh the potential risks.
C. Invasive Species
On February 8, 1999, President
Clinton signed The Executive Order
13112 (64 FR 6183) (February 8. 1999),
which is intended to ‘‘. . . to prevent
the introduction of invasive species and
provide for their control and to
minimize the economic, ecological, and
human health impacts that invasive
species cause . . . .’’ The Executive
Order directed each federal agency to
use relevant programs and authorities
to:
• Prevent the introduction of invasive
species;
• Detect and respond rapidly to and
control populations of such species in a
cost-effective and environmentally
sound manner;
• Monitor invasive species
populations accurately and reliably;
• Provide for restoration of native
species and habitat conditions in
ecosystems that have been invaded;
• Conduct research on invasive
species and develop technologies to
prevent introduction and provide for
environmentally sound control of
invasive species; and
• Promote public education on
invasive species and the means to
address them.
Invertebrate invasive species can
impose serious economic costs by
causing or vectoring diseases against
native species that have little or no
natural defenses. For example, an
invasive species of significant note is
the emerald ash borer, a wood boring
beetle that is native to Asia. The
emerald ash borer kills ash trees. Its
presence was reported in southeast
Michigan and Windsor, Ontario in 2002.
Since then it has spread to at least 35
states and five Canadian provinces.
Infested areas are under quarantine and
restrictions have been imposed on
moving fire wood. EPA has registered
several pesticide products for use
against the emerald ash borer after
reviewing submitted efficacy data. (Ref.
24)
Another invasive invertebrate species,
the Asian longhorned beetle, is also
native to Asia and was first discovered
in New York in 1996. The Asian
longhorned beetle kills maple trees and
other hardwoods. (Ref. 25). A very
serious situation/crisis exists in New
England, and USDA has established an
extensive eradication program. EPA has
also registered several products for use
against the Asian longhorned beetle.
Invertebrates such as the emerald ash
borer and the Asian longhorned beetle
kill trees over very large geographic
areas, thus, having substantial
ecological and economic impacts by
destroying both urban cover and forests
used for recreation purposes and timber
stands. According to a 2011 analysis
(Ref. 26) entitled, ‘‘Economic Impacts of
Non-Native Forest Insects in the
Continental United States,’’ the
following five categories of expenditures
and losses can be used to illustrate
impacts on forests.
• Federal government expenditures
(survey, research, regulation,
management, and outreach),
• Local government expenditures
(tree removal, replacement, and
treatment),
• Household expenditures (tree
removal, replacement, and treatment),
• Residential property value losses,
and
• Timber value losses to forest
landowners.
Within the 2011 analysis were cost
estimates using the five previously
described categories of the damage
caused by three types of invasive
insects: Borers, sap feeders, and foliage
feeders. Since some of the economic
categories overlap, the total sum of all
economic categories would include
some double counting. However, the
total of the insect types can be summed
without double counting, which means
that it is appropriate to sum the
columns, but not the rows. Table 4
shows that most of the costs are borne
by local governments and households,
and the total damage is several billion
dollars.
TABLE 4—ANNUALIZED INVASIVE SPECIES DAMAGES IN THE U.S.
[$ millions]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal
government
expenditures
Local
government
expenditures
Household
expenditures
Residential
property
value loss
Forest
landowner
timber costs
Borers ...................................................................................
Sap Feeder ..........................................................................
Foliage Feeders ...................................................................
$92
14
110
$1,700
170
170
$760
130
160
$830
260
410
$130
4
18
Total ..............................................................................
216
2,040
1,050
1,500
152
Pesticide products are an important
tool for managing the spread of an
invertebrate invasive species and the
related significant economic impacts.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
The availability of pesticide products
with proven performance against an
invasive species is important to slowing
the spread of the invasive species. When
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
circumstances necessitate the
submission or citation of reliable data to
support claims for controlling invasive
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
species, EPA has the authority to require
such product performance data.
Due to the sudden appearance and
often rapid spread of invasive species,
EPA does not presently propose to
codify a comprehensive list of all the
specific invasive species for which
product performance data might be
deemed necessary. At this time, EPA is
specifically proposing to codify product
performance data submission
requirements for the emerald ash borer
and the Asian longhorned beetle. The
submission of product performance data
to support claims for effectiveness
against other invasive invertebrate pests
will be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
VI. Development of Invertebrate Pest
Groups and Subgroups
EPA has identified pest groupings on
the basis of the biology and life history
characteristics of the pests identified as
public health or wood destroying pests.
(Ref. 28). The groupings are
taxonomically based. ‘‘Pest groups’’ and
‘‘pest sub-groups’’ are designations
simply intended to convey the fact that
some pests groups are part of larger
groups. Therefore, when practical, ‘‘pest
sub-groups’’ have been identified to
define a meaningful subset of the larger
group.
EPA developed the pest groups and
pest sub-groups with the intention that
product performance testing performed
on a particular species can adequately
represent all members of the pest group
(or pest sub-group). The Agency intends
these pest groupings to decrease data
submission burdens on applicants and
data review burden on the Agency as
well as increasing the consistency,
reliability, and integrity of data
submitted to EPA. In some cases, EPA
is proposing pest-specific claims, in
addition to group and sub-group claims.
To develop these groupings, EPA
considered species sensitivity. In certain
cases, one member of a pest grouping is
known to be significantly harder to kill,
control, or repel than other members of
the grouping. If product performance
testing is performed using the species
that is harder to kill, control, or repel,
then logically, it can be assumed that
the results of this testing can be
extrapolated to other members of the
grouping. Additional considerations
included the availability of species in a
laboratory setting, the occurrence of
species over wide areas and/or those
species most commonly associated with
transmission of diseases to humans.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
VII. Introduction to Part 158, Subpart R
A. General
EPA is proposing to codify product
performance data requirements
pertaining to registration of pesticide
products claiming efficacy against
certain invertebrate pests. The proposed
data requirements are consistent with
the Agency’s current practices
concerning the data needed to register a
pesticide product that claims
effectiveness against invertebrate pests.
The proposed data requirements are
presented, as appropriate, in table
formats, with the needed data specified
according to the claim on the label, the
species to be tested, and the
performance standards to be met. Once
final, the regulations will provide the
regulated community and other
interested parties a better understanding
of the data required to support
registration of a pesticide product
making a claim against an invertebrate
pest identified to be a public health
concern (e.g., ticks, mosquitoes,
cockroaches, etc.), a wood-destroying
insect (e.g. termites), or an invasive
invertebrate species (e.g. Asian
longhorned beetle).
The Agency is proposing to title the
new subpart R in part 158, ‘‘Product
Performance for Products Claiming
Effectiveness Against Invertebrate
Pests.’’ The existing product
performance data requirements in
subpart E will be renamed ‘‘Product
Performance for Products Claiming
Effectiveness Against Vertebrate Pests,
Products with Prion-related Claims, and
Products for Control of Organisms
Producing Mycotoxins.’’ Additionally,
EPA is proposing conforming edits to
subparts U, V, and W.
B. Contents of Proposed Subpart R
1. General requirements. Proposed 40
CFR 158.1700 contains the general
requirements that would be applicable
to any pesticide product that is making
a claim(s) against an invertebrate pest,
and describes how to use the data tables
in proposed subpart R. These general
requirements describe when product
performance data may be required,
specifically for products that bear a
claim against a pest of significant public
health importance or a pest of economic
significance. The required tests must be
conducted using the end-use product to
ensure that the product’s claims are
supported in the form in which the user
will be using the product.
Additionally, proposed 40 CFR
158.1700 provides a set of instructions
on how to determine the product
performance data required to support
the pesticide product use for which
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15371
registration is sought. This includes
referring to all parts of subpart R,
identifying the claims intended to be
made on the product labeling, reviewing
and understanding the performance
standards that must be met or exceeded
for the identified claims against the
target pests, and understanding all
applicable test notes.
2. Definitions. In order to ensure
consistent implementation of proposed
subpart R, EPA is proposing definitions
specific to the subpart. Proposed 40 CFR
158.1701 and 158.1703 contain the
definitions pertaining to subpart R. In
particular, proposed 40 CFR 158.1701
defines many of the terms that are
needed to assure a common
understanding of the requirements and
performance standards being proposed
for codification under subpart R.
During the 2013 SAP, EPA received
public comments and feedback from the
SAP on the proposed definitions in the
Technical Support Document (TSD)
provided to the SAP. (Ref. 28). In
addition, the SAP recommended several
additional definitions that should be
considered under this proposed
rulemaking. After considering the
comments provided, and based on the
data requirements being proposed in
this rulemaking, the proposed
definitions represent those that are most
essential for understanding the
requirements and regulatory text of the
proposed subpart R. For those
definitions that the SAP and public
commenters provided feedback on or
that were recommended then, but not
included in this proposal, EPA intends
to consider the utility of those
definitions and will consider
incorporating them into future guidance
and rulemakings. The SAP and public
comments on definitions associated
with product performance data
requirements are available in the docket
for the SAP [EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–
0574]. EPA’s response to those
comments are discussed in this
document and associated docket. Other
definitions included in the TSD have
since been adopted in testing
guidelines.
Where applicable, EPA derived the
proposed subpart R definitions from
existing guidelines. The definition for
Complete protection time is very similar
to the one found in Guideline 810.3700.
The proposed definition of Skin-applied
insect repellent is taken from Guideline
810.3700. The proposed definitions for
Soil-applied termiticides, and Bait
treatment were derived from
information in Guidelines 810.3600 and
810.3800. For example, the Bait
treatment proposed definition is similar
to Termite bait in Guideline 810.3800.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15372
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
The definition of Vector is very similar
to that in FIFRA 2(oo).
In the TSD presented to the 2013 SAP,
EPA explained a pesticide for use
against invertebrates and meeting one of
the following circumstances might be
characterized as making a public health
pest claim requiring submission of
product performance data:
• A claim is made to control, kill,
knockdown, and/or repel specific
invertebrate organisms that are directly
or indirectly infectious or pathogenic or
injurious to humans (or both humans
and animals). For example: A claim is
made to repel mosquitoes and/or ticks.
Both mosquitoes and ticks transmit
disease to humans. Or, a claim is made
to kill bed bugs. Bed bugs are injurious
to humans.
• The pesticide product is used in
public health programs for vector
control or for other recognized health
protection uses to prevent or mitigate
threats to public health.
• The pesticide product contains one
or more ingredients that, under the
criteria in 40 CFR 153.125(a), is an
active ingredient with respect to a
public health organism and there is no
other functional purpose for the
ingredient in the product.
• The pesticide product is similar in
composition to a registered pesticide
product that makes explicit public
health claims for control of invertebrate
organisms.
EPA still agrees that these
circumstances, in principle, identify the
kinds of pesticides for which product
performance data may be necessary.
However, EPA is not proposing to
codify the term ‘‘public health pest
claim’’ as a means of identifying when
data are required. Such a term is not
necessary given the proposed regulatory
text includes sections that specify the
invertebrate pests and invertebrate pest
groups/subgroups that would be subject
to the proposed product performance
data requirements if the pesticide is
intended for use against those pests.
EPA requests comment on whether
there is utility in codifying an
overarching definition of a ‘‘public
health pest claim’’ for the purposes of
subpart R, and if so, whether the
definition presented to the SAP is
appropriate.
In the 2013 TSD EPA wrote that:
A public health claim is asserted if one or
more of the following apply:
—A claim is made to control, kill,
knockdown, and/or repel specific
invertebrate organisms that are directly or
indirectly infectious or pathogenic or
injurious to man (or both man and
animals). For example: A claim is made to
repel mosquitoes and/or ticks. Both
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
mosquitoes and ticks transmit disease to
man. Or, a claim is made to kill bedbugs.
Bedbugs are injurious to man.
—The pesticide product is used in public
health programs for vector control or for
other recognized health protection uses to
prevent or mitigate threats to public health.
—The pesticide product contains one or
more ingredients that, under the criteria in
40 CFR 153.125(a), is an active ingredient
with respect to a public health organism
and there is no other functional purpose
for the ingredient in the product.
—The pesticide product is similar in
composition to a registered pesticide
product that makes explicit public health
claims for control of invertebrate
organisms. (Ref. 28)
to in the portions of the proposed
regulatory text for the wood-destroying
invertebrate pests.
4. Performance Standards. In
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704, EPA is
proposing a set of performance
standards that, in the absence of
performance standards specified
elsewhere in subpart R, will apply
generally and must be met for data cited
to be considered acceptable in support
of a specific labeling claim on the
product’s labeling.
a. Performance standards for skinapplied insect repellents: EPA is
proposing that for skin-applied insect
repellent labeling claims, the
EPA believes that the circumstances
performance standard must be greater
presented in the 2013 TSD, in principle, than or equal to 2-hours complete
identify the kinds of pesticides for
protection time.
which product performance data may be
Complete protection time (CPT) is
necessary. EPA also notes that existing
defined in Guideline 810.3700 as ‘‘the
regulations at 40 CFR 158.2204 provides time from application of a repellent
definitions for a ‘‘public health claim’’
until efficacy failure as it is defined in
and a ‘‘nonpublic health claim’’ as they
each study—for example, the time from
pertain to antimicrobial pesticide
application until the first efficacy failure
claims. EPA is not proposing to make
event confirmed within 30 minutes by
any modifications to that provision, and a second similar event.’’ CPT has been
any definition for a ‘‘public health pest
the existing practice for determining
claim’’ added to subpart R would be
efficacy of skin-applied insect repellents
applicable only within proposed
since the guideline was finalized in
subpart R.
2010. EPA presented this concept, along
3. Application Categories. In proposed with a proposed minimum protection
40 CFR 158.1703, EPA is proposing to
time of 2-hours, to the SAP in the TSD,
define a set of application categories to
as a means of ensuring that a skinassist in defining the data needed to
applied repellency product protects for
support registration. This section would a minimum amount of time given the
only define application categories to the potential variability of product results
extent the terms appear in the proposed across different people.
regulatory text and EPA believes they
The Agency believes that establishing
require definition. For example, the
a minimum CPT for skin-applied
terms ‘‘bait treatments’’ and ‘‘spatial
repellency products should be required
repellents’’ are defined. This section
because of the large variability in
does not provide a listing of all
protection times experienced by
susceptible individuals in the
application categories that would be
population. The SAP agreed that this
covered by the proposed subpart R data
was a reasonable standard, stating that
submission requirements.
Application categories describe how
‘‘[i]f CPT is to be used, a minimum CPT
and/or where the product is intended to of 2 hours was suggested by the Panel
be applied or used. The proposed
as a minimal criterion for product
application categories were derived after registration . . . A repellent of shorter
consideration of current practices and
duration may not provide sufficient,
review of the application sites included useful protection in practical terms and
in the Harmonized Test Guidelines
will give consumers a false sense of
(810.3000 through 810.3900).
protection.’’ (Ref. 29).
Additionally, EPA is proposing
Oftentimes, these application categories
regulatory text for skin-applied products
will be used on pesticide product
that reinforces that any testing required
labeling, and, therefore, may be
under part 158 which involves any
identified as a product performance
human subjects must comply with all
labeling claim within the data
applicable requirements under 40 CFR
requirement tables. Similar to the
part 26. For example, 40 CFR part 26
definitions in 40 CFR 158.1701, EPA
requirements are pertinent to 40 CFR
received SAP feedback on some of the
part 158 testing requirements if the
application category definitions. (Ref.
29). The application categories proposed testing involves intentional exposure of
human subjects. Protocols for such
in 40 CFR 158.1703 represent EPA’s
testing must be submitted to EPA for
responses to that feedback for the
review prior to study initiation. Those
application categories as applicable.
These application categories are referred protocols determined by EPA to involve
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
intentional exposure of human subjects
also require review by EPA’s Human
Studies Review Board (HSRB)) prior to
study initiation.
b. Performance standards for products
other than skin-applied insect
repellents. Unless otherwise specified in
the proposed 40 CFR 158.1700–
158.1786, EPA proposes that the
performance standard for a product
performance claim against a pest must
be greater than or equal to 90 percent.
For non-wearable spatial repellents, the
proposed performance standard is
greater than or equal to 75%.
In the TSD presented to the SAP, EPA
was considering performance standards
of 95% for all other pest claims, with
the exception of mites, lice, carpenter
ants, wood destroying beetles, and
termites. The 95% performance
standards were initially chosen because
they represented widely accepted
standards at the time. (Refs. 28, 29, 30
and 31). EPA proposed these standards
as a way to ‘‘define the levels of product
performance that would need to be met
in order for the studies to support
product registration and labeling,’’ and
that proposing a specified threshold
level or performance standard would be
the ‘‘best means to assure that the
products used to control invertebrate
species are effective under conditions of
use.’’ (Ref. 28).
In response to the proposal, both the
SAP and public commenters believed
that a 95% performance standard would
create a burden for unattainable results
and would be cost prohibitive in most
situations, particularly for large scale
field trials, or in general, any field trial
using a 100% standard expectation.
They argued that a minimum 90%
performance under controlled
laboratory conditions would be
adequate. (Refs. 28 and 29). While they
made this recommendation, the SAP
stated that in special cases, EPA should
retain the authority to overrule these
standards if proper justification is
provided by the applicants with regard
to why the standards should not be
applicable to a particular product.
Additionally, the SAP stated that
registrants should be allowed to
compete by achieving higher than
required performance standards,
proving the superiority of their
products.
After considering the SAP and public
comments, with the exception of pests
such as human mites, carpenter ants,
termites, and wood-destroying beetles,
EPA is proposing performance
standards of 90% or greater instead of
95%. EPA believes that this standard
will enable acceptance of registrations
for products that provide a satisfactory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
level of control. Human mites and lice
will retain a 100% standard, while the
wood-destroying pests will have a 95%
or greater standard for prevention of
damage to wood, except for nonstructural wood preservative treatments,
which will have a standard of 100%.
The standards for human mites, lice,
and wood-destroying pests will be
discussed in more detail in other
sections of this proposed rule.
5. Test Guidelines. In proposed 40
CFR 158.1705, EPA is codifying a
reference to EPA’s Harmonized Test
Guidelines, which set forth a
recommended approach to generate the
data required for product performance
testing.
6. Data Requirement Modifications. In
proposed 40 CFR 158.1707, EPA is
proposing to state that on a case-by-case
basis, the data requirements identified
in subpart R may need to be adjusted for
novel technologies or because a
product’s unusual physical, chemical,
or biological properties or atypical use
patterns would make particular data
requirements inappropriate, either
because it would not be possible to
generate the required data or because
the data would not be useful in the
Agency’s evaluation of the risks or
benefits of the product. EPA
recommends that registrants of novel
technologies contact the Agency prior to
conducting product performance
testing. It should be noted that EPA has
historically taken the position that data
requirements can be adjusted or waived
on a case-by-case basis per the
procedures described in 40 CFR 158.45.
This provision is not intended to
supersede or alter the provisions at 40
CFR 158.45, but rather to clarify that
EPA is proposing that the data
requirements, including the
performance standards, in subpart R
may also be adjusted using the
procedures consistent with those in 40
CFR 158.45.
7. Invasive Species Claims. In
proposed 40 CFR 158.1708, EPA is
proposing that when an application for
registration or amended registration
requests to put a claim(s) on its
pesticide product’s labeling for
effectiveness against an invasive
invertebrate species, then on a case-bycase basis, EPA may require submission
of product performance data to support
those claims for effectiveness. Due to
the sudden appearance and often rapid
spread of invasive species, EPA does not
presently intend to codify a
comprehensive list of the specific
invasive species for which product
performance data might be deemed
necessary. USDA maintains a list of
invasive species profiles, which can be
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15373
used as guidance. (Ref. 32). EPA is
specifically proposing to codify product
performance data submission
requirements for the emerald ash borer
and the Asian longhorned beetle. The
submission of product performance data
to support claims for effectiveness
against other invasive invertebrate pests
will be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
EPA notes that the Agency currently
has authority to require data submission
on a case-by-case basis when necessary
to evaluate a pesticide product (see 40
CFR 158.75). This provision is intended
to clarify that whether or not a claim is
against an invasive species is a factor in
determining whether product
performance data is necessary to
evaluate a pesticide.
8. Invertebrate Disease Vector Claims.
In proposed 40 CFR 158.1709, EPA is
proposing that if a registrant requests a
labeling claim specific to a disease
vector, additional testing conducted
with the species specific to that disease
vector claim is required if that species
is not already required under subpart R
as part of the pest group tested. For
example, if a product claims to repel
Asian longhorned ticks that may carry
Japanese spotted fever, caused by
Rickettsia japonica, then the registrant
must generate data using the species
that is known to carry the disease
indicated, the Asian longhorned tick in
this case. This requirement will ensure
that all disease vector claims are
supported by appropriate product
performance data demonstrating the
required performance standard should
an unknown public health threat emerge
in the future.
9. Structural and Wood-destroying
Pest Claims. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1710, EPA is proposing that if an
application for registration or amended
registration requests a labeling claim
specific to a structural or wooddestroying pest that is not identified in
40 CFR 158.1782 through 158.1786, EPA
may require submission of product
performance data to support those
claims for effectiveness. This
requirement will ensure that any claim
against structural and wood-destroying
pests that have not been accounted for
at this time are supported by product
performance data in the event that a
new threat emerges.
10. Pest Specific Claims. EPA is
proposing to codify product
performance data submission
requirements for pest groups, subgroups, and some specific species. EPA
uses the term ‘‘Pest group labeling
claim’’ to mean a claim or statement on
the labeling of the pesticide product that
the product is effective against a group
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
15374
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
of related species or taxa demonstrating
adequate similarity in basic biology and
life history characteristics to permit
identification of representative test
species for the entire assemblage of taxa.
The term ‘‘Pest sub-group labeling
claim’’ means a claim or statement on
the labeling of the pesticide product that
the product is effective against a set of
related species or taxa demonstrating
adequate similarity in basic biology and
life history characteristics to permit
identification of representative test
species and part of a larger identified
taxonomic grouping (e.g., Biting flies)
that includes other pest species, which
may or may not have a proposed pest
group. The term ‘‘Pest-specific labeling
claim’’ means a claim or statement on
the labeling of the pesticide product that
the product is effective against a
particular arthropod species, such as
German cockroach or house fly.
In addition to the group and subgroup claims, EPA is proposing to
codify requiring product performance
data for a number of pest-specific
claims. As previously noted, the
representative test species were selected
on the basis of vigor of the pest species
and the likely ability of the species to
serve as an adequate surrogate for other
pests in the group, as well as other
factors including their availability for
laboratory testing, ubiquity, and
whether they are one of the primary
drivers of the human health concerns
within a grouping. (Ref. 1). The 2013
TSD envisioned that in many cases ‘‘[i]f
representative taxa are provided, species
specific data may not be required, as the
group and any/all individual species
within the group can be supported by
supporting the general claim.’’ (Ref. 28).
For pests that are not listed as a ‘‘pestspecific claim’’ in proposed subpart R,
EPA proposes that the data required to
support a group claim would also be
sufficient to support pest-specific claims
for species within that group. For
example, the pavement ant
(Tetramorium caespitum) is not listed as
a pest-specific claim in proposed
subpart R because it is not a pest of
significant public-health importance
(nor is it a wood-destroying insect) and
no pest-specific product performance
data would need to be submitted to add
a claim against pavement ants to a label.
In contrast, cluster flies (Pollenia rudis)
are listed as a pest-specific claim in this
proposed rule because of their
significant public health importance.
These pest-specific claims are consistent
with EPA’s current practices. Thus,
consistent with the Agency’s current
practices, pest-specific data would need
to be submitted to add a pest-specific
claim against cluster flies to a label in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
addition to any data submitted to
support the group claim against ‘‘filth
flies.’’ EPA also notes that the
provisions at 40 CFR 158.75 and
proposed 40 CFR 158.1708 would also
permit the EPA to require pest-specific
data on a case-by-case basis when
necessary to evaluate a pesticide
product. These provisions allow EPA to
address the Agency’s data needs in the
face of emergent invertebrate pest
concerns.
EPA requests comment on the pestspecific claims covered by this proposed
rule and whether there should be
additional pest-specific claims added to
subpart R, or if some of the ones
included in the rule are unnecessary.
C. Data Requirements for Subpart R
The data requirements that EPA is
proposing for codification are consistent
with the Agency’s current practices
when considering the product
performance data needed to register a
pesticide product that bears a pesticidal
claim against one or more of these pests
or pest groups/sub-groups. FIFRA
section 3(c)(2) directs EPA to specify the
kinds of data that applicants and
registrants must submit to EPA to
support regulatory determinations
under FIFRA. The data requirements for
pesticide products are codified in 40
CFR part 158.
Product performance data (efficacy
studies) document how well the product
performs the intended function (such as
killing or repelling) against an
invertebrate pest. The product
performance data needs being
considered in this rule would link the
labeling claim for pesticide products
claiming efficacy against an invertebrate
pest with the data needed to
substantiate that claim. EPA views these
standards as performance standards for
the acceptability of data, and thus EPA
views them as waivable under 40 CFR
158.45.
1. Mites (excluding Chiggers). In 40
CFR 158.1712, EPA is proposing the
required test species and performance
standards in order to make a labeling
claim against dog follicle mites, dust
mites, and the human itch or scabies
mite. EPA is proposing to list chiggers,
which are mites, in a separate section.
As indicated in the TSD presented to
the SAP, dog follicle mite infestations
are typically commensal in nature, but
can cause demodectic mange in
susceptible animals. This can pose a
serious risk to stricken individuals,
which typically have pre-existing
immune system issues. For this reason,
a 100% performance standard is being
considered for these applications.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Dust mites pose no direct threat of
injury, disease transmission, or
discomfort. However, dust mites are
included as a pest of significant public
health importance because they produce
allergens in their feces and cast
exoskeleton that can result in asthma
and allergic reactions. EPA believes that
it is impractical to expect complete
elimination of the dust mite population
in a structure. The focus should be to
reduce the agent of concern (i.e., the
allergen) to acceptable levels. This can
be achieved through a reduction in the
target pest that is less than is generally
necessary for a pest that acts directly
against its host. EPA initially proposed
a 75% performance standard to the SAP
for surface and fabric treatments, and a
95% performance standard for direct
application to dust mites. However,
after considering the responses received
through the SAP and public comment,
EPA is proposing a 90% performance
standard for dust mites to be consistent
with the recommendations provided on
the performance standards for other
species testing.
During the SAP, one commenter
indicated that for mites, the proposed
performance standard of 100%, as
considered by EPA, was too high.
Instead the commenter advocated for
90%, while indicating that 95% would
be achievable. (Ref. 33). The 90%
standard is being proposed for some
labeling claims for the dog follicle and
dust mites, but for human itch or
scabies mites, EPA disagrees with
lowering the performance standard
since scabies mites directly infect and
are easily transferred among hosts. A
human skin-applied topical repellent
performance standard of ≥2-hour
complete protection time is also being
proposed.
EPA also notes that any testing
conducted with human subjects must
comply with all applicable requirements
under 40 CFR part 26.
2. Chiggers. In the proposed 40 CFR
158.1714, EPA is proposing to require
testing for labeling claims against
chiggers. Chiggers are being proposed in
the rulemaking due to their bites
causing itching and skin irritation with
the risk of a secondary infection.
Additionally, EPA is proposing the
performance standards established
under 40 CFR 158.1704 to apply to
testing for chiggers.
During the SAP, the Panel noted that
Trombicula alfreddugesi (as presented
in the TSD) is now renamed as
Eutrombicula cinnibars. EPA was
unable to verify this and has maintained
Trombicula alfreddugesi as was
presented in the TSD. EPA requests
comment on whether this is correct, and
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
if the name has changed, EPA requests
a reference to the revised name.
3. Ticks. In the proposed 40 CFR
158.1718, EPA is proposing to require
the test species and performance
standards to labeling claims against
ticks, cattle ticks, and soft ticks. EPA is
proposing several tick species due to
their potential to transmit diseases, such
as Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme
disease, and ehrlichiosis. For
performance standards, EPA is
proposing standards consistent with 40
CFR 158.1704.
To make a claim against ‘‘ticks,’’ EPA
is proposing to require a total of three
hard tick species as representative of
ticks in general. As presented in the
TSD and based on recommendations
from the SAP, products claiming ‘‘ticks’’
must test for the blacklegged tick
(Ixodes scapularis) and lone star tick
(Amblyomma americanum), and a third
species tested must be either the
American dog tick (Dermacentor
variabilis), the brown dog tick
(Rhipicephalus sanguineus), or, as
suggested by the SAP, the Rocky
Mountain wood tick (Dermacentor
andersoni). Because ticks are high
stakes disease vectors and because
consumers have difficulty
differentiating between species, for a
claim against any specific species of
‘‘ticks’’ all the representative species for
the ‘‘ticks’’ claim must be tested. In
addition, because these are pests of
significant public health importance
that the public strongly associates with
the diseases they vector, EPA would
also require submission of data on the
specific pest claimed. EPA does not
typically receive pest-specific claims for
ticks other than those that are
representative species for ticks.
However, the Asian longhorn tick is an
emergent pest in this category and EPA
would require pest-specific data for a
pest-specific claim against the Asian
longhorn tick or any other pest specific
tick claim. This would be in addition to
testing on the representative species.
In addition to the required test species
for a ‘‘tick’’ labeling claim, EPA is also
proposing specific parameters regarding
required species for ‘‘ticks’’ under
certain testing circumstances. These
specific parameters include:
i. For products intended to be applied
to dogs, testing is required on three
species: Blacklegged tick (Ixodes
scapularis), American dog tick
(Dermacentor variabilis), and brown dog
tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus).
ii. For products intended to be
applied to cats, testing is required on
three species: Blacklegged tick (Ixodes
scapularis), lone star tick (Amblyomma
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
americanum), and American dog tick
(Dermacentor variabilis).
The species identified under each of
these circumstances were identified as a
result of their occurrence on dogs and
cats and the biology/behavior of the
ticks.
For a claim against cattle ticks, EPA
is proposing testing on either the
Southern cattle tick (Rhipicephalus
microplus) or the cattle fever tick
(Rhipicephalus annulatus). When
presented to the SAP, the SAP noted
that if pests of veterinary importance are
not the primary objective for this
proposal, then pests such as cattle ticks
should be removed from the tables.
While the emphasis is on pests of
significant public health importance
and wood-destroying insects due to
their significant economic impacts, EPA
maintains that cattle ticks should be
included in this proposal because of the
potential for these ticks to carry diseases
such as Texas cattle fever, which can
result in significant economic losses to
the cattle industry. (Ref. 34)
Additionally, the cattle fever tick poses
a risk to a small, but highly vulnerable
population of humans. Specifically,
those people that have had
splenectomies are susceptible to a
potentially fatal bovine babesiosis
infection from an infected cattle fever
tick. (Ref. 35).
For a claim against soft ticks, EPA is
proposing testing on the species
Ornithodoros hermsi. Humans typically
come into contact with soft ticks when
they sleep in rodent infested cabins. The
ticks emerge at night and feed briefly
while the person is sleeping. The bites
are painless, and most people are
unaware that they have been bitten.
These ticks may transmit tick-borne
relapsing fever (Borrelia hermsii, B.
parkerii, or B. turicatae).
4. Scorpions. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1722, EPA is proposing to require
data for a ‘‘scorpion’’ labeling claim due
to their venomous sting. In the TSD to
the SAP, EPA proposed to only require
the striped bark scorpion (Centruroides
vittatus). For scorpions, EPA is
proposing the performance standards
under proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
One public commenter during the
SAP questioned why EPA provided only
one species for testing, stating that they
believed this to be too restrictive. (Ref.
36). EPA chose the striped bark scorpion
as the required test species because it is
a larger species of scorpion, and larger
species can be harder to kill. Using such
a species as the required test species
means greater certainty that testing on
one species would be representative of
testing on other species. The commenter
did not provide the name of a species
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15375
that they consider suitable for testing.
The Agency would welcome
information to better inform the
decision on selection of a suitable test
species for scorpions.
5. Spiders. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1726, EPA is proposing data
requirements for one pest group
(Spiders), one pest sub-group (black
widow spiders), and five pest-specific
spider claims. EPA’s current practice for
spiders is to require product
performance data to be submitted with
certain species-specific claims (e.g.
‘‘Northern black widow spider’’), certain
pest-subgroup claims (e.g., ‘‘black
widow spiders’’), or pest-group claims
for either ‘‘spiders’’ or ‘‘spiders unless
the label expressly excludes black
widow or brown recluse spiders.’’ The
black widow and the brown recluse
spiders can deliver bites with
potentially serious medical
implications, and therefore are
considered pests of significant public
health importance. Thus, if an applicant
submits a draft label with a labeling
claim for ‘‘spiders (excluding black
widow or brown recluse),’’ the applicant
does not need to submit product
performance data to EPA with an
application for registration. Instead, the
applicant would generate product
performance data to confirm that the
product is effective against these pests
and hold those data in their files. In
contrast, a general ‘‘kill spiders’’ claim
encompasses pests of significant public
health importance, i.e., the black widow
and brown recluse spiders, and
therefore, the applicant would need to
submit two product performance studies
to EPA to verify this claim, one study
each for the brown recluse spider and
black widow spider (either Northern
black widow spider, the Southern black
widow spider, or Western black widow
spider).
For the performance standards, EPA is
proposing standards consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
6. Centipedes. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1732, EPA is proposing data
requirements for centipedes. EPA
proposes testing on either the house
centipede, the Florida blue centipede, or
on one species from the Scolopendra
genus. For the performance standards,
EPA is proposing standards consistent
with proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
The SAP noted that centipedes are
generally harmless and considered
beneficial insects, behaving as active
predators of other arthropod s within
structures. Although a species such as
the Florida blue centipede
(Hemicolopendra marginata) can inflict
a painful bite, the SAP questioned
whether it was sufficient to include
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
15376
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
centipedes as a pest of significant public
health importance. While some species
of centipedes may be ‘‘harmless,’’
species such as the Florida blue
centipede can envenomate with painful
bites, which can be categorized as
similar to that of a bee sting. Effects can
include anaphylactic shock in some
individuals. EPA believes that these
types of effects are sufficient to be
considered as a pest of significant
public health importance, and are thus
included in this proposed rulemaking.
7. Lice. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1736,
EPA is proposing data requirements on
either the Head louse or the Body louse
in order to make a labeling claim against
lice. EPA is also proposing a
performance standard of 100% for all
efficacy claims made against lice. The
SAP did not express any opinions on
the proposed required test species or
performance standards.
8. Fleas. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1740, EPA is proposing data
requirements for one pest group (Fleas)
and six pest-specific claims (cat flea,
chigoe flea, dog flea, hen flea, human
flea, and oriental rat flea). For the
performance standards, EPA is
proposing standards consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
Historically, EPA has only required
testing on the cat flea in order to make
a ‘‘flea’’ claim. The cat flea is common
and easy to rear in the laboratory.
Additionally, because the cat flea is the
most common species that infests pets,
most of the available pesticide products
target the cat flea.
In the SAP response to the TSD, the
Panel suggested adding the oriental rat
flea (Xenopsylla cheopis) in addition to
the cat flea for a ‘‘flea’’ labeling claim.
The oriental rat flea (also known as the
tropical rat flea) is a vector for bubonic
plague (caused by Yersinia pestis),
which is extremely rare in the U.S. EPA
does not believe requiring this
additional species provides immediate
benefits at this time and would be an
additional cost and burden on
applicants to provide such data. EPA
notes that 40 CFR 158.1709 would cover
invertebrate diseases vector claims. In
the future, if the plague becomes a
significant issue in the U.S., then EPA
would consider requiring the
submission of data on the oriental rat
flea in addition to the cat flea. Since the
risk of the oriental rat flea is rare, EPA
intends to continue with its existing
practice to only require the larger cat
flea for a ‘‘flea’’ claim, and is therefore
proposing it as the only required test
species at this time.
9. Cockroaches. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1744, EPA is proposing data
requirements for one pest group
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
(cockroaches) and seven pest-specific
claims (American cockroach, Australian
cockroach, brown cockroach,
brownbanded cockroach, German
cockroach, oriental cockroach, and the
smokybrown cockroach). For the
performance standards, EPA is
proposing standards consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
For the ‘‘Cockroach’’ pest group
claim, EPA has historically required
testing on both the American cockroach
and the German cockroach, and is
proposing to codify this requirement.
These are the most common
cockroaches requested on product labels
and are commonly controlled to halt the
spread of asthma, allergy, and food
contamination. The SAP was supportive
of these species as the required test
species for this pest group claim.
The SAP suggested adding
Periplaneta fuliginosa and P. brunnea
(smokybrown and brown cockroach,
respectively) to the cockroach pest
group. EPA is proposing these pests as
a pest-specific labeling claims. Even
with these additions, EPA continues to
believe that for a general cockroach
claim, the German and American
cockroach are appropriate
representative test species for the
overarching pest group.
The Turkestan cockroach (Blatta
lateralis) is thought to be displacing the
Oriental cockroach in the southwestern
U.S. and, like other cockroaches, can
transfer food-borne pathogens. Because
of this development, EPA is adding a
pest-specific claim for the Turkestan
cockroach to 40 CFR 158.1744.
10. Keds, Screwworms, and Bot Flies.
In proposed 40 CFR 158.1748, EPA is
proposing data requirements for bot flies
(excluding human bot fly), the human
bot fly, keds, and screwworms. For the
performance standards, EPA is
proposing standards consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
For bot flies (excluding human bot
fly), EPA is proposing to require testing
on one of the three following species:
Horse bot fly, throat bot fly, or the nose
bot fly. The SAP suggested specifying
the test species as Gasterophilus spp.
instead of listing three specific
Gasterophilus species, as specified in
the TSD. EPA continues to believe that
testing on either the horse bot fly, throat
bot fly, or the nose bot fly were the most
appropriate for efficacy testing because
they are large and can be found
throughout the U.S. While they are
primarily pests of horses, larvae of these
three species may occasionally
parasitize humans.
For the human bot fly, EPA is
proposing testing on the human bot fly
(Dermatobia hominis). The human bot
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fly is not known to vector disease, but
the larvae will infest the skin of
mammals and live out the larval stage
in the subcutaneous layer, causing
painful pustules that secrete fluids. The
infestation of any fly larvae inside the
body is known as myiasis. (Ref. 37).
Under bot flies, the SAP stated that
human bot fly should be retained as this
is frequently introduced by travelers.
In addition to the three proposed
options for bot flies, the SAP also
suggested EPA consider the Hypoderma
spp. and Oestrus ovis (the sheep bot fly)
as additional options. EPA is not
proposing to include these species since
the Agency has not historically required
or received data on these pests.
However, EPA requests public comment
on whether there is a need to codify
product performance data requirements
for Hypoderma spp. and Oestrus ovis.
For screwworms, EPA is proposing to
require testing on either the screwworm
(Cochliomyia hominivorax) or the
secondary screwworm (Cochliomyia
macellaria). The SAP indicated that
Cochliomyia hominivorax is an
eradicated species in the U.S. While
EPA acknowledges that the sterile insect
eradication program was a success, the
species was recently found in Florida.
If, in the future, an applicant wanted to
make a label claim against screwworms,
then Cochliomyia hominivorax would
be the appropriate test species.
Providing this option provides
flexibility to the pesticide registrant.
(Ref. 38).
For keds, EPA is proposing to require
testing on the sheep ked. The sheep ked
has historically been the representative
species for a ‘‘keds’’ claim, and the SAP
expressed general support of the Sheep
ked as the required test species.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to maintain
this practice.
11. Filth Flies. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1752, EPA is proposing data
requirements for one pest group claim
against ‘‘Filth flies’’ and six pestspecific claims (blow fly, cluster fly,
face fly, flesh fly, house fly, and little
house fly). For the performance
standards, EPA is proposing standards
consistent with proposed 40 CFR
158.1704.
For a ‘‘Filth Flies’’ pest group claim,
EPA is proposing to require testing on
the house fly (Musca domestica) and
either one species of flesh fly
(Sarcophaga spp., Wohlfahrtia spp., and
other genera of flesh fly) or one species
of blow fly (Phaenicia spp., Calliphora
spp., and other genera of blow fly). One
public commenter during the SAP
questioned why EPA asked for testing in
two species. The commenter indicated
that for a direct spray application, only
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
testing with the house fly is needed. The
commenter suggested that testing with
more than one species should only be
needed for more specialized claims,
such as fly baits. (Ref. 36).
In response, EPA included house flies
and the option to select between blow
flies and flesh flies because these types
of flies move bacteria around from
place-to-place when they land. This
takes place by touching surfaces, as
these flies generally do not bite. ‘‘Filth
flies’’ is a large grouping and testing on
two species provides greater assurance
that the product would be effective
against most members of the pest group.
House flies are generally the smallest in
size of these three groups and therefore
may be more susceptible to insecticides.
Testing against the larger filth flesh/
blow flies reduces the likelihood of
overestimating efficacy.
Additionally, the SAP suggested the
cluster fly (Pollenia rudis) be deleted as
a test species. Instead, flies in the genus
Fannia can be included since they can
be relatively easy to rear in laboratory
conditions. Fannia benjamini complex
and Fannia scalaris (canyon fly and
latrine fly) were specifically mentioned.
In response, the cluster fly was not
listed as a required test species for a
claim against ‘‘Filth Flies’’ in the TSD.
The cluster fly was specified as a test
species if an applicant makes a pestspecific claim against the cluster fly.
Because house flies, blow flies, and
flesh flies are considered better
representative species for the pest group
claim against ‘‘Filth Flies,’’ flies in the
genus Fannia are not considered a
representative alternative to cluster
flies.
12. Mosquitoes. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1756, EPA is proposing data
requirements for a pest group claim
against ‘‘Mosquitoes.’’ For the
performance standards, EPA is
proposing standards consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704. For the
required test species, EPA is proposing
that testing be required on at least one
mosquito species from three different
genera (i.e., one out of three proposed
Culex spp.; one out of two proposed
Aedes spp.; and one out of six proposed
Anopheles spp.).
One public commenter during the
SAP asked why the species Anopheles
stephensi was missing from the list of
species for mosquito testing in the TSD,
as it is a common, representative lab
insect. (Ref. 36). EPA agrees that the
Anopheles stephensi could be used for
testing, and has added Anopheles
stephensi to the list of species for
mosquito testing in EPA’s proposal.
Additionally, the SAP comments were
much more extensive regarding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
mosquitoes, as the SAP response
covered both required test species as
well as how one arrives at conducting
the tests to collect the data. These
comments are, as follows:
• Suggested having separate tables for
killing and repelling and for field and
lab testing
• Questioned the suitability of Culex
pipiens and C. quinquefasciatus in
repellent studies
• Suggested using Culex spp. instead of
hybrids C. pipiens and C.
quinquefasciatus
• Indicated Anopheles freeborni and A.
punctipennis are suitable for field
testing and not lab testing
• Indicated Anopheles quadrimaculatus
is not suitable for indoor repellent
testing
• Suggested adding Anopheles
albimanus and Anopheles stephensi
• Indicated Psorophora is acceptable for
field testing
The SAP also noted that for field
testing of mosquitoes, certain species
provided in EPA’s list could not readily
be obtained in a field test in the U.S.
In response, EPA agrees that a listing
of specific mosquito test species as
provided in the TSD was confusing
when considered in the context of field
testing. With lab testing and semi-field
or ‘‘caged’’ testing a particular test
species can be selected. The particular
species selected for testing could
depend on the colonies maintained by
the laboratory, as well as the type of
product being tested, and EPA believes
providing a list of representative species
that is comprehensive means that an
appropriate species could be identified
for a wide variety of product types or
claims.
With regards to Culex pipiens and
Culex quinquefasciatus, EPA is aware
that these are now considered to be a
hybrid mosquito complex. However,
EPA believes that retaining the
historical names of the Culex species
provides more appropriate context,
given the possibility of more name
changes over time.
With regards to Anopheles
mosquitoes, EPA has provided several
species for the applicant to consider
because some Anopheles mosquitoes
may not be appropriate for all types of
testing, or colonies of some Anopheles
mosquitoes may be difficult to maintain
in a laboratory. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to add Anopheles albimanus
and A. stephensi.
EPA agrees that Psorophora might be
reported in a field study. Even though
this is another genus of mosquito,
Psorophora is not a major vector of
diseases in the U.S. Other species may
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15377
better inform the decisions that EPA
needs to make.
For testing of skin-applied insect
repellents, EPA’s Guideline 810.3700,
entitled, ‘‘Insect Repellents to be
Applied to Human Skin’’ provides
specific guidance (page 27) on the
choice of field testing sites. (Ref. 39).
According to the Guidance, ‘‘Field tests
for mosquito repellency should be
conducted in at least two distinct
habitats (e.g., forest, grassland, salt
marsh, wetland, beach, barns, or urban
environments) where the predominant
mosquito species differ.’’
In field testing, a wide variety of
species are encountered. Thus, for field
testing, the applicant’s submission will
provide information on the species
captured during the testing. EPA will
review the data submitted to determine
if a sufficient number and type of
species were present. Generally, EPA
expects three different genera to be
present: Culex, Aedes, and Anopheles.
Claims against specific vector/disease
combinations must be supported by
testing of the specified vector.
Additionally, because mosquitoes are
high stakes vectors and because of the
difficulty consumers have in
differentiating between species, for a
claim against any specific species of
mosquito, all the required test genera
must be tested.
EPA also agrees that certain species of
the mosquitoes specified in the TSD
might not be obtained in a field test.
However, the purpose of providing
multiple species is to offer flexibility in
how one complies with the data
requirements. In the proposal, EPA has
not differentiated between what species
may be more obtainable in a field versus
laboratory test.
Additionally, two commenters
provided other comments about how to
obtain mosquito data, particularly in
relation to using foreign data and
foreign species as surrogate data. One
commenter, for example, suggested that
foreign data be considered acceptable as
long as the study is conducted
according to the 810.3700 guidelines.
(Ref. 40). Another commenter indicated
that foreign species could be useful if
sufficient colonies of domestic species
are not available (e.g., declining
colonies of US anopheline mosquito
species). (Ref. 41). EPA would like to
note that conducting studies according
to EPA guidelines is always
recommended, but is not enough to
show that a foreign species is an
acceptable surrogate for a domestic
species. However, the Agency
acknowledges that situations may arise
where data showing efficacy of a
product against foreign species can be
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
15378
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
useful. Therefore, the Agency will
consider bridging data from foreign
species to domestic species on a caseby-case basis. With this in mind, EPA is
seeking comment on whether other
species should be considered as part of
the required test species.
13. Biting Flies. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1765, EPA is proposing data
requirements for the pest group ‘‘Biting
flies (excluding Sand flies),’’ the pest
sub-groups ‘‘Large Biting Flies’’ and
‘‘Small Biting Flies (excluding Sand
flies),’’ and nine pest-specific claims of
biting flies. For the performance
standards, EPA is proposing standards
consistent with proposed 40 CFR
158.1704.
Since the SAP, the Agency has
revised the proposed data requirements
to be clearer than initially presented to
the SAP. EPA proposed the pest group
‘‘Biting flies (excluding Sand flies)’’ to
be consistent with experience on how
the Agency receives labeling requests.
Sand flies are vectors for Leishmaniasis,
a parasitic disease that is found in parts
of the tropics, subtropics, and southern
Europe which can either cause skin
sores or affect several internal organs
(usually spleen, liver, and bone
marrow). (Ref. 42). This differentiation
improves the clarity and is consistent
with how products have typically been
labeled.
The Agency is also proposing to split
the pest sub-groups further into ‘‘Large
Biting Flies’’ and ‘‘Small Biting Flies
(excluding Sand flies).’’ This is in
response to the fact that periodically,
the Agency receives requests for claims
against large biting flies or claims
against small biting flies. This proposal
is to provide that flexibility in the
codified data requirements.
During the SAP, the Panel suggested
that the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans)
and the horn fly (Haematobia irritans)
be included in the filth fly category. The
Panel also questioned why both species
need to be tested. In response, EPA
considers both the stable fly and the
horn fly to be biting flies. The Agency
is proposing stable flies as one of the
three representative species for the
‘‘Biting Fly (excluding sand flies)’’ pest
group claim and one of the two required
test species the ‘‘Large Biting Flies’’ pest
sub-group claim. Testing of both species
as described in the TSD to obtain a
claim against stable flies was an error.
Instead, in the absence of an appropriate
pest group or pest sub-group
representation, the Agency is proposing
to require testing against stable flies for
a pest-specific efficacy claim against
stable flies and testing against horn flies
for a pest-specific claim against horn
flies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
The SAP suggested adding
Leptoconops kereszi complex and L.
torrens (black gnats) to pest sub-group
biting midges in the TSD. For claims
against biting midges, the Agency was
proposing testing against one Culicoides
species and one Leptoconops species.
The specific species of Leptoconops
required are not specified; therefore
EPA would consider the species
suggested by the commenter
(Leptoconops kereszi complex and L.
torrens) to be acceptable. The biting
midges pest sub-group has since been
revised to be represented as the ‘‘Small
Biting Flies (excluding Sand flies)’’ pest
sub-group claim. Both biting midges and
black gnats are listed separately under
the pest-specific claims.
14. Bed Bugs. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1768, EPA is proposing data
requirements for the pest group claim
‘‘Bed bugs’’ and pest-specific claims for
both the Common bed bug and the
Tropical bed bug. For the performance
standards, EPA is proposing standards
consistent with proposed 40 CFR
158.1704.
For ‘‘Bed bugs,’’ one commenter
indicated that only one species is
important to the vast majority of
consumers and thus only one species
needs to be tested to support this kind
of product registration. For this
proposal, EPA agrees that testing to
include only the common bed bug,
Cimex lectularius, is appropriate as the
lone required bed bug test species.
In the TSD, the EPA initially
proposed a 95% performance standard
for bed bug products. One commenter
stated that the performance standard for
bed bug control products that claim
residual control and ovicidal control
should be 90% rather the 95% standard
in the TSD. Additionally, the
commenter indicated that bed bug
products need to have residual activity,
because control of bed bugs is not
possible via direct contact. They
indicated that there must be residual
activity in order for the product to claim
‘‘control’’ and if the product does not
have residual activity, then this
statement should be on the product
label. The commenter also stated that a
performance standard applicable to bed
bug products that claim to kill bed bugs
when bed bugs come into contact with
a treated surface is needed. Therefore,
EPA has decided to propose a
performance standard of 90%, instead of
the 95% in the TSD.
15. Conenose Bugs and Kissing Bugs.
For proposed 40 CFR 158.1772, EPA is
proposing data requirements for labeling
claims against conenose bugs and
kissing bugs. For the performance
standards, EPA is proposing standards
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consistent with proposed 40 CFR
158.1704.
Initially proposed as ‘‘True bugs
(excluding bed bugs)’’ in the TSD, EPA
is proposing to focus primarily on the
two required test species, the conenose
bug and the kissing bug. This proposal
has now separated them as pest-specific
claims since experience has shown that
labeling and data are usually submitted
with the intent of labeling for the
specific pest.
During the SAP, one commenter
asked why the common stink bug
species is missing from ‘‘true bugs.’’
(Ref. 36). In response, the common stink
bug is not a disease vector or otherwise
a pest of significant public health
importance, and therefore EPA did not
include it as a test species in the TSD
presented to the SAP. Since the ‘‘true
bug’’ claims have changed in this group,
stink bugs are no longer relevant to this
group.
Similarly, the SAP suggested that both
the conenose and the kissing bug be
required test species. Both the kissing
bug and the conenose bug (Triatoma
protracta and Triatoma sanguisuga,
respectively) are in the same genus and
are both vectors of Chagas disease.
Given these similarities and to reduce
the number of studies to be submitted,
EPA did not believe it was necessary to
require both when a ‘‘true bug’’ claim
was still in consideration. Based on
experience, EPA has since opted to
propose that they be separate pestspecific claims.
16. Ants (excluding carpenter ants). In
the proposed 40 CFR 158.1776, the EPA
is proposing data requirements for pest
group ‘‘Ants (excluding carpenter
ants),’’ for the pest sub-groups ‘‘Fire and
Harvester ants,’’ ‘‘Fire and Harvester ant
colonies,’’ and ‘‘Fire ants,’’ and for
seven pest-specific claims in the
absences of a pest group or sub-group
claim.
For colony claims, testing must be
done specific to the species listed. For
colony claims against the red and/or
black imported fire ants, testing may be
done on the red imported fire ant (RIFA)
(Solenopsis invicta), the black imported
fire ant (Solenopsis richteri) or their
hybrid.
Data for the pharaoh ant
(Monomorium pharaonis) and red
imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta)
would be required to support a general
claim against ants, except carpenter
ants. EPA proposes RIFA to receive a
claim against fire and harvester ants for
direct spray kill and residual surface
application claims against foraging ants
only (excluding colony claims). For bait
products or claims involving outdoor
use, testing must be specific to the
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
species listed. For colony claims, testing
must be specific to the species listed.
For colony claims against the red and/
or black imported fire ants, testing may
be done on, S. invicta, S. richteri, or
their hybrid.
Public comments on the 2013 SAP
suggested that additional clarity was
needed for categories such as ‘‘ants’’
where only certain members of the
group would be considered pests of
significant public health importance.
(See, e.g., Ref. 40). Similar to EPA’s
current practice for spiders, EPA
requires product performance data for
certain species-specific claims (e.g. ‘‘fire
ants’’) and for general claims against
‘‘ants’’ or ‘‘ants, unless certain species
are expressly excluded, i.e., fire,
pharaoh, harvester, and carpenter ants.’’
Fire and harvester ants are considered
pests of significant public health
importance, due to their painful stings
that may result in anaphylaxis, while
pharaoh ants are considered pests of
significant public health importance
because they can transfer numerous
pathogens much like cockroaches. As
discussed separately in more detail in
Unit VII.C.18 of this proposal, Carpenter
ants are structural pests which also
require the submission of efficacy data.
As a result, if an applicant submits a
draft label with a claim against ‘‘ants
(excluding fire, pharaoh, harvester, and
carpenter ants),’’ the applicant does not
need to provide product performance
data to EPA. Instead, the applicant
would generate efficacy data to confirm
that the product is effective against
these non-public health pests and then
hold those data in their files. However,
a label claim against ‘‘ants’’
encompasses, pests of significant public
health importance and structural pests,
and therefore for a ‘‘kills ants’’ label
claim, the applicant would need to
submit at least three product
performance studies to EPA to verify
this claim, one study each for the fire
ant (which can be bridged to cover the
harvester ant for a direct spray test),
pharaoh ant, and carpenter ant. For a
more detailed discussion of the
‘‘Carpenter ants’’ claim, see Unit
VII.C.18 of this proposal.
The SAP also suggested adding the
following ants to the ‘‘Ants (except
carpenter ants)’’ group: European fire
ant, odorous house ant, red imported
fire ant (RIFA), tropical fire ant, thief
ant, dark rover ant, hairy crazy ant,
Caribbean crazy ant, yellow crazy ant,
pavement ant, and Crematogaster spp.
Fire ants (Solenopsis spp.). Some of the
species suggested for inclusion are not
pests of significant public health
importance (odorous house ant, thief
ant, dark rover ant, hairy crazy ant,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
Caribbean crazy ant, yellow crazy ant,
and pavement ant), and thus EPA is not
proposing product performance data
requirements specific to these species.
17. Bees, Wasps, Yellowjackets, and
Hornets. For proposed 40 CFR 158.1780,
EPA is proposing data requirement for
a pest group claim ‘‘Bees, Wasps,
Yellowjackets, and Hornets’’ and pestspecific claim for bald-faced hornet,
mud dauber wasp, paper wasp, and
yellowjackets. For the performance
standards, EPA is proposing standards
consistent with proposed 40 CFR
158.1704. For colony claims against
Vespula spp. EPA is proposing a
performance standard of 100%.
For the pest group claim, EPA is
proposing data on two yellowjacket
species (one Vespula sp. and the baldfaced hornet (Dolichovespula
maculata)) and one paper wasp (Polistes
sp.). These required test species were
chosen based on their painful stings that
may cause life-threatening reactions.
The SAP was supportive of the selection
of these species as representative to this
pest group.
For the pest-specific claims that were
proposed, one commenter indicated that
stinging bees and wasps, solitary and
ground nesting Hymenoptera such as
mud daubers, digger wasps/bees, and
spider wasps should not be included as
pests of significant public health
importance. The commenter believed
that these females use their stingers for
hunting, not defense, which means that
it is unlikely such a pest would pose a
public health threat. (Ref. 40). Another
commenter added that they are also
beneficial insects. (Ref. 41). However,
these insects can inflict painful stings
that may cause life-threatening allergic
reactions and therefore are considered
pests of significant public health
importance and incorporated into the
pest-specific claims.
The Asian giant hornet, Vespa
mandarinia, has recently been sighted
in the U.S. At the time EPA developed
the pest grouping for ‘‘Bees, Wasps,
Yellowjackets, and Hornets’’, this
species was not in the U.S. EPA requests
comment on whether there are data to
suggest the representative taxa should
cover this species, or alternatively, data
to suggest the opposite.
18. Carpenter Ants. Carpenter ants are
structural pests which also require the
submission of efficacy data. For
proposed 40 CFR 158.1782, EPA is
proposing data requirement for a pest
group claim ‘‘Carpenter Ants.’’ For the
pest group claim, EPA is proposing
requiring testing data on one of the
following carpenter ant species: Black
carpenter ant (Camponotus
pennsylvanicus), or Florida carpenter
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15379
ant (Camponotus floridanus), or
Western carpenter ant (Camponotus
modoc).
For bait treatment EPA is proposing a
performance standard of 95%
prevention of damage to wood for ≥3
years. For ‘‘Non-Structural: Wood
Preservative Treatment,’’ EPA is
proposing a 100% performance standard
of prevention of damage to wood for ≥2
years. And for structural protection,
EPA is proposing a performance
standard of 95% prevention of damage
to wood ≥5 years.
For carpenter ants, the SAP suggested
adding the carpenter ant (Camponotus
neracticus) as a test species. The Panel
also indicated that more test species
might be needed on the list because
laboratories may experience hardship
obtaining and maintaining colonies of
some of the species on the list provided.
In response EPA notes that there are
three carpenter ant options for testing
and that testing would need to be done
on only one of the species. EPA notes
that the Camponotus neracticus is
significantly smaller than any of the
three options. Thus, EPA believes that
the three proposed test species are better
choices for representative species.
19. Wood-destroying beetles. For
proposed 40 CFR 158.1784, EPA is
proposing data requirements for wood
destroying beetles. For products making
a claim against wood-destroying beetles
or wood-boring beetles, EPA is
proposing to require testing on three
species: Anobiid beetle (Anobiidae sp.),
bostrichid beetle (Bostrichidae sp.), and
old house borer (Hylotrupes bajulus).
For products making a claim against
true powderpost beetles, EPA is
proposing to require testing on one
species from the Lyctinae subfamily.
For bait treatment EPA is proposing a
performance standard of 95%
prevention of damage to wood for ≥3
years. For ‘‘Non-Structural: Wood
Preservative Treatment,’’ EPA is
proposing a 100% performance standard
of prevention of damage to wood for ≥2
years. And for structural protection,
EPA is proposing a performance
standard of 95% prevention of damage
to wood ≥5 years.
One public commenter suggested that
EPA consider adding a fourth genus also
known as the lyctid beetles (Lyctinae
spp.) to represent the major wooddestroying beetle genera while allowing
flexibility to test three of the four. (Ref.
43). The EPA does not believe that
substituting a lyctid beetle as a
representative test species is
appropriate, as these beetles are not
likely to cause structural damage.
20. Termites. For proposed 40 CFR
158.1786, EPA is proposing data
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
15380
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
requirements for the subterranean
termite, desert subterranean termite,
Formosan subterranean termite,
drywood termite, and dampwood
termite. For products making a claim
against termites, EPA is proposing
testing on species from four genera of
termites. EPA is proposing to require
testing on:
• Coptotermes formosanus
• And one of the following
Reticulitermes species: Reticulitermes
flavipes, or Reticulitermes hesperus,
or Reticulitermes virginicus
• And one of the following arboreal
termite species: Nasutitermes coringer
(Motschulsky)
• And one of the following drywood
termite species: Cryptotermes brevis,
or Cryptotermes cavifrons, or
Incisitermes minor, or Incisitermes
snyderi
For a claim against arboreal termites,
EPA is proposing testing of one arboreal
termite species: Nasutitermes coringer
(Motschulsky). For a claim against
dampwood termites, EPA is proposing
testing of the following dampwood
termite: Zootermopsis sp. For a claim
against drywood termites, EPA is
proposing testing of one of the following
drywood termites: Cryptotermes brevis,
or Cryptotermes cavifrons, or
Incisitermes minor or Incisitermes
snyderi. For a claim against
subterranean termites, including
formosan subterranean termites, EPA is
proposing testing in two genera of
termites. Specifically, EPA is proposing
testing on the following Coptotermes
species: Coptotermes formosanus; and
one of the following Reticulitermes
species: Reticulitermes flavipes, or
Reticulitermes hesperus, or
Reticulitermes virginicus.
For bait treatment, EPA is proposing
a performance standard of 95%
prevention of damage to wood for ≥3
years. For ‘‘Non-Structural: Wood
Preservative Treatment’’ EPA is
proposing a 100% performance standard
of prevention of damage to wood for ≥2
years. And for structural protection,
EPA is proposing a performance
standard of 95% prevention of damage
to wood ≥5 years.
The SAP suggested adding drywood
termite (Incisitermes synderi) as a test
species. EPA is proposing to add
Incisitermes snyderi to the list of
representative species for drywood
termites. Additionally, Cryptotermes
cavifrons, a species endemic to Florida,
would also be an acceptable
representative test species and EPA is
proposing to add this organism as well.
The SAP and other commenters
questioned the standard of ‘‘100%
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
prevention of damage to wood’’ and
thought that the lesser 95% or 90%
would be more acceptable. EPA agrees
with the comment and is proposing a
95% prevention of damage to wood
standard. However, EPA notes that what
constitutes a 95% standard is dependent
on the type of study being performed.
For example, for the standard U.S.
Forest Service Concrete Slab field study,
the 95% would be calculated such that
any damage greater than nibbles to
surface etching would be considered a
failure; if a single plot had more than
one instance of nibbles to surface
etching in any of the standard five
evaluation periods, this would also be a
failure. A 95% success rate for the U.S.
Forest Service Concrete Slab (CS) tests
would be determined by the combined
data for a product, by rate, in a given
year. For non-structural wood
preservative treatments, EPA is
proposing a standard of 100%
prevention of damage to wood for ≥2
years. Additionally, to be consistent
with the majority of other pests, EPA is
proposing the termite standards for
direct applications to pests, surface
applications, and spatial applications
will be changed to a performance
standard of 90%, consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
21. Invasive Species. EPA believes
treating invasive species quickly and
appropriately is critical, and EPA does
not intend to preclude use of a pesticide
product pursuant to FIFRA 2(ee) to treat
an invasive species. EPA believes that
pesticide products are an important tool
for managing the spread of an
invertebrate invasive species and the
related public health concerns or
significant economic impacts. The
availability of pesticide products with
proven performance against an invasive
species is important to slowing the
spread of the invasive species.
Due to the sudden appearance and
often rapid spread of invasive species,
except for the pests noted, EPA does not
presently intend to list the specific
invasive species for which product
performance data might be deemed
necessary. Instead, the submission of
product performance data to support
claims for effectiveness against invasive
invertebrate pests will be considered on
a case-by-case basis. Given the
expectation of infrequent submission of
such an application, a ‘‘case-by-case’’
approach is the most suitable. EPA
recommends that applicants consult
with the Agency when first considering
a submission to place an invasive
species on the label of a pesticide
product. As part of the consultation,
EPA would be able to provide
information on protocol development
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and selection of test species. EPA
generally expects to require product
performance data for invasive species
that are similar to the Asian longhorned
beetle and emerald ash borer in that
they have the potential to cause
significant economic or ecological
damage and the efficacy of products
used against them cannot readily be
determined at the time of application.
This proposal specifies that the Asian
longhorned beetle and the emerald ash
borer are two invasive pests for which
product performance data must be
submitted. The efficacy of the products
used for their control typically cannot
be determined until the season after
application, and the EPA believes it
appropriate to continue the practice of
reviewing efficacy data for these
invasive species.
VIII. Updates to Subparts U and V
In addition to the inclusion of product
performance data requirements under
the new subpart R, EPA is also
proposing to revise and update the
product performance data requirements
language for biochemical and microbial
pesticides in subpart U, 40 CFR
158.2070 and subpart V, 40 CFR
158.2160, in order to clarify the
requirements for products that would be
subject to both proposed subpart R and
also subpart U or subpart V.
Subpart U (biochemical pesticides)
and subpart V (microbial pesticides)
currently require that product
performance data be developed, and
that each applicant must ensure through
testing that the pesticide product is
efficacious when used in accordance
with label directions and commonly
accepted pest control practices. Both
subparts also state that EPA may
require, on a case-by-case basis,
submission of product performance data
for any pesticide product registered or
proposed for registration or amendment
(see, 40 CFR 158.2070 and 40 CFR
158.2160). These requirements would
not be modified by this proposal.
Subpart U (biochemical pesticides)
and subpart V (microbial pesticides)
also currently require that product
performance data be submitted for each
biochemical and microbial pesticide
product that bears a claim to control
public health pests, as the term is used
in subparts U and V. This requirement
is followed by a non-exhaustive list of
public health pests. This includes pest
microorganisms infectious to humans in
any area of the inanimate environment
or a claim to control vertebrates
(including but not limited to: Rodents,
birds, bats, canids, and skunks) or
invertebrates (including but not limited
to: Mosquitoes and ticks) that may
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
directly or indirectly transmit diseases
to humans.
This proposal adds additional clarity
by including a provision in subpart U
(biochemical pesticides) and subpart V
(microbial pesticides) stating that
product performance data must be
submitted for each product that bears a
claim against an invertebrate pest that is
covered by subpart R. This provision is
intended to be coextensive with the
requirements of subpart R, and broader
than the currently existing requirements
in subparts U and V related to ‘‘public
health pests’’ in that it would also cover
the wood-destroying beetles and
invasive exotic species claims covered
by subpart R.
Additionally, EPA notes that data
requirements and the performance
standards that determine the
acceptability of data may be modified
on a case-by-case pursuant to the
provisions in 40 CFR 158.45 and 40 CFR
158.1707.
IX. Impact of This Proposal on Future
and Existing Registrations
This action, if finalized, will have no
immediate effect on existing
registrations unless new information
indicates an existing registration
includes claims that are not sufficiently
supported. When an application for
registration or amended registration
requests to put a claim(s) on its
pesticide product’s labeling for
effectiveness against an invertebrate
species that is covered by this action,
the application would generally include
submission of product performance data
to support those claims for
effectiveness.
X. Peer Review
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
A. Human Studies Review Board
1. Background. Research with human
subjects that is conducted or supported
by the U.S. government is subject to
regulations for the protection of human
subjects. These regulations are referred
to as the Common Rule. EPA’s
codification of the Common Rule
appears at 40 CFR part 26, subpart A.
On February 6, 2006 (71 FR 6138) (FRL–
7759–8), EPA published a final rule
amending part 26 by adding new
subparts (B–Q). This amendment added,
among other parts, Subpart K, which
applies standards similar to those in the
Common Rule to third parties (i.e., those
other than federal agencies and
federally-funded researchers)
conducting research with human
subjects. Additional amendments to part
26 have been made, most recently in
2019 (84 FR 35315, July 23, 2019) (FRL–
9996–48–ORD). Under EPA’s regulation,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
if the research involves intentional
exposure of a human subject and if the
sponsor or investigator intends to
submit the results of the research to EPA
in connection with any action that may
be performed by EPA under the
pesticide laws (FIFRA or FFDCA), then
the research must comply with the
provisions of 40 CFR part 26; the
requirements of EPA’s human studies
rule also apply to any research
involving intentional exposure of a
human subject to a pesticide, when the
results are intended to be submitted in
connection with a regulatory action
under any other statute EPA
administers. In addition to establishing
protections for human subjects of
research, EPA established the Human
Studies Review Board (HSRB or Board)
to review both proposals for new
research and reports of covered human
research on which EPA proposes to rely
under the pesticide laws. The HSRB is
a federal advisory committee operating
in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5
U.S.C. app. 2, section 9).
The HSRB typically includes
independent experts in toxicology,
exposure assessment, industrial
hygiene, statistics, and bioethics, as well
as an entomologist consultant. The
HSRB provides EPA with advice,
information, and recommendations on
issues related to both the scientific and
ethical aspects of human subjects
research. The major objectives are to
provide review and recommendations
on the scientific and ethical aspects of
research proposals and protocols, and
reports of completed research with
human subjects; and, when requested,
advise on how to strengthen EPA’s
programs for protection of human
subjects of research. EPA considers all
recommendations from the HSRB before
finalizing its reviews of proposed or
final research.
The HSRB reports to the EPA
Administrator through EPA’s Science
Advisor. Since 2006, the rigorous
independent reviews conducted by EPA
and the HSRB, as mandated by part 26,
have resulted in research protocols
designed to result in scientificallysound data and to ensure the protection
of human subjects involved in the
research. In providing for the
establishment of the HSRB, the
regulations have reassured the public
that all pesticide research involving
intentional exposure to human subjects
undergoes thorough independent and
expert review based on scientific and
ethical standards.
Under 40 CFR part 26, subpart K,
protocols for research subject to the
regulation’s requirements must be
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15381
submitted to EPA for review and
evaluation before initiation of the study.
The relevant information that must be
included in the proposed research
protocol is specified in 40 CFR 26.1125.
EPA then evaluates the protocol and
makes a determination about the
scientific validity and reliability of the
research as well as examining the
ethical aspects of the research, in
accordance with the conditions in 40
CFR 26.1603. EPA submits the protocol
and supporting materials, as well as
EPA’s science and ethics reviews of the
proposed research to the HSRB for
review and comment. The members of
the HSRB review the proposed research.
Then in an open and transparent
manner at a public meeting, members of
the HSRB ask additional questions,
provide their individual comments, and
participate in a discussion which is
documented in meeting minutes. Each
final HSRB report contains the Board’s
responses to charge questions posed by
EPA, as well as the final, approved
advice of the HSRB. The research
cannot be initiated until EPA approves
the protocol, following its consideration
of the HSRB’s input and
recommendations. The protocol will
only be approved if EPA determines that
the research conducted according to the
protocol would meet the standards of 40
CFR 26, Subparts K and L. Information
on the HSRB, including materials
reviewed and recommendations can be
found on the HSRB web page. (Ref. 44).
Once the research has been
conducted, then all of the records
relevant to the research, including raw
data and records of ethical review, are
submitted to EPA. EPA examines all
submitted materials, considers the
scientific and ethical conduct of the
research, and provides the completed
research and its evaluation of the
completed research to the HSRB. The
HSRB reviews the documents and
discusses them at a public meeting in
the same open and transparent manner.
The HSRB issues a report of their
findings following the meeting. EPA
may rely on the results of completed
human research involving intentional
exposure of human subjects only if the
research meets the standards referenced
in part 26, subpart Q.
2. Review of EPA’s draft guideline
810.3700. In October 2008, EPA
presented to the HSRB a draft guideline
titled ‘‘Insect Repellents to be applied to
Human Skin’’ for review and evaluation.
(Ref. 46). The HSRB final report (Ref.
46) for that October 2008 meeting
included the HSRB’s comments and
concerns about the statistical analysis
plan included in the draft guideline.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15382
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Based on the HSRB review and
comments, EPA revised the guideline
and presented the revised guideline to
the HSRB on June 23, 2010. EPA’s
Senior Policy Advisor for the Pesticide
Program made a presentation titled,
‘‘OPP Policy Decisions Regarding Insect
Repellent Efficacy Testing.’’ (Ref. 31).
The HSRB recommended several
changes or clarifications for the revised
guideline in its final report, (Ref. 47)
including:
• Removal of the maximumlikelihood method requirement in the
data analysis section;
• Clarification of recommendations
regarding the use of positive controls,
particularly with respect to the number
of controls and the rationale for
including them in the study;
• Careful consideration of
recommendations regarding the
recruitment and inclusion of so-called
‘vulnerable’ populations; and
• Encouraging the use of study
designs that will enable investigators to
collect data that will allow quantitative
measurement of repellent efficacy in
addition to determining the complete
protection time (CPT).
On August 6, 2010 (75 FR 47592),
EPA announced the availability of the
final guideline for Insect Repellents to
be Applied to Human Skin (Guideline
810.3700).
3. Overall impact of HSRB review. As
required by 40 CFR part 26, the HSRB
has reviewed and commented on all
protocols for conducting skin-applied
insect repellents as well as the
completed studies conducted according
to those protocols. In its final reports,
the HSRB provided recommendations to
strengthen EPA’s statistical approaches
for calculating CPTs. Additionally, the
HSRB’s feedback has resulted in EPA’s
development of a model to calculate
sample sizes for field and lab testing
with mosquitoes and lab testing with
ticks, to support results. At the
recommendation of the HSRB, EPA also
elected not to require positive controls.
B. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
On March 19–20, 2013, EPA
presented to the SAP a variety of issues
for their consideration and response
concerning the Scientific Issues
Associated with Product Performance
Data Needs for Pesticide Products
Claiming Efficacy against Invertebrate
Pests of Significant Public Health or
Economic Importance. The meeting
announcement, the Agency’s
presentations and support documents,
public comments, and the comments by
the SAP are available at regulations.gov
using the docket identifier EPA–HQ–
OPP–2012–0574. Unit VII of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
proposal discusses how comments from
the SAP and public comments informed
the data requirements of proposed
subpart R.
In separate actions EPA has
developed and revised testing
guidelines and continues to do so.
While this rule refers to these
guidelines, and recommends their use,
they are not the subject of today’s
proposal. For informational purposes,
EPA is providing a description of SAP
meetings relevant to those guidelines.
1. 1994 meeting. In 1994, EPA held a
2-day meeting of the SAP to review the
Agency’s proposed amendments to the
data requirements for pesticide
registrations contained in 40 CFR part
158. The SAP was asked to comment on
each data requirement and identify, in
their opinion, which ones were
necessary to fully and thoroughly
evaluate the potential hazard of a
chemical compound and which ones
were not intrinsically useful in
providing practical scientific
information. The review included both
comparative product performance data
requirements along with product
performance data requirements for
public health and non-public health
data requirements. A very complete
discussion of the 1994 SAP was
presented in the proposed rule for
conventional pesticides (March 11,
2005; 70 FR 12310) (FRL–6811–2).
2. April 2000 meeting. In April 2000
the SAP was asked to comment on a
draft guideline regarding insect
repellents for human skin and outdoor
premises. (Ref. 48).
3. July 2002 meeting. On July 30–31,
2002, the SAP was asked to review the
design and scientific soundness of the
draft guideline entitled ‘‘Termite Bait
Testing.’’ EPA’s presentations, the draft
guideline, the charge questions, and the
Panel’s review of the guideline are
available at regulations.gov using the
docket identifier EPA–HQ–OPP–2002–
0125.
4. March 2012 meeting. On March 6–
7, 2012, EPA presented to the SAP, a
draft guideline regarding bed bugs. The
meeting announcement, the Agency’s
presentations and support documents,
public comments, and the comments by
the SAP are available at regulations.gov
using the docket identifier EPA–HQ–
OPP–2011–1017. After taking the SAP’s
feedback into consideration, EPA
announced the availability of the final
test guideline, Laboratory Product
Performance Testing Methods for Bed
Bug Pesticide Products; OCSPP Test
Guideline 810.3900, on June 14, 2017
(82 FR 27254) (FRL–9959–78).
5. May 2018 meeting. On May 8–10,
2018, EPA presented to the SAP for
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
their consideration and response
scientific issues associated with
proposed revisions to two EPA Test
Guidelines 810.3100 (Soil Treatment for
Imported Fire Ants), and Guideline
810.3500 (Premises Treatment), for Red
Imported Fire Ants (RIFA). These
guidelines were originally published in
March 1998.
The proposed premises treatment
guideline revisions presented to the
SAP contained recommended test
methodologies for a wide range of
products intended to kill, control, flush,
and/or knockdown invertebrate
premises pests, such as cockroaches,
ticks, mosquitoes, flies, and wasps. The
guideline did not cover treatment of
livestock or pets, wide area-mosquito
control, or bed bug products. In addition
to guidance for testing efficacy of direct
pesticide application to pests, residual
treatments, and cockroach and fly baits
in the laboratory, the proposed
guideline also included field testing
methods for outdoor misting systems,
Hymenoptera nest treatments, and
outdoor foggers. Methods for resistance
ratio determination and characterization
of pest population strain susceptibility
were also described.
The proposed RIFA treatment
guideline revisions contained
recommended test methodologies for
evaluating the performance of pesticide
products for the treatment and control
of red imported fire ant colonies/
mounds. The guideline did not cover
premises treatments for RIFA workers/
foragers, such as direct application to
pests. Field tests for both mound- and
area-applied pesticide products were
proposed, along with accompanying
laboratory studies for baits, barrier
treatments, and insect growth
regulators.
The meeting announcement, the
Agency’s presentations and support
documents, and public comments are
available at regulations.gov using the
docket identifier EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–
0693. In September of 2019, EPA
published the final Product Performance
Test Guidelines OCSPP 810.3500:
Premises Treatments; Background
information, the draft guideline, and
charge questions developed by EPA are
available at https://archive.epa.gov/
scipoly/sap/meetings/web/html/
040500_mtg.html.
7. June 2019 meeting. On June 11–14,
2019, the SAP reviewed EPA’s proposed
guidelines for Efficacy Testing of
Topically Applied Pesticides Used
Against Certain Ectoparasitic Pests on
Pets. The meeting announcement, the
Agency’s presentations and support
documents, public comments, and the
comments by the SAP are available at
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
regulations.gov using the docket
identifier EPA–HQ–OPP–20190161.
XI. Request for Comments
The Agency invites the public to
provide comment on the proposed
requirements and their basis.
Specifically included within the
Agency’s requests for comments are
suggestions which can be supported by
scientific data for the Agency to
consider during the development of the
final rule. Specific comments are
requested for:
1. Definitions. The Agency welcomes
comment on the proposed definitions.
The Agency also welcomes suggestions
on additional definitions that may be
needed to help clarify what is required
in the regulations.
2. Representative test species. The
proposed rule includes taxonomic
categories of invertebrates which require
more than one species to be tested to
support a general claim for that pest
group. The representative taxa were
selected on the basis of vigor of the pest
species and the likely ability of the
species to serve as an adequate surrogate
for other pests in the group. The
selection of representative taxa was
informed by the 2013 SAP.
3. Performance standards. The
Agency welcomes specific comments on
performance standards. The Agency
would need to see scientifically sound
data to support any recommendations
for performance standards that differ
from those proposed. The Agency
believes requiring data showing the
pesticide meets a specified threshold
level (performance standard) of efficacy
is the best means of addressing potential
consequences which could occur
through the use of ineffective pesticides
intended for use against pests that
transmit disease.
4. Economic analysis. The Agency
also welcomes public comment on its
economic analysis of the proposed rule,
as well as on its underlying
assumptions, economic data, and high
and low-cost options and alternatives.
Describe any assumptions and provide
any technical information and data used
in preparing your comments. Explain
estimates in sufficient detail to allow for
it to be reproduced for validation. EPA’s
underlying principle in developing the
proposed revisions has been to strike an
appropriate balance between the need
for adequate data to make the statutorily
mandated determinations and informed
risk management decisions, while
minimizing data collection burdens on
regulated community required to
support product performance data
requirements. In particular, EPA would
appreciate public comment on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
magnitude of the savings in discovery
costs discussed on page 29 of the cost
analysis.
XII. References
The following is a listing of the
documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket
includes these documents and other
information considered by EPA,
including documents that are referenced
within the documents that are included
in the docket, even if the referenced
document is not physically located in
the docket. For assistance in locating
these other documents, please consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. US EPA. Cost Analysis of the Proposed
Product Performance Rule, prepared by
the Biological and Economic Analysis
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
available in docket: EPA–HQ–OPP–
2020–0124.
2. US EPA. Pesticide Registration (PR Notice)
Notice 2002–1, available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2014-04/documents/pr2002-1.pdf at 2
(accessed March 6, 2020); see also Public
Review Draft: Pesticide Registration (PR
Notice) 2020–[X], Draft List of Pests of
Significant Public Health Importance—
Revised 2020, docket EPA–HQ–OPP–
2020–0260.
3. US EPA. PRN 96–7 Termiticide Labeling,
available at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticide-registration/prn-96-7termiticide-labeling (accessed March 13,
2020).
4. United States Public Health Service. Public
Health Report. 1923 Aug 3; 38(31): 1747–
1814.
5. Scott, Thomas and Willem Takken.
Feeding strategies of anthropophilic
mosquitoes result in increased risk of
pathogen transmission. Trends in
Parasitology March 2012, Vol. 28, No. 3.
6. Eisen, Lars. Pathogen transmission in
relation to duration of attachment by
Ixodes scapularis ticks, Ticks and Tickborne Diseases.
7. US EPA. Bed Bugs, Get them out and Keep
them Out, available at https://
www.epa.gov/bedbugs (accessed March
6, 2020).
8. US EPA and CDC. Joint statement on bed
bug control in the United States from the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
available at https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/
cdc/21750/Email (accessed March 19,
2020).
9. Su N–Y, Scheffrahn RH (2000). Termites
as pests of buildings. In: Abe T, Bignell
DE, Higashi M (eds) Termites: Evolution,
sociality, symbioses, ecology. Kluwer,
Boston, pp 437–453.
10. Peterson CJ, Wagner TL, Shelton TG,
Mulrooney JE (2008). A historic pest: 90
years of USDA publications reveal
changes in termite management. Pest
Manag Prof 76(2):25, 28–30, 32.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15383
11. US EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs,
Label Review Manual, available at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticideregistration/label-review-manual
(accessed March 13, 2020).
12. US EPA. Product Performance Guideline
810.1000, Overview, Definitions, and
General Considerations, available at
https://www.epa.gov/test-guidelinespesticides-and-toxic-substances/series810-product-performance-test-guidelines
(accessed March 6, 2020).
13. CDC. Division of Vector Borne Infectious
Diseases: West Nile Virus Fact Sheet
available at https://www.cdc.gov/
westnile/resources/pdfs/wnvFactsheet_
508.pdf, (accessed March 9, 2020).
14. CDC. Zika Virus, Statistics and Maps;
available at https://www.cdc.gov/zika/
reporting/ (accessed March 6,
2020); CDC, Zika Virus, available at
https://www.cdc.gov/zika/
(accessed March 6, 2020).
15. CDC. Lyme Disease: Data and
Surveillance, available at https://
www.cdc.gov/lyme/datasurveillance/
index.html?CDC_AA_
refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov
%2Flyme%2Fstats%2Findex.html
(accessed March 19, 2020).
16. M.L. Wilson, J.F. Levine, and A.
Spielman. Effect of deer reduction on
abundance of the deer tick (Ixodes
dammini), Yale J Biol Med. 1984 Jul–
Aug; 57(4): 697–705.
17. David Cameron Duffy, Scott R. Campbell,
Dara Clark, Chris Dimotta, Susan
Gurney. Ixodes scapularis (Acari:
Ixodidae) Deer Tick Mesoscale
Populations in Natural Areas: Effects of
Deer, Area, and Location, Journal of
Medical Entomology, Volume 31, Issue
1, 1 January 1994, Pages 152–158,
https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/
31.1.152.
18. CDC. Lyme Disease: Treatment, available
at https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/treatment/
index.html (accessed March 6, 2020).
19. CDC. Signs and Symptoms of Untreated
Lyme Disease, available at https://
www.cdc.gov/lyme/signs_symptoms/
index.html (accessed March 9, 2020).
20. CDC. Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever:
Signs and Symptoms, available at
https://www.cdc.gov/rmsf/symptoms/
index.html, (accessed March 6, 2020);
CDC.
21. CDC. Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever:
Information for Health Care Providers,
available at https://www.cdc.gov/rmsf/
healthcare-providers/
(accessed March 6, 2020).
22. CDC. Lyme Disease: Preventing Tick Bites
on People, available at https://
www.cdc.gov/lyme/prev/on_people.html
(accessed March 6, 2020).
23. CDC. Division of Vector Borne Infectious
Diseases: West Nile Virus (WNV) Fact
Sheet available at https://www.cdc.gov/
westnile/resources/pdfs/wnvFactsheet_
508.pdf (accessed March 6, 2020).
24. Emerald Ash Borer Information Network,
available at https://
www.emeraldashborer.info/abouteab.php (accessed March 9, 2020).
25. USDA. Emerald Ash Borer, available at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
15384
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-anddisease-programs/pests-and-diseases/
emerald-ash-borer (accessed March 9,
2020).
26. USDA. Asian Long-Horned Beetle,
available at https://
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/profile/
asian-long-horned-beetle, (accessed
March 9, 2020).
27. NRS. Economic Impacts of Non-Native
Forest Insects in the Continental United
States, available at https://
www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/38719 (accessed
March 9, 2020).
28. US EPA. Technical Support Document
Scientific Issues Associated with Product
Performance Data Needs for Pesticide
Products Claiming Efficacy against
Invertebrate Pests of Significant Public
Health or Economic Importance
Submitted to the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel for Review and Comment
March 19–21, 2013 (Hereinafter ‘‘TSD’’),
available in docket: EPA–HQ–OPP–
2012–0574–0002, Appendix 1, Tables I
and II.
29. US EPA. FIFRA Scientific Advisory
Panel, Meeting Minutes and Final Report
for the March 19–21, 2013 Scientific
Advisory Panel, available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2015-06/documents/031913minutes.pdf
(accessed April 9, 2020).
30. World Health Organization (WHO).
Guidelines for Efficacy Testing of
Mosquito Repellents for Human Skin,
available at https://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/
2009/WHO_HTM_NTD_WHOPES_
2009.4_eng.pdf (accessed March 23,
2020).
31. US EPA. OPP Policy Decisions Regarding
Insect Repellent Efficacy Testing,
(prepared for June 23, 2010, Human
Subjects Research Board Meeting).
32. USDA. National Invasive Species
Information Center, available at https://
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/ (accessed
April 29, 2020).
33. Consumer and Specialty Products
Association (CSPA). Comment submitted
by Beth Law, CSPA, March 15, 2013,
EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0574–0014.
34. USDA. Victor Borne Diseases: Cattle
Fever Ticks, available at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
animalhealth/animal-diseaseinformation/cattle-disease-information/
cattle-vector-borne-diseases (accessed
March 9, 2020).
35. Bovine Babesiosis, available at
cfsph.iastate.edu/factsheets/pdfs/
bovine_babesiosis.pdf (accessed March
24, 2020).
36. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Comment
submitted by Jill Geyser, S.C. Johnson &
Son, Inc., March 9, 2013, EPA–HQ–OPP–
2012–0574–0011.
37. UF IFAS. Featured Creatures: Human Bot
Fly, available at https://
entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/flies/
human_bot_fly.htm (accessed March 9,
2020).
38. USDA. National Agricultural Library,
New World Screwworms, available at
https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/
speccoll/exhibits/show/stop-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
screwworms--selections-fr/introduction
(accessed March 9).
39. US EPA. EPA’s Guideline 810.3700,
entitled, ‘‘Insect Repellents to be
Applied to Human Skin,’’ available at
https://www.epa.gov/test-guidelinespesticides-and-toxic-substances/series810-product-performance-test-guidelines
(accessed July 1, 2020).
40. Comment submitted by Dudley Hoskins,
Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment, March 10, 2013, EPA–HQ–
OPP–2012–0574–0009.
41. Comment submitted by Beth Law,
Consumer and Specialty Products
Association, March 15, 2013, EPA–HQ–
OPP–2012–0574–0014.
42. CDC. Parasites-Leishmaniasis, available at
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/
leishmaniasis/ (accessed
March 16, 2020).
43. Comment submitted by Brian Forschler,
Termiticide Scientific Review Panel,
March 19, 2013, EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–
0574–0016.
44. US EPA. Science Adviser Programs:
Human Studies Review Board, available
at https://www.epa.gov/osa/humanstudies-review-board (accessed April 1,
2010).
45. US EPA. Draft Guideline 810.3700, Insect
Repellents to be applied to Human Skin
https://archive.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/web/
pdf/guidelines-for-performance-testingof-skin-applied-insect-repellents9.23.08.pdf (accessed April 1, 2020).
46. US EPA. October 21–22, 2008 EPA
Human Studies Review Board Meeting
Report, available at https://
archive.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/web/pdf/
october2008hsrbb
finaldraftreport12808.pdf (accessed
April 9, 2020).
47. US EPA. EPA Human Studies Review
Board Meeting Report, June 23, 2010.
Available at https://archive.epa.gov/osa/
hsrb/web/pdf/june2010
finalreport090910.pdf (accessed April
14, 2020).
48. US EPA. Background Information, the
Draft Guideline, and Charge Questions
Developed by EPA, available at https://
archive.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/
web/html/040500_mtg.html.
49. US EPA. ‘‘Proposed Rule-related ICR
Amendment for Pesticide Product
Performance Data Requirements for
Products Claiming Efficacy Against
Certain Invertebrate Pests’’ (RIN 2070–
AJ49), EPA ICR No.: 0277.20 and OMB
Control No.: 2070-[tbd]. November 2020.
XIII. FIFRA Review Requirements
Pursuant to FIFRA section 25(a), EPA
submitted the draft proposed rule to the
Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) and the
FIFRA SAP for review. A draft of the
proposed rule was also submitted to the
appropriate Congressional Committees.
XIV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulations
and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory
action that was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Orders 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
Any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket. EPA
prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this
action (Ref. 1) which is summarized in
more detail in Unit I.E. This analysis is
available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document that EPA prepared is assigned
EPA ICR No. 0277.20 and OMB Control
No.: 2070–0060 (Ref. 49). You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket and it
is briefly summarized here.
The information collection activities
in this proposed rule are associated with
the codification of efficacy data
requirements against certain
invertebrate pests. These information
collection activities are activities
associated with the application for a
new or amended registration of a
pesticide and are currently approved by
OMB under OMB Control No. 2070–
0060 (EPA ICR No. 0277). As such, this
ICR is intended to amend that existing
ICR at the final rule stage, incorporating
the information collection activities
attributable to this proposed rule,
including a reduction in transaction
costs associated with a clear
codification of the product performance
data requirements for certain
invertebrate pests.
Respondents/affected entities: There
are three groups impacted by the rule.
Chemical producers (NAICS 32532),
colleges, universities, and professional
schools (NAICS code 611310), and
research and development labs and
services (NAICS code 541712).
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
These data must be submitted for the
applicant to receive the desired
pesticide registration or label claim.
Authorizing legislation is contained in
Section 3 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136). The
implementing regulations specific to the
product performance data requirements
are contained in 40 CFR part 158.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Estimated number of respondents:
EPA estimates that registrants submit 60
data packages to the Agency annually
for efficacy review. Some registrants
may submit multiple data packages per
year. Under this rule the number of
submissions may decline—and therefore
the number of respondents may also
decrease.
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Total estimated burden: The proposed
rule is expected to reduce burden hours
by 4,683 annually, including 4,515
hours from reduced paperwork burden
associated with data generation and 168
hours from reduced paperwork burden
associated with the application process.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
EPA already accounts for the activities
associated with the proposed rule in the
currently approved ICR, which covers
most activities associated with new and
amended registrations; EPA estimates a
total annual respondent burden of 1.5
million hours for all these activities. As
discussed in the Proposed Rule-related
ICR Amendment (Ref. 49), 483,000 of
those hours are paperwork burden from
data generation for new products, and
102,000 of those hours are paperwork
burden from application for new and
amended products.
Total estimated cost: The estimated
burden reduction is expected to reduce
burden cost by $330,000 annually,
including $315,000 from reduced
paperwork burden associated with data
generation and $15,000 from reduced
paperwork burden associated with the
application process, which includes $0
annualized capital or operation and
maintenance costs. EPA already
accounts for the activities associated
with the proposed rule in the currently
approved ICR, which covers most
activities associated with new and
amended registrations; EPA estimates a
total annual respondent burden of $109
million for all these activities. As
discussed in the Proposed Rule ICR
(Ref. 49), $33.7 million of that cost is
paperwork burden from data generation
for new products, and $9.3 million of
that cost is paperwork burden from
application for new and amended
products.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the
Agency’s need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to
the EPA using the docket identified at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
the beginning of this rule. You may also
send your ICR-related comments to
OMB’s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_
submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention:
Desk Officer for the EPA.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In
making this determination, the impact
of concern is any significant adverse
economic impact on small entities. An
agency may certify that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, has
no net burden, or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. EPA’s small
entity analysis suggests that the greatest
impact, and the most potential cost
savings, would accrue to small entities
and new registrants. While large,
established registrants have experience
with the registration process and are
aware of EPA’s data requirements or
have the means to determine the
appropriate studies, new and small
registrants without that experience may
bear significant costs of acquiring this
information. The registrants would have
easier access to the data requirements,
and the reduction in information
acquisition costs would be largest for
those registrants with the greatest
information acquisition needs. Thus,
EPA anticipates that the proposed rule
would result in cost savings,
particularly for small and first-time
registrants. While the affected NAICS
codes contain up to 5,438 small entities,
EPA does not expect all entities to
experience cost savings in all years as a
result of this proposed rule. As the cost
analysis (Ref. 1) describes, a sample of
30 applications was selected at random.
These applications were submitted by
16 different firms, four of which EPA
was able to identify as small businesses
according to the Small Business
Administration Employees or Revenue
Thresholds. About 60 packages are
received annually by EPA for control
claims. Therefore, EPA expects that, on
average, approximately ten small
entities will experience cost savings
each year as a result of this proposed
rule.
While not every element of the
proposed rule would result in savings
for registrants, EPA conservatively
estimates that the rule would result in
$1 million in annual reductions in
registrant expenditures on the process of
receiving label claims against public
health, wood destroying, and invasive
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15385
species pests, equivalent to about
$17,000 in savings per data package
submitted to the Agency and about
$5,500 per registrant in annual savings
I have therefore concluded that this
action will relieve regulatory burden for
all directly regulated small entities. The
basis for this determination is presented
in the small entity analysis prepared as
part of the cost analysis for the proposed
rule (Ref. 1), which is summarized in
Unit I.E, and a copy is available in the
docket for this rulemaking. We have
therefore concluded that this action will
relieve regulatory burden for all directly
regulated small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and will
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments. The proposed rule
would primarily affect the private
sector, i.e., pesticide registrants. The
rule is not expected to result in
expenditures by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(when adjusted annually for inflation)
in any one year. Accordingly, this
proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202, 203, or
205 of UMRA. The cost analysis for this
action is summarized in Unit I.E. and is
available in the docket.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), because it will not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because it will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between
the Federal government and Indian
tribes. At present, no Tribal
governments hold, or have applied for,
a pesticide registration. Thus, Executive
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15386
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern environmental
health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy and has not
otherwise been designated as a
significant energy action by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action does not involve technical
standards that would require Agency
consideration under NTTAA section
12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action is
not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it
does not establish an environmental
health or safety standard. The Agency
notes, however, that the proposed data
requirements will provide data that will
be used to assure that pesticide products
perform effectively if claiming
effectiveness against an invertebrate
pest of significant public health or
economic importance, and to address
both health concerns and economic
consequences stemming from pesticide
products that might not perform as
claimed on the label, including
consequences for sensitive
subpopulations and minority or lowincome communities.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 158
Environmental protection,
administrative practice and procedure,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
agricultural and non-agricultural,
pesticides and pests, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Jane Nishida,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 158 as follows:
PART 158—DATA REQUIREMENTS
FOR PESTICIDES
158.1748 Keds, screwworms, and bot flies.
158.1752 Filth flies.
158.1756 Mosquitoes.
158.1760 Biting flies.
158.1768 Bed bugs.
158.1772 Conenose bugs and kissing bugs.
158.1776 Ants (excluding carpenter ants).
158.1780 Bees, wasps, yellowjackets, and
hornets.
158.1782 Carpenter ants.
158.1784 Wood-destroying beetles.
158.1786 Termites.
■
1. The authority citation for part 158
continues to read as follows:
Subpart R—Product Performance for
Products Claiming Effectiveness
Against Invertebrate Pests
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y; 21 U.S.C.
346a.
§ 158.1700
2. In § 158.1, revise paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
■
§ 158.1
Purpose and scope.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Scope of individual subparts. (1)
Conventional pesticides. Subparts A, B,
C, D, E, F, G, K, L, N, O, and R apply
to conventional pesticides.
(2) Biochemical pesticides. Subparts
A, B, E, R, and U apply to biochemical
pesticides.
(3) Microbial pesticides. Subparts A,
B, E, R, and V apply to microbial
pesticides.
(4) Antimicrobial pesticides. Subparts
A, B, C, D, E, R, and W of this part apply
to antimicrobial pesticides.
■ 3. Revise the heading for subpart E to
read as follows:
Subpart E—Product Performance for
Products Claiming Effectiveness
Against Vertebrate Pests, Products
With Prion-related Claims, and
Products for Control of Organisms
Producing Mycotoxins
4. Add section subpart R to read as
follows:
■
Subpart R—Product Performance for
Products Claiming Effectiveness Against
Invertebrate Pests
Sec.
158.1700 General requirements.
158.1701 Definitions.
158.1703 Application categories.
158.1704 Performance standards for data
acceptability.
158.1705 Test guidelines.
158.1707 Data requirement modifications.
158.1708 Invasive species claims.
158.1709 Invertebrate disease vector claims.
158.1710 Structural and wood-destroying
pest claims.
158.1712 Mites (excluding chiggers).
158.1714 Chiggers.
158.1718 Ticks.
158.1722 Scorpions.
158.1726 Spiders.
158.1732 Centipedes.
158.1736 Lice.
158.1740 Fleas.
158.1744 Cockroaches.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
General requirements.
(a) General. Each applicant must
ensure through testing that their product
is efficacious when used in accordance
with label directions and commonly
accepted pest control practices. The
Agency may require, as specified herein
and on a case-by-case basis, submission
of product performance data for any
pesticide product registered or proposed
for registration or amendment.
(1) Test substance. All product
performance testing is performed using
the end-use product.
(2) Test organism. All product
performance testing must report the
species tested.
(3) Testing. All products are to be
tested to support the claim(s) made on
the labeling of the pesticide product.
(4) Data requirements. To determine
the specific product performance data
required to support the registration of
each pesticide product, the applicant
must refer to the applicable sections of
this subpart.
(b) Product performance data
submission. Each product that bears a
claim subject to this subpart, must be
supported by submission of product
performance data, as listed in this
subpart. This product performance data
must be submitted with any application
for registration or amended registration.
For the pest-specific claims listed in this
subpart, data must be for the species
specified to support the claim.
§ 158.1701
Definitions.
Definitions. The following terms are
defined for purposes of this subpart.
Complete protection time (CPT)
means the time from application of a
skin-applied insect repellent until
efficacy failure, which is described in
Product Performance Test Guideline
810.3700—Insect Repellents to be
Applied to Human Skin.
Introduction means the intentional or
unintentional escape, release,
dissemination, or placement of a species
into an ecosystem as a result of human
activity.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Invasive species means with respect
to a particular ecosystem, any species
that is not native to that ecosystem, and
whose introduction does or is likely to
cause economic or environmental harm
or harm to human health.
Performance standard means a
benchmark or reference against which
the efficacy of the pesticide is compared
(including, but not limited to, the ability
of the pesticide product to control, kill,
or repel an invertebrate pest species).
Pest group labeling claim means a
claim or statement on the labeling of the
pesticide product that the product is
effective against a group of related
species or taxa demonstrating adequate
similarity in basic biology and life
history characteristics to permit
identification of representative test
species for the entire assemblage of taxa.
Pest-specific labeling claim means a
claim or statement on the labeling of the
pesticide product that the product is
effective against a particular arthropod
species, such as German cockroach or
house fly.
Pest sub-group labeling claim means a
claim or statement on the labeling of the
pesticide product that the product is
effective against a set of related species
or taxa demonstrating adequate
similarity in basic biology and life
history characteristics to permit
identification of representative test
species and part of a larger identified
taxonomic grouping (e.g., Biting flies)
that includes other pest species, which
may or may not have a proposed pest
group.
Skin-applied insect repellent means a
product intended to disrupt the hostseeking behavior of insects or other
arthropods, driving or keeping them
away from treated human skin. The
repellent product, such as liquid, lotion,
or spray, is intended to be applied
directly to human skin. Efficacy of skinapplied insect repellents is expressed as
complete protection time.
Species means a group of organisms
all of which have a high degree of
physical and genetic similarity,
generally interbreed only among
themselves, and show persistent
differences from members of allied
groups of organisms.
Wood-destroying applies to pests that
feed on or nest in wood, and therefore
are highly destructive to wood buildings
or structures, and stored lumber. The
impact on the structural integrity of
buildings can represent significant
economic or safety concerns given the
costs of remediation.
Vector means any organism capable of
transmitting the causative agent of
human and/or animal disease, including
but not limited to mosquitoes and ticks.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
§ 158.1703
Application categories.
The following terms are defined for
purposes of this subpart.
Bait treatment means a pesticide
product intended to be ingested by the
target pest that kills or controls an
invertebrate pest such as ants,
cockroaches, or termites. This is
normally through the insect feeding on
the product directly, but may also
include products which the target will
contact and later ingest during
grooming/cleaning. The attractiveness of
these products is through the use of a
palatable food base, however they may
also incorporate an attractant (e.g.
pheromone) which is intended to attract
the target pests over a greater distance.
Soil-applied termiticides means
pesticide products that are applied to
the soil beneath and/or adjacent to the
structure, pre- or post-construction, to
kill or control termites. Treatments can
be preventive (i.e., to provide structural
protection before a termite infestation is
present) or remedial (i.e., to kill and
control a termite infestation when
present).
Spatial repellents include treatments
of both indoor and outdoor sites where
the product is applied into the air rather
than onto a surface or the skin in order
to drive away insects or other
arthropods from that space. They are
intended to repel the target pest through
the dispersal of pesticide into the
atmosphere of a room or other open
space.
Structural protection means the
prevention of termite or other wooddestroying pest activity in an entire
structure as the result of an application
of a pesticide product.
§ 158.1704 Performance standards for data
acceptability.
(a) General. The claim stated on the
pesticide product labeling (such as
knockdown, control, mortality, or
repellency) determines the performance
standard that must be met. In the
absence of specific pest/labeling claims/
performance standards specified in
§§ 158.1708 through 158.1799, the
performance standards of paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section apply.
(b) Skin-applied insect repellent
labeling claims. (1) For skin-applied
insect repellent labeling claims, the
performance standard must be greater
than or equal to 2-hours complete
protection time.
(2) Any testing required under this
part which involves any human subjects
must comply with all applicable
requirements under 40 CFR part 26. For
example, 40 CFR part 26 requirements
are pertinent to the part 158 testing
requirement if the testing involves
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15387
intentional exposure of human subjects.
Protocols for such testing must be
submitted to EPA for review prior to
study initiation. Those protocols
determined by EPA to involve
intentional exposure of human subjects
also require review by EPA’s Human
Studies Review Board (HSRB)) prior to
study initiation. If you are uncertain
about the applicability of the 40 CFR
part 26 requirements to this 40 CFR part
158 testing requirement or uncertain
about the nature of your planned testing
(such as, for example, whether the
testing would involve intentional
exposure of human subjects or whether
the testing would be an observational
study), you should contact the Agency
prior to initiating the testing.
(c) Labeling claims for products other
than skin-applied insect repellents.
Unless otherwise specified in
§§ 158.1710 through 158.1786, for
pesticides other than skin-applied insect
repellents, the performance standard for
a product performance claim against a
pest must be greater than or equal to 90
percent, except for non-wearable spatial
repellents where the performance
standard is greater than or equal to 75
percent.
§ 158.1705
Test guidelines.
EPA has published the Harmonized
Test Guidelines, which set forth the
recommended approach to generate the
data required in this subpart. The
Product Performance Guidelines (Series
810, Group C—Invertebrate Control
Agent Test Guidelines) are available on
the Agency’s website. These guidelines
cover some, but not all, of the tests that
would be used to generate data under
this subpart. In instances where there is
a conflict between one of the
Harmonized Test Guidelines and the
provisions of this subpart, this subpart
will control.
§ 158.1707 Data requirement
modifications.
The data requirements (including the
performance standards associated with
the data requirements) specified in this
subpart as applicable to a category of
products will not always be appropriate
for every product in that category. Data
requirements may, on a case-by-case
basis, be adjusted by EPA in response to
requests for novel technologies or
products that have unusual physical,
chemical, or biological properties or
atypical use patterns which would make
a particular data requirement, or data
performance standard, inappropriate.
Requests for such data requirement
modifications must be submitted the
same manner as waiver requests
submitted under 40 CFR 158.45. EPA
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15388
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
will respond in writing to those
requests. The Agency may modify data
requirements it finds are inappropriate
for the pesticide in question, but will
ensure that sufficient data are available
to make the determinations required by
the applicable statutory standards.
§ 158.1708
Invasive species claims.
(a) General. In addition to those
species specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, if an application for registration
or amended registration requests a
labeling claim for effectiveness against
an invasive invertebrate species, then on
a case-by-case basis, EPA may require
submission of product performance data
and establish performance standards for
those data to support those claims for
effectiveness.
(b) Specific. Applications for
registration or amended registration
requests for a labeling claim for the
emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis,
or Asian longhorned beetle,
Anoplophora glabripennis, must be
accompanied by product performance
data to support those claims for
effectiveness.
§ 158.1709
claims.
Invertebrate disease vector
If an application for registration or
amended registration requests a labeling
claim specific to a disease vector (such
as repels mosquitoes that may carry
West Nile virus), then submission of
testing conducted with the species
specific to the disease vector claim and
subject to specific performance
standards is required even if the test
species is not specifically required in
§§ 158.1712 through 158.1786.
§ 158.1710 Structural and wood-destroying
pest claims.
If an application for registration or
amended registration requests a labeling
claim specific to a structural or wooddestroying pest not identified in
§§ 158.1782 through 158.1786, EPA may
require submission of product
performance data, with testing on that
specific pest and subject to specific
performance standards, to support those
claims for effectiveness.
§ 158.1712
Mites (excluding chiggers).
(a) General. The tables and test notes
in this section apply to dust, human itch
or scabies, and dog follicle mites. The
claim stated on the pesticide product
labeling determines the required test
species. The required test species for a
specific type of mite claim appear in
paragraph (b) of this section and the
required performance standards appear
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For pesticide
products making a claim against mites,
the required test species appear in the
following table.
TABLE 1 PARAGRAPH (b)—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST MITES
[Excluding Chiggers]
Labeling claim
Required test species
Dog Follicle Mite .............................
Dust Mite .........................................
Human Itch or Scabies Mite ...........
Dog follicle mite (Demodex canis).
Testing on one of the following species is required:
American house dust mite (Dermatophagoides
(Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus).
Human itch mite (Sarcoptes scabiei).
(c) Performance standards. (1) For the
dog follicle mite, a performance
standard of 100 percent is required.
(2) For the human itch or scabies
mite, a performance standard of 100
percent is required.
§ 158.1714
Chiggers.
If the pesticide product labeling
makes a claim against chiggers, then
testing is required using the following
test species: Chigger (Trombicula
alfreddugesi).
§ 158.1718
Ticks.
(a) General. The table and test notes
in this section apply to hard ticks
(including cattle ticks) and soft ticks.
The claim stated on the pesticide
product labeling determines the
required test species. The required test
species for a specific type of tick claim
appear in paragraph (b) of this section.
Specific parameters that apply to
individual tests appear in paragraph (c)
of this section. For a claim against any
farinae)
OR
European
house
dust
mite
specific species of ‘‘ticks’’ that
individual species and all the listed
representative species for ‘‘ticks’’ must
be tested, but not the representative
species for cattle ticks or soft ticks.
Claims against ticks in association with
tick borne diseases are also subject to
the requirements in § 158.1709.
(b) Test species. For pesticide
products making a claim against ticks,
the required test species appear in the
following table.
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST TICKS
Labeling claim
Required test species
Ticks ................................................
Testing on a total of three hard tick species is required:
Blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis) AND Lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum)
AND one of the following three species:
American dog tick (Dermacentor variabilis) OR Brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus) OR Rocky
Mountain wood tick (Dermacentor andersoni).
Testing on one of the following species is required:
Southern cattle tick (Rhipicephalus microplus) OR Cattle fever tick (Rhipicephalus annulatus).
Soft tick (Ornithodoros hermsi).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Cattle Ticks .....................................
Soft Ticks ........................................
(c) Specific parameters. The following
parameters are required.
1. For products applied to dogs,
testing is required on three species:
Blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
American dog tick (Dermacentor
variabilis), and Brown dog tick
(Rhipicephalus sanguineus).
2. For products applied to cats, testing
is required on three species: Blacklegged
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
tick (Ixodes scapularis), Lone star tick
(Amblyomma americanum), and
American dog tick (Dermacentor
variabilis).
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
§ 158.1722
Scorpions.
§ 158.1726
If the pesticide product labeling
makes a claim against scorpions, then
testing is required using the following
test species: Striped bark scorpion
(Centruroides vittatus).
Spiders.
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to spiders. The product labeling
claim determines the required test
species. The required test species for
15389
spider labeling claims appear in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against spiders, the test species
for labeling claims appear in the
following table.
TABLE 1 OF 158.1726—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST SPIDERS
Labeling claim
Required test species
Pest Group Claim
Spiders ............................................
Testing on two species is required:
Brown recluse spider (Loxosceles reclusa)
AND one of the following species is required:
Northern black widow spider (Latrodectus variolus) OR Southern black widow spider (Latrodectus
mactans) OR Western black widow spider (Latrodectus hesperus).
Pest Sub-Group Claims
Black Widow Spiders ......................
Testing on one of the following species is required:
Northern black widow spider (Latrodectus variolus) OR Southern black widow spider (Latrodectus
mactans) OR Western black widow spider (Latrodectus hesperus).
Pest-Specific Claims
Brown recluse spider ......................
Brown widow spider ........................
Northern black widow spider ..........
Southern black widow spider ..........
Western black widow spider ...........
§ 158.1732
Brown recluse spider (Loxosceles reclusa).
Brown widow spider (Latrodectus geometricus).
Northern black widow spider (Latrodectus variolus).
Southern black widow spider (Latrodectus mactans).
Western black widow spider (Latrodectus hesperus).
Centipedes.
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to centipedes. The product
labeling claim determines the required
test species. The required test species
for a labeling claim appears in
paragraph (b) of the section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against centipedes, the required
test species for a labeling claim is set
forth in the following table.
TABLE 1 OF 158.1732—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST CENTIPEDES
Labeling claim
Required test species
Centipedes ......................................
Testing on one of the following species is required:
House centipede (Scutigera coleoptrata) OR Florida blue centipede (Hemiscolopendra marginata) OR
Scolopendra sp.
§ 158.1736
Lice.
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to human lice. The product
labeling claim determines the required
test species. The required test species
for a labeling claim appears in
paragraph (b) of this section. The
required performance standards appear
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against lice, the required test
species for a labeling claim appear in
the following table.
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST LICE
Labeling claim
Required test species
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Lice ..................................................
Testing on one of the following species is required:
Head louse (Pediculus humanus capitis) OR Body louse (Pediculus humanus humanus).
(c) Performance standards. For
labeling claims against lice, a
performance standard of 100 percent is
required.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
§ 158.1740
Fleas.
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to fleas. The product labeling
claim determines the required test
species. The required test species for a
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
labeling claim appears in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against fleas, the required test
species for a labeling claim is set forth
in the following table.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15390
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF 158.1740—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST FLEAS
Labeling claim
Required test species
Pest Group Claim
Fleas ...............................................
Testing on the following species is required:
Cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis)
Pest-Specific Claims
Cat flea ............................................
Chigoe flea ......................................
Dog flea ...........................................
Hen flea ...........................................
Human flea ......................................
Oriental rat flea ...............................
§ 158.1744
Cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis).
Chigoe flea (Tunga penetrans).
Dog Flea (Ctenocephalides canis).
Hen flea (Ceratophyllus gallinae).
Human flea (Pulex irritans).
Oriental rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis).
Cockroaches.
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to cockroaches. The product
labeling claim determines the required
test species. The required test species
for a labeling claim appears in
paragraph (b) of this section. Specific
parameters that apply to individual tests
and labeling claims appear in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against cockroaches, the
required test species for a labeling claim
for cockroaches and the test species for
pest-specific label claims appear in the
following table.
TABLE 1 OF 158.1744—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST COCKROACHES
Labeling claim
Required test species
Pest Group Claims
Cockroaches ...................................
Testing on two species is required:
American cockroach (Periplaneta americana) AND German cockroach (Blattella germanica).
Pest-Specific Claims
American cockroach .......................
Australian cockroach .......................
Brown cockroach ............................
Brownbanded cockroach ................
German cockroach ..........................
Oriental cockroach ..........................
Smokybrown cockroach ..................
Turkestan cockroach .......................
§ 158.1748
flies.
American cockroach (Periplaneta americana).
Australian cockroach (Periplaneta australasiae).
Brown cockroach (Periplaneta brunnea).
Brownbanded cockroach (Supella longipalpa).
German cockroach (Blattella germanica).
Oriental cockroach (Blatta orientalis).
Smokybrown cockroach (Periplaneta fuliginosa).
Turkestan cockroach (Blatta lateralis).
Keds, screwworms, and bot
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to keds, screwworms, and bot
flies. The product labeling claim
determines the required test species.
The required test species for labeling
claims appear in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against keds, screwworms, and
bot flies, the required test species for a
labeling claim appear in the following
table.
TABLE 1 OF 158.1748—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST KEDS, SCREWWORMS, AND
BOT FLIES
Labeling claim
Required test species
Bot Flies (excluding Human bot fly)
Testing is required on one of the following species:
Horse bot fly (Gasterophilus intestinalis) OR Throat bot fly (Gasterophilus nasalis) OR Nose bot fly
(Gasterophilus haemorrhoidalis).
Human bot fly (Dermatobia hominis).
Testing is required on the following species:
Sheep ked (Melophagus ovinus).
Testing is required on one of the following species:
Screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax) OR Secondary screwworm (Cochliomyia macellaria).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Human bot fly ..................................
Keds ................................................
Screwworms ....................................
§ 158.1752
Filth flies.
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to filth flies. The product
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
labeling claim determines the required
test species. The required test species
for a labeling claim against filth flies or
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
specific species of filth flies appear in
paragraph (b) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against filth flies, the required
15391
test species for a labeling claim against
filth flies appear in the following tables.
TABLE 1 OF 158.1752—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST FILTH FLIES
Labeling claim
Required test species
Pest Group Claim
Filth Flies .........................................
Testing on two species is required:
House fly (Musca domestica).
AND one of the following species is required:
Flesh fly (Sarcophaga sp., Wohlfahrtia sp., and other genera of flesh flies) OR Blow fly (Phaenicia sp.,
Calliphora sp., and other genera of blow flies).
Pest-Specific Claims
Blow fly ............................................
Cluster fly ........................................
Face fly ...........................................
Flesh fly ...........................................
House fly .........................................
Little house fly .................................
§ 158.1756
Blow fly (Phaenicia sp., Calliphora sp., and other genera of blow flies).
Cluster fly (Pollenia rudis).
Face fly (Musca autumnalis).
Flesh fly (Sarcophaga sp., Wohlfahrtia sp., and other genera of flesh flies).
House fly (Musca domestica).
Little house fly (Fannia canicularis).
Mosquitoes.
(a) General. The tables and test notes
in this section apply to mosquitoes. The
required test species for a labeling claim
against mosquitoes appears in paragraph
(b) of this section. For a claim against
any specific species of mosquito, that
individual species and all the required
test genera must be tested. Claims
against mosquitos in association with
mosquito-borne diseases are also subject
to the requirements in § 158.1709.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against mosquitoes, the required
test species for a labeling claim is set
forth in the following table.
TABLE 1 OF 158.1756—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST MOSQUITOES
Labeling claim
Required test species
Mosquitoes ......................................
Testing in three genera (Culex, Aedes, and Anopheles) of mosquitoes is required.
One of the following Culex species:
Culex pipiens OR Culex quinquefasciatus OR Culex tarsalis
AND one of the following Aedes species:
Aedes aegypti OR Aedes albopictus
AND one of the following Anopheles species:
Anopheles albimanus OR Anopheles freeborni OR Anopheles gambiae OR Anopheles punctipennis
OR Anopheles quadrimaculatus OR Anopheles stephensi.
§ 158.1760
Biting flies.
(a) General. The tables in this section
apply to biting flies, which includes
biting midges and black flies. The
product labeling claim determines the
required test species. The required test
species for biting fly labeling claims and
the test species for pest-specific labeling
claims appear in paragraphs (b) of this
section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against biting flies, the required
test species for a labeling claim and the
test species for pest-specific label claims
appear in the following table.
TABLE 1 OF 158.1760—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST BITING FLIES
Labeling claim
Required test species
Pest Group Claim
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Biting flies (excluding Sand flies) ....
Testing is required on three species:
Stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans).
AND one of the large biting fly species:
Black horse fly (Tabanus atratus) OR Deer fly (Chrysops sp.) OR Striped horse fly (Tabanus lineola).
AND one of the small biting fly species:
Biting midge (punkie, granny nipper, no-see-um) (any Culicoides sp.) OR Black fly (any Simulium sp.
or Prosimulium sp.) OR Black gnat (any Leptoconops sp.).
Pest Sub-Group Claims
Large Biting Flies ............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Testing is required on two species:
Stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans).
AND one of the following species:
Black horse fly (Tabanus atratus) OR Deer fly (Chrysops sp.) OR Striped horse fly (Tabanus lineola).
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15392
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF 158.1760—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST BITING FLIES—Continued
Labeling claim
Required test species
Small Biting Flies (excluding Sand
flies).
Testing is required on one of the following species:
Biting midge (punkie, granny nipper, no-see-um) (Culicoides sp.) OR Black fly (Simulium sp. OR
Prosimulium sp.) OR Black gnat (Leptoconops sp.).
Pest-Specific Claims
Biting midges (punkie, granny nipper, no-see-um).
Black flies ........................................
Black gnats .....................................
Deer flies .........................................
Greenhead ......................................
Horn fly ............................................
Horse flies .......................................
Sand flies ........................................
Stable fly .........................................
§ 158.1768
Biting midge (punkie, granny nipper, no-see-um) (Culicoides sp.).
Testing on one of the following species is required:
Simulium sp. OR Prosimulium sp.
Black gnat (Leptoconops sp.).
Deer fly (Chrysops sp.).
Greenhead (Tabanus nigrovittatus).
Horn fly (Haematobia irritans).
Testing on one of the following species is required:
Black horse fly (Tabanus atratus), OR Striped horse fly (Tabanus lineola).
Testing on one of the following species is required:
Lutzomyia sp. OR Phlebotomus sp.
Stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans).
Bed bugs.
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to bed bugs. The product
labeling claim determines the required
test species. The required test species
for a labeling claim appears in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against bed bugs, the required
test species for a labeling claim appear
in the following table.
TABLE 1 OF 158.1768—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST BED BUGS
Labeling claim
Required test species
Pest Group Claim
Bed bugs .........................................
Common bed bug (Cimex lectularius).
Pest-Specific Claims
Common bed bug ...........................
Tropical bed bug .............................
§ 158.1772
bugs.
Common bed bug (Cimex lectularius).
Tropical bed bug (Cimex hemipterus).
Conenose bugs and kissing
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to Conenose bugs and Kissing
bugs. The product labeling claim
determines the required test species.
The required test species for a labeling
claim appears in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against either the conenose and/
or kissing bugs, the required test species
for a labeling claim is set forth in the
following table.
TABLE 1 OF 158.1772—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM CONENOSE AND KISSING BUGS
Labeling claim
Required test species
Conenose bug .................................
Kissing bug .....................................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 158.1776
ants).
Conenose bug (Triatoma sanguisuga).
Kissing bug (Triatoma protracta).
Ants (excluding carpenter
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to ants (excluding carpenter
ants). The product labeling claim
determines the required test species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
The required test species for labeling
claims appear in paragraph (b) of this
section.
Test species. For products making a
claim against ants (excluding carpenter
ants), the required test species for a
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
labeling claim appear in the following
table, unless otherwise specified in
paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
15393
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST ANTS
[Excluding Carpenter Ants]
Labeling claim
Required test species
Pest Group Claim
Ants (excluding carpenter ants) ......
Testing is required on the following two species:
Pharaoh ant (Monomorium pharaonis) AND Red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta).
XPest Sub-Group Claim
Fire and Harvester ..........................
Fire ants ..........................................
Testing is required on
Red imported fire
Testing is required on
Red imported fire
the
ant
the
ant
following species:
(Solenopsis invicta).
following species:
(Solenopsis invicta).
Pest-Specific Claims
European fire ant ............................
Harvester ant ..................................
Pharaoh ant ....................................
Red imported fire ant ......................
Southern fire ant .............................
Tropical fire ant ...............................
Black imported fire ant ....................
European fire ant (Myrmica rubra).
Harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex sp.).
Pharaoh ant (Monomorium pharaonis).
Red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta).
Southern fire ant (Solenopsis xyloni).
Tropical fire ant (Solenopsis geminata).
Black imported fire ant (Solenopsis richteri).
(c) Colony Claims. For colony claims,
testing must be done specific to the
species listed. For colony claims against
the red and/or black imported fire ants,
testing may be done on, S. invicta, S.
richteri, or their hybrid.
(d) Bait products or claims involving
outdoor use. The group and sub-group
claims in paragraph (b) of this section
are for direct kill and residual surface
application claims against foraging ants
only (excluding colony claims). For bait
products or claims involving outdoor
use, testing must be specific to the
species listed.
§ 158.1780 Bees, wasps, yellowjackets,
and hornets.
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to bees, wasps, yellowjackets,
and hornets. The labeling claim
determines the required test species.
The required test species for labeling
claims appear in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against bees, wasps,
yellowjackets, and hornets, the required
test species for a labeling claim appear
in the following table, unless otherwise
specified in paragraph (c) of this
section.
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST BEES, WASPS,
YELLOWJACKETS, AND HORNETS
Labeling claim
Required test species
Pest Group Claims
Bees, Wasps, Yellowjackets, and
Hornets.
Testing on three species is required:
Two Yellowjacket species (one Vespula sp. AND the Bald-faced hornet (Dolichovespula maculata))
AND one Paper wasp (Polistes sp.).
Pest-Specific Claims
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Bald-faced hornet ............................
Mud dauber wasp ...........................
Paper wasp .....................................
Yellowjackets ..................................
Bald-faced hornet (Dolichovespula maculata).
Mud dauber wasp (Sphecidae sp.).
Paper wasp (Polistes sp.).
Yellowjacket (Vespula sp.).
(c) Colony claims. For colony claims,
except Vespula spp., testing must be
specific to the species listed. Acceptable
data for any Vespula species may
support a yellowjacket colony claim for
ground nesting Vespula species;
however, species-specific claims need to
be supported by data from testing of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
specific species. Colony claims against
Vespula spp. have a performance
standard of 100%.
§ 158.1782
Carpenter ants.
(a) General. The table in this section
applies to carpenter ants. The product
labeling claim determines the required
test species. The required test species
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for labeling claims appear in paragraph
(b) of this section. The required
performance standards appear in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against carpenter ants, the
required test species for a labeling claim
appear in the following table.
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15394
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST CARPENTER ANTS
Labeling claim
Required test species
Carpenter ants ................................
Testing on one of the following carpenter ant species is required:
Black carpenter ant (Camponotus pennsylvanicus) OR Florida carpenter ant (Camponotus floridanus)
OR Western carpenter ant (Camponotus modoc).
(c) Performance standards. The
performance standards for pesticide
products making certain claims against
carpenter ants appear in the following
table. The performance standards for
labeling claims that are not specifically
provided in the following table appear
in § 158.1704.
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (c)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS AGAINST CARPENTER ANTS
Application category
Performance standard
Bait Treatment ................................
Non-Structural: Wood Preservative
Treatment.
Structural Protection .......................
§ 158.1784
95% prevention of damage to wood for ≥3 years.
100% prevention of damage to wood for ≥2 years.
95% prevention of damage to wood ≥5 years.
Wood-destroying beetles.
(a) General. The tables and test notes
in this section apply to wood-destroying
beetles. The labeling claim determines
the required test species. The required
test species for a labeling claim appears
in paragraph (b) of this section. The
required performance standards appear
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against wood-destroying beetles,
the required test species for a labeling
claim is set forth in the following table.
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST WOOD-DESTROYING
BEETLES
Labeling claim
Required test species
True powderpost beetles ................
Wood-destroying or wood-boring
beetles.
Testing on one species from the Lyctinae subfamily is required.
Testing on three species is required:
Anobiid beetle (Anobiidae sp.) AND Bostrichid beetle (Bostrichidae sp.) AND Old house borer
(Hylotrupes bajulus).
(c) Performance standards. The
performance standards for pesticide
products making certain claims against
wood-destroying beetles appear in the
following table. The performance
standards for labeling claims that are
not specifically provided in the
following table appear in § 158.1704.
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (c)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS AGAINST WOOD-DESTROYING BEETLES
Application category
Performance standard
Bait Treatment ................................
Non-Structural: Wood Preservative
Treatment.
Structural Protection .......................
§ 158.1786
95% prevention of damage to wood ≥3 years.
100% prevention of damage to wood for ≥2 years.
95% prevention of damage to wood ≥5 years.
Termites.
(a) General. The tables and test notes
in this section apply to the subterranean
termite, desert subterranean termite,
Formosan subterranean termite,
drywood termite, and dampwood
termite. The labeling claim determines
the required test species. The required
test species for labeling claims appear in
paragraph (b) of this section. The
required performance standards appear
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making
a claim against termites, the required
test species for a labeling claim appear
in the following table.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST TERMITES
Labeling claim
Required test species
Pest Group Claim
Termites ..........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Testing on species from four genera of termites is required:
Testing is required on the following Coptotermes termite:
Coptotermes formosanus
AND one of the following Reticulitermes species:
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
15395
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—REQUIRED TEST SPECIES FOR PRODUCTS MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST TERMITES—
Continued
Labeling claim
Required test species
Reticulitermes flavipes OR Reticulitermes hesperus OR Reticulitermes virginicus
AND one of the following arboreal termite species:
Nasutitermes coringer (Motschulsky)
AND one of the following drywood termite species:
Cryptotermes brevis OR Cryptotermes cavifrons OR Incisitermes minor OR Incisitermes snyderi.
Pest Sub-Group Claim
Arboreal Termites ...........................
Testing of one arboreal termite species is required:
Nasutitermes coringer (Motschulsky).
Dampwood Termites ....................... Testing of the following dampwood termite is required:
Zootermopsis sp.
Drywood Termites ........................... Testing of one of the following drywood termites is required:
Cryptotermes brevis OR Cryptotermes cavifrons OR Incisitermes minor OR Incisitermes snyderi.
Subterranean Termites, including Testing in two genera of termites is required:
Formosan Subterranean Termites. Testing on the following Coptotermes species is required:
Coptotermes formosanus
AND one of the following Reticulitermes species:
Reticulitermes flavipes OR Reticulitermes hesperus OR Reticulitermes virginicus.
(c) Performance standards. The
performance standards for pesticide
products making certain claims against
termites appear in the following table.
The performance standards for labeling
claims not provided in the following
table appear in § 158.1704.
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (c)—PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS AGAINST TERMITES
Application category
Performance standard
Bait Treatment ................................
Non-Structural: Wood Preservative
Treatment.
Structural Protection .......................
95% prevention of damage to wood ≥3 years.
100% Prevention of damage to wood for ≥2 years.
95% prevention of damage to wood ≥5 years.
5. Revise § 158.2070 to read as
follows:
■
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 158.2070 Biochemical pesticides product
performance data requirements.
(a) General. Product performance data
must be developed for all biochemical
pesticides. Each applicant must ensure
through testing that the product is
efficacious when used in accordance
with label directions and commonly
accepted pest control practices. The
Agency may require, on a case-by-case
basis, submission of product
performance data for any pesticide
product registered or proposed for
registration or amendment.
(b) Product performance data for each
product that bears a claim against an
invertebrate pest that is covered by
subpart R of this part. The product
performance data requirements of
subpart R of this part apply to
biochemical products covered by this
subpart. Product performance data must
be submitted with any application for
registration or amended registration.
The performance standards required in
subpart R of this part also apply to
biochemical pesticide products.
However, data requirements and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
performance standards that determine
the acceptability of data may be
modified on a case-by-case basis
pursuant to the waiver provisions in 40
CFR 158.45 and the provisions in 40
CFR 158.1707.
(c) Product performance data for each
product that bears a public health
claim, excluding those covered under
paragraph (b). Product performance
data must be submitted with any
application for registration or amended
registration, if the product bears a claim
to control public health pests, such as
pest microorganisms infectious to
humans in any area of the inanimate
environment, or a claim to control
vertebrates, including but not limited to,
rodents, birds, bats, canids, and skunks.
■ 6. Revise § 158.2160 to read as
follows:
§ 158.2160 Microbial pesticides product
performance data requirements.
(a) General. Product performance data
must be developed for all microbial
pesticides. Each applicant must ensure
through testing that the product is
efficacious when used in accordance
with label directions and commonly
accepted pest control practices. The
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Agency may require, on a case-by-case
basis, submission of product
performance data for any pesticide
product registered or proposed for
registration or amendment.
(b) Product performance data for each
product that bears a claim against an
invertebrate pest that is covered by
subpart R of this part. The product
performance data requirements of
subpart R of this part apply to microbial
products covered by this subpart.
Product performance data must be
submitted with any application for
registration or amended registration.
However, data requirements and the
performance standards that determine
the acceptability of data may be
modified on a case-by-case basis
pursuant to the waiver provisions in 40
CFR 158.45 and the provisions in 40
CFR 158.1707.
(c) Product performance data for each
product that bears a public health
claim, excluding those covered under
paragraph (b). Product performance
data must be submitted with any
application for registration or amended
registration, if the product bears a claim
to control public health pests, such as
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
15396
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
pest microorganisms infectious to
humans in any area of the inanimate
environment, or a claim to control
vertebrates, including but not limited to,
rodents, birds, bats, canids, and skunks.
■ 7. In § 158.2200, revise paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
§ 158.2200
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) A product that bears both
antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial
uses or claims is subject to the data
requirements for pesticides in subparts
C through O, R, and U or V of this part
with respect to its non-antimicrobial
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
uses and claims, and to the
requirements of this subpart with
respect to its antimicrobial uses and
claims.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–05137 Filed 3–19–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\22MRP3.SGM
22MRP3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 53 (Monday, March 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15362-15396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05137]
[[Page 15361]]
Vol. 86
Monday,
No. 53
March 22, 2021
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 158
Pesticide Product Performance Data Requirements for Products Claiming
Efficacy Against Certain Invertebrate Pests; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15362]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 158
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0124; FRL-10011-06]
RIN 2070-AJ49
Pesticide Product Performance Data Requirements for Products
Claiming Efficacy Against Certain Invertebrate Pests
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
codify product performance data requirements to support registration of
pesticidal products claiming efficacy against three categories of
invertebrate pests: Those identified to be of significant public health
importance (e.g., ticks, mosquitoes, cockroaches, etc.), wood-
destroying insects (e.g., termites), and certain invasive invertebrate
species (e.g., Asian longhorned beetle). The latter two categories are
pests considered to be of significant economic or ecological
importance. Product performance data (efficacy studies) document how
well the pesticide performs the intended function, such as killing or
repelling, against an invertebrate pest.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0124, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Kemme, Mission Support Division
(7101M), Office of Program Support, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 347-8533; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Does this action apply to me?
You potentially may be affected by this action if you are a
producer or registrant of pesticide products making claims against the
specified categories of invertebrate pests. The North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes are provided to assist
you and others in determining if this action might apply to certain
entities. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be
affected. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not
limited to,
Chemical Producers (NAICS 32532), e.g., pesticide
manufacturers or formulators of pesticide products, pesticide importers
or any person or company who seeks to register a pesticide.
Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and
Life Sciences (NAICS code 541712), e.g., research and development
laboratories or services that perform efficacy testing for invertebrate
pests.
Colleges, universities, and professional schools (NAICS
code 611310), e.g., establishments of higher learning which are engaged
in development and marketing of products for invertebrate pest control.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is proposing to codify product performance data requirements
for pesticide products claiming efficacy against three categories of
invertebrate pests: Those identified to be of significant public health
importance (e.g., ticks, mosquitoes, cockroaches, etc.), wood-
destroying insects (e.g., termites), and certain invasive invertebrate
species (e.g., Asian longhorned beetle). The latter two categories are
considered to be of significant economic and/or ecological importance.
Product performance data (efficacy studies) document how well the
product performs the intended function, such as killing or repelling,
against an invertebrate pest. The product performance data requirements
being proposed would inform the data needed to substantiate pesticidal
claim(s) made on the label of the pesticide products. The proposed
numerical performance standards specify the level of efficacy that
would need to be achieved for EPA to deem the submitted data as
acceptable for a product bearing the specified claim(s) against the
invertebrate pest. For the most part, the data requirements that EPA is
proposing for codification are consistent with EPA's current practices
in data supporting applications for registration of a pesticide product
that bears a pesticidal claim against one or more of these pests.
This proposed rule presents the data requirements in tabular
format. These tables link the efficacy claim on the label of a
pesticide product with the data needed to substantiate that claim. EPA
is proposing that the studies submitted by an applicant demonstrate the
product's efficacy in studies using specified test species and with
results demonstrating that the product achieved a specified level of
performance, called a performance standard. Numerical performance
standards, such as the percent mortality, percent repellency, percent
knockdown, or complete protection time would need to be achieved to
deem the data acceptable for the purpose of supporting a product making
a claim against an invertebrate pest. The Agency believes that
codifying essential elements relating to test species and performance
standards will provide the regulated community a better understanding
of the data EPA believes to be necessary to support registration of a
product that claims efficacy against invertebrate pests.
EPA is proposing to:
Codify a new subpart R in 40 CFR part 158 entitled,
``Product Performance for Products Claiming Effectiveness Against
Invertebrate Pests;''
Rename 40 CFR part 158, subpart E to ``Product Performance
for Products Claiming Effectiveness Against Vertebrate Pests, Products
with Prion-related Claims, and Products for Control of Organisms
Producing Mycotoxins'' in order to add specificity to the title and
reduce the potential for confusion with the proposed subpart R; and
Revise the data requirements for biochemicals in 40 CFR
158.2070 and microbials in 40 CFR 158.2160 to clarify the requirements
for claims that would be subject to both subpart R and either subpart U
or V.
Additionally, EPA proposes to update 40 CFR 158.1(c) to insert
references to the subparts to categorize them under the ``scope of the
subparts'' section. EPA is also proposing to update subpart W at 40 CFR
158.2200(b) to insert a cross reference to the proposed subpart R to
clarify the status of a product that bears
[[Page 15363]]
both an antimicrobial claim and a non-antimicrobial claim against one
of the pests specified in proposed subpart R.
C. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?
This action is issued under the authority of sections 3, 5, 10, 12,
and 25 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136-136y), as amended. Under FIFRA section
3(c)(2)(A), EPA is required to specify ``the kinds of information which
will be required to support the registration of a pesticide and shall
revise such guidelines from time to time.'' EPA's codification of these
data requirements is in 40 CFR part 158.
Additionally, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act
of 2018 (PRIA 4) (7 U.S.C. 136 note, 133 Stat. 484) was enacted into
law on March 8, 2019. PRIA was developed by a coalition of pesticide
stakeholders representing seven different trade groups within the
pesticide industry and public interest groups reflecting the
environmental and farmworker safety communities. The result of this
collaboration is that there are elements of PRIA 4 important to all the
represented stakeholder entities in the coalition. PRIA 4 specifically
establishes a new maintenance fee set-aside of up to $500,000/year to
develop and finalize rulemaking and guidance for product performance
data requirements for certain invertebrate pests of significant public
health or economic importance. Specific to this rule, PRIA 4 requires
EPA to finalize product performance data requirements by September 30,
2021. Specifically, the Act states that, ``The Administrator shall, not
later than September 30, 2021, issue regulations prescribing product
performance data requirements for any pesticide intended for
preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any invertebrate pest
of significant public health or economic importance specified in
clauses (i) through (iv) of paragraph (B) [bed bugs; premise (including
crawling insects, flying insects, and baits), pests of pets (including
pet pests controlled by spot-ons, collars, shampoos, powders, or dips),
and fire ants].''
This proposed rule includes product performance data requirements
for the categories of invertebrate pests specified in PRIA 4 and, thus,
is intended to satisfy the aforementioned rulemaking requirement. EPA
notes that this proposed rule covers some invertebrate pests in
addition to those specified in PRIA 4 due to their public health,
economic, or ecological significance.
D. Why is EPA taking this action?
The following objectives were considered by EPA in developing this
proposed rule:
1. Obtaining reliable data to make the statutory finding. The data
submitted to EPA for review and evaluation as a result of this rule,
once final, are expected to improve the Agency's understanding of the
effectiveness of pesticides that make claims against pests of public
health or significant economic importance.
2. Provide clear and transparent data requirements. Once final, the
regulatory text proposed in this rule is intended to identify the
specific data requirements that apply to pesticides making claims
against certain categories of invertebrate pests. As with the original
design of part 158 in 1984, and continued in 2007, given the variations
in pesticide chemistry, exposure, and hazard, this proposal for product
performance data requirements is intended to be clear and transparent
while retaining sufficient flexibility to account for special
circumstances.
E. What are the estimated incremental impacts?
In conjunction with this proposed rulemaking, EPA prepared an
economic analysis entitled, ``Cost Analysis of the Proposed Product
Performance Rule'' (Ref. 1) which presents an analysis of the effects
of codifying data requirements for product performance, as well as the
effects of changes to label claim data requirements published
simultaneously.
As noted previously, FIFRA mandates the Agency to register
pesticides, including those used against invertebrate pests of public
health importance, invertebrate wood destroying pests, and invasive
invertebrate pests, under conditions of use such that the pesticide is
of a composition to warrant the proposed claims. To make this finding,
the Agency requires that registrants submit data demonstrating product
efficacy against invertebrate pests of public health importance,
invertebrate wood destroying pests, and invasive invertebrate pests.
The product performance data requirements historically sought by the
EPA and those being proposed in the rule are for claims against pests
that either pose a threat to human health (e.g., mosquitoes and
cockroaches) or have significant economic impacts, against which the
efficacy of a pesticide cannot be readily determined by the user (e.g.,
termites and emerald ash borers). In those situations, market forces
may operate too slowly to remove ineffective products. The proposal,
once final, would codify data requirements for support of label claims
that have, to date, been necessary, as determined on a case-by-case
basis, to conduct assessments of product performance. This will provide
needed clarity to firms seeking to develop and market products to
control invertebrate pests of public health importance, invertebrate
wood destroying pests, and invertebrate invasive pests.
This rule, when finalized, will clarify data requirements and
therefore improve efficiency and effective use of resources by both the
Agency and industry. Moreover, this rule-making measure will serve the
public by ensuring that appropriate efficacy data are available to
substantiate public health pest claims. While experience over time has
led to a fairly standardized set of data requirements for invertebrate
pests of significant public health importance, wood-destroying insects,
and invasive pests, codifying these data needs will ensure that new
entrants to the field are clear about the information necessary to
support registration. As a result, this rule, when finalized, would
help alleviate uncertainties in the regulatory process and enhance
transparency for stakeholders. The Agency is specifying data
requirements for invertebrate pests of significant public health
importance, wood-destroying insects, and invasive invertebrate pests to
better indicate when certain data are needed or not. Consistent with 40
CFR 158.45 and proposed 40 CFR 158.1707, on a case-by-case basis the
Agency may consider alternative data that are more appropriate than the
proposed requirements considering the intended purpose and pesticidal
claims of a pesticidal product.
EPA estimates that the proposed rule would result in cost savings
of one million dollars annually across all registrants seeking label
claims against invertebrate pests of significant public health
importance, wood-destroying insects, and invasive invertebrate pests,
equivalent to about $17,000 in savings per data package submitted to
the Agency (Table 1). The average savings per registrant is $5,500
annually, considering that registrants do not submit products for
review every year. This impact is expected to remain consistent over
the next ten years, with total cost savings to industry of $1 million
annually using either a 3% or a 7% discount rate. Over ten years, this
amounts to about $8.5 million in savings at a 3% discount rate or about
$7 million in savings at a 7% discount
[[Page 15364]]
rate. The most expansive estimate of registrant cost savings of the
proposed rule, including all likely impacts of the publication of the
rule and the impact of changes in data requirements published
concurrently with the rule, is $1.7 million annually. The estimated
worst case is a cost increase to registrants of $600,000 annually.
EPA's registration program and efficacy review has substantial
benefits for consumers. It ensures product efficacy and label
consistency across products, increases consumer confidence in product
efficacy, and reduces consumer search costs for effective products.
This may help reduce the incidence of vector-borne diseases and damage
from wood-destroying and invasive pests. Clarity in data requirements
would enhance the efficiency of the registration process and aid new
products to market, providing consumers with more product choices.
Table 1--Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings per data package Average impact per submitted
submitted. data package of $17,000.
Cost savings per registrant Average annual impact per
submitting data packages. registrant of $5,500.
Annualized Cost Savings...... $1 million at both 3% and 7%
discount rates.
This projection assumes 60 data
packages submitted annually to the
Agency.
Qualitative Effects.......... For registrants: Quicker label
changes, lower discovery costs, lower
barriers to innovation.
For consumers: Ensuring product
efficacy and label consistency;
increased consumer confidence in product
efficacy; reduced search costs for
effective products; and reduction in
damage from covered pests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Costs of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No increased risk to human health or the environment is expected from
publication of the proposed rule. No increased costs to registrants or
consumers are expected from publication of the proposed rule. Expected
direction of costs for the Agency from the proposed rule are unknown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Impacts....... No significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
Affected NAICS codes contain up
to 5,438 small entities. No increased
costs to small entities expected, and
cost savings may be relatively larger
for small firms who do not have
experience with the registration process
for invertebrate pests of public health
importance, invertebrate wood destroying
pests, and invertebrate invasive pests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
II. Statutory Framework
As a general matter, no person may distribute or sell an
unregistered pesticide in the U.S. (FIFRA section 3(a)). The process
for obtaining a registration for a pesticide so that it may be
distributed or sold begins with submission to EPA of an application
with the necessary data to review the application request. Taking into
account the information submitted, EPA must grant the requested
registration, if it concludes, when considered with any restrictions
imposed, that:
Composition of the proposed pesticide is such as to
warrant the proposed claims for it;
Labeling for the proposed pesticide and other material
required to be submitted comply with the requirements of FIFRA;
The proposed pesticide will perform its intended function
without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and
When used in accordance with widespread and commonly
recognized practice, the proposed pesticide will not generally cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.
FIFRA section 3(c)(5) further provides that EPA ``may waive data
requirements pertaining to efficacy, in which event the Administrator
may register the pesticide without determining that the pesticide's
composition is such as to warrant proposed claims of efficacy.'' The
proposed regulations identify the data requirements EPA believes are
necessary to determine whether the proposed claims of efficacy are
warranted, the opportunity for waiver is covered by 40 CFR 158.45 and
proposed 40 CFR 158.1707.
EPA notes that ``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment''
means ``any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into
account the economic, social, and environmental costs, and benefits of
the use of any pesticide . . .'' as described in FIFRA section 2(bb).
That definition was amended in 1998 as part of the Food Quality
Protection Act, requiring EPA to consider ``the risks and benefits of
public health pesticide separate from the risks and benefits of other
pesticides. In weighing any regulatory action concerning a public
health pesticide under this Act, the administrator shall weigh any
risks of the pesticide against the health risks such as the disease
transmitted by the vector to be controlled by the pesticide.'' While
this rule proposes to codify product performance data requirements for
invertebrate pests of
[[Page 15365]]
significant public health importance, (Ref. 2) this rule does not
address classification of pesticides as ``public health pesticides'' as
that term is defined in FIFRA section 3(nn). The data requirements
proposed in this rule will be used to make appropriate determinations
under the FIFRA ``unreasonable adverse effects'' standard.
To determine whether the proposed use of the pesticide will not
cause unreasonable adverse effects, EPA generally considers the maximum
proposed use of a new pesticide to estimate the maximum exposure
potential, evaluates the hazard data on the pesticide, and compares the
rates at which effects are found based on well conducted studies with
the maximum exposure estimate. However, for pesticides intended for use
against pests of public health or economic importance, EPA has for some
time considered whether the pesticide may cause human health,
environmental or economic harm if its use as proposed will not work as
intended or claimed. Data on the pesticide's performance under the
conditions of use proposed are essential to make this determination.
A. Registration
Section 3 of FIFRA contains the requirements for granting and
maintaining registration. FIFRA section 3(c)(2) provides EPA broad
authority, before and after registration, to require scientific testing
and submission of the resulting data to the Agency. Under this
authority, EPA requires such testing and submission of data through
rulemaking, see, 40 CFR part 158 or, for existing registrations,
through issuance of a ``data call-in.'' (See, FIFRA section
3(c)(2)(B)). EPA may also request further data if the data submitted
fail to adequately address an issue necessary for making the requisite
statutory findings. (See, 40 CFR 158.75). Consistent with the
requirements EPA has imposed and the data that have been identified as
needed to review applications for registration of pesticides of
significant health or economic importance, an applicant for
registration must furnish EPA with data on the pesticide, its
composition, toxicity, potential human exposure, environmental
properties and ecological effects, as well as its product performance
(efficacy).
B. Registration Review
FIFRA section 3(g) mandates that the registrations of all
pesticides are to be periodically reviewed. Periodic review is needed
as changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices occur
over time. The registration review program was implemented via a
regulation promulgated on August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45719) (FRL-8080-4).
Therefore, starting in 2006, registration review began to replace EPA's
reregistration program as the mechanism for systematic review of
existing pesticides. The registration review process begins by
reviewing the available information in the possession of the Agency and
then determining if and what data are needed to assess the current
risks of a particular pesticide. Thus, as with registration, the data
needed and the scope and depth of the Agency's review for registration
review continue to be tailored to the specific circumstances and use of
the registered pesticide. Section 3(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to
require generation and submission of additional data necessary for
registration review pursuant to its authority under FIFRA section
3(c)(2)(B).
III. Regulatory Framework
The existing regulatory data requirements for product performance
for pesticides are contained in 40 CFR part 158, subpart E, and for the
most part the table in 40 CFR 158.400(d) is specific to vertebrates
(e.g., birds, rodents, etc.); 40 CFR part 158 subpart W also contains
pesticide data requirements for antimicrobials. However, subpart E does
not specifically require submission of product performance data for
those pesticide products claiming effectiveness against invertebrate
pests (e.g., insects, spiders, etc.). Instead, the test note in 40 CFR
158.400(e)(1) contemplates requiring the submission of product
performance data on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the general
authority in 40 CFR 158.75 to require additional data as part of the
registration process, if the information that is required and submitted
for registration is not sufficient to make the requisite statutory
findings. EPA has relied on these authorities for some years to obtain
needed product performance data for conventional pesticides intended
for use against certain invertebrate pests of public health or economic
significance.
Although the updating of 40 CFR part 158 regulations began years
ago, EPA made no changes to the product performance data requirements
at 40 CFR part 158, subpart E, as they relate to the invertebrate pests
covered in this action. (72 FR 60934, October 26, 2007) (FRL-8106-5).
However, EPA did make some changes to the data requirements for
biochemical and microbial pesticides by codifying product performance
data requirements for biochemical and microbial pesticides in 40 CFR
158.2070 and 158.2160, subparts U and V, respectively (72 FR 60934,
October 26, 2007) (FRL-8106-5). That final rule adopted the requirement
for applicants to submit product performance data to support
registration of biochemical and microbial products claiming
effectiveness against invertebrate species.
This rulemaking proposes to create a new subpart R for invertebrate
product performance requirements to capture the updates to the product
performance data requirements for pesticides, and to make conforming
edits to subparts E, U, V, and W.
IV. Background
Since the early years of the registration program, EPA has waived
the need for product performance data for many pesticides, consistent
with the congressional authority in FIFRA section 3(c)(5), to waive
such data and to not make the finding that a proposed pesticide's
``composition is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it.'' (44
FR 27932, May 11, 1979) (FRL-2767-8). However, EPA did not codify its
early intent not to waive product performance data for pesticides
intended for use against certain invertebrate pests. Specifically, in
May of 1979, EPA initially announced the need for product performance
data for ``[i]nvertebrate control products intended for use in or on
humans (or in or on pets for control of pests which attack humans) to
control pests such as fleas, mites, lice, ticks, biting flies, and
mosquitoes'' and for``[i]nvertebrate control products intended for use
either in premises or in the environment to control pests of sanitary
or public health significance such as mosquitoes, biting flies, ticks,
fleas, houseflies, cockroaches, fire ants, hornets, wasps, poisonous
spiders, scorpions, centipedes, and bedbugs.'' (44 FR 27932, May 11,
1979) (FRL-2767-8). In contrast, in other subsequent rulemaking
actions, EPA announced its intent to require product performance data
only for products ``where lack of control would clearly result in
adverse health effects'' (47 FR 40659, September 15, 1982) (FRL-2138-1)
or where ``control cannot reasonably be observed by the user . . .''
(47 FR 40659, 40661) because other pests were more of an aesthetic and
nuisance problem rather than one of public health.
Ultimately, EPA's final part 158 rule announced that EPA had
``decided to rescind the proposed efficacy data waiver with respect to
vertebrate control agents intended for control of pests that
[[Page 15366]]
directly or indirectly transmit disease to humans'' and included a test
note indicating that EPA waived product performance data ``unless the
pesticide product bears a claim to control pest microorganisms that
pose a threat to human health and whose presence cannot readily be
observed by the user including, but not limited to, microorganisms
infectious to man in any area of the inanimate environment, or a claim
to control vertebrates (such as rodents, birds, bats, canids, and
skunks) that may directly or indirectly transmit diseases to humans.
However, each registrant must ensure through testing that his/her
product is efficacious when used in accordance with label directions
and commonly accepted pest control practices. The Agency reserves the
right to require, on a case-by-case basis, submission of product
performance data for any pesticide product registered or proposed for
registration.'' (49 FR 42856, 42875, October 24, 1984) (FRL-2591-5); 40
CFR 158.400(e)(1). That provision remains largely unchanged today,
although in the subsequent updates to the data requirements for
microbial and biochemical pesticides, EPA made clear that the
submission of efficacy data would be required if ``the pesticide
product bears a claim to control . . . invertebrates (including but not
limited to: mosquitoes and ticks) that may directly or indirectly
transmit diseases to humans.'' (40 CFR 158.2160). Thus, existing EPA
regulations for conventional pesticides continue to presume the waiver
of product performance data for invertebrate pests unless EPA exercises
its discretion to require on a case-by-case basis submission of the
data to support claims against pests, including pests of significant
public health importance.
In 2002, EPA issued Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) 2002-1 in
compliance with the requirement in FIFRA section 28(d) to coordinate
with United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in identifying pests of
significant public health importance. The list of pests identified in
that PRN was ``derived in large part from review of the pesticide/pest
combinations for which efficacy (product performance) data are
generally required to be submitted and reviewed prior to
registration.'' (Ref. 2). EPA is the process of updating this document
and has recently made an updated draft available for public comment
(Ref. 2).
A. Why does product performance matter?
The primary goal of this proposal is to assure that pesticide
products claiming effectiveness against an invertebrate pest of
significant public health or economic importance perform effectively.
This action addresses both health concerns and economic consequences
stemming from pesticide products that might not perform as claimed on
the label. EPA acknowledges that use of the term arthropod would
include all the pests identified in this document. However, product
performance data for additional invertebrate species, such as (but not
limited to) gastropods (snails and slugs) that serve as intermediate
parasite hosts or invasive mussels of ecological concern could be
needed in the future. To account for the potential for future data
needs, EPA will use the terms invertebrates or invertebrate pests in
reference to pests in all three categories (pests of significant public
health importance, invasive species, and wood-destroying insects).
Consistent with the regulatory text in 40 CFR 158.400(e)(1) and as
noted in PRN 2002-1 and PRN 96-7: Termiticide Labeling, (Ref. 3). EPA
has regularly exercised its discretion to require submission of product
performance data for pesticides intended for use against invertebrate
pests of significant public health importance and of product
performance data on pesticides intended for use against invertebrate
pests of significant economic importance. Since 1984, particularly for
insect repellents, the awareness of the incidence and severity of
mosquito- and tick-borne diseases in the U.S. has changed. Mosquitoes
and ticks are not merely nuisance pests: The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) has determined that a single bite can
transmit sufficient infectious material, i.e., a sufficient amount of
pathogen, to cause serious, and sometimes fatal, disease. (Ref. 4).
This is true for both mosquito-borne diseases such as West Nile Virus,
St. Louis Encephalitis, and the Zika virus, and tick-borne diseases
such as Lyme Disease. (Refs. 5 and 6).
If a person can become ill because of a single insect bite, a
person using an ineffective insect repellent may not have the
opportunity to realize that the insect repellent did not work as
expected and then correct the situation by purchasing another product.
Given the nature of these and other mosquito- and tick-borne diseases,
an ineffective insect repellent can have serious and sometimes fatal
consequences to a person's health.
Consequences can also include both health and economic impacts. For
example, the common bed bug (Cimex lectularius) has long been a pest,
feeding on blood, causing itchy bites and generally irritating their
human hosts. EPA, CDC, and the USDA all consider bed bugs a pest of
significant public health importance. Bed bugs can cause a variety of
negative physical health, mental health, and economic consequences.
Effects can include:
Allergic reactions to the bed bug bites, which can range
from no reaction to a small bite mark to, in rare cases, anaphylaxis
(severe, whole-body reaction).
Secondary infections of the skin, such as impetigo,
ecthyma, and lymphangitis.
Mental health impacts on people living in infested homes.
Reported effects include anxiety, insomnia and systemic reactions.
(Refs. 7 and 8).
Bed bug infestations are also an economic burden on society. The
economic losses from health care, lost wages, lost revenue and reduced
productivity can be substantial. The cost of effectively eliminating
bed bugs may be significantly more than the cost of eliminating other
pests because bed bug control usually requires multiple visits by a
licensed pest control operator and diligence on the part of those who
are experiencing the infestation. Control in multi-family homes is much
more difficult than in single family homes because bed bugs frequently
travel between units, either by direct transport by humans or through
voids in the walls. Thus, there are additional costs and complexities
associated with coordinating and encouraging participation from
multiple residents. Also, if the pesticide product claiming to treat
bed bugs is not effective and families are forced into repeated (and
expensive) cycles of re-treatment, then serious health and economic
impacts can occur.
While wood-destroying insects/structural pests are not pests of
significant public health importance, they are similar in that the
consequences of ineffective treatments can be severe. Unfortunately,
the effectiveness of a treatment to protect a wooden structure is not
readily apparent to the applicator at the time of application or during
the occupancy of the building or home. It is only after the damage
becomes apparent that the extent of needed repairs is determined. There
is a potential for significant financial loss to the property owner.
Thus, demonstrating the efficacy of pesticides intended to control
structural pests has a unique importance. Data on
[[Page 15367]]
the level of economic damage caused by structural pests on an annual
basis are difficult to obtain but several authors have attempted to
quantify it. The economic costs of termite property damage,
preventative treatments, and structural repairs can be quite severe,
with estimated cost at approximately $5 billion annually. (Refs. 9 and
10). While these estimates are indicative of the cost nationwide, the
costs borne by an individual property owner can be significant in their
own right, up to and including, loss of the structure.
B. Labels
1. Label requirements. Pesticide product labeling provides
information to users on, among other things, the product's intended
uses, and how to handle and apply the produEPA's labeling regulations
are contained in 40 CFR part 156. EPA reviews pesticide labels to
determine whether the labeling is consistent with EPA's regulations,
and is accurate, clear and enforceable. The accuracy of the information
on the labeling is of particular importance for products making a claim
to kill or repel pests of significant public health importance and
wood-destroying pests. Such pests, if uncontrolled, can transmit
disease pathogens, thus posing a widely recognized and significant risk
to human health, and can result in significant economic impacts.
Consumers purchase products that claim effectiveness against a pest
of significant public health importance precisely to avoid the harm
these pests can cause. Consumers have a reasonable expectation that the
claims on the pesticide label have a scientific basis, i.e., are based
on valid evidence, and are neither false nor misleading. Such claims
should be expressed using wording or graphics that are easily
understood and require little or no interpretation by the consumer. To
ensure that labeling provides consumers with accurate information
concerning how long and how well the product works, EPA reviews and
evaluates product performance (efficacy) data. Once the data have been
reviewed and evaluated, then the Agency works to ensure that the
labeling use directions and labeling claims are clear and consistent
with the results of the supporting product performance data.
EPA believes that having reliable information concerning the
effectiveness of pesticide products that claim effectiveness against
invertebrate pests results in sound regulatory decisions and accurate
information on the labeling. Accurate labeling claims provide consumers
with information they need concerning the effectiveness of the
pesticide.
2. Label Review Manual. Consistently, the Agency has in the Label
Review Manual explained the historical need for product performance
data for products intended for invertebrate control. The Label Review
Manual has for some time summarized the Agency's current practice of
requiring product performance data to support claims for pesticides
intended for use in or on humans (or in or on pets for control of pests
which attack humans such as fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, and biting flies)
and in premises or in the environment to control pests of sanitary or
significant public health importance such as termites, wasps,
scorpions, poisonous spiders, fire ants, cockroaches, centipedes, and
bedbugs. (Ref. 11).
C. EPA's Harmonized Test Guidelines for Invertebrate Product
Performance
1. Existing Guidelines. EPA has established a unified library for
test guidelines issued by the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention (OCSPP) for use in testing chemical substances to develop
data for submission to EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) and FIFRA. This library of test guidelines represents an Agency
effort that began in 1991 to harmonize the test guidelines within
OCSPP, as well as to harmonize the OCSPP test guidelines with those of
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which
includes representation of countries, including the U.S., throughout
the world. The process for developing and amending the test guidelines
includes several opportunities for public participation and extensive
involvement of the scientific community, including peer review by the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), the Science Advisory Board
(SAB), and other expert scientific organizations. New or revised
guidelines are typically presented to SAP for peer review. The purpose
for harmonizing these guidelines into a single set of OCSPP guidelines
is to standardize testing procedures that should be performed to meet
the Agency's data requirements under FIFRA and TSCA. EPA's Invertebrate
Control Agents, Product Performance Guidelines are listed in Table 2.
The guidelines themselves do not impose requirements. Instead, they
provide recognized methods for conducting acceptable tests, guidance on
reporting data, and definitions of terms. Since these are guidance,
pesticide registrants are not required to use these guidelines to
fulfill data requirements. Applicants may instead seek to fulfill the
data requirements by other appropriate means or by using a non-
guideline protocol. The applicant may submit a protocol of his own
devising for the Agency to review. EPA notes that there is a PRIA fee
category for submitting a protocol for EPA to review.
The guidelines identify thresholds for determining whether a
product is effective. Since these thresholds are in guidance (not
codified requirements), they are considered recommendations and not
mandatory. EPA also acknowledges that the older (1998) guidelines, in
particular, generally lack adequate, up-to-date guidance on efficacy
data development, test protocols, and representative test species.
EPA notes that the Product Performance Guideline 810.1000 entitled,
``Overview, Definitions, and General Considerations,'' discusses that
product performance data are needed for any product that ``bears a
claim to control pests that may pose a threat to human health.'' This
is specifically stated to include:
Public health uses of invertebrate control agents including, but
not limited to, agents intended to control the following: Mosquitoes,
biting flies, ticks, fleas, houseflies, cockroaches, fire ants,
hornets, wasps, poisonous spiders, scorpions, biting midges,
centipedes, bedbugs, human lice, and dust mites. (Ref. 12).
Table 2--EPA's Series 810, Group C--Invertebrate Control Agents, Product
Performance Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guideline Title
OCSPP guideline No. (Date)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
810.3000.......................................... General
Considerations for
Efficacy of
Invertebrate
Control Agents
(1998).
810.3100.......................................... Soil Treatments for
Imported Fire Ants
(1998).
810.3200.......................................... Livestock, Poultry,
Fur- and Wool-
Bearing Animal
Treatment (1998).
810.3300.......................................... Treatments to
Control Pests of
Humans and Pets
(March 1998).
810.3400.......................................... Mosquito, Black Fly,
and Biting Midge
(Sand Fly)
Treatments (1998).
810.3500.......................................... Premise Treatments
(2019).
[[Page 15368]]
810.3600.......................................... Structural
Treatments (1998).
810.3700.......................................... Insect Repellents to
Be Applied to Human
Skin (2010).
810.3800.......................................... Methods for Efficacy
Testing of Termite
Baits (2004).
810.3900.......................................... Laboratory Product
Performance Testing
Methods for Bed Bug
Pesticide Products
(2017).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Guideline Modifications Needed for the Future
Those guidelines from 2004 and before require revision to remove
any stated performance standards. Until the revisions can be made, this
rule would supersede any species requirements or performance standards
stated, or implied, in the guidelines applicable to invertebrate pests.
EPA intends that any inconsistency that may exist between the
guidelines and this rule should be resolved in favor of the
regulations, once those regulations are finalized.
V. Selection of Pest Categories for Subpart R
EPA has selected three pest categories for this proposed rule:
Pests of significant public health importance, wood-destroying insects,
and invasive species. The rationale for selection of these three
categories follows.
A. Pests of Significant Public Health Importance.
1. Background. As previously noted, in 2002, EPA issued Pesticide
Registration Notice (PRN) 2002-1 (Ref. 2), which presented the ``List
of Pests of Significant Public Health Importance.'' This document is
currently under revision within the Agency. The 2002 list was derived
in large part from review of the pesticide/pest combinations for which
product performance data have been required on a case-by-case basis to
be submitted and reviewed prior to registration. This list was
developed cooperatively by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, USDA, and EPA, with input from some non-governmental
entities. EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs coordinated the review by
experts in public health and/or pesticide use patterns to compile this
list.
As indicated in PRN 2002-1 (page 1), the criteria for inclusion on
the list were defined ``broadly, to include pests that pose a widely
recognized risk to significant numbers of people.''
The listing of invertebrate pests (pages 6-9) is specified by the
taxonomic name, as not all members of a particular taxon may be
considered a pest of significant public health importance. EPA takes
this approach when only certain members of a taxonomic group may be of
public health significance because labels usually do not identify
specific individual species. However, even if the label did identify a
specific species, most product users are not able to distinguish among
the members of a taxonomic group (i.e., identifying one tick species
from another).
The invertebrate species of significant public health importance
identified in this proposed rule as requiring submission of product
performance data are derived from the invertebrate pest list identified
in PR Notice 2002-1. Differences that exist between the species
identified in the PR Notice and this proposed rulemaking represent the
evolution of our understanding of the testing required to support
claims against pests of public health concern. These invertebrate pests
pose a threat of injury, disease transmission and/or pathogen transfer,
and allergen production. Table 3 provides the rationale for inclusion
in this rule of an invertebrate pest as a pest of significant public
health importance.
Table 3--Pests of Significant Public Health Importance From PRN 2002-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invertebrate pest (common species name) Rationale for inclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mites............................................................ Produces allergens, Triggers asthma, Scabies,
Itching and skin irritation with risk of
secondary infection.
Chiggers......................................................... Itching and skin irritation with risk of
secondary infection.
Ticks............................................................ Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme Disease,
Ehrlichiosis.
Scorpions........................................................ Venomous sting.
Spiders.......................................................... Venomous bite.
Centipedes....................................................... Venomous bite.
Lice............................................................. Skin irritation and rashes, Epidemic typhus,
Trench fever.
Fleas............................................................ Annoying bites, allergic reactions, and rash,
Plague.
Cockroaches...................................................... Allergies, Transmission of Salmonella, Fecal
contamination, Hepatitis.
Bot Flies........................................................ Infest host and live under the skin with risk
of secondary infection.
Filth Flies...................................................... Carry pathogens, Food-borne illness.
Mosquitoes....................................................... West Nile Virus, Dengue Fever, Malaria,
Encephalitis, Yellow Fever, Chikungunya
Fever, Zika.
Biting Flies..................................................... Painful or annoying bites with allergic
reactions.
Sand Flies....................................................... Leishmaniasis.
Triatomine Bugs.................................................. Allergic reactions, Chagas disease.
Bed Bugs......................................................... Bites and allergic reactions
Ants............................................................. Stings to painful stings;, May be accompanied
by severe or life-threatening reactions.
Bees............................................................. Painful stings that may cause life-
threatening reactions
Wasps, Hornets, and Yellowjackets................................ Painful stings that may cause life-
threatening reactions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Disease Pressures. EPA's proposal to establish product
performance data requirements for pesticide products claiming to
control invertebrate pests reflects the most up-to-date science and is
responsive to the improved
[[Page 15369]]
understanding of the diseases being transmitted by invertebrates and
the prevalence of these diseases. Since 1984, additional vector borne
diseases have emerged. Mosquitoes and ticks can no longer be considered
as merely annoying insects.
West Nile Virus was first identified in the U.S. in New York in
1999. Since then, West Nile Virus spread throughout the country and
cases have been reported in the 48 contiguous states. West Nile Virus
is carried by common mosquitoes (primarily species of Culex, though
Aedes and Anopheles can also carry the virus).
Serious Symptoms in a Few People--Approximately one in 150
people infected with West Nile Virus will develop severe illness. The
severe symptoms can include high fever, headache, neck stiffness,
stupor, disorientation, coma, tremors, convulsions, muscle weakness,
vision loss, numbness and paralysis. These symptoms may last several
weeks, and neurological effects may be permanent. This is referred to
as neuroinvasive West Nile disease and may result in death.
Milder Symptoms in Some People--Up to 20 percent of the
people who become infected have symptoms such as fever, headache, and
body aches, nausea, vomiting, and sometimes swollen lymph glands or a
skin rash on the chest, stomach and back. Symptoms can last for as
short as a few days, though even healthy people have become sick for
several weeks. This is referred to as West Nile Fever.
No Symptoms in Most People--Approximately 80 percent of
people (about 4 out of 5) who are infected with West Nile Virus will
not show any symptoms at all.
Today, experts believe West Nile Virus is established as a seasonal
epidemic in North America that flares up in the summer and continues
into the fall. Persons over 50 years of age have the highest risk of
severe disease. (Ref. 13).
The Zika virus spreads to people primarily through the bite of an
infected Aedes species mosquito (Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus). Zika
can be passed from a pregnant woman to her fetus, which can cause
certain birth defects. There is no vaccine for Zika. In 2015 and 2016,
large outbreaks of Zika virus occurred in the Americas, resulting in an
increase in travel-associated cases in the U.S., including widespread
transmission in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and limited
local transmission in Florida and Texas. In 2018 and 2019, there were
no reports of Zika virus transmission by mosquitoes in the continental
U.S. (Ref. 14).
In the past 20-25 years, Lyme Disease has increased in geographical
distribution and in number of cases. The disease is carried by
blacklegged (deer) ticks (Ixodes scapularis and Ixodes pacificus). The
number and distribution of Lyme Disease cases correlates with the
number and distribution of white tail deer, among other animal hosts.
(Ref. 15). Deer populations have risen steadily in the last two
decades, especially in suburban areas. (Refs. 16 and 17).
The first sign of infection is usually a circular rash, occurring
in approximately 70 to 80% of infected persons. It begins at the site
of a tick bite after a delay of 3-30 days and may gradually expand over
a period of several days. The center of the rash may clear as it
enlarges, resulting in a bull's-eye appearance. Patients also
experience symptoms of fatigue, chills, fever, headache, and muscle and
joint aches, and swollen lymph nodes. In some cases, these may be the
only symptoms of infection.
Untreated, the infection may spread to other parts of the body
within a few days to weeks, producing an array of discrete symptoms.
These include loss of muscle tone on one or both sides of the face
(called facial or Bell's palsy), severe headaches and neck stiffness
due to meningitis, shooting pains that may interfere with sleep, heart
palpitations and dizziness due to changes in heartbeat, and pain that
moves from joint to joint. Many of these symptoms will resolve, even
without treatment.
After several months, approximately 60 percent of patients with
untreated infection will begin to have intermittent bouts of arthritis,
with severe joint pain and swelling. Large joints are most often
affected, particularly the knees. In addition, up to 5 percent of
untreated patients may develop chronic neurological complaints months
to years after infection. These include shooting pains, numbness or
tingling in the hands or feet, and problems with concentration and
short-term memory.
Most cases of Lyme Disease can be cured with antibiotics,
especially if treatment is begun early in the course of illness.
However, a small percentage of patients with Lyme disease have symptoms
that last months to years after treatment with antibiotics. (Refs. 18
and 19).
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever is the most severe tick-borne
rickettsial illness in the U.S. This disease is caused by infection
with the bacterial organism Rickettsia rickettsii; it is carried
primarily by dog ticks (Dermacentor variabilis) and wood ticks
(Dermacentor andersoni). The initial symptoms of Rocky Mountain Spotted
Fever include fever, nausea, vomiting, muscle pain, lack of appetite,
and severe headache. Later symptoms include rash, abdominal pain, joint
pain, and diarrhea. Pain and fluid loss can be so severe that
hospitalization may be required. (Refs. 20 and 21).
EPA believes that tick and mosquito repellents have roles in
disease prevention. Today, there is renewed interest in methods of
preventing transmission of these diseases. CDC and other public health
authorities have determined that efficacious insect repellents have a
primary role in a multi-barrier approach in protecting the public from
insect or tick-borne diseases. CDC recommends several personal
protective practices to prevent tick and mosquito bites: One of the
most prominent and consistent messages is to use an insect repellent
containing an EPA-registered active ingredient. (Refs. 22 and 23).
2. Bed Bugs. The U.S. has experienced a resurgence in the
population of bed bugs. Bed bugs can impact people's physical and
mental health. Physical impacts can include mild and severe allergic
reactions to the bites, and secondary infections of the skin. Reported
mental effects include anxiety and insomnia. (Refs. 7 and 8).
Both the EPA and the CDC believe that an integrated pest management
program that combines both chemical and non-chemical treatments is the
most effective way to control bed bugs. Among the integrated pest
management methods, use of an effective pesticide product, labeled for
use against bed bugs, applied according to the label directions is
often necessary to control the population of bed bugs. (Ref. 8).
3. Other pests of significant public health importance. Other
invertebrate pests cause painful bites and stings, provoke allergic
responses, and transmit serious diseases. As discussed in PRN 2002-1,
``cockroaches are controlled to halt the spread of asthma, allergy, and
food contamination'' and lice are controlled to prevent the
``occurrence of louse-borne diseases such as epidemic typhus, trench
fever, and epidemic relapsing fever in the United States.'' (Ref. 2).
B. Wood-Destroying Insects
As previously explained, structural pests differ from pests of
significant public health importance because health of individuals is
not imperiled. However, the effectiveness of the treatment is not
readily apparent to the applicator at the time of application or
[[Page 15370]]
during the occupancy of the building or home, and a potential for
significant financial loss to the property owner exists. EPA has
generally required submission of product performance data for wood-
destroying insects for over 40 years. USDA registered pesticides prior
to establishment of the EPA and also required product performance data
in support of wood-destroying insects. The Agency issued PRN 96-7,
entitled ``Termiticide Labeling,'' (October 1, 1996) (Ref. 3) to
provide guidance on label statements and minimum levels of product
performance for soil treatment use of termiticide products. According
to the PRN:
The Agency believes that registration of a [termiticide] product
demonstrating less than five (5) years of efficacy for control of
termites is generally not appropriate from a safety or efficacy
standpoint, considering the costs of treatment and the potential
damage that could occur. The Agency does not believe that the
homeowner should be subjected to such costly protection as would
occur with products that are only efficacious for one year. Such
products could, quite possibly, pose unreasonable adverse effects to
the environment and/or humans because of higher risks than longer-
acting alternatives. The more frequent treatments required could
result in greater exposure and risk, or lower benefits, because of
being less effective if not retreated, or more expensive if
retreated.
* * * * *
EPA has always required efficacy data to be submitted by
registrants to demonstrate that termiticides perform their intended
function as claimed. EPA has reviewed such data prior to
registration to assure that the benefits of the use would outweigh
the potential risks.
C. Invasive Species
On February 8, 1999, President Clinton signed The Executive Order
13112 (64 FR 6183) (February 8. 1999), which is intended to ``. . . to
prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their
control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health
impacts that invasive species cause . . . .'' The Executive Order
directed each federal agency to use relevant programs and authorities
to:
Prevent the introduction of invasive species;
Detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of
such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner;
Monitor invasive species populations accurately and
reliably;
Provide for restoration of native species and habitat
conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded;
Conduct research on invasive species and develop
technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally
sound control of invasive species; and
Promote public education on invasive species and the means
to address them.
Invertebrate invasive species can impose serious economic costs by
causing or vectoring diseases against native species that have little
or no natural defenses. For example, an invasive species of significant
note is the emerald ash borer, a wood boring beetle that is native to
Asia. The emerald ash borer kills ash trees. Its presence was reported
in southeast Michigan and Windsor, Ontario in 2002. Since then it has
spread to at least 35 states and five Canadian provinces. Infested
areas are under quarantine and restrictions have been imposed on moving
fire wood. EPA has registered several pesticide products for use
against the emerald ash borer after reviewing submitted efficacy data.
(Ref. 24)
Another invasive invertebrate species, the Asian longhorned beetle,
is also native to Asia and was first discovered in New York in 1996.
The Asian longhorned beetle kills maple trees and other hardwoods.
(Ref. 25). A very serious situation/crisis exists in New England, and
USDA has established an extensive eradication program. EPA has also
registered several products for use against the Asian longhorned
beetle.
Invertebrates such as the emerald ash borer and the Asian
longhorned beetle kill trees over very large geographic areas, thus,
having substantial ecological and economic impacts by destroying both
urban cover and forests used for recreation purposes and timber stands.
According to a 2011 analysis (Ref. 26) entitled, ``Economic Impacts of
Non-Native Forest Insects in the Continental United States,'' the
following five categories of expenditures and losses can be used to
illustrate impacts on forests.
Federal government expenditures (survey, research,
regulation, management, and outreach),
Local government expenditures (tree removal, replacement,
and treatment),
Household expenditures (tree removal, replacement, and
treatment),
Residential property value losses, and
Timber value losses to forest landowners.
Within the 2011 analysis were cost estimates using the five
previously described categories of the damage caused by three types of
invasive insects: Borers, sap feeders, and foliage feeders. Since some
of the economic categories overlap, the total sum of all economic
categories would include some double counting. However, the total of
the insect types can be summed without double counting, which means
that it is appropriate to sum the columns, but not the rows. Table 4
shows that most of the costs are borne by local governments and
households, and the total damage is several billion dollars.
Table 4--Annualized Invasive Species Damages in the U.S.
[$ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Local Residential Forest
government government Household property value landowner
expenditures expenditures expenditures loss timber costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borers.......................... $92 $1,700 $760 $830 $130
Sap Feeder...................... 14 170 130 260 4
Foliage Feeders................. 110 170 160 410 18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 216 2,040 1,050 1,500 152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pesticide products are an important tool for managing the spread of
an invertebrate invasive species and the related significant economic
impacts. The availability of pesticide products with proven performance
against an invasive species is important to slowing the spread of the
invasive species. When circumstances necessitate the submission or
citation of reliable data to support claims for controlling invasive
[[Page 15371]]
species, EPA has the authority to require such product performance
data.
Due to the sudden appearance and often rapid spread of invasive
species, EPA does not presently propose to codify a comprehensive list
of all the specific invasive species for which product performance data
might be deemed necessary. At this time, EPA is specifically proposing
to codify product performance data submission requirements for the
emerald ash borer and the Asian longhorned beetle. The submission of
product performance data to support claims for effectiveness against
other invasive invertebrate pests will be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
VI. Development of Invertebrate Pest Groups and Subgroups
EPA has identified pest groupings on the basis of the biology and
life history characteristics of the pests identified as public health
or wood destroying pests. (Ref. 28). The groupings are taxonomically
based. ``Pest groups'' and ``pest sub-groups'' are designations simply
intended to convey the fact that some pests groups are part of larger
groups. Therefore, when practical, ``pest sub-groups'' have been
identified to define a meaningful subset of the larger group.
EPA developed the pest groups and pest sub-groups with the
intention that product performance testing performed on a particular
species can adequately represent all members of the pest group (or pest
sub-group). The Agency intends these pest groupings to decrease data
submission burdens on applicants and data review burden on the Agency
as well as increasing the consistency, reliability, and integrity of
data submitted to EPA. In some cases, EPA is proposing pest-specific
claims, in addition to group and sub-group claims.
To develop these groupings, EPA considered species sensitivity. In
certain cases, one member of a pest grouping is known to be
significantly harder to kill, control, or repel than other members of
the grouping. If product performance testing is performed using the
species that is harder to kill, control, or repel, then logically, it
can be assumed that the results of this testing can be extrapolated to
other members of the grouping. Additional considerations included the
availability of species in a laboratory setting, the occurrence of
species over wide areas and/or those species most commonly associated
with transmission of diseases to humans.
VII. Introduction to Part 158, Subpart R
A. General
EPA is proposing to codify product performance data requirements
pertaining to registration of pesticide products claiming efficacy
against certain invertebrate pests. The proposed data requirements are
consistent with the Agency's current practices concerning the data
needed to register a pesticide product that claims effectiveness
against invertebrate pests.
The proposed data requirements are presented, as appropriate, in
table formats, with the needed data specified according to the claim on
the label, the species to be tested, and the performance standards to
be met. Once final, the regulations will provide the regulated
community and other interested parties a better understanding of the
data required to support registration of a pesticide product making a
claim against an invertebrate pest identified to be a public health
concern (e.g., ticks, mosquitoes, cockroaches, etc.), a wood-destroying
insect (e.g. termites), or an invasive invertebrate species (e.g. Asian
longhorned beetle).
The Agency is proposing to title the new subpart R in part 158,
``Product Performance for Products Claiming Effectiveness Against
Invertebrate Pests.'' The existing product performance data
requirements in subpart E will be renamed ``Product Performance for
Products Claiming Effectiveness Against Vertebrate Pests, Products with
Prion-related Claims, and Products for Control of Organisms Producing
Mycotoxins.'' Additionally, EPA is proposing conforming edits to
subparts U, V, and W.
B. Contents of Proposed Subpart R
1. General requirements. Proposed 40 CFR 158.1700 contains the
general requirements that would be applicable to any pesticide product
that is making a claim(s) against an invertebrate pest, and describes
how to use the data tables in proposed subpart R. These general
requirements describe when product performance data may be required,
specifically for products that bear a claim against a pest of
significant public health importance or a pest of economic
significance. The required tests must be conducted using the end-use
product to ensure that the product's claims are supported in the form
in which the user will be using the product.
Additionally, proposed 40 CFR 158.1700 provides a set of
instructions on how to determine the product performance data required
to support the pesticide product use for which registration is sought.
This includes referring to all parts of subpart R, identifying the
claims intended to be made on the product labeling, reviewing and
understanding the performance standards that must be met or exceeded
for the identified claims against the target pests, and understanding
all applicable test notes.
2. Definitions. In order to ensure consistent implementation of
proposed subpart R, EPA is proposing definitions specific to the
subpart. Proposed 40 CFR 158.1701 and 158.1703 contain the definitions
pertaining to subpart R. In particular, proposed 40 CFR 158.1701
defines many of the terms that are needed to assure a common
understanding of the requirements and performance standards being
proposed for codification under subpart R.
During the 2013 SAP, EPA received public comments and feedback from
the SAP on the proposed definitions in the Technical Support Document
(TSD) provided to the SAP. (Ref. 28). In addition, the SAP recommended
several additional definitions that should be considered under this
proposed rulemaking. After considering the comments provided, and based
on the data requirements being proposed in this rulemaking, the
proposed definitions represent those that are most essential for
understanding the requirements and regulatory text of the proposed
subpart R. For those definitions that the SAP and public commenters
provided feedback on or that were recommended then, but not included in
this proposal, EPA intends to consider the utility of those definitions
and will consider incorporating them into future guidance and
rulemakings. The SAP and public comments on definitions associated with
product performance data requirements are available in the docket for
the SAP [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574]. EPA's response to those comments are
discussed in this document and associated docket. Other definitions
included in the TSD have since been adopted in testing guidelines.
Where applicable, EPA derived the proposed subpart R definitions
from existing guidelines. The definition for Complete protection time
is very similar to the one found in Guideline 810.3700. The proposed
definition of Skin-applied insect repellent is taken from Guideline
810.3700. The proposed definitions for Soil-applied termiticides, and
Bait treatment were derived from information in Guidelines 810.3600 and
810.3800. For example, the Bait treatment proposed definition is
similar to Termite bait in Guideline 810.3800.
[[Page 15372]]
The definition of Vector is very similar to that in FIFRA 2(oo).
In the TSD presented to the 2013 SAP, EPA explained a pesticide for
use against invertebrates and meeting one of the following
circumstances might be characterized as making a public health pest
claim requiring submission of product performance data:
A claim is made to control, kill, knockdown, and/or repel
specific invertebrate organisms that are directly or indirectly
infectious or pathogenic or injurious to humans (or both humans and
animals). For example: A claim is made to repel mosquitoes and/or
ticks. Both mosquitoes and ticks transmit disease to humans. Or, a
claim is made to kill bed bugs. Bed bugs are injurious to humans.
The pesticide product is used in public health programs
for vector control or for other recognized health protection uses to
prevent or mitigate threats to public health.
The pesticide product contains one or more ingredients
that, under the criteria in 40 CFR 153.125(a), is an active ingredient
with respect to a public health organism and there is no other
functional purpose for the ingredient in the product.
The pesticide product is similar in composition to a
registered pesticide product that makes explicit public health claims
for control of invertebrate organisms.
EPA still agrees that these circumstances, in principle, identify
the kinds of pesticides for which product performance data may be
necessary. However, EPA is not proposing to codify the term ``public
health pest claim'' as a means of identifying when data are required.
Such a term is not necessary given the proposed regulatory text
includes sections that specify the invertebrate pests and invertebrate
pest groups/subgroups that would be subject to the proposed product
performance data requirements if the pesticide is intended for use
against those pests. EPA requests comment on whether there is utility
in codifying an overarching definition of a ``public health pest
claim'' for the purposes of subpart R, and if so, whether the
definition presented to the SAP is appropriate.
In the 2013 TSD EPA wrote that:
A public health claim is asserted if one or more of the
following apply:
--A claim is made to control, kill, knockdown, and/or repel specific
invertebrate organisms that are directly or indirectly infectious or
pathogenic or injurious to man (or both man and animals). For
example: A claim is made to repel mosquitoes and/or ticks. Both
mosquitoes and ticks transmit disease to man. Or, a claim is made to
kill bedbugs. Bedbugs are injurious to man.
--The pesticide product is used in public health programs for vector
control or for other recognized health protection uses to prevent or
mitigate threats to public health.
--The pesticide product contains one or more ingredients that, under
the criteria in 40 CFR 153.125(a), is an active ingredient with
respect to a public health organism and there is no other functional
purpose for the ingredient in the product.
--The pesticide product is similar in composition to a registered
pesticide product that makes explicit public health claims for
control of invertebrate organisms. (Ref. 28)
EPA believes that the circumstances presented in the 2013 TSD, in
principle, identify the kinds of pesticides for which product
performance data may be necessary. EPA also notes that existing
regulations at 40 CFR 158.2204 provides definitions for a ``public
health claim'' and a ``nonpublic health claim'' as they pertain to
antimicrobial pesticide claims. EPA is not proposing to make any
modifications to that provision, and any definition for a ``public
health pest claim'' added to subpart R would be applicable only within
proposed subpart R.
3. Application Categories. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1703, EPA is
proposing to define a set of application categories to assist in
defining the data needed to support registration. This section would
only define application categories to the extent the terms appear in
the proposed regulatory text and EPA believes they require definition.
For example, the terms ``bait treatments'' and ``spatial repellents''
are defined. This section does not provide a listing of all application
categories that would be covered by the proposed subpart R data
submission requirements.
Application categories describe how and/or where the product is
intended to be applied or used. The proposed application categories
were derived after consideration of current practices and review of the
application sites included in the Harmonized Test Guidelines (810.3000
through 810.3900). Oftentimes, these application categories will be
used on pesticide product labeling, and, therefore, may be identified
as a product performance labeling claim within the data requirement
tables. Similar to the definitions in 40 CFR 158.1701, EPA received SAP
feedback on some of the application category definitions. (Ref. 29).
The application categories proposed in 40 CFR 158.1703 represent EPA's
responses to that feedback for the application categories as
applicable. These application categories are referred to in the
portions of the proposed regulatory text for the wood-destroying
invertebrate pests.
4. Performance Standards. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1704, EPA is
proposing a set of performance standards that, in the absence of
performance standards specified elsewhere in subpart R, will apply
generally and must be met for data cited to be considered acceptable in
support of a specific labeling claim on the product's labeling.
a. Performance standards for skin-applied insect repellents: EPA is
proposing that for skin-applied insect repellent labeling claims, the
performance standard must be greater than or equal to 2-hours complete
protection time.
Complete protection time (CPT) is defined in Guideline 810.3700 as
``the time from application of a repellent until efficacy failure as it
is defined in each study--for example, the time from application until
the first efficacy failure event confirmed within 30 minutes by a
second similar event.'' CPT has been the existing practice for
determining efficacy of skin-applied insect repellents since the
guideline was finalized in 2010. EPA presented this concept, along with
a proposed minimum protection time of 2-hours, to the SAP in the TSD,
as a means of ensuring that a skin-applied repellency product protects
for a minimum amount of time given the potential variability of product
results across different people.
The Agency believes that establishing a minimum CPT for skin-
applied repellency products should be required because of the large
variability in protection times experienced by susceptible individuals
in the population. The SAP agreed that this was a reasonable standard,
stating that ``[i]f CPT is to be used, a minimum CPT of 2 hours was
suggested by the Panel as a minimal criterion for product registration
. . . A repellent of shorter duration may not provide sufficient,
useful protection in practical terms and will give consumers a false
sense of protection.'' (Ref. 29).
Additionally, EPA is proposing regulatory text for skin-applied
products that reinforces that any testing required under part 158 which
involves any human subjects must comply with all applicable
requirements under 40 CFR part 26. For example, 40 CFR part 26
requirements are pertinent to 40 CFR part 158 testing requirements if
the testing involves intentional exposure of human subjects. Protocols
for such testing must be submitted to EPA for review prior to study
initiation. Those protocols determined by EPA to involve
[[Page 15373]]
intentional exposure of human subjects also require review by EPA's
Human Studies Review Board (HSRB)) prior to study initiation.
b. Performance standards for products other than skin-applied
insect repellents. Unless otherwise specified in the proposed 40 CFR
158.1700-158.1786, EPA proposes that the performance standard for a
product performance claim against a pest must be greater than or equal
to 90 percent. For non-wearable spatial repellents, the proposed
performance standard is greater than or equal to 75%.
In the TSD presented to the SAP, EPA was considering performance
standards of 95% for all other pest claims, with the exception of
mites, lice, carpenter ants, wood destroying beetles, and termites. The
95% performance standards were initially chosen because they
represented widely accepted standards at the time. (Refs. 28, 29, 30
and 31). EPA proposed these standards as a way to ``define the levels
of product performance that would need to be met in order for the
studies to support product registration and labeling,'' and that
proposing a specified threshold level or performance standard would be
the ``best means to assure that the products used to control
invertebrate species are effective under conditions of use.'' (Ref.
28).
In response to the proposal, both the SAP and public commenters
believed that a 95% performance standard would create a burden for
unattainable results and would be cost prohibitive in most situations,
particularly for large scale field trials, or in general, any field
trial using a 100% standard expectation. They argued that a minimum 90%
performance under controlled laboratory conditions would be adequate.
(Refs. 28 and 29). While they made this recommendation, the SAP stated
that in special cases, EPA should retain the authority to overrule
these standards if proper justification is provided by the applicants
with regard to why the standards should not be applicable to a
particular product. Additionally, the SAP stated that registrants
should be allowed to compete by achieving higher than required
performance standards, proving the superiority of their products.
After considering the SAP and public comments, with the exception
of pests such as human mites, carpenter ants, termites, and wood-
destroying beetles, EPA is proposing performance standards of 90% or
greater instead of 95%. EPA believes that this standard will enable
acceptance of registrations for products that provide a satisfactory
level of control. Human mites and lice will retain a 100% standard,
while the wood-destroying pests will have a 95% or greater standard for
prevention of damage to wood, except for non-structural wood
preservative treatments, which will have a standard of 100%. The
standards for human mites, lice, and wood-destroying pests will be
discussed in more detail in other sections of this proposed rule.
5. Test Guidelines. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1705, EPA is codifying a
reference to EPA's Harmonized Test Guidelines, which set forth a
recommended approach to generate the data required for product
performance testing.
6. Data Requirement Modifications. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1707, EPA
is proposing to state that on a case-by-case basis, the data
requirements identified in subpart R may need to be adjusted for novel
technologies or because a product's unusual physical, chemical, or
biological properties or atypical use patterns would make particular
data requirements inappropriate, either because it would not be
possible to generate the required data or because the data would not be
useful in the Agency's evaluation of the risks or benefits of the
product. EPA recommends that registrants of novel technologies contact
the Agency prior to conducting product performance testing. It should
be noted that EPA has historically taken the position that data
requirements can be adjusted or waived on a case-by-case basis per the
procedures described in 40 CFR 158.45. This provision is not intended
to supersede or alter the provisions at 40 CFR 158.45, but rather to
clarify that EPA is proposing that the data requirements, including the
performance standards, in subpart R may also be adjusted using the
procedures consistent with those in 40 CFR 158.45.
7. Invasive Species Claims. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1708, EPA is
proposing that when an application for registration or amended
registration requests to put a claim(s) on its pesticide product's
labeling for effectiveness against an invasive invertebrate species,
then on a case-by-case basis, EPA may require submission of product
performance data to support those claims for effectiveness. Due to the
sudden appearance and often rapid spread of invasive species, EPA does
not presently intend to codify a comprehensive list of the specific
invasive species for which product performance data might be deemed
necessary. USDA maintains a list of invasive species profiles, which
can be used as guidance. (Ref. 32). EPA is specifically proposing to
codify product performance data submission requirements for the emerald
ash borer and the Asian longhorned beetle. The submission of product
performance data to support claims for effectiveness against other
invasive invertebrate pests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
EPA notes that the Agency currently has authority to require data
submission on a case-by-case basis when necessary to evaluate a
pesticide product (see 40 CFR 158.75). This provision is intended to
clarify that whether or not a claim is against an invasive species is a
factor in determining whether product performance data is necessary to
evaluate a pesticide.
8. Invertebrate Disease Vector Claims. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1709,
EPA is proposing that if a registrant requests a labeling claim
specific to a disease vector, additional testing conducted with the
species specific to that disease vector claim is required if that
species is not already required under subpart R as part of the pest
group tested. For example, if a product claims to repel Asian
longhorned ticks that may carry Japanese spotted fever, caused by
Rickettsia japonica, then the registrant must generate data using the
species that is known to carry the disease indicated, the Asian
longhorned tick in this case. This requirement will ensure that all
disease vector claims are supported by appropriate product performance
data demonstrating the required performance standard should an unknown
public health threat emerge in the future.
9. Structural and Wood-destroying Pest Claims. In proposed 40 CFR
158.1710, EPA is proposing that if an application for registration or
amended registration requests a labeling claim specific to a structural
or wood-destroying pest that is not identified in 40 CFR 158.1782
through 158.1786, EPA may require submission of product performance
data to support those claims for effectiveness. This requirement will
ensure that any claim against structural and wood-destroying pests that
have not been accounted for at this time are supported by product
performance data in the event that a new threat emerges.
10. Pest Specific Claims. EPA is proposing to codify product
performance data submission requirements for pest groups, sub-groups,
and some specific species. EPA uses the term ``Pest group labeling
claim'' to mean a claim or statement on the labeling of the pesticide
product that the product is effective against a group
[[Page 15374]]
of related species or taxa demonstrating adequate similarity in basic
biology and life history characteristics to permit identification of
representative test species for the entire assemblage of taxa. The term
``Pest sub-group labeling claim'' means a claim or statement on the
labeling of the pesticide product that the product is effective against
a set of related species or taxa demonstrating adequate similarity in
basic biology and life history characteristics to permit identification
of representative test species and part of a larger identified
taxonomic grouping (e.g., Biting flies) that includes other pest
species, which may or may not have a proposed pest group. The term
``Pest-specific labeling claim'' means a claim or statement on the
labeling of the pesticide product that the product is effective against
a particular arthropod species, such as German cockroach or house fly.
In addition to the group and sub-group claims, EPA is proposing to
codify requiring product performance data for a number of pest-specific
claims. As previously noted, the representative test species were
selected on the basis of vigor of the pest species and the likely
ability of the species to serve as an adequate surrogate for other
pests in the group, as well as other factors including their
availability for laboratory testing, ubiquity, and whether they are one
of the primary drivers of the human health concerns within a grouping.
(Ref. 1). The 2013 TSD envisioned that in many cases ``[i]f
representative taxa are provided, species specific data may not be
required, as the group and any/all individual species within the group
can be supported by supporting the general claim.'' (Ref. 28).
For pests that are not listed as a ``pest-specific claim'' in
proposed subpart R, EPA proposes that the data required to support a
group claim would also be sufficient to support pest-specific claims
for species within that group. For example, the pavement ant
(Tetramorium caespitum) is not listed as a pest-specific claim in
proposed subpart R because it is not a pest of significant public-
health importance (nor is it a wood-destroying insect) and no pest-
specific product performance data would need to be submitted to add a
claim against pavement ants to a label. In contrast, cluster flies
(Pollenia rudis) are listed as a pest-specific claim in this proposed
rule because of their significant public health importance. These pest-
specific claims are consistent with EPA's current practices. Thus,
consistent with the Agency's current practices, pest-specific data
would need to be submitted to add a pest-specific claim against cluster
flies to a label in addition to any data submitted to support the group
claim against ``filth flies.'' EPA also notes that the provisions at 40
CFR 158.75 and proposed 40 CFR 158.1708 would also permit the EPA to
require pest-specific data on a case-by-case basis when necessary to
evaluate a pesticide product. These provisions allow EPA to address the
Agency's data needs in the face of emergent invertebrate pest concerns.
EPA requests comment on the pest-specific claims covered by this
proposed rule and whether there should be additional pest-specific
claims added to subpart R, or if some of the ones included in the rule
are unnecessary.
C. Data Requirements for Subpart R
The data requirements that EPA is proposing for codification are
consistent with the Agency's current practices when considering the
product performance data needed to register a pesticide product that
bears a pesticidal claim against one or more of these pests or pest
groups/sub-groups. FIFRA section 3(c)(2) directs EPA to specify the
kinds of data that applicants and registrants must submit to EPA to
support regulatory determinations under FIFRA. The data requirements
for pesticide products are codified in 40 CFR part 158.
Product performance data (efficacy studies) document how well the
product performs the intended function (such as killing or repelling)
against an invertebrate pest. The product performance data needs being
considered in this rule would link the labeling claim for pesticide
products claiming efficacy against an invertebrate pest with the data
needed to substantiate that claim. EPA views these standards as
performance standards for the acceptability of data, and thus EPA views
them as waivable under 40 CFR 158.45.
1. Mites (excluding Chiggers). In 40 CFR 158.1712, EPA is proposing
the required test species and performance standards in order to make a
labeling claim against dog follicle mites, dust mites, and the human
itch or scabies mite. EPA is proposing to list chiggers, which are
mites, in a separate section.
As indicated in the TSD presented to the SAP, dog follicle mite
infestations are typically commensal in nature, but can cause
demodectic mange in susceptible animals. This can pose a serious risk
to stricken individuals, which typically have pre-existing immune
system issues. For this reason, a 100% performance standard is being
considered for these applications.
Dust mites pose no direct threat of injury, disease transmission,
or discomfort. However, dust mites are included as a pest of
significant public health importance because they produce allergens in
their feces and cast exoskeleton that can result in asthma and allergic
reactions. EPA believes that it is impractical to expect complete
elimination of the dust mite population in a structure. The focus
should be to reduce the agent of concern (i.e., the allergen) to
acceptable levels. This can be achieved through a reduction in the
target pest that is less than is generally necessary for a pest that
acts directly against its host. EPA initially proposed a 75%
performance standard to the SAP for surface and fabric treatments, and
a 95% performance standard for direct application to dust mites.
However, after considering the responses received through the SAP and
public comment, EPA is proposing a 90% performance standard for dust
mites to be consistent with the recommendations provided on the
performance standards for other species testing.
During the SAP, one commenter indicated that for mites, the
proposed performance standard of 100%, as considered by EPA, was too
high. Instead the commenter advocated for 90%, while indicating that
95% would be achievable. (Ref. 33). The 90% standard is being proposed
for some labeling claims for the dog follicle and dust mites, but for
human itch or scabies mites, EPA disagrees with lowering the
performance standard since scabies mites directly infect and are easily
transferred among hosts. A human skin-applied topical repellent
performance standard of >=2-hour complete protection time is also being
proposed.
EPA also notes that any testing conducted with human subjects must
comply with all applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 26.
2. Chiggers. In the proposed 40 CFR 158.1714, EPA is proposing to
require testing for labeling claims against chiggers. Chiggers are
being proposed in the rulemaking due to their bites causing itching and
skin irritation with the risk of a secondary infection. Additionally,
EPA is proposing the performance standards established under 40 CFR
158.1704 to apply to testing for chiggers.
During the SAP, the Panel noted that Trombicula alfreddugesi (as
presented in the TSD) is now renamed as Eutrombicula cinnibars. EPA was
unable to verify this and has maintained Trombicula alfreddugesi as was
presented in the TSD. EPA requests comment on whether this is correct,
and
[[Page 15375]]
if the name has changed, EPA requests a reference to the revised name.
3. Ticks. In the proposed 40 CFR 158.1718, EPA is proposing to
require the test species and performance standards to labeling claims
against ticks, cattle ticks, and soft ticks. EPA is proposing several
tick species due to their potential to transmit diseases, such as Rocky
Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme disease, and ehrlichiosis. For performance
standards, EPA is proposing standards consistent with 40 CFR 158.1704.
To make a claim against ``ticks,'' EPA is proposing to require a
total of three hard tick species as representative of ticks in general.
As presented in the TSD and based on recommendations from the SAP,
products claiming ``ticks'' must test for the blacklegged tick (Ixodes
scapularis) and lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum), and a third
species tested must be either the American dog tick (Dermacentor
variabilis), the brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus), or, as
suggested by the SAP, the Rocky Mountain wood tick (Dermacentor
andersoni). Because ticks are high stakes disease vectors and because
consumers have difficulty differentiating between species, for a claim
against any specific species of ``ticks'' all the representative
species for the ``ticks'' claim must be tested. In addition, because
these are pests of significant public health importance that the public
strongly associates with the diseases they vector, EPA would also
require submission of data on the specific pest claimed. EPA does not
typically receive pest-specific claims for ticks other than those that
are representative species for ticks. However, the Asian longhorn tick
is an emergent pest in this category and EPA would require pest-
specific data for a pest-specific claim against the Asian longhorn tick
or any other pest specific tick claim. This would be in addition to
testing on the representative species.
In addition to the required test species for a ``tick'' labeling
claim, EPA is also proposing specific parameters regarding required
species for ``ticks'' under certain testing circumstances. These
specific parameters include:
i. For products intended to be applied to dogs, testing is required
on three species: Blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis), American dog
tick (Dermacentor variabilis), and brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus
sanguineus).
ii. For products intended to be applied to cats, testing is
required on three species: Blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis), lone
star tick (Amblyomma americanum), and American dog tick (Dermacentor
variabilis).
The species identified under each of these circumstances were
identified as a result of their occurrence on dogs and cats and the
biology/behavior of the ticks.
For a claim against cattle ticks, EPA is proposing testing on
either the Southern cattle tick (Rhipicephalus microplus) or the cattle
fever tick (Rhipicephalus annulatus). When presented to the SAP, the
SAP noted that if pests of veterinary importance are not the primary
objective for this proposal, then pests such as cattle ticks should be
removed from the tables. While the emphasis is on pests of significant
public health importance and wood-destroying insects due to their
significant economic impacts, EPA maintains that cattle ticks should be
included in this proposal because of the potential for these ticks to
carry diseases such as Texas cattle fever, which can result in
significant economic losses to the cattle industry. (Ref. 34)
Additionally, the cattle fever tick poses a risk to a small, but highly
vulnerable population of humans. Specifically, those people that have
had splenectomies are susceptible to a potentially fatal bovine
babesiosis infection from an infected cattle fever tick. (Ref. 35).
For a claim against soft ticks, EPA is proposing testing on the
species Ornithodoros hermsi. Humans typically come into contact with
soft ticks when they sleep in rodent infested cabins. The ticks emerge
at night and feed briefly while the person is sleeping. The bites are
painless, and most people are unaware that they have been bitten. These
ticks may transmit tick-borne relapsing fever (Borrelia hermsii, B.
parkerii, or B. turicatae).
4. Scorpions. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1722, EPA is proposing to
require data for a ``scorpion'' labeling claim due to their venomous
sting. In the TSD to the SAP, EPA proposed to only require the striped
bark scorpion (Centruroides vittatus). For scorpions, EPA is proposing
the performance standards under proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
One public commenter during the SAP questioned why EPA provided
only one species for testing, stating that they believed this to be too
restrictive. (Ref. 36). EPA chose the striped bark scorpion as the
required test species because it is a larger species of scorpion, and
larger species can be harder to kill. Using such a species as the
required test species means greater certainty that testing on one
species would be representative of testing on other species. The
commenter did not provide the name of a species that they consider
suitable for testing. The Agency would welcome information to better
inform the decision on selection of a suitable test species for
scorpions.
5. Spiders. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1726, EPA is proposing data
requirements for one pest group (Spiders), one pest sub-group (black
widow spiders), and five pest-specific spider claims. EPA's current
practice for spiders is to require product performance data to be
submitted with certain species-specific claims (e.g. ``Northern black
widow spider''), certain pest-subgroup claims (e.g., ``black widow
spiders''), or pest-group claims for either ``spiders'' or ``spiders
unless the label expressly excludes black widow or brown recluse
spiders.'' The black widow and the brown recluse spiders can deliver
bites with potentially serious medical implications, and therefore are
considered pests of significant public health importance. Thus, if an
applicant submits a draft label with a labeling claim for ``spiders
(excluding black widow or brown recluse),'' the applicant does not need
to submit product performance data to EPA with an application for
registration. Instead, the applicant would generate product performance
data to confirm that the product is effective against these pests and
hold those data in their files. In contrast, a general ``kill spiders''
claim encompasses pests of significant public health importance, i.e.,
the black widow and brown recluse spiders, and therefore, the applicant
would need to submit two product performance studies to EPA to verify
this claim, one study each for the brown recluse spider and black widow
spider (either Northern black widow spider, the Southern black widow
spider, or Western black widow spider).
For the performance standards, EPA is proposing standards
consistent with proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
6. Centipedes. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1732, EPA is proposing data
requirements for centipedes. EPA proposes testing on either the house
centipede, the Florida blue centipede, or on one species from the
Scolopendra genus. For the performance standards, EPA is proposing
standards consistent with proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
The SAP noted that centipedes are generally harmless and considered
beneficial insects, behaving as active predators of other arthropod s
within structures. Although a species such as the Florida blue
centipede (Hemicolopendra marginata) can inflict a painful bite, the
SAP questioned whether it was sufficient to include
[[Page 15376]]
centipedes as a pest of significant public health importance. While
some species of centipedes may be ``harmless,'' species such as the
Florida blue centipede can envenomate with painful bites, which can be
categorized as similar to that of a bee sting. Effects can include
anaphylactic shock in some individuals. EPA believes that these types
of effects are sufficient to be considered as a pest of significant
public health importance, and are thus included in this proposed
rulemaking.
7. Lice. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1736, EPA is proposing data
requirements on either the Head louse or the Body louse in order to
make a labeling claim against lice. EPA is also proposing a performance
standard of 100% for all efficacy claims made against lice. The SAP did
not express any opinions on the proposed required test species or
performance standards.
8. Fleas. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1740, EPA is proposing data
requirements for one pest group (Fleas) and six pest-specific claims
(cat flea, chigoe flea, dog flea, hen flea, human flea, and oriental
rat flea). For the performance standards, EPA is proposing standards
consistent with proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
Historically, EPA has only required testing on the cat flea in
order to make a ``flea'' claim. The cat flea is common and easy to rear
in the laboratory. Additionally, because the cat flea is the most
common species that infests pets, most of the available pesticide
products target the cat flea.
In the SAP response to the TSD, the Panel suggested adding the
oriental rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis) in addition to the cat flea for
a ``flea'' labeling claim. The oriental rat flea (also known as the
tropical rat flea) is a vector for bubonic plague (caused by Yersinia
pestis), which is extremely rare in the U.S. EPA does not believe
requiring this additional species provides immediate benefits at this
time and would be an additional cost and burden on applicants to
provide such data. EPA notes that 40 CFR 158.1709 would cover
invertebrate diseases vector claims. In the future, if the plague
becomes a significant issue in the U.S., then EPA would consider
requiring the submission of data on the oriental rat flea in addition
to the cat flea. Since the risk of the oriental rat flea is rare, EPA
intends to continue with its existing practice to only require the
larger cat flea for a ``flea'' claim, and is therefore proposing it as
the only required test species at this time.
9. Cockroaches. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1744, EPA is proposing data
requirements for one pest group (cockroaches) and seven pest-specific
claims (American cockroach, Australian cockroach, brown cockroach,
brownbanded cockroach, German cockroach, oriental cockroach, and the
smokybrown cockroach). For the performance standards, EPA is proposing
standards consistent with proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
For the ``Cockroach'' pest group claim, EPA has historically
required testing on both the American cockroach and the German
cockroach, and is proposing to codify this requirement. These are the
most common cockroaches requested on product labels and are commonly
controlled to halt the spread of asthma, allergy, and food
contamination. The SAP was supportive of these species as the required
test species for this pest group claim.
The SAP suggested adding Periplaneta fuliginosa and P. brunnea
(smokybrown and brown cockroach, respectively) to the cockroach pest
group. EPA is proposing these pests as a pest-specific labeling claims.
Even with these additions, EPA continues to believe that for a general
cockroach claim, the German and American cockroach are appropriate
representative test species for the overarching pest group.
The Turkestan cockroach (Blatta lateralis) is thought to be
displacing the Oriental cockroach in the southwestern U.S. and, like
other cockroaches, can transfer food-borne pathogens. Because of this
development, EPA is adding a pest-specific claim for the Turkestan
cockroach to 40 CFR 158.1744.
10. Keds, Screwworms, and Bot Flies. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1748,
EPA is proposing data requirements for bot flies (excluding human bot
fly), the human bot fly, keds, and screwworms. For the performance
standards, EPA is proposing standards consistent with proposed 40 CFR
158.1704.
For bot flies (excluding human bot fly), EPA is proposing to
require testing on one of the three following species: Horse bot fly,
throat bot fly, or the nose bot fly. The SAP suggested specifying the
test species as Gasterophilus spp. instead of listing three specific
Gasterophilus species, as specified in the TSD. EPA continues to
believe that testing on either the horse bot fly, throat bot fly, or
the nose bot fly were the most appropriate for efficacy testing because
they are large and can be found throughout the U.S. While they are
primarily pests of horses, larvae of these three species may
occasionally parasitize humans.
For the human bot fly, EPA is proposing testing on the human bot
fly (Dermatobia hominis). The human bot fly is not known to vector
disease, but the larvae will infest the skin of mammals and live out
the larval stage in the subcutaneous layer, causing painful pustules
that secrete fluids. The infestation of any fly larvae inside the body
is known as myiasis. (Ref. 37). Under bot flies, the SAP stated that
human bot fly should be retained as this is frequently introduced by
travelers.
In addition to the three proposed options for bot flies, the SAP
also suggested EPA consider the Hypoderma spp. and Oestrus ovis (the
sheep bot fly) as additional options. EPA is not proposing to include
these species since the Agency has not historically required or
received data on these pests. However, EPA requests public comment on
whether there is a need to codify product performance data requirements
for Hypoderma spp. and Oestrus ovis.
For screwworms, EPA is proposing to require testing on either the
screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax) or the secondary screwworm
(Cochliomyia macellaria). The SAP indicated that Cochliomyia
hominivorax is an eradicated species in the U.S. While EPA acknowledges
that the sterile insect eradication program was a success, the species
was recently found in Florida. If, in the future, an applicant wanted
to make a label claim against screwworms, then Cochliomyia hominivorax
would be the appropriate test species. Providing this option provides
flexibility to the pesticide registrant. (Ref. 38).
For keds, EPA is proposing to require testing on the sheep ked. The
sheep ked has historically been the representative species for a
``keds'' claim, and the SAP expressed general support of the Sheep ked
as the required test species. Therefore, EPA is proposing to maintain
this practice.
11. Filth Flies. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1752, EPA is proposing data
requirements for one pest group claim against ``Filth flies'' and six
pest-specific claims (blow fly, cluster fly, face fly, flesh fly, house
fly, and little house fly). For the performance standards, EPA is
proposing standards consistent with proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
For a ``Filth Flies'' pest group claim, EPA is proposing to require
testing on the house fly (Musca domestica) and either one species of
flesh fly (Sarcophaga spp., Wohlfahrtia spp., and other genera of flesh
fly) or one species of blow fly (Phaenicia spp., Calliphora spp., and
other genera of blow fly). One public commenter during the SAP
questioned why EPA asked for testing in two species. The commenter
indicated that for a direct spray application, only
[[Page 15377]]
testing with the house fly is needed. The commenter suggested that
testing with more than one species should only be needed for more
specialized claims, such as fly baits. (Ref. 36).
In response, EPA included house flies and the option to select
between blow flies and flesh flies because these types of flies move
bacteria around from place-to-place when they land. This takes place by
touching surfaces, as these flies generally do not bite. ``Filth
flies'' is a large grouping and testing on two species provides greater
assurance that the product would be effective against most members of
the pest group. House flies are generally the smallest in size of these
three groups and therefore may be more susceptible to insecticides.
Testing against the larger filth flesh/blow flies reduces the
likelihood of overestimating efficacy.
Additionally, the SAP suggested the cluster fly (Pollenia rudis) be
deleted as a test species. Instead, flies in the genus Fannia can be
included since they can be relatively easy to rear in laboratory
conditions. Fannia benjamini complex and Fannia scalaris (canyon fly
and latrine fly) were specifically mentioned. In response, the cluster
fly was not listed as a required test species for a claim against
``Filth Flies'' in the TSD. The cluster fly was specified as a test
species if an applicant makes a pest-specific claim against the cluster
fly. Because house flies, blow flies, and flesh flies are considered
better representative species for the pest group claim against ``Filth
Flies,'' flies in the genus Fannia are not considered a representative
alternative to cluster flies.
12. Mosquitoes. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1756, EPA is proposing data
requirements for a pest group claim against ``Mosquitoes.'' For the
performance standards, EPA is proposing standards consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704. For the required test species, EPA is
proposing that testing be required on at least one mosquito species
from three different genera (i.e., one out of three proposed Culex
spp.; one out of two proposed Aedes spp.; and one out of six proposed
Anopheles spp.).
One public commenter during the SAP asked why the species Anopheles
stephensi was missing from the list of species for mosquito testing in
the TSD, as it is a common, representative lab insect. (Ref. 36). EPA
agrees that the Anopheles stephensi could be used for testing, and has
added Anopheles stephensi to the list of species for mosquito testing
in EPA's proposal.
Additionally, the SAP comments were much more extensive regarding
mosquitoes, as the SAP response covered both required test species as
well as how one arrives at conducting the tests to collect the data.
These comments are, as follows:
Suggested having separate tables for killing and repelling and
for field and lab testing
Questioned the suitability of Culex pipiens and C.
quinquefasciatus in repellent studies
Suggested using Culex spp. instead of hybrids C. pipiens and
C. quinquefasciatus
Indicated Anopheles freeborni and A. punctipennis are suitable
for field testing and not lab testing
Indicated Anopheles quadrimaculatus is not suitable for indoor
repellent testing
Suggested adding Anopheles albimanus and Anopheles stephensi
Indicated Psorophora is acceptable for field testing
The SAP also noted that for field testing of mosquitoes, certain
species provided in EPA's list could not readily be obtained in a field
test in the U.S.
In response, EPA agrees that a listing of specific mosquito test
species as provided in the TSD was confusing when considered in the
context of field testing. With lab testing and semi-field or ``caged''
testing a particular test species can be selected. The particular
species selected for testing could depend on the colonies maintained by
the laboratory, as well as the type of product being tested, and EPA
believes providing a list of representative species that is
comprehensive means that an appropriate species could be identified for
a wide variety of product types or claims.
With regards to Culex pipiens and Culex quinquefasciatus, EPA is
aware that these are now considered to be a hybrid mosquito complex.
However, EPA believes that retaining the historical names of the Culex
species provides more appropriate context, given the possibility of
more name changes over time.
With regards to Anopheles mosquitoes, EPA has provided several
species for the applicant to consider because some Anopheles mosquitoes
may not be appropriate for all types of testing, or colonies of some
Anopheles mosquitoes may be difficult to maintain in a laboratory.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to add Anopheles albimanus and A.
stephensi.
EPA agrees that Psorophora might be reported in a field study. Even
though this is another genus of mosquito, Psorophora is not a major
vector of diseases in the U.S. Other species may better inform the
decisions that EPA needs to make.
For testing of skin-applied insect repellents, EPA's Guideline
810.3700, entitled, ``Insect Repellents to be Applied to Human Skin''
provides specific guidance (page 27) on the choice of field testing
sites. (Ref. 39). According to the Guidance, ``Field tests for mosquito
repellency should be conducted in at least two distinct habitats (e.g.,
forest, grassland, salt marsh, wetland, beach, barns, or urban
environments) where the predominant mosquito species differ.''
In field testing, a wide variety of species are encountered. Thus,
for field testing, the applicant's submission will provide information
on the species captured during the testing. EPA will review the data
submitted to determine if a sufficient number and type of species were
present. Generally, EPA expects three different genera to be present:
Culex, Aedes, and Anopheles.
Claims against specific vector/disease combinations must be
supported by testing of the specified vector. Additionally, because
mosquitoes are high stakes vectors and because of the difficulty
consumers have in differentiating between species, for a claim against
any specific species of mosquito, all the required test genera must be
tested.
EPA also agrees that certain species of the mosquitoes specified in
the TSD might not be obtained in a field test. However, the purpose of
providing multiple species is to offer flexibility in how one complies
with the data requirements. In the proposal, EPA has not differentiated
between what species may be more obtainable in a field versus
laboratory test.
Additionally, two commenters provided other comments about how to
obtain mosquito data, particularly in relation to using foreign data
and foreign species as surrogate data. One commenter, for example,
suggested that foreign data be considered acceptable as long as the
study is conducted according to the 810.3700 guidelines. (Ref. 40).
Another commenter indicated that foreign species could be useful if
sufficient colonies of domestic species are not available (e.g.,
declining colonies of US anopheline mosquito species). (Ref. 41). EPA
would like to note that conducting studies according to EPA guidelines
is always recommended, but is not enough to show that a foreign species
is an acceptable surrogate for a domestic species. However, the Agency
acknowledges that situations may arise where data showing efficacy of a
product against foreign species can be
[[Page 15378]]
useful. Therefore, the Agency will consider bridging data from foreign
species to domestic species on a case-by-case basis. With this in mind,
EPA is seeking comment on whether other species should be considered as
part of the required test species.
13. Biting Flies. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1765, EPA is proposing
data requirements for the pest group ``Biting flies (excluding Sand
flies),'' the pest sub-groups ``Large Biting Flies'' and ``Small Biting
Flies (excluding Sand flies),'' and nine pest-specific claims of biting
flies. For the performance standards, EPA is proposing standards
consistent with proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
Since the SAP, the Agency has revised the proposed data
requirements to be clearer than initially presented to the SAP. EPA
proposed the pest group ``Biting flies (excluding Sand flies)'' to be
consistent with experience on how the Agency receives labeling
requests. Sand flies are vectors for Leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease
that is found in parts of the tropics, subtropics, and southern Europe
which can either cause skin sores or affect several internal organs
(usually spleen, liver, and bone marrow). (Ref. 42). This
differentiation improves the clarity and is consistent with how
products have typically been labeled.
The Agency is also proposing to split the pest sub-groups further
into ``Large Biting Flies'' and ``Small Biting Flies (excluding Sand
flies).'' This is in response to the fact that periodically, the Agency
receives requests for claims against large biting flies or claims
against small biting flies. This proposal is to provide that
flexibility in the codified data requirements.
During the SAP, the Panel suggested that the stable fly (Stomoxys
calcitrans) and the horn fly (Haematobia irritans) be included in the
filth fly category. The Panel also questioned why both species need to
be tested. In response, EPA considers both the stable fly and the horn
fly to be biting flies. The Agency is proposing stable flies as one of
the three representative species for the ``Biting Fly (excluding sand
flies)'' pest group claim and one of the two required test species the
``Large Biting Flies'' pest sub-group claim. Testing of both species as
described in the TSD to obtain a claim against stable flies was an
error. Instead, in the absence of an appropriate pest group or pest
sub-group representation, the Agency is proposing to require testing
against stable flies for a pest-specific efficacy claim against stable
flies and testing against horn flies for a pest-specific claim against
horn flies.
The SAP suggested adding Leptoconops kereszi complex and L. torrens
(black gnats) to pest sub-group biting midges in the TSD. For claims
against biting midges, the Agency was proposing testing against one
Culicoides species and one Leptoconops species. The specific species of
Leptoconops required are not specified; therefore EPA would consider
the species suggested by the commenter (Leptoconops kereszi complex and
L. torrens) to be acceptable. The biting midges pest sub-group has
since been revised to be represented as the ``Small Biting Flies
(excluding Sand flies)'' pest sub-group claim. Both biting midges and
black gnats are listed separately under the pest-specific claims.
14. Bed Bugs. In proposed 40 CFR 158.1768, EPA is proposing data
requirements for the pest group claim ``Bed bugs'' and pest-specific
claims for both the Common bed bug and the Tropical bed bug. For the
performance standards, EPA is proposing standards consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
For ``Bed bugs,'' one commenter indicated that only one species is
important to the vast majority of consumers and thus only one species
needs to be tested to support this kind of product registration. For
this proposal, EPA agrees that testing to include only the common bed
bug, Cimex lectularius, is appropriate as the lone required bed bug
test species.
In the TSD, the EPA initially proposed a 95% performance standard
for bed bug products. One commenter stated that the performance
standard for bed bug control products that claim residual control and
ovicidal control should be 90% rather the 95% standard in the TSD.
Additionally, the commenter indicated that bed bug products need to
have residual activity, because control of bed bugs is not possible via
direct contact. They indicated that there must be residual activity in
order for the product to claim ``control'' and if the product does not
have residual activity, then this statement should be on the product
label. The commenter also stated that a performance standard applicable
to bed bug products that claim to kill bed bugs when bed bugs come into
contact with a treated surface is needed. Therefore, EPA has decided to
propose a performance standard of 90%, instead of the 95% in the TSD.
15. Conenose Bugs and Kissing Bugs. For proposed 40 CFR 158.1772,
EPA is proposing data requirements for labeling claims against conenose
bugs and kissing bugs. For the performance standards, EPA is proposing
standards consistent with proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
Initially proposed as ``True bugs (excluding bed bugs)'' in the
TSD, EPA is proposing to focus primarily on the two required test
species, the conenose bug and the kissing bug. This proposal has now
separated them as pest-specific claims since experience has shown that
labeling and data are usually submitted with the intent of labeling for
the specific pest.
During the SAP, one commenter asked why the common stink bug
species is missing from ``true bugs.'' (Ref. 36). In response, the
common stink bug is not a disease vector or otherwise a pest of
significant public health importance, and therefore EPA did not include
it as a test species in the TSD presented to the SAP. Since the ``true
bug'' claims have changed in this group, stink bugs are no longer
relevant to this group.
Similarly, the SAP suggested that both the conenose and the kissing
bug be required test species. Both the kissing bug and the conenose bug
(Triatoma protracta and Triatoma sanguisuga, respectively) are in the
same genus and are both vectors of Chagas disease. Given these
similarities and to reduce the number of studies to be submitted, EPA
did not believe it was necessary to require both when a ``true bug''
claim was still in consideration. Based on experience, EPA has since
opted to propose that they be separate pest-specific claims.
16. Ants (excluding carpenter ants). In the proposed 40 CFR
158.1776, the EPA is proposing data requirements for pest group ``Ants
(excluding carpenter ants),'' for the pest sub-groups ``Fire and
Harvester ants,'' ``Fire and Harvester ant colonies,'' and ``Fire
ants,'' and for seven pest-specific claims in the absences of a pest
group or sub-group claim.
For colony claims, testing must be done specific to the species
listed. For colony claims against the red and/or black imported fire
ants, testing may be done on the red imported fire ant (RIFA)
(Solenopsis invicta), the black imported fire ant (Solenopsis richteri)
or their hybrid.
Data for the pharaoh ant (Monomorium pharaonis) and red imported
fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) would be required to support a general
claim against ants, except carpenter ants. EPA proposes RIFA to receive
a claim against fire and harvester ants for direct spray kill and
residual surface application claims against foraging ants only
(excluding colony claims). For bait products or claims involving
outdoor use, testing must be specific to the
[[Page 15379]]
species listed. For colony claims, testing must be specific to the
species listed. For colony claims against the red and/or black imported
fire ants, testing may be done on, S. invicta, S. richteri, or their
hybrid.
Public comments on the 2013 SAP suggested that additional clarity
was needed for categories such as ``ants'' where only certain members
of the group would be considered pests of significant public health
importance. (See, e.g., Ref. 40). Similar to EPA's current practice for
spiders, EPA requires product performance data for certain species-
specific claims (e.g. ``fire ants'') and for general claims against
``ants'' or ``ants, unless certain species are expressly excluded,
i.e., fire, pharaoh, harvester, and carpenter ants.'' Fire and
harvester ants are considered pests of significant public health
importance, due to their painful stings that may result in anaphylaxis,
while pharaoh ants are considered pests of significant public health
importance because they can transfer numerous pathogens much like
cockroaches. As discussed separately in more detail in Unit VII.C.18 of
this proposal, Carpenter ants are structural pests which also require
the submission of efficacy data. As a result, if an applicant submits a
draft label with a claim against ``ants (excluding fire, pharaoh,
harvester, and carpenter ants),'' the applicant does not need to
provide product performance data to EPA. Instead, the applicant would
generate efficacy data to confirm that the product is effective against
these non-public health pests and then hold those data in their files.
However, a label claim against ``ants'' encompasses, pests of
significant public health importance and structural pests, and
therefore for a ``kills ants'' label claim, the applicant would need to
submit at least three product performance studies to EPA to verify this
claim, one study each for the fire ant (which can be bridged to cover
the harvester ant for a direct spray test), pharaoh ant, and carpenter
ant. For a more detailed discussion of the ``Carpenter ants'' claim,
see Unit VII.C.18 of this proposal.
The SAP also suggested adding the following ants to the ``Ants
(except carpenter ants)'' group: European fire ant, odorous house ant,
red imported fire ant (RIFA), tropical fire ant, thief ant, dark rover
ant, hairy crazy ant, Caribbean crazy ant, yellow crazy ant, pavement
ant, and Crematogaster spp. Fire ants (Solenopsis spp.). Some of the
species suggested for inclusion are not pests of significant public
health importance (odorous house ant, thief ant, dark rover ant, hairy
crazy ant, Caribbean crazy ant, yellow crazy ant, and pavement ant),
and thus EPA is not proposing product performance data requirements
specific to these species.
17. Bees, Wasps, Yellowjackets, and Hornets. For proposed 40 CFR
158.1780, EPA is proposing data requirement for a pest group claim
``Bees, Wasps, Yellowjackets, and Hornets'' and pest-specific claim for
bald-faced hornet, mud dauber wasp, paper wasp, and yellowjackets. For
the performance standards, EPA is proposing standards consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704. For colony claims against Vespula spp. EPA is
proposing a performance standard of 100%.
For the pest group claim, EPA is proposing data on two yellowjacket
species (one Vespula sp. and the bald-faced hornet (Dolichovespula
maculata)) and one paper wasp (Polistes sp.). These required test
species were chosen based on their painful stings that may cause life-
threatening reactions. The SAP was supportive of the selection of these
species as representative to this pest group.
For the pest-specific claims that were proposed, one commenter
indicated that stinging bees and wasps, solitary and ground nesting
Hymenoptera such as mud daubers, digger wasps/bees, and spider wasps
should not be included as pests of significant public health
importance. The commenter believed that these females use their
stingers for hunting, not defense, which means that it is unlikely such
a pest would pose a public health threat. (Ref. 40). Another commenter
added that they are also beneficial insects. (Ref. 41). However, these
insects can inflict painful stings that may cause life-threatening
allergic reactions and therefore are considered pests of significant
public health importance and incorporated into the pest-specific
claims.
The Asian giant hornet, Vespa mandarinia, has recently been sighted
in the U.S. At the time EPA developed the pest grouping for ``Bees,
Wasps, Yellowjackets, and Hornets'', this species was not in the U.S.
EPA requests comment on whether there are data to suggest the
representative taxa should cover this species, or alternatively, data
to suggest the opposite.
18. Carpenter Ants. Carpenter ants are structural pests which also
require the submission of efficacy data. For proposed 40 CFR 158.1782,
EPA is proposing data requirement for a pest group claim ``Carpenter
Ants.'' For the pest group claim, EPA is proposing requiring testing
data on one of the following carpenter ant species: Black carpenter ant
(Camponotus pennsylvanicus), or Florida carpenter ant (Camponotus
floridanus), or Western carpenter ant (Camponotus modoc).
For bait treatment EPA is proposing a performance standard of 95%
prevention of damage to wood for >=3 years. For ``Non-Structural: Wood
Preservative Treatment,'' EPA is proposing a 100% performance standard
of prevention of damage to wood for >=2 years. And for structural
protection, EPA is proposing a performance standard of 95% prevention
of damage to wood >=5 years.
For carpenter ants, the SAP suggested adding the carpenter ant
(Camponotus neracticus) as a test species. The Panel also indicated
that more test species might be needed on the list because laboratories
may experience hardship obtaining and maintaining colonies of some of
the species on the list provided. In response EPA notes that there are
three carpenter ant options for testing and that testing would need to
be done on only one of the species. EPA notes that the Camponotus
neracticus is significantly smaller than any of the three options.
Thus, EPA believes that the three proposed test species are better
choices for representative species.
19. Wood-destroying beetles. For proposed 40 CFR 158.1784, EPA is
proposing data requirements for wood destroying beetles. For products
making a claim against wood-destroying beetles or wood-boring beetles,
EPA is proposing to require testing on three species: Anobiid beetle
(Anobiidae sp.), bostrichid beetle (Bostrichidae sp.), and old house
borer (Hylotrupes bajulus). For products making a claim against true
powderpost beetles, EPA is proposing to require testing on one species
from the Lyctinae subfamily.
For bait treatment EPA is proposing a performance standard of 95%
prevention of damage to wood for >=3 years. For ``Non-Structural: Wood
Preservative Treatment,'' EPA is proposing a 100% performance standard
of prevention of damage to wood for >=2 years. And for structural
protection, EPA is proposing a performance standard of 95% prevention
of damage to wood >=5 years.
One public commenter suggested that EPA consider adding a fourth
genus also known as the lyctid beetles (Lyctinae spp.) to represent the
major wood-destroying beetle genera while allowing flexibility to test
three of the four. (Ref. 43). The EPA does not believe that
substituting a lyctid beetle as a representative test species is
appropriate, as these beetles are not likely to cause structural
damage.
20. Termites. For proposed 40 CFR 158.1786, EPA is proposing data
[[Page 15380]]
requirements for the subterranean termite, desert subterranean termite,
Formosan subterranean termite, drywood termite, and dampwood termite.
For products making a claim against termites, EPA is proposing testing
on species from four genera of termites. EPA is proposing to require
testing on:
Coptotermes formosanus
And one of the following Reticulitermes species:
Reticulitermes flavipes, or Reticulitermes hesperus, or Reticulitermes
virginicus
And one of the following arboreal termite species:
Nasutitermes coringer (Motschulsky)
And one of the following drywood termite species: Cryptotermes
brevis, or Cryptotermes cavifrons, or Incisitermes minor, or
Incisitermes snyderi
For a claim against arboreal termites, EPA is proposing testing of
one arboreal termite species: Nasutitermes coringer (Motschulsky). For
a claim against dampwood termites, EPA is proposing testing of the
following dampwood termite: Zootermopsis sp. For a claim against
drywood termites, EPA is proposing testing of one of the following
drywood termites: Cryptotermes brevis, or Cryptotermes cavifrons, or
Incisitermes minor or Incisitermes snyderi. For a claim against
subterranean termites, including formosan subterranean termites, EPA is
proposing testing in two genera of termites. Specifically, EPA is
proposing testing on the following Coptotermes species: Coptotermes
formosanus; and one of the following Reticulitermes species:
Reticulitermes flavipes, or Reticulitermes hesperus, or Reticulitermes
virginicus.
For bait treatment, EPA is proposing a performance standard of 95%
prevention of damage to wood for >=3 years. For ``Non-Structural: Wood
Preservative Treatment'' EPA is proposing a 100% performance standard
of prevention of damage to wood for >=2 years. And for structural
protection, EPA is proposing a performance standard of 95% prevention
of damage to wood >=5 years.
The SAP suggested adding drywood termite (Incisitermes synderi) as
a test species. EPA is proposing to add Incisitermes snyderi to the
list of representative species for drywood termites. Additionally,
Cryptotermes cavifrons, a species endemic to Florida, would also be an
acceptable representative test species and EPA is proposing to add this
organism as well.
The SAP and other commenters questioned the standard of ``100%
prevention of damage to wood'' and thought that the lesser 95% or 90%
would be more acceptable. EPA agrees with the comment and is proposing
a 95% prevention of damage to wood standard. However, EPA notes that
what constitutes a 95% standard is dependent on the type of study being
performed. For example, for the standard U.S. Forest Service Concrete
Slab field study, the 95% would be calculated such that any damage
greater than nibbles to surface etching would be considered a failure;
if a single plot had more than one instance of nibbles to surface
etching in any of the standard five evaluation periods, this would also
be a failure. A 95% success rate for the U.S. Forest Service Concrete
Slab (CS) tests would be determined by the combined data for a product,
by rate, in a given year. For non-structural wood preservative
treatments, EPA is proposing a standard of 100% prevention of damage to
wood for >=2 years. Additionally, to be consistent with the majority of
other pests, EPA is proposing the termite standards for direct
applications to pests, surface applications, and spatial applications
will be changed to a performance standard of 90%, consistent with
proposed 40 CFR 158.1704.
21. Invasive Species. EPA believes treating invasive species
quickly and appropriately is critical, and EPA does not intend to
preclude use of a pesticide product pursuant to FIFRA 2(ee) to treat an
invasive species. EPA believes that pesticide products are an important
tool for managing the spread of an invertebrate invasive species and
the related public health concerns or significant economic impacts. The
availability of pesticide products with proven performance against an
invasive species is important to slowing the spread of the invasive
species.
Due to the sudden appearance and often rapid spread of invasive
species, except for the pests noted, EPA does not presently intend to
list the specific invasive species for which product performance data
might be deemed necessary. Instead, the submission of product
performance data to support claims for effectiveness against invasive
invertebrate pests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Given
the expectation of infrequent submission of such an application, a
``case-by-case'' approach is the most suitable. EPA recommends that
applicants consult with the Agency when first considering a submission
to place an invasive species on the label of a pesticide product. As
part of the consultation, EPA would be able to provide information on
protocol development and selection of test species. EPA generally
expects to require product performance data for invasive species that
are similar to the Asian longhorned beetle and emerald ash borer in
that they have the potential to cause significant economic or
ecological damage and the efficacy of products used against them cannot
readily be determined at the time of application.
This proposal specifies that the Asian longhorned beetle and the
emerald ash borer are two invasive pests for which product performance
data must be submitted. The efficacy of the products used for their
control typically cannot be determined until the season after
application, and the EPA believes it appropriate to continue the
practice of reviewing efficacy data for these invasive species.
VIII. Updates to Subparts U and V
In addition to the inclusion of product performance data
requirements under the new subpart R, EPA is also proposing to revise
and update the product performance data requirements language for
biochemical and microbial pesticides in subpart U, 40 CFR 158.2070 and
subpart V, 40 CFR 158.2160, in order to clarify the requirements for
products that would be subject to both proposed subpart R and also
subpart U or subpart V.
Subpart U (biochemical pesticides) and subpart V (microbial
pesticides) currently require that product performance data be
developed, and that each applicant must ensure through testing that the
pesticide product is efficacious when used in accordance with label
directions and commonly accepted pest control practices. Both subparts
also state that EPA may require, on a case-by-case basis, submission of
product performance data for any pesticide product registered or
proposed for registration or amendment (see, 40 CFR 158.2070 and 40 CFR
158.2160). These requirements would not be modified by this proposal.
Subpart U (biochemical pesticides) and subpart V (microbial
pesticides) also currently require that product performance data be
submitted for each biochemical and microbial pesticide product that
bears a claim to control public health pests, as the term is used in
subparts U and V. This requirement is followed by a non-exhaustive list
of public health pests. This includes pest microorganisms infectious to
humans in any area of the inanimate environment or a claim to control
vertebrates (including but not limited to: Rodents, birds, bats,
canids, and skunks) or invertebrates (including but not limited to:
Mosquitoes and ticks) that may
[[Page 15381]]
directly or indirectly transmit diseases to humans.
This proposal adds additional clarity by including a provision in
subpart U (biochemical pesticides) and subpart V (microbial pesticides)
stating that product performance data must be submitted for each
product that bears a claim against an invertebrate pest that is covered
by subpart R. This provision is intended to be coextensive with the
requirements of subpart R, and broader than the currently existing
requirements in subparts U and V related to ``public health pests'' in
that it would also cover the wood-destroying beetles and invasive
exotic species claims covered by subpart R.
Additionally, EPA notes that data requirements and the performance
standards that determine the acceptability of data may be modified on a
case-by-case pursuant to the provisions in 40 CFR 158.45 and 40 CFR
158.1707.
IX. Impact of This Proposal on Future and Existing Registrations
This action, if finalized, will have no immediate effect on
existing registrations unless new information indicates an existing
registration includes claims that are not sufficiently supported. When
an application for registration or amended registration requests to put
a claim(s) on its pesticide product's labeling for effectiveness
against an invertebrate species that is covered by this action, the
application would generally include submission of product performance
data to support those claims for effectiveness.
X. Peer Review
A. Human Studies Review Board
1. Background. Research with human subjects that is conducted or
supported by the U.S. government is subject to regulations for the
protection of human subjects. These regulations are referred to as the
Common Rule. EPA's codification of the Common Rule appears at 40 CFR
part 26, subpart A. On February 6, 2006 (71 FR 6138) (FRL-7759-8), EPA
published a final rule amending part 26 by adding new subparts (B-Q).
This amendment added, among other parts, Subpart K, which applies
standards similar to those in the Common Rule to third parties (i.e.,
those other than federal agencies and federally-funded researchers)
conducting research with human subjects. Additional amendments to part
26 have been made, most recently in 2019 (84 FR 35315, July 23, 2019)
(FRL-9996-48-ORD). Under EPA's regulation, if the research involves
intentional exposure of a human subject and if the sponsor or
investigator intends to submit the results of the research to EPA in
connection with any action that may be performed by EPA under the
pesticide laws (FIFRA or FFDCA), then the research must comply with the
provisions of 40 CFR part 26; the requirements of EPA's human studies
rule also apply to any research involving intentional exposure of a
human subject to a pesticide, when the results are intended to be
submitted in connection with a regulatory action under any other
statute EPA administers. In addition to establishing protections for
human subjects of research, EPA established the Human Studies Review
Board (HSRB or Board) to review both proposals for new research and
reports of covered human research on which EPA proposes to rely under
the pesticide laws. The HSRB is a federal advisory committee operating
in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C.
app. 2, section 9).
The HSRB typically includes independent experts in toxicology,
exposure assessment, industrial hygiene, statistics, and bioethics, as
well as an entomologist consultant. The HSRB provides EPA with advice,
information, and recommendations on issues related to both the
scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects research. The major
objectives are to provide review and recommendations on the scientific
and ethical aspects of research proposals and protocols, and reports of
completed research with human subjects; and, when requested, advise on
how to strengthen EPA's programs for protection of human subjects of
research. EPA considers all recommendations from the HSRB before
finalizing its reviews of proposed or final research.
The HSRB reports to the EPA Administrator through EPA's Science
Advisor. Since 2006, the rigorous independent reviews conducted by EPA
and the HSRB, as mandated by part 26, have resulted in research
protocols designed to result in scientifically-sound data and to ensure
the protection of human subjects involved in the research. In providing
for the establishment of the HSRB, the regulations have reassured the
public that all pesticide research involving intentional exposure to
human subjects undergoes thorough independent and expert review based
on scientific and ethical standards.
Under 40 CFR part 26, subpart K, protocols for research subject to
the regulation's requirements must be submitted to EPA for review and
evaluation before initiation of the study. The relevant information
that must be included in the proposed research protocol is specified in
40 CFR 26.1125. EPA then evaluates the protocol and makes a
determination about the scientific validity and reliability of the
research as well as examining the ethical aspects of the research, in
accordance with the conditions in 40 CFR 26.1603. EPA submits the
protocol and supporting materials, as well as EPA's science and ethics
reviews of the proposed research to the HSRB for review and comment.
The members of the HSRB review the proposed research. Then in an open
and transparent manner at a public meeting, members of the HSRB ask
additional questions, provide their individual comments, and
participate in a discussion which is documented in meeting minutes.
Each final HSRB report contains the Board's responses to charge
questions posed by EPA, as well as the final, approved advice of the
HSRB. The research cannot be initiated until EPA approves the protocol,
following its consideration of the HSRB's input and recommendations.
The protocol will only be approved if EPA determines that the research
conducted according to the protocol would meet the standards of 40 CFR
26, Subparts K and L. Information on the HSRB, including materials
reviewed and recommendations can be found on the HSRB web page. (Ref.
44).
Once the research has been conducted, then all of the records
relevant to the research, including raw data and records of ethical
review, are submitted to EPA. EPA examines all submitted materials,
considers the scientific and ethical conduct of the research, and
provides the completed research and its evaluation of the completed
research to the HSRB. The HSRB reviews the documents and discusses them
at a public meeting in the same open and transparent manner. The HSRB
issues a report of their findings following the meeting. EPA may rely
on the results of completed human research involving intentional
exposure of human subjects only if the research meets the standards
referenced in part 26, subpart Q.
2. Review of EPA's draft guideline 810.3700. In October 2008, EPA
presented to the HSRB a draft guideline titled ``Insect Repellents to
be applied to Human Skin'' for review and evaluation. (Ref. 46). The
HSRB final report (Ref. 46) for that October 2008 meeting included the
HSRB's comments and concerns about the statistical analysis plan
included in the draft guideline.
[[Page 15382]]
Based on the HSRB review and comments, EPA revised the guideline
and presented the revised guideline to the HSRB on June 23, 2010. EPA's
Senior Policy Advisor for the Pesticide Program made a presentation
titled, ``OPP Policy Decisions Regarding Insect Repellent Efficacy
Testing.'' (Ref. 31).
The HSRB recommended several changes or clarifications for the
revised guideline in its final report, (Ref. 47) including:
Removal of the maximum-likelihood method requirement in
the data analysis section;
Clarification of recommendations regarding the use of
positive controls, particularly with respect to the number of controls
and the rationale for including them in the study;
Careful consideration of recommendations regarding the
recruitment and inclusion of so-called `vulnerable' populations; and
Encouraging the use of study designs that will enable
investigators to collect data that will allow quantitative measurement
of repellent efficacy in addition to determining the complete
protection time (CPT).
On August 6, 2010 (75 FR 47592), EPA announced the availability of
the final guideline for Insect Repellents to be Applied to Human Skin
(Guideline 810.3700).
3. Overall impact of HSRB review. As required by 40 CFR part 26,
the HSRB has reviewed and commented on all protocols for conducting
skin-applied insect repellents as well as the completed studies
conducted according to those protocols. In its final reports, the HSRB
provided recommendations to strengthen EPA's statistical approaches for
calculating CPTs. Additionally, the HSRB's feedback has resulted in
EPA's development of a model to calculate sample sizes for field and
lab testing with mosquitoes and lab testing with ticks, to support
results. At the recommendation of the HSRB, EPA also elected not to
require positive controls.
B. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
On March 19-20, 2013, EPA presented to the SAP a variety of issues
for their consideration and response concerning the Scientific Issues
Associated with Product Performance Data Needs for Pesticide Products
Claiming Efficacy against Invertebrate Pests of Significant Public
Health or Economic Importance. The meeting announcement, the Agency's
presentations and support documents, public comments, and the comments
by the SAP are available at regulations.gov using the docket identifier
EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574. Unit VII of this proposal discusses how comments
from the SAP and public comments informed the data requirements of
proposed subpart R.
In separate actions EPA has developed and revised testing
guidelines and continues to do so. While this rule refers to these
guidelines, and recommends their use, they are not the subject of
today's proposal. For informational purposes, EPA is providing a
description of SAP meetings relevant to those guidelines.
1. 1994 meeting. In 1994, EPA held a 2-day meeting of the SAP to
review the Agency's proposed amendments to the data requirements for
pesticide registrations contained in 40 CFR part 158. The SAP was asked
to comment on each data requirement and identify, in their opinion,
which ones were necessary to fully and thoroughly evaluate the
potential hazard of a chemical compound and which ones were not
intrinsically useful in providing practical scientific information. The
review included both comparative product performance data requirements
along with product performance data requirements for public health and
non-public health data requirements. A very complete discussion of the
1994 SAP was presented in the proposed rule for conventional pesticides
(March 11, 2005; 70 FR 12310) (FRL-6811-2).
2. April 2000 meeting. In April 2000 the SAP was asked to comment
on a draft guideline regarding insect repellents for human skin and
outdoor premises. (Ref. 48).
3. July 2002 meeting. On July 30-31, 2002, the SAP was asked to
review the design and scientific soundness of the draft guideline
entitled ``Termite Bait Testing.'' EPA's presentations, the draft
guideline, the charge questions, and the Panel's review of the
guideline are available at regulations.gov using the docket identifier
EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0125.
4. March 2012 meeting. On March 6-7, 2012, EPA presented to the
SAP, a draft guideline regarding bed bugs. The meeting announcement,
the Agency's presentations and support documents, public comments, and
the comments by the SAP are available at regulations.gov using the
docket identifier EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1017. After taking the SAP's feedback
into consideration, EPA announced the availability of the final test
guideline, Laboratory Product Performance Testing Methods for Bed Bug
Pesticide Products; OCSPP Test Guideline 810.3900, on June 14, 2017 (82
FR 27254) (FRL-9959-78).
5. May 2018 meeting. On May 8-10, 2018, EPA presented to the SAP
for their consideration and response scientific issues associated with
proposed revisions to two EPA Test Guidelines 810.3100 (Soil Treatment
for Imported Fire Ants), and Guideline 810.3500 (Premises Treatment),
for Red Imported Fire Ants (RIFA). These guidelines were originally
published in March 1998.
The proposed premises treatment guideline revisions presented to
the SAP contained recommended test methodologies for a wide range of
products intended to kill, control, flush, and/or knockdown
invertebrate premises pests, such as cockroaches, ticks, mosquitoes,
flies, and wasps. The guideline did not cover treatment of livestock or
pets, wide area-mosquito control, or bed bug products. In addition to
guidance for testing efficacy of direct pesticide application to pests,
residual treatments, and cockroach and fly baits in the laboratory, the
proposed guideline also included field testing methods for outdoor
misting systems, Hymenoptera nest treatments, and outdoor foggers.
Methods for resistance ratio determination and characterization of pest
population strain susceptibility were also described.
The proposed RIFA treatment guideline revisions contained
recommended test methodologies for evaluating the performance of
pesticide products for the treatment and control of red imported fire
ant colonies/mounds. The guideline did not cover premises treatments
for RIFA workers/foragers, such as direct application to pests. Field
tests for both mound- and area-applied pesticide products were
proposed, along with accompanying laboratory studies for baits, barrier
treatments, and insect growth regulators.
The meeting announcement, the Agency's presentations and support
documents, and public comments are available at regulations.gov using
the docket identifier EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0693. In September of 2019, EPA
published the final Product Performance Test Guidelines OCSPP 810.3500:
Premises Treatments; Background information, the draft guideline, and
charge questions developed by EPA are available at https://archive.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/web/html/040500_mtg.html.
7. June 2019 meeting. On June 11-14, 2019, the SAP reviewed EPA's
proposed guidelines for Efficacy Testing of Topically Applied
Pesticides Used Against Certain Ectoparasitic Pests on Pets. The
meeting announcement, the Agency's presentations and support documents,
public comments, and the comments by the SAP are available at
[[Page 15383]]
regulations.gov using the docket identifier EPA-HQ-OPP-20190161.
XI. Request for Comments
The Agency invites the public to provide comment on the proposed
requirements and their basis. Specifically included within the Agency's
requests for comments are suggestions which can be supported by
scientific data for the Agency to consider during the development of
the final rule. Specific comments are requested for:
1. Definitions. The Agency welcomes comment on the proposed
definitions. The Agency also welcomes suggestions on additional
definitions that may be needed to help clarify what is required in the
regulations.
2. Representative test species. The proposed rule includes
taxonomic categories of invertebrates which require more than one
species to be tested to support a general claim for that pest group.
The representative taxa were selected on the basis of vigor of the pest
species and the likely ability of the species to serve as an adequate
surrogate for other pests in the group. The selection of representative
taxa was informed by the 2013 SAP.
3. Performance standards. The Agency welcomes specific comments on
performance standards. The Agency would need to see scientifically
sound data to support any recommendations for performance standards
that differ from those proposed. The Agency believes requiring data
showing the pesticide meets a specified threshold level (performance
standard) of efficacy is the best means of addressing potential
consequences which could occur through the use of ineffective
pesticides intended for use against pests that transmit disease.
4. Economic analysis. The Agency also welcomes public comment on
its economic analysis of the proposed rule, as well as on its
underlying assumptions, economic data, and high and low-cost options
and alternatives. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and data used in preparing your comments. Explain estimates
in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced for validation.
EPA's underlying principle in developing the proposed revisions has
been to strike an appropriate balance between the need for adequate
data to make the statutorily mandated determinations and informed risk
management decisions, while minimizing data collection burdens on
regulated community required to support product performance data
requirements. In particular, EPA would appreciate public comment on the
magnitude of the savings in discovery costs discussed on page 29 of the
cost analysis.
XII. References
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. US EPA. Cost Analysis of the Proposed Product Performance Rule,
prepared by the Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs, available in docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0124.
2. US EPA. Pesticide Registration (PR Notice) Notice 2002-1,
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-04/documents/pr2002-1.pdf at 2 (accessed March 6, 2020); see also
Public Review Draft: Pesticide Registration (PR Notice) 2020-[X],
Draft List of Pests of Significant Public Health Importance--Revised
2020, docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0260.
3. US EPA. PRN 96-7 Termiticide Labeling, available at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/prn-96-7-termiticide-labeling
(accessed March 13, 2020).
4. United States Public Health Service. Public Health Report. 1923
Aug 3; 38(31): 1747-1814.
5. Scott, Thomas and Willem Takken. Feeding strategies of
anthropophilic mosquitoes result in increased risk of pathogen
transmission. Trends in Parasitology March 2012, Vol. 28, No. 3.
6. Eisen, Lars. Pathogen transmission in relation to duration of
attachment by Ixodes scapularis ticks, Ticks and Tick-borne
Diseases.
7. US EPA. Bed Bugs, Get them out and Keep them Out, available at
https://www.epa.gov/bedbugs (accessed March 6, 2020).
8. US EPA and CDC. Joint statement on bed bug control in the United
States from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); available
at https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/21750/Email (accessed March 19,
2020).
9. Su N-Y, Scheffrahn RH (2000). Termites as pests of buildings. In:
Abe T, Bignell DE, Higashi M (eds) Termites: Evolution, sociality,
symbioses, ecology. Kluwer, Boston, pp 437-453.
10. Peterson CJ, Wagner TL, Shelton TG, Mulrooney JE (2008). A
historic pest: 90 years of USDA publications reveal changes in
termite management. Pest Manag Prof 76(2):25, 28-30, 32.
11. US EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs, Label Review Manual,
available at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/label-review-manual (accessed March 13, 2020).
12. US EPA. Product Performance Guideline 810.1000, Overview,
Definitions, and General Considerations, available at https://www.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances/series-810-product-performance-test-guidelines (accessed March 6, 2020).
13. CDC. Division of Vector Borne Infectious Diseases: West Nile
Virus Fact Sheet available at https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/resources/pdfs/wnvFactsheet_508.pdf, (accessed March 9, 2020).
14. CDC. Zika Virus, Statistics and Maps; available at https://www.cdc.gov/zika/reporting/ (accessed March 6, 2020); CDC,
Zika Virus, available at https://www.cdc.gov/zika/
(accessed March 6, 2020).
15. CDC. Lyme Disease: Data and Surveillance, available at https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/datasurveillance/?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Flyme%2Fstats%2Findex.html (accessed March 19, 2020).
16. M.L. Wilson, J.F. Levine, and A. Spielman. Effect of deer
reduction on abundance of the deer tick (Ixodes dammini), Yale J
Biol Med. 1984 Jul-Aug; 57(4): 697-705.
17. David Cameron Duffy, Scott R. Campbell, Dara Clark, Chris
Dimotta, Susan Gurney. Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) Deer Tick
Mesoscale Populations in Natural Areas: Effects of Deer, Area, and
Location, Journal of Medical Entomology, Volume 31, Issue 1, 1
January 1994, Pages 152-158, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/31.1.152.
18. CDC. Lyme Disease: Treatment, available at https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/treatment/ (accessed March 6, 2020).
19. CDC. Signs and Symptoms of Untreated Lyme Disease, available at
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/signs_symptoms/ (accessed March 9,
2020).
20. CDC. Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever: Signs and Symptoms, available
at https://www.cdc.gov/rmsf/symptoms/, (accessed March 6,
2020); CDC.
21. CDC. Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever: Information for Health Care
Providers, available at https://www.cdc.gov/rmsf/healthcare-providers/ (accessed March 6, 2020).
22. CDC. Lyme Disease: Preventing Tick Bites on People, available at
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/prev/on_people.html (accessed March 6,
2020).
23. CDC. Division of Vector Borne Infectious Diseases: West Nile
Virus (WNV) Fact Sheet available at https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/resources/pdfs/wnvFactsheet_508.pdf (accessed March 6, 2020).
24. Emerald Ash Borer Information Network, available at https://www.emeraldashborer.info/about-eab.php (accessed March 9, 2020).
25. USDA. Emerald Ash Borer, available at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
[[Page 15384]]
ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-
diseases/emerald-ash-borer (accessed March 9, 2020).
26. USDA. Asian Long-Horned Beetle, available at https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/profile/asian-long-horned-beetle,
(accessed March 9, 2020).
27. NRS. Economic Impacts of Non-Native Forest Insects in the
Continental United States, available at https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/38719 (accessed March 9, 2020).
28. US EPA. Technical Support Document Scientific Issues Associated
with Product Performance Data Needs for Pesticide Products Claiming
Efficacy against Invertebrate Pests of Significant Public Health or
Economic Importance Submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
for Review and Comment March 19-21, 2013 (Hereinafter ``TSD''),
available in docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574-0002, Appendix 1, Tables I
and II.
29. US EPA. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, Meeting Minutes and
Final Report for the March 19-21, 2013 Scientific Advisory Panel,
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/031913minutes.pdf (accessed April 9, 2020).
30. World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for Efficacy Testing
of Mosquito Repellents for Human Skin, available at https://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2009/WHO_HTM_NTD_WHOPES_2009.4_eng.pdf
(accessed March 23, 2020).
31. US EPA. OPP Policy Decisions Regarding Insect Repellent Efficacy
Testing, (prepared for June 23, 2010, Human Subjects Research Board
Meeting).
32. USDA. National Invasive Species Information Center, available at
https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/ (accessed April 29, 2020).
33. Consumer and Specialty Products Association (CSPA). Comment
submitted by Beth Law, CSPA, March 15, 2013, EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574-
0014.
34. USDA. Victor Borne Diseases: Cattle Fever Ticks, available at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/cattle-disease-information/cattle-vector-borne-diseases (accessed March 9, 2020).
35. Bovine Babesiosis, available at cfsph.iastate.edu/factsheets/pdfs/bovine_babesiosis.pdf (accessed March 24, 2020).
36. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Comment submitted by Jill Geyser, S.C.
Johnson & Son, Inc., March 9, 2013, EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574-0011.
37. UF IFAS. Featured Creatures: Human Bot Fly, available at https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/flies/human_bot_fly.htm (accessed
March 9, 2020).
38. USDA. National Agricultural Library, New World Screwworms,
available at https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/stop-screwworms--selections-fr/introduction (accessed March 9).
39. US EPA. EPA's Guideline 810.3700, entitled, ``Insect Repellents
to be Applied to Human Skin,'' available at https://www.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances/series-810-product-performance-test-guidelines (accessed July 1, 2020).
40. Comment submitted by Dudley Hoskins, Responsible Industry for a
Sound Environment, March 10, 2013, EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574-0009.
41. Comment submitted by Beth Law, Consumer and Specialty Products
Association, March 15, 2013, EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574-0014.
42. CDC. Parasites-Leishmaniasis, available at https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/leishmaniasis/ (accessed March 16, 2020).
43. Comment submitted by Brian Forschler, Termiticide Scientific
Review Panel, March 19, 2013, EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574-0016.
44. US EPA. Science Adviser Programs: Human Studies Review Board,
available at https://www.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board
(accessed April 1, 2010).
45. US EPA. Draft Guideline 810.3700, Insect Repellents to be
applied to Human Skin https://archive.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/web/pdf/guidelines-for-performance-testing-of-skin-applied-insect-repellents-9.23.08.pdf (accessed April 1, 2020).
46. US EPA. October 21-22, 2008 EPA Human Studies Review Board
Meeting Report, available at https://archive.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/web/pdf/october2008hsrbbfinaldraftreport12808.pdf (accessed April 9,
2020).
47. US EPA. EPA Human Studies Review Board Meeting Report, June 23,
2010. Available at https://archive.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/web/pdf/june2010finalreport090910.pdf (accessed April 14, 2020).
48. US EPA. Background Information, the Draft Guideline, and Charge
Questions Developed by EPA, available at https://archive.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/web/html/040500_mtg.html.
49. US EPA. ``Proposed Rule-related ICR Amendment for Pesticide
Product Performance Data Requirements for Products Claiming Efficacy
Against Certain Invertebrate Pests'' (RIN 2070-AJ49), EPA ICR No.:
0277.20 and OMB Control No.: 2070-[tbd]. November 2020.
XIII. FIFRA Review Requirements
Pursuant to FIFRA section 25(a), EPA submitted the draft proposed
rule to the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) and the FIFRA SAP for
review. A draft of the proposed rule was also submitted to the
appropriate Congressional Committees.
XIV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action (Ref. 1) which
is summarized in more detail in Unit I.E. This analysis is available in
the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA
prepared is assigned EPA ICR No. 0277.20 and OMB Control No.: 2070-0060
(Ref. 49). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket and it is
briefly summarized here.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule are
associated with the codification of efficacy data requirements against
certain invertebrate pests. These information collection activities are
activities associated with the application for a new or amended
registration of a pesticide and are currently approved by OMB under OMB
Control No. 2070-0060 (EPA ICR No. 0277). As such, this ICR is intended
to amend that existing ICR at the final rule stage, incorporating the
information collection activities attributable to this proposed rule,
including a reduction in transaction costs associated with a clear
codification of the product performance data requirements for certain
invertebrate pests.
Respondents/affected entities: There are three groups impacted by
the rule. Chemical producers (NAICS 32532), colleges, universities, and
professional schools (NAICS code 611310), and research and development
labs and services (NAICS code 541712).
Respondent's obligation to respond: These data must be submitted
for the applicant to receive the desired pesticide registration or
label claim. Authorizing legislation is contained in Section 3 of FIFRA
(7 U.S.C. 136). The implementing regulations specific to the product
performance data requirements are contained in 40 CFR part 158.
[[Page 15385]]
Estimated number of respondents: EPA estimates that registrants
submit 60 data packages to the Agency annually for efficacy review.
Some registrants may submit multiple data packages per year. Under this
rule the number of submissions may decline--and therefore the number of
respondents may also decrease.
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Total estimated burden: The proposed rule is expected to reduce
burden hours by 4,683 annually, including 4,515 hours from reduced
paperwork burden associated with data generation and 168 hours from
reduced paperwork burden associated with the application process.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). EPA already accounts for the
activities associated with the proposed rule in the currently approved
ICR, which covers most activities associated with new and amended
registrations; EPA estimates a total annual respondent burden of 1.5
million hours for all these activities. As discussed in the Proposed
Rule-related ICR Amendment (Ref. 49), 483,000 of those hours are
paperwork burden from data generation for new products, and 102,000 of
those hours are paperwork burden from application for new and amended
products.
Total estimated cost: The estimated burden reduction is expected to
reduce burden cost by $330,000 annually, including $315,000 from
reduced paperwork burden associated with data generation and $15,000
from reduced paperwork burden associated with the application process,
which includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance
costs. EPA already accounts for the activities associated with the
proposed rule in the currently approved ICR, which covers most
activities associated with new and amended registrations; EPA estimates
a total annual respondent burden of $109 million for all these
activities. As discussed in the Proposed Rule ICR (Ref. 49), $33.7
million of that cost is paperwork burden from data generation for new
products, and $9.3 million of that cost is paperwork burden from
application for new and amended products.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern
is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency
may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory
burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on the small entities subject to the rule. EPA's small entity analysis
suggests that the greatest impact, and the most potential cost savings,
would accrue to small entities and new registrants. While large,
established registrants have experience with the registration process
and are aware of EPA's data requirements or have the means to determine
the appropriate studies, new and small registrants without that
experience may bear significant costs of acquiring this information.
The registrants would have easier access to the data requirements, and
the reduction in information acquisition costs would be largest for
those registrants with the greatest information acquisition needs.
Thus, EPA anticipates that the proposed rule would result in cost
savings, particularly for small and first-time registrants. While the
affected NAICS codes contain up to 5,438 small entities, EPA does not
expect all entities to experience cost savings in all years as a result
of this proposed rule. As the cost analysis (Ref. 1) describes, a
sample of 30 applications was selected at random. These applications
were submitted by 16 different firms, four of which EPA was able to
identify as small businesses according to the Small Business
Administration Employees or Revenue Thresholds. About 60 packages are
received annually by EPA for control claims. Therefore, EPA expects
that, on average, approximately ten small entities will experience cost
savings each year as a result of this proposed rule.
While not every element of the proposed rule would result in
savings for registrants, EPA conservatively estimates that the rule
would result in $1 million in annual reductions in registrant
expenditures on the process of receiving label claims against public
health, wood destroying, and invasive species pests, equivalent to
about $17,000 in savings per data package submitted to the Agency and
about $5,500 per registrant in annual savings I have therefore
concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities. The basis for this determination is
presented in the small entity analysis prepared as part of the cost
analysis for the proposed rule (Ref. 1), which is summarized in Unit
I.E, and a copy is available in the docket for this rulemaking. We have
therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for
all directly regulated small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and will not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments. The proposed rule would primarily affect
the private sector, i.e., pesticide registrants. The rule is not
expected to result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (when adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Accordingly, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202, 203, or 205 of UMRA. The cost analysis for this action is
summarized in Unit I.E. and is available in the docket.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. At present, no Tribal governments hold,
or have applied for, a pesticide registration. Thus, Executive
[[Page 15386]]
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental
health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered
regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution
or use of energy and has not otherwise been designated as a significant
energy action by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action does not involve technical standards that would require
Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. The Agency notes, however,
that the proposed data requirements will provide data that will be used
to assure that pesticide products perform effectively if claiming
effectiveness against an invertebrate pest of significant public health
or economic importance, and to address both health concerns and
economic consequences stemming from pesticide products that might not
perform as claimed on the label, including consequences for sensitive
subpopulations and minority or low-income communities.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 158
Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure,
agricultural and non-agricultural, pesticides and pests, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Jane Nishida,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 158 as follows:
PART 158--DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR PESTICIDES
0
1. The authority citation for part 158 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 346a.
0
2. In Sec. 158.1, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 158.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(c) Scope of individual subparts. (1) Conventional pesticides.
Subparts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, N, O, and R apply to conventional
pesticides.
(2) Biochemical pesticides. Subparts A, B, E, R, and U apply to
biochemical pesticides.
(3) Microbial pesticides. Subparts A, B, E, R, and V apply to
microbial pesticides.
(4) Antimicrobial pesticides. Subparts A, B, C, D, E, R, and W of
this part apply to antimicrobial pesticides.
0
3. Revise the heading for subpart E to read as follows:
Subpart E--Product Performance for Products Claiming Effectiveness
Against Vertebrate Pests, Products With Prion-related Claims, and
Products for Control of Organisms Producing Mycotoxins
0
4. Add section subpart R to read as follows:
Subpart R--Product Performance for Products Claiming Effectiveness
Against Invertebrate Pests
Sec.
158.1700 General requirements.
158.1701 Definitions.
158.1703 Application categories.
158.1704 Performance standards for data acceptability.
158.1705 Test guidelines.
158.1707 Data requirement modifications.
158.1708 Invasive species claims.
158.1709 Invertebrate disease vector claims.
158.1710 Structural and wood-destroying pest claims.
158.1712 Mites (excluding chiggers).
158.1714 Chiggers.
158.1718 Ticks.
158.1722 Scorpions.
158.1726 Spiders.
158.1732 Centipedes.
158.1736 Lice.
158.1740 Fleas.
158.1744 Cockroaches.
158.1748 Keds, screwworms, and bot flies.
158.1752 Filth flies.
158.1756 Mosquitoes.
158.1760 Biting flies.
158.1768 Bed bugs.
158.1772 Conenose bugs and kissing bugs.
158.1776 Ants (excluding carpenter ants).
158.1780 Bees, wasps, yellowjackets, and hornets.
158.1782 Carpenter ants.
158.1784 Wood-destroying beetles.
158.1786 Termites.
Subpart R--Product Performance for Products Claiming Effectiveness
Against Invertebrate Pests
Sec. 158.1700 General requirements.
(a) General. Each applicant must ensure through testing that their
product is efficacious when used in accordance with label directions
and commonly accepted pest control practices. The Agency may require,
as specified herein and on a case-by-case basis, submission of product
performance data for any pesticide product registered or proposed for
registration or amendment.
(1) Test substance. All product performance testing is performed
using the end-use product.
(2) Test organism. All product performance testing must report the
species tested.
(3) Testing. All products are to be tested to support the claim(s)
made on the labeling of the pesticide product.
(4) Data requirements. To determine the specific product
performance data required to support the registration of each pesticide
product, the applicant must refer to the applicable sections of this
subpart.
(b) Product performance data submission. Each product that bears a
claim subject to this subpart, must be supported by submission of
product performance data, as listed in this subpart. This product
performance data must be submitted with any application for
registration or amended registration. For the pest-specific claims
listed in this subpart, data must be for the species specified to
support the claim.
Sec. 158.1701 Definitions.
Definitions. The following terms are defined for purposes of this
subpart.
Complete protection time (CPT) means the time from application of a
skin-applied insect repellent until efficacy failure, which is
described in Product Performance Test Guideline 810.3700--Insect
Repellents to be Applied to Human Skin.
Introduction means the intentional or unintentional escape,
release, dissemination, or placement of a species into an ecosystem as
a result of human activity.
[[Page 15387]]
Invasive species means with respect to a particular ecosystem, any
species that is not native to that ecosystem, and whose introduction
does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to
human health.
Performance standard means a benchmark or reference against which
the efficacy of the pesticide is compared (including, but not limited
to, the ability of the pesticide product to control, kill, or repel an
invertebrate pest species).
Pest group labeling claim means a claim or statement on the
labeling of the pesticide product that the product is effective against
a group of related species or taxa demonstrating adequate similarity in
basic biology and life history characteristics to permit identification
of representative test species for the entire assemblage of taxa.
Pest-specific labeling claim means a claim or statement on the
labeling of the pesticide product that the product is effective against
a particular arthropod species, such as German cockroach or house fly.
Pest sub-group labeling claim means a claim or statement on the
labeling of the pesticide product that the product is effective against
a set of related species or taxa demonstrating adequate similarity in
basic biology and life history characteristics to permit identification
of representative test species and part of a larger identified
taxonomic grouping (e.g., Biting flies) that includes other pest
species, which may or may not have a proposed pest group.
Skin-applied insect repellent means a product intended to disrupt
the host-seeking behavior of insects or other arthropods, driving or
keeping them away from treated human skin. The repellent product, such
as liquid, lotion, or spray, is intended to be applied directly to
human skin. Efficacy of skin-applied insect repellents is expressed as
complete protection time.
Species means a group of organisms all of which have a high degree
of physical and genetic similarity, generally interbreed only among
themselves, and show persistent differences from members of allied
groups of organisms.
Wood-destroying applies to pests that feed on or nest in wood, and
therefore are highly destructive to wood buildings or structures, and
stored lumber. The impact on the structural integrity of buildings can
represent significant economic or safety concerns given the costs of
remediation.
Vector means any organism capable of transmitting the causative
agent of human and/or animal disease, including but not limited to
mosquitoes and ticks.
Sec. 158.1703 Application categories.
The following terms are defined for purposes of this subpart.
Bait treatment means a pesticide product intended to be ingested by
the target pest that kills or controls an invertebrate pest such as
ants, cockroaches, or termites. This is normally through the insect
feeding on the product directly, but may also include products which
the target will contact and later ingest during grooming/cleaning. The
attractiveness of these products is through the use of a palatable food
base, however they may also incorporate an attractant (e.g. pheromone)
which is intended to attract the target pests over a greater distance.
Soil-applied termiticides means pesticide products that are applied
to the soil beneath and/or adjacent to the structure, pre- or post-
construction, to kill or control termites. Treatments can be preventive
(i.e., to provide structural protection before a termite infestation is
present) or remedial (i.e., to kill and control a termite infestation
when present).
Spatial repellents include treatments of both indoor and outdoor
sites where the product is applied into the air rather than onto a
surface or the skin in order to drive away insects or other arthropods
from that space. They are intended to repel the target pest through the
dispersal of pesticide into the atmosphere of a room or other open
space.
Structural protection means the prevention of termite or other
wood-destroying pest activity in an entire structure as the result of
an application of a pesticide product.
Sec. 158.1704 Performance standards for data acceptability.
(a) General. The claim stated on the pesticide product labeling
(such as knockdown, control, mortality, or repellency) determines the
performance standard that must be met. In the absence of specific pest/
labeling claims/performance standards specified in Sec. Sec. 158.1708
through 158.1799, the performance standards of paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section apply.
(b) Skin-applied insect repellent labeling claims. (1) For skin-
applied insect repellent labeling claims, the performance standard must
be greater than or equal to 2-hours complete protection time.
(2) Any testing required under this part which involves any human
subjects must comply with all applicable requirements under 40 CFR part
26. For example, 40 CFR part 26 requirements are pertinent to the part
158 testing requirement if the testing involves intentional exposure of
human subjects. Protocols for such testing must be submitted to EPA for
review prior to study initiation. Those protocols determined by EPA to
involve intentional exposure of human subjects also require review by
EPA's Human Studies Review Board (HSRB)) prior to study initiation. If
you are uncertain about the applicability of the 40 CFR part 26
requirements to this 40 CFR part 158 testing requirement or uncertain
about the nature of your planned testing (such as, for example, whether
the testing would involve intentional exposure of human subjects or
whether the testing would be an observational study), you should
contact the Agency prior to initiating the testing.
(c) Labeling claims for products other than skin-applied insect
repellents. Unless otherwise specified in Sec. Sec. 158.1710 through
158.1786, for pesticides other than skin-applied insect repellents, the
performance standard for a product performance claim against a pest
must be greater than or equal to 90 percent, except for non-wearable
spatial repellents where the performance standard is greater than or
equal to 75 percent.
Sec. 158.1705 Test guidelines.
EPA has published the Harmonized Test Guidelines, which set forth
the recommended approach to generate the data required in this subpart.
The Product Performance Guidelines (Series 810, Group C--Invertebrate
Control Agent Test Guidelines) are available on the Agency's website.
These guidelines cover some, but not all, of the tests that would be
used to generate data under this subpart. In instances where there is a
conflict between one of the Harmonized Test Guidelines and the
provisions of this subpart, this subpart will control.
Sec. 158.1707 Data requirement modifications.
The data requirements (including the performance standards
associated with the data requirements) specified in this subpart as
applicable to a category of products will not always be appropriate for
every product in that category. Data requirements may, on a case-by-
case basis, be adjusted by EPA in response to requests for novel
technologies or products that have unusual physical, chemical, or
biological properties or atypical use patterns which would make a
particular data requirement, or data performance standard,
inappropriate. Requests for such data requirement modifications must be
submitted the same manner as waiver requests submitted under 40 CFR
158.45. EPA
[[Page 15388]]
will respond in writing to those requests. The Agency may modify data
requirements it finds are inappropriate for the pesticide in question,
but will ensure that sufficient data are available to make the
determinations required by the applicable statutory standards.
Sec. 158.1708 Invasive species claims.
(a) General. In addition to those species specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, if an application for registration or amended
registration requests a labeling claim for effectiveness against an
invasive invertebrate species, then on a case-by-case basis, EPA may
require submission of product performance data and establish
performance standards for those data to support those claims for
effectiveness.
(b) Specific. Applications for registration or amended registration
requests for a labeling claim for the emerald ash borer, Agrilus
planipennis, or Asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis, must
be accompanied by product performance data to support those claims for
effectiveness.
Sec. 158.1709 Invertebrate disease vector claims.
If an application for registration or amended registration requests
a labeling claim specific to a disease vector (such as repels
mosquitoes that may carry West Nile virus), then submission of testing
conducted with the species specific to the disease vector claim and
subject to specific performance standards is required even if the test
species is not specifically required in Sec. Sec. 158.1712 through
158.1786.
Sec. 158.1710 Structural and wood-destroying pest claims.
If an application for registration or amended registration requests
a labeling claim specific to a structural or wood-destroying pest not
identified in Sec. Sec. 158.1782 through 158.1786, EPA may require
submission of product performance data, with testing on that specific
pest and subject to specific performance standards, to support those
claims for effectiveness.
Sec. 158.1712 Mites (excluding chiggers).
(a) General. The tables and test notes in this section apply to
dust, human itch or scabies, and dog follicle mites. The claim stated
on the pesticide product labeling determines the required test species.
The required test species for a specific type of mite claim appear in
paragraph (b) of this section and the required performance standards
appear in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For pesticide products making a claim against
mites, the required test species appear in the following table.
Table 1 Paragraph (b)--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Mites
[Excluding Chiggers]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dog Follicle Mite................. Dog follicle mite (Demodex canis).
Dust Mite......................... Testing on one of the following
species is required:
American house dust mite
(Dermatophagoides farinae) OR
European house dust mite
(Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus).
Human Itch or Scabies Mite........ Human itch mite (Sarcoptes scabiei).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Performance standards. (1) For the dog follicle mite, a
performance standard of 100 percent is required.
(2) For the human itch or scabies mite, a performance standard of
100 percent is required.
Sec. 158.1714 Chiggers.
If the pesticide product labeling makes a claim against chiggers,
then testing is required using the following test species: Chigger
(Trombicula alfreddugesi).
Sec. 158.1718 Ticks.
(a) General. The table and test notes in this section apply to hard
ticks (including cattle ticks) and soft ticks. The claim stated on the
pesticide product labeling determines the required test species. The
required test species for a specific type of tick claim appear in
paragraph (b) of this section. Specific parameters that apply to
individual tests appear in paragraph (c) of this section. For a claim
against any specific species of ``ticks'' that individual species and
all the listed representative species for ``ticks'' must be tested, but
not the representative species for cattle ticks or soft ticks. Claims
against ticks in association with tick borne diseases are also subject
to the requirements in Sec. 158.1709.
(b) Test species. For pesticide products making a claim against
ticks, the required test species appear in the following table.
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Required Test Species for Products Making a
Claim Against Ticks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ticks............................. Testing on a total of three hard
tick species is required:
Blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis)
AND Lone star tick (Amblyomma
americanum)
AND one of the following three
species:
American dog tick (Dermacentor
variabilis) OR Brown dog tick
(Rhipicephalus sanguineus) OR Rocky
Mountain wood tick (Dermacentor
andersoni).
Cattle Ticks...................... Testing on one of the following
species is required:
Southern cattle tick (Rhipicephalus
microplus) OR Cattle fever tick
(Rhipicephalus annulatus).
Soft Ticks........................ Soft tick (Ornithodoros hermsi).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Specific parameters. The following parameters are required.
1. For products applied to dogs, testing is required on three
species: Blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis), American dog tick
(Dermacentor variabilis), and Brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus
sanguineus).
2. For products applied to cats, testing is required on three
species: Blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis), Lone star tick
(Amblyomma americanum), and American dog tick (Dermacentor variabilis).
[[Page 15389]]
Sec. 158.1722 Scorpions.
If the pesticide product labeling makes a claim against scorpions,
then testing is required using the following test species: Striped bark
scorpion (Centruroides vittatus).
Sec. 158.1726 Spiders.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to spiders. The
product labeling claim determines the required test species. The
required test species for spider labeling claims appear in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against spiders, the
test species for labeling claims appear in the following table.
Table 1 of 158.1726--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Spiders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Group Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spiders........................... Testing on two species is required:
Brown recluse spider (Loxosceles
reclusa)
AND one of the following species is
required:
Northern black widow spider
(Latrodectus variolus) OR
Southern black widow spider
(Latrodectus mactans) OR Western
black widow spider (Latrodectus
hesperus).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Sub-Group Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Widow Spiders............... Testing on one of the following
species is required:
Northern black widow spider
(Latrodectus variolus) OR
Southern black widow spider
(Latrodectus mactans) OR Western
black widow spider (Latrodectus
hesperus).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest-Specific Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown recluse spider.............. Brown recluse spider (Loxosceles
reclusa).
Brown widow spider................ Brown widow spider (Latrodectus
geometricus).
Northern black widow spider....... Northern black widow spider
(Latrodectus variolus).
Southern black widow spider....... Southern black widow spider
(Latrodectus mactans).
Western black widow spider........ Western black widow spider
(Latrodectus hesperus).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1732 Centipedes.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to centipedes. The
product labeling claim determines the required test species. The
required test species for a labeling claim appears in paragraph (b) of
the section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against centipedes,
the required test species for a labeling claim is set forth in the
following table.
Table 1 of 158.1732--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Centipedes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centipedes........................ Testing on one of the following
species is required:
House centipede (Scutigera
coleoptrata) OR Florida blue
centipede (Hemiscolopendra
marginata) OR Scolopendra sp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1736 Lice.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to human lice. The
product labeling claim determines the required test species. The
required test species for a labeling claim appears in paragraph (b) of
this section. The required performance standards appear in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against lice, the
required test species for a labeling claim appear in the following
table.
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Required Test Species for Products Making a
Claim Against Lice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lice.............................. Testing on one of the following
species is required:
Head louse (Pediculus humanus
capitis) OR Body louse
(Pediculus humanus humanus).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Performance standards. For labeling claims against lice, a
performance standard of 100 percent is required.
Sec. 158.1740 Fleas.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to fleas. The
product labeling claim determines the required test species. The
required test species for a labeling claim appears in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against fleas, the
required test species for a labeling claim is set forth in the
following table.
[[Page 15390]]
Table 1 of 158.1740--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Fleas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Group Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleas............................. Testing on the following species is
required:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest-Specific Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cat flea.......................... Cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis).
Chigoe flea....................... Chigoe flea (Tunga penetrans).
Dog flea.......................... Dog Flea (Ctenocephalides canis).
Hen flea.......................... Hen flea (Ceratophyllus gallinae).
Human flea........................ Human flea (Pulex irritans).
Oriental rat flea................. Oriental rat flea (Xenopsylla
cheopis).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1744 Cockroaches.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to cockroaches. The
product labeling claim determines the required test species. The
required test species for a labeling claim appears in paragraph (b) of
this section. Specific parameters that apply to individual tests and
labeling claims appear in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against cockroaches,
the required test species for a labeling claim for cockroaches and the
test species for pest-specific label claims appear in the following
table.
Table 1 of 158.1744--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Cockroaches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Group Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cockroaches....................... Testing on two species is required:
American cockroach (Periplaneta
americana) AND German cockroach
(Blattella germanica).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest-Specific Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American cockroach................ American cockroach (Periplaneta
americana).
Australian cockroach.............. Australian cockroach (Periplaneta
australasiae).
Brown cockroach................... Brown cockroach (Periplaneta
brunnea).
Brownbanded cockroach............. Brownbanded cockroach (Supella
longipalpa).
German cockroach.................. German cockroach (Blattella
germanica).
Oriental cockroach................ Oriental cockroach (Blatta
orientalis).
Smokybrown cockroach.............. Smokybrown cockroach (Periplaneta
fuliginosa).
Turkestan cockroach............... Turkestan cockroach (Blatta
lateralis).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1748 Keds, screwworms, and bot flies.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to keds, screwworms,
and bot flies. The product labeling claim determines the required test
species. The required test species for labeling claims appear in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against keds,
screwworms, and bot flies, the required test species for a labeling
claim appear in the following table.
Table 1 of 158.1748--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Keds, Screwworms, and Bot Flies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bot Flies (excluding Human bot Testing is required on one of the
fly). following species:
Horse bot fly (Gasterophilus
intestinalis) OR Throat bot fly
(Gasterophilus nasalis) OR Nose
bot fly (Gasterophilus
haemorrhoidalis).
Human bot fly..................... Human bot fly (Dermatobia hominis).
Keds.............................. Testing is required on the following
species:
Sheep ked (Melophagus ovinus).
Screwworms........................ Testing is required on one of the
following species:
Screwworm (Cochliomyia
hominivorax) OR Secondary
screwworm (Cochliomyia
macellaria).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1752 Filth flies.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to filth flies. The
product labeling claim determines the required test species. The
required test species for a labeling claim against filth flies or
specific species of filth flies appear in paragraph (b) of this
section.
[[Page 15391]]
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against filth flies,
the required test species for a labeling claim against filth flies
appear in the following tables.
Table 1 of 158.1752--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Filth Flies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Group Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filth Flies....................... Testing on two species is required:
House fly (Musca domestica).
AND one of the following species
is required:
Flesh fly (Sarcophaga sp.,
Wohlfahrtia sp., and other
genera of flesh flies) OR Blow
fly (Phaenicia sp., Calliphora
sp., and other genera of blow
flies).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest-Specific Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blow fly.......................... Blow fly (Phaenicia sp., Calliphora
sp., and other genera of blow
flies).
Cluster fly....................... Cluster fly (Pollenia rudis).
Face fly.......................... Face fly (Musca autumnalis).
Flesh fly......................... Flesh fly (Sarcophaga sp.,
Wohlfahrtia sp., and other genera
of flesh flies).
House fly......................... House fly (Musca domestica).
Little house fly.................. Little house fly (Fannia
canicularis).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1756 Mosquitoes.
(a) General. The tables and test notes in this section apply to
mosquitoes. The required test species for a labeling claim against
mosquitoes appears in paragraph (b) of this section. For a claim
against any specific species of mosquito, that individual species and
all the required test genera must be tested. Claims against mosquitos
in association with mosquito-borne diseases are also subject to the
requirements in Sec. 158.1709.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against mosquitoes,
the required test species for a labeling claim is set forth in the
following table.
Table 1 of 158.1756--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Mosquitoes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mosquitoes........................ Testing in three genera (Culex,
Aedes, and Anopheles) of mosquitoes
is required.
One of the following Culex
species:
Culex pipiens OR Culex
quinquefasciatus OR Culex
tarsalis
AND one of the following Aedes
species:
Aedes aegypti OR Aedes albopictus
AND one of the following
Anopheles species:
Anopheles albimanus OR Anopheles
freeborni OR Anopheles gambiae
OR Anopheles punctipennis OR
Anopheles quadrimaculatus OR
Anopheles stephensi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1760 Biting flies.
(a) General. The tables in this section apply to biting flies,
which includes biting midges and black flies. The product labeling
claim determines the required test species. The required test species
for biting fly labeling claims and the test species for pest-specific
labeling claims appear in paragraphs (b) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against biting flies,
the required test species for a labeling claim and the test species for
pest-specific label claims appear in the following table.
Table 1 of 158.1760--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Biting Flies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Group Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biting flies (excluding Sand Testing is required on three
flies). species:
Stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans).
AND one of the large biting fly
species:
Black horse fly (Tabanus atratus)
OR Deer fly (Chrysops sp.) OR
Striped horse fly (Tabanus
lineola).
AND one of the small biting fly
species:
Biting midge (punkie, granny
nipper, no-see-um) (any
Culicoides sp.) OR Black fly
(any Simulium sp. or Prosimulium
sp.) OR Black gnat (any
Leptoconops sp.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Sub-Group Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Biting Flies................ Testing is required on two species:
Stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans).
AND one of the following species:
Black horse fly (Tabanus atratus)
OR Deer fly (Chrysops sp.) OR
Striped horse fly (Tabanus
lineola).
[[Page 15392]]
Small Biting Flies (excluding Sand Testing is required on one of the
flies). following species:
Biting midge (punkie, granny nipper,
no-see-um) (Culicoides sp.) OR
Black fly (Simulium sp. OR
Prosimulium sp.) OR Black gnat
(Leptoconops sp.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest-Specific Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biting midges (punkie, granny Biting midge (punkie, granny nipper,
nipper, no-see-um). no-see-um) (Culicoides sp.).
Black flies....................... Testing on one of the following
species is required:
Simulium sp. OR Prosimulium sp.
Black gnats....................... Black gnat (Leptoconops sp.).
Deer flies........................ Deer fly (Chrysops sp.).
Greenhead......................... Greenhead (Tabanus nigrovittatus).
Horn fly.......................... Horn fly (Haematobia irritans).
Horse flies....................... Testing on one of the following
species is required:
Black horse fly (Tabanus
atratus), OR Striped horse fly
(Tabanus lineola).
Sand flies........................ Testing on one of the following
species is required:
Lutzomyia sp. OR Phlebotomus sp.
Stable fly........................ Stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1768 Bed bugs.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to bed bugs. The
product labeling claim determines the required test species. The
required test species for a labeling claim appears in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against bed bugs, the
required test species for a labeling claim appear in the following
table.
Table 1 of 158.1768--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Against Bed Bugs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Group Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bed bugs.......................... Common bed bug (Cimex lectularius).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest-Specific Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common bed bug.................... Common bed bug (Cimex lectularius).
Tropical bed bug.................. Tropical bed bug (Cimex hemipterus).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1772 Conenose bugs and kissing bugs.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to Conenose bugs and
Kissing bugs. The product labeling claim determines the required test
species. The required test species for a labeling claim appears in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against either the
conenose and/or kissing bugs, the required test species for a labeling
claim is set forth in the following table.
Table 1 of 158.1772--Required Test Species for Products Making a Claim
Conenose and Kissing Bugs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conenose bug...................... Conenose bug (Triatoma sanguisuga).
Kissing bug....................... Kissing bug (Triatoma protracta).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1776 Ants (excluding carpenter ants).
(a) General. The table in this section applies to ants (excluding
carpenter ants). The product labeling claim determines the required
test species. The required test species for labeling claims appear in
paragraph (b) of this section.
Test species. For products making a claim against ants (excluding
carpenter ants), the required test species for a labeling claim appear
in the following table, unless otherwise specified in paragraphs (c) or
(d) of this section.
[[Page 15393]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Required Test Species for Products Making a
Claim Against Ants
[Excluding Carpenter Ants]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Group Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ants (excluding carpenter ants)... Testing is required on the following
two species:
Pharaoh ant (Monomorium pharaonis)
AND Red imported fire ant
(Solenopsis invicta).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
XPest Sub-Group Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire and Harvester................ Testing is required on the following
species:
Red imported fire ant (Solenopsis
invicta).
Fire ants......................... Testing is required on the following
species:
Red imported fire ant (Solenopsis
invicta).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest-Specific Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
European fire ant................. European fire ant (Myrmica rubra).
Harvester ant..................... Harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex sp.).
Pharaoh ant....................... Pharaoh ant (Monomorium pharaonis).
Red imported fire ant............. Red imported fire ant (Solenopsis
invicta).
Southern fire ant................. Southern fire ant (Solenopsis
xyloni).
Tropical fire ant................. Tropical fire ant (Solenopsis
geminata).
Black imported fire ant........... Black imported fire ant (Solenopsis
richteri).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Colony Claims. For colony claims, testing must be done specific
to the species listed. For colony claims against the red and/or black
imported fire ants, testing may be done on, S. invicta, S. richteri, or
their hybrid.
(d) Bait products or claims involving outdoor use. The group and
sub-group claims in paragraph (b) of this section are for direct kill
and residual surface application claims against foraging ants only
(excluding colony claims). For bait products or claims involving
outdoor use, testing must be specific to the species listed.
Sec. 158.1780 Bees, wasps, yellowjackets, and hornets.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to bees, wasps,
yellowjackets, and hornets. The labeling claim determines the required
test species. The required test species for labeling claims appear in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against bees, wasps,
yellowjackets, and hornets, the required test species for a labeling
claim appear in the following table, unless otherwise specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Required Test Species for Products Making a
Claim Against Bees, Wasps, Yellowjackets, and Hornets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Group Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bees, Wasps, Yellowjackets, and Testing on three species is
Hornets. required:
Two Yellowjacket species (one
Vespula sp. AND the Bald-faced
hornet (Dolichovespula maculata))
AND one Paper wasp (Polistes sp.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest-Specific Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bald-faced hornet................. Bald-faced hornet (Dolichovespula
maculata).
Mud dauber wasp................... Mud dauber wasp (Sphecidae sp.).
Paper wasp........................ Paper wasp (Polistes sp.).
Yellowjackets..................... Yellowjacket (Vespula sp.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Colony claims. For colony claims, except Vespula spp., testing
must be specific to the species listed. Acceptable data for any Vespula
species may support a yellowjacket colony claim for ground nesting
Vespula species; however, species-specific claims need to be supported
by data from testing of the specific species. Colony claims against
Vespula spp. have a performance standard of 100%.
Sec. 158.1782 Carpenter ants.
(a) General. The table in this section applies to carpenter ants.
The product labeling claim determines the required test species. The
required test species for labeling claims appear in paragraph (b) of
this section. The required performance standards appear in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against carpenter
ants, the required test species for a labeling claim appear in the
following table.
[[Page 15394]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Required Test Species for Products Making a
Claim Against Carpenter Ants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter ants.................... Testing on one of the following
carpenter ant species is required:
Black carpenter ant (Camponotus
pennsylvanicus) OR Florida
carpenter ant (Camponotus
floridanus) OR Western carpenter
ant (Camponotus modoc).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Performance standards. The performance standards for pesticide
products making certain claims against carpenter ants appear in the
following table. The performance standards for labeling claims that are
not specifically provided in the following table appear in Sec.
158.1704.
Table 2 to Paragraph (c)--Performance Standards for Certain Claims
Against Carpenter Ants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application category Performance standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bait Treatment.................... 95% prevention of damage to wood for
>=3 years.
Non-Structural: Wood Preservative 100% prevention of damage to wood
Treatment. for >=2 years.
Structural Protection............. 95% prevention of damage to wood >=5
years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1784 Wood-destroying beetles.
(a) General. The tables and test notes in this section apply to
wood-destroying beetles. The labeling claim determines the required
test species. The required test species for a labeling claim appears in
paragraph (b) of this section. The required performance standards
appear in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against wood-
destroying beetles, the required test species for a labeling claim is
set forth in the following table.
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Required Test Species for Products Making a
Claim Against Wood-Destroying Beetles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
True powderpost beetles........... Testing on one species from the
Lyctinae subfamily is required.
Wood-destroying or wood-boring Testing on three species is
beetles. required:
Anobiid beetle (Anobiidae sp.) AND
Bostrichid beetle (Bostrichidae
sp.) AND Old house borer
(Hylotrupes bajulus).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Performance standards. The performance standards for pesticide
products making certain claims against wood-destroying beetles appear
in the following table. The performance standards for labeling claims
that are not specifically provided in the following table appear in
Sec. 158.1704.
Table 2 to Paragraph (c)--Performance Standards for Certain Claims
Against Wood-Destroying Beetles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application category Performance standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bait Treatment.................... 95% prevention of damage to wood >=3
years.
Non-Structural: Wood Preservative 100% prevention of damage to wood
Treatment. for >=2 years.
Structural Protection............. 95% prevention of damage to wood >=5
years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 158.1786 Termites.
(a) General. The tables and test notes in this section apply to the
subterranean termite, desert subterranean termite, Formosan
subterranean termite, drywood termite, and dampwood termite. The
labeling claim determines the required test species. The required test
species for labeling claims appear in paragraph (b) of this section.
The required performance standards appear in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(b) Test species. For products making a claim against termites, the
required test species for a labeling claim appear in the following
table.
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Required Test Species for Products Making a
Claim Against Termites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling claim Required test species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Group Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termites.......................... Testing on species from four genera
of termites is required:
Testing is required on the following
Coptotermes termite:
Coptotermes formosanus
AND one of the following
Reticulitermes species:
[[Page 15395]]
Reticulitermes flavipes OR
Reticulitermes hesperus OR
Reticulitermes virginicus
AND one of the following arboreal
termite species:
Nasutitermes coringer
(Motschulsky)
AND one of the following drywood
termite species:
Cryptotermes brevis OR
Cryptotermes cavifrons OR
Incisitermes minor OR
Incisitermes snyderi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest Sub-Group Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arboreal Termites................. Testing of one arboreal termite
species is required:
Nasutitermes coringer
(Motschulsky).
Dampwood Termites................. Testing of the following dampwood
termite is required:
Zootermopsis sp.
Drywood Termites.................. Testing of one of the following
drywood termites is required:
Cryptotermes brevis OR
Cryptotermes cavifrons OR
Incisitermes minor OR
Incisitermes snyderi.
Subterranean Termites, including Testing in two genera of termites is
Formosan Subterranean Termites. required:
Testing on the following Coptotermes
species is required:
Coptotermes formosanus
AND one of the following
Reticulitermes species:
Reticulitermes flavipes OR
Reticulitermes hesperus OR
Reticulitermes virginicus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Performance standards. The performance standards for pesticide
products making certain claims against termites appear in the following
table. The performance standards for labeling claims not provided in
the following table appear in Sec. 158.1704.
Table 2 to Paragraph (c)--Performance Standards for Certain Claims
Against Termites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application category Performance standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bait Treatment.................... 95% prevention of damage to wood >=3
years.
Non-Structural: Wood Preservative 100% Prevention of damage to wood
Treatment. for >=2 years.
Structural Protection............. 95% prevention of damage to wood >=5
years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. Revise Sec. 158.2070 to read as follows:
Sec. 158.2070 Biochemical pesticides product performance data
requirements.
(a) General. Product performance data must be developed for all
biochemical pesticides. Each applicant must ensure through testing that
the product is efficacious when used in accordance with label
directions and commonly accepted pest control practices. The Agency may
require, on a case-by-case basis, submission of product performance
data for any pesticide product registered or proposed for registration
or amendment.
(b) Product performance data for each product that bears a claim
against an invertebrate pest that is covered by subpart R of this part.
The product performance data requirements of subpart R of this part
apply to biochemical products covered by this subpart. Product
performance data must be submitted with any application for
registration or amended registration. The performance standards
required in subpart R of this part also apply to biochemical pesticide
products. However, data requirements and the performance standards that
determine the acceptability of data may be modified on a case-by-case
basis pursuant to the waiver provisions in 40 CFR 158.45 and the
provisions in 40 CFR 158.1707.
(c) Product performance data for each product that bears a public
health claim, excluding those covered under paragraph (b). Product
performance data must be submitted with any application for
registration or amended registration, if the product bears a claim to
control public health pests, such as pest microorganisms infectious to
humans in any area of the inanimate environment, or a claim to control
vertebrates, including but not limited to, rodents, birds, bats,
canids, and skunks.
0
6. Revise Sec. 158.2160 to read as follows:
Sec. 158.2160 Microbial pesticides product performance data
requirements.
(a) General. Product performance data must be developed for all
microbial pesticides. Each applicant must ensure through testing that
the product is efficacious when used in accordance with label
directions and commonly accepted pest control practices. The Agency may
require, on a case-by-case basis, submission of product performance
data for any pesticide product registered or proposed for registration
or amendment.
(b) Product performance data for each product that bears a claim
against an invertebrate pest that is covered by subpart R of this part.
The product performance data requirements of subpart R of this part
apply to microbial products covered by this subpart. Product
performance data must be submitted with any application for
registration or amended registration. However, data requirements and
the performance standards that determine the acceptability of data may
be modified on a case-by-case basis pursuant to the waiver provisions
in 40 CFR 158.45 and the provisions in 40 CFR 158.1707.
(c) Product performance data for each product that bears a public
health claim, excluding those covered under paragraph (b). Product
performance data must be submitted with any application for
registration or amended registration, if the product bears a claim to
control public health pests, such as
[[Page 15396]]
pest microorganisms infectious to humans in any area of the inanimate
environment, or a claim to control vertebrates, including but not
limited to, rodents, birds, bats, canids, and skunks.
0
7. In Sec. 158.2200, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 158.2200 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) A product that bears both antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial
uses or claims is subject to the data requirements for pesticides in
subparts C through O, R, and U or V of this part with respect to its
non-antimicrobial uses and claims, and to the requirements of this
subpart with respect to its antimicrobial uses and claims.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-05137 Filed 3-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P