Tag Archives: EPA

EPA Releases Final Ruling on Application Exclusion Zone

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

December 2024 FloridAgriculture eNewsletter

Effective December 4, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has mandated Application Exclusion Zones (AEZ), which include additional precautions to protect workers and bystanders during pesticide applications. The AEZ refers to the area immediately surrounding the pesticide application equipment, and only exists during the application, moves simultaneously with the equipment and can extend outside of the property’s boundaries. The size of the AEZ is determined through application method and droplet size.

Pesticide handlers will now be subject to stricter Worker Protection Standards under the AEZ Final Rule. Pesticide applicators must suspend applications if any other persons are in the AEZ, regardless of whether they are within the property’s boundaries or in an easement on the property. Additionally, agricultural employers and establishment owners are responsible for ensuring no person is within an AEZ on their property, other than the licensed pesticide applicator.

Under the AEZ Final Rule, the AEZ must be a minimum of 100 feet horizontally in all directions when a pesticide is applied by the following methods: air (fixed wing or helicopter); air blast or air propelled; fumigant, smoke, mist, or fog, or fine spray quality/droplet size.

Additionally, the AEZ must be a minimum of 25 feet horizontally in all directions when a pesticide is applied by the following methods: not applied in a manner that would require a 100-foot buffer or using medium or large spray quality/droplet sizes, sprayed from a height of greater than 12-inches from the soil surface or planting medium.

No AEZ is required when the pesticide is applied in a manner other than the aforementioned methods. The AEZ Immediate Family Exemption allows farm owners and their immediate family members to remain inside closed buildings during pesticide applications, given the stipulations are satisfied.

Florida Farm Bureau supports the continued use of agricultural chemicals that currently have no viable alternatives. We further encourage research funded through state and federal agencies, as well as private associations, to develop economically viable crop protection options, including but not limited to soil fumigants for agricultural producers.

U.S. farmers must not be constrained by regulations that result in a competitive disadvantage.

Any questions or concerns regarding the final ruling can be directed to the Florida Farm Bureau Ag Policy Department.

EPA Announced Final Insecticide Strategy

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

October 2024 FloridAgriculture eNewsletter

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Draft Insecticide Strategy (“Insecticide Strategy”) which outlines the changes that growers may need to implement on their farms to be in compliance with insecticide labels.

In 2022, the EPA was found in violation of their consultation process regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Due to this, the EPA will be releasing a series of frameworks to address registration and labeling of herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, and fungicides. The Insecticide Strategy is the second of four strategy frameworks aimed to minimize ecological impacts on federally endangered and threatened (listed) species and their critical habitats.

Similar to the Final Herbicide Strategy, the Insecticide Strategy proposes the mitigation or efficacy points that a grower may need to gain through a “mitigation menu” of approved practices to be in compliance with an insecticide label. Furthermore, the Strategy identifies Pesticide Use Limitation Areas (PULAs), where growers will be subject to earn an even greater number of points due to their potential increased vulnerability to impacting endangered and threatened species through run-off, erosion, and spray drift.

A copy of Florida Farm Bureau Federation’s comments to the EPA regarding the Draft Insecticide Strategy can be found here. Please contact Maddie Campbell with any questions or concerns.

EPA Announced Final Herbicide Strategy

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

October 2024 FloridAgriculture eNewsletter

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Final Herbicide Strategy Framework (“Herbicide Strategy”) which outlines the changes that growers may need to implement on their farms to be in compliance with herbicide labels.

In 2022, the EPA was found in violation of their consultation process regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Due to this, the EPA will be releasing a series of frameworks to address registration and labeling of herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, and fungicides. The Herbicide Strategy is the first of its kind aimed to minimize ecological impacts on federally endangered and threatened (listed) species and their critical habitats.

The Herbicide Strategy proposes the mitigation or efficacy points that a grower may need to gain through a “mitigation menu” of approved practices to be in compliance with an herbicide label. Furthermore, the Strategy identifies Pesticide Use Limitation Areas (PULAs), where growers will be subject to earn an even greater number of points due to their potential increased vulnerability to impacting endangered and threatened species through run-off, erosion, and spray drift.

To access the Final Herbicide Strategy issue brief, click here. Please contact Maddie Campbell with any questions or concerns.

EPA releases PIDs for cancelation of Acephate, Captan, Ferbam, Thiram, and Ziram

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

August 2024 FloridAgriculture eNewsletter

The Enivronmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released Proposed Interim Decision (PIDs) for the cancellation of Acephate, Captan, Ferbam, Thiram, and Ziram. This proposal is the result of a pesticide review that takes place every 15 years to stay in compliance with FIFRA.  

After the PID, a proposed decision will be published, followed by a final rule. If these chemistries are canceled, growers will be left with less tools to combat diseases, which thrive in Florida’s conditions. With the loss of dicamba earlier this year, the integrated pest management (IPM) tools that producers have are dwindling. Florida Farm Bureau opposes this cancellation because of their role in a variety of crop production in the state.   

More information regarding these chemicals as well as comments provided by Florida Farm Bureau can be found here.  

FFBF to Provide Public Comment on Dicamba Labeling

Uncategorized, , , , ,

June 2024 FloridAgriculture eNewsletter

In February 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) vacated the registration for over-the-top (OTT) use of three dicamba herbicides, XtendiMax, Engenia, and Tavium. Immediately following this vacatur, EPA issued an existing stocks order. This stated OTT dicamba products that were already in the United States and were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to February 6, 2024, are approved for use in the manner they were previously labeled and in accordance with the end dates identified by the EPA based on location and crop. 

EPA has since opened a public comment period regarding the 2025 Bayer dicamba label for dicamba-tolerant cotton and dicamba-tolerant soybeans. Please note that FFBF is monitoring the Federal Register and is anticipating the 2025 BASF label Notice of Receipt shortly.  

To review FFBF’s comments posted for public comment, please click here.

Please contact the Ag Policy Department with any questions or comments.

Federal Judge Vacates Florida’s 404 Permitting Authority

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 2024 FloridAgriculture e-Newsletter

On February 15, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order that nullified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of Florida’s application to take over permitting authority from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) within the state. The court’s decision was based on allegations that the federal defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during the approval process, which occurred in the final days of the Trump administration.

Under the ESA, any action that might harm endangered species requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure the action does not jeopardize the species’ existence. When Florida assumed the 404-permitting program, there was no clear process for ESA consultation. To address this, the EPA and FWS conducted a programmatic consultation resulting in a biological opinion (BiOp) and incidental take statement (ITS) meant to protect future permittees from ESA liability.

However, the court found this process deficient, particularly because it lacked species-specific analysis and numerical take limits as well as determined that the technical assistance process proposed by the defendants was not a lawful substitute for ESA procedures. Consequently, the court ordered the vacating of EPA’s approval of Florida’s assumption application, effectively reverting permitting authority to USACE until further resolution.

The ruling would affect pending and future permits, significantly impacting Florida’s environmental regulation landscape. The court acknowledged potential disruption but emphasized the importance of complying with ESA requirements. It was uncertain how state and federal agencies would respond, but the decision underscores the complexity and sensitivity of environmental permitting processes, especially concerning endangered species protection.

On February 26, shortly after the Court ruled to vacate Florida’s permitting authority, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) filed a motion for a partial stay, which would allow for the state to process the 1,500 permits without an ESA designation. Of those permits, around 90% would be allowed if the stay was granted and could move forward through FDEP. The preceding judge called for a conference regarding the issue on April 4th in Washington D.C., and on April 12th, Judge Randolph Moss issued an order to deny FDEP’s motion for a stay. As a result, Florida quickly launched an appeal to challenge the decision by U.S. District Judge Moss at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It is uncertain whether FDEP will regain authority to issue 404 permits again, but in the meantime, all pending and future 404 permits will be processed by USACE.

EPA cancels labels for Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Malathion under the Endangered Species Act

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

May 2024 FloridAgriculture e-Newsletter

On April 2, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced changes to the pesticide labeling requirements of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion. Additionally, the EPA committed to issuing Endangered Species Protection Bulletins that set geographic limitations for these organophosphate insecticides, which will be available on Bulletins Live! Two.

Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are commonly used to control foliage and soil insect pests. Pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos are registered for use in agricultural crops and on nonfood uses, such as ornamental plants, golf course turf, and as wood treatment. Diazinon is used on a variety of specialty crops and in cattle ear tags to control flies. There are no residential uses of chlorpyrifos or diazinon. Malathion is used in the production of a wide variety of food and feed crops to control many types of insects such as aphids, leafhoppers, and Japanese beetles, by home gardeners for outdoor residential uses, and for controlling mosquitos.

Bulletins for all three pesticides include restrictions on when to apply and restrictions on tank mixing. There are additional restrictions for the chemistries pertaining to run-off and drift, found here. Amended label guidance will be included in the next printing of product labels, with a 12-month existing stock provision. EPA requested and National Marines Fisheries Service (NMFS) granted an extension until August 2024 to implement the biological opinion (BiOp) with updates for labels with food uses. This will allow the EPA time to cancel all food uses except for the 11 food crops specified previously in EPA’s 2020 Chlorpyrifos Proposed Interim Decision (PID) (alfalfa, apple, asparagus, cherry (tart), citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beet, and wheat (spring and winter)).

For further information or questions, please contact Florida Farm Bureau’s Ag Policy Department.

Florida Farm Bureau Provides Comments on Dicamba Solution

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

March 2024 FloridAgriculture eNewsletter

On February 6, 2024, a federal court in Arizona issued a ruling stating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must vacate the 2020 registrations for over-the-top use of three dicamba-based pesticides; XtendiMax, Engenia, and Tavium.  

This ruling is a result of a lawsuit (Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. EPA) that found the EPA in violation of their legal agreements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This is the second ruling that has ordered EPA to vacate a dicamba registration, following a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the then-current over-the-top dicamba registration in June 2020. While the decision from the Arizona court relies on different legal arguments than the Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision, the outcome is the same.  

On February 14th, EPA issued an existing stocks order. This order allows farmers to use dicamba directly onto crops during the 2024 growing season, as long as the pesticides were “labeled, packaged, and released for shipment” prior to February 6. After the 2024 season, it is unclear if these three dicamba products will be available for over-the-top use. More than 75% of the cotton acres across the Cotton Belt were planted with dicamba-tolerant traits in the 2023 season. 

Florida Farm Bureau Federation is committed to working alongside the EPA to find a more feasible solution that will meet the EPA’s legal obligations to the ESA and FIFRA, while also maintaining access to the necessary tools that producers need. Please reach out to Maddie Campbell with any questions or concerns. More information can be found here.  

SCOTUS Strikes EPA’s Expansive WOTUS Definition

Uncategorized, , ,

June 2023 FloridAgriculture eNewsletter

The United States Supreme Court struck down EPA’s expansive Waters of the United States (WOTUS) definition in a 9 – 0 ruling on Thursday, May 25. The reasoning was split, with five justices (Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett) largely adopting the Rapanos plurality decision on what American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) advocated for in their amicus brief. The other four justices (Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) thought this went too far in regard to wetlands. Here are some highlights:

· Significant-Nexus Is Dead: SCOTUS basically says that the EPA employs sig-nex to create authority where it otherwise lacks. The judges were unanimous on eliminating significant nexus.

· WOTUS Definition: The CWA’s use of “waters” encompasses only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.

· Wetlands: As for wetlands, the CWA extends to only those wetlands that are as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States. This requires the party asserting jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands to establish first, that the adjacent body of water constitutes waters of the United states, (i.e., a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters); and second, that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins. Four justices (Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, & Jackson) thought this went too far.

· SCOTUS Critical of Past EPA Actions: The majority absolutely eviscerates EPA’s history of ignoring the Clean Water Act, ignoring Supreme Court decisions, and ignoring common sense. The Court describes EPA’s approach as a “freewheeling inquiry” with “weak textual argument[s].”

· Implications on 2023 WOTUS Rule: As EPA was belligerent to bring their new rule into the record even at our request to delay publication of the rule, SCOTUS took that opportunity to thoroughly tear it apart in Section IV. Remember that the Sackett case addresses the pre-2015 WOTUS definition, not the 2023 Rule. As a result, the 2023 Rule remains on the books, but functionally EPA and the Corps cannot enforce it. AFBF’s litigation in Texas and
North Dakota challenging the rule will thus be the likely vehicle to get the rule officially tossed.

Due to the implications on the 2023 WOTUS rule, the EPA and the Army Corps must go back to the drawing board. As this plays out, we will closely scrutinize their efforts to revise the definition of waters of the United States for compliance with the Court’s findings in this case. Those that wish to read the Court’s opinion with highlights of pertinent information can find it here.