By Jessica Domel
Multimedia Reporter

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now accepting comments on a proposal that would allow farmers to once again use dicamba to control broadleaf weeds on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybeans.

The proposal would allow over-the-top use of three dicamba products: one each from Bayer CropScience, BASF Corporation and Syngenta Crop Protection.

“Right now, we legally do not have an over-the-top product because the label we had previously expired,” Kody Bessent, CEO of Plains Cotton Growers, told the Texas Farm Bureau Radio Network. “If this label is approved, then there’ll be another commercial product available for at least at a minimum of five years.”

Farmers and the public have until Sept. 6 to review the documents in the docket, which includes a proposed label and mitigations, and comment on Regulations.gov.

“There are some differences between past registrations that were available for over-the-top use, and we invite feedback on those,” Kyle Kunkler, deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at EPA, told the TFB Radio Network.

The proposal requires a 240-foot downwind spray buffer, which Kunkler said may be familiar to some farmers.

“That’s to make sure there’s not any off-target risk to other crops or to endangered species,” Kunkler said. “There’s going to be some runoff and erosion mitigations that are consistent with what we’ve done in some other proposed registrations for making sure the registration isn’t going to pose any risk to any endangered species.”

The proposal also includes measures to address volatility risks.

“This is the first registration where we’ve included mitigations that would address volatility,” Kunkler said. “There’s a couple different proposed mechanisms for dealing with that, and it depends on what the temperature will be at the time of application and the day after.”

Under the proposal, no applications are allowed at temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit.

“If you reach one of those thresholds that we’re proposing or suggesting, there may be higher risk depending upon higher temperature that could lead to only partial field treatment that could lead to tank mix restrictions. It could lead to the need to add additional volatility reduction agent as part of your tank mix to reduce those risks,” Kunkler said. “That sort of suite of mitigations, this is the first time we’ve proposed something like that. We want to get feedback from users to find out does this hit the mark?”

A full list of proposed mitigation measures is below.

  • A single use maximum application rate of 0.5 lb. acid equivalent (a.e.) dicamba per acre.
  • No more than two applications allowed with a maximum annual application of 1 lb. a.e. dicamba per acre from all combined dicamba-containing products.
  • Prohibition of aerial applications.
  • Maintaining a 240-ft downwind buffer.
  • The spray solution must include an approved drift reduction agent and pH buffering volatility reduction agent added to the tank in higher percentages as temperatures increase.
  • Temperature-dependent application restrictions to manage volatility. Users have flexibility to implement temperature-dependent restrictions by reducing the percent of field treated, including by using precision agriculture techniques, or prohibiting certain tank mixes at higher temperatures.
  • No applications at temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
  • Three points of mitigation required based on the runoff/erosion mitigation menu.
  • Users must access and follow any applicable endangered species bulletin from “Bulletins Live! Two” web-based system. Six points of runoff/erosion mitigation will be required in some pesticide use limitation areas where pesticide exposures are likely to impact the continued existence of a listed species, which may include a reduction in survival or recovery of the species.
  • Applicators are required to wear baseline attire (i.e., long-sleeve shirt, long pants and shoes plus socks) along with personal protective equipment including chemical-resistant gloves when handling these products. A NIOSH-approved dust/mist filtering respirator with any R, P or HE filter is also required for all handlers of the BAPMA-salt-formulated product. There is a restricted entry interval of 24 hours. Use is restricted to a limited number of approved states by certified applicators only. Applicators are required to complete additional dicamba-specific annual training and maintain records of all applications.

EPA also issued its risk assessments associated with the dicamba label proposal.

“We have a legal obligating to make sure that under FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) that this registration, like all the registrations we propose, will not pose any unreasonable risk to human health or the environment,” Kunkler said. “To that end, there were numerous risk assessments we conducted.”

According to the agency, EPA has not identified any dietary, aggregate, non-occupational or occupational risks of concern for human health exposure from the proposed uses of dicamba on dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton.

“We conducted a human health one to make sure that this wasn’t going to impact any bystanders, and it wasn’t going to impact farm workers,” Kunkler said. “We want to make sure there wasn’t going to be any impact on drinking water. That’s all part of our human health risk assessment.”

EPA has not identified any risks of concern for aquatic invertebrates, fish or aquatic plants.

A low-risk was identified for honeybees and other non-listed bees.

As an herbicide, EPA also identified dicamba poses a risk to certain plants.

The mitigation measures listed by EPA are designed to minimize those impacts, per EPA.

“With these proposed mitigation measures in place, EPA’s draft biological evaluation predicts that the use of dicamba will not result in a likelihood of future jeopardy for the survival of any listed species, or a likelihood of adverse modification for any designated critical habitat,” a press release from the agency said. “The proposed registrations also would not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment with these mitigations.”

After the comment period closes Sept. 6, Kunkler said EPA will review and reflect on the submitted comments before moving forward.

“We’ll then decide, based on the feedback that was received, are we on the mark or are there any changes that need to be made to the to the proposals before we could potentially go final?” Kunkler said. “It’s important that folks provide their thoughts in those comments because that’s really going to instruct what we do between what that this draft version and what we would end up finalizing at the end of the day.”

Comments may be submitted by clicking the blue “comment” button here.