20031028 Cpda Festf Update

FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force

COMPLIANCE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL

FESTF Update

Karen WarkentienCPDA Registration 101

November 6, 2003



Developments over Time

• Formative stage (1993-1996) – EPA wanted location data (crop and

species)– Location data as implemented were an

unequal conditional requirement– FESTF was formed to bring equity and a

solution to providing “location data”– The conundrum, “Data, data everywhere

but not a byte to be found . . .”




• Informative stage (1996-1997)– EPA got location data (feasibility study)– FESTF sought sources for providing data

or expert opinion (state database)– EPA explored internal and stakeholder

opinions• Phoenix workshop

• TNC proposal

• a CRADA proposed by EPA




• Conformative stage (1998-2002)– FESTF and EPA agreed in principle to

• An IMS

• A CRADA (species location data)• A quality test of the IMS

– FESTF launched work on IMS– PR Notice 2000-2 published




• Reformative stage – phase 1 (2002-2003)– Lawsuits filed sequentially; threats to

registration and use status hit “home”

– Endangered species reviews in REDs and registration actions are inconsistent

– FESTF’s appreciation of the

situation communicated to

others




• Reformative stage – phase 2 (2003)– Consultations under consent decree– Defending products in litigation

– FESTF need to abandon CRADA and directly deal with NatureServe

– Federal Register Notice on ESPP

– Federal Register Notice on ANPR– More lawsuits and threats of interim

measures



Bringing Focus

• Meetings with Adam Sharp and announcement of needs– Equity– Uniform and formal data requirements– Assurance that IMS will be a part of the

ESPP and new rule process

• Positive but informal feedback from EPA

• Resumption of momentum



FESTF Deliverables and the Overall Risk Assessment Process

• Overall RA process will be in new rule– Expected to include use of FESTF data

• FESTF deliverables must be fully functional to support ES assessments on an AI basis– FESTF case studies – Feedback from companies now performing

ES assessments



The Role and Importance of NatureServe Data

• NatureServe data are best available and therefore “trump” EPA/FWS data– Exclusions can be developed– Protections can be developed

• P/Es are critical for AI-specific ES assessments– Without P/Es, more AI-specific mitigation is

necessary– With P/Es developed “now,” more consistency is

likely



Final Path toward Submission

• An IMS that functions within an AI-specific ES assessment

• A consistent set of protections and exclusions to make ES assessments less burdensome– Species location data (NatureServe)– Species/location-specific protections



Summary of October PPDC Meeting

• Triggers for endangered species data requirements were discussed.– EPA explains the option of joining the FESTF or

developing individual data.

• It is expected that a PR Notice or some modified version of a DCI will further outline data requirements.

• At some point in the future, 40 CFR Part 158 test requirements are expected to include data requirements for endangered species.



The Timeline and Tasks We Face

• Submission date, March 2005 with no options for further extensions

• NatureServe 36 month access period after submission

• Endangered species data requirements met

20031028 Cpda Festf Update

Documents

Transcript of 20031028 Cpda Festf Update