## Summary of ABS**TC and US EPA Meeting Regarding Agency Proposed Changes to the Corn Rootworm Resistance Management Program**  **MEETING LOCATION:**  **DATE:** US EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, March 31 st, 2015 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202 **ATTENDEES:** Kimberly Nesci, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person Alan Reynolds, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person Jeannette Martinez, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person Mike Mendelsohn, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person ShaRon Carlisle, US EPA/OPP/BPPD – in person Bill Chis m, US EPA/OPP/BEAD – in person Jonathan Becker, US EPA/OPP/BEAD – in person Tony Burd, Syngenta/ABSTC – in person Dave Guyer, Syngenta/ABSTC – in person Graham Head, Monsanto/ABSTC – in person Jeff Bookout, Monsanto/ABSTC – in person Christina Lawrence, Mo nsanto/ABSTC – in person Nick Storer, Dow AgroSciences/ABSTC – in person Mark Kimm, Dow AgroSciences/ABSTC – in person Clint Pilcher, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC – in person Michael Smith, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC – in person Elizabeth Owens, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC – via phone Matthew Caroll, Monsanto/ABSTC – via phone Isaac Oyed i ra n, Syngenta/ABSTC – via phone Jamie Staley, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC – via phone **AGENDA:**  Introductions  Mission/purpose of ABSTC and meeting rational e s  Discussion on EPA proposals, ABSTC recommendations and reasoning 1. IPM approach to CRW resistance management 2. Proactive strategies to detect unexpected damage (UXD) in Bt corn fields 3. Annual monitoring of CRW populations 4. Resistance confirmation process (bioassays) 5. Remedial acti on plans  Action items/next steps **SUMMARY OF MEETING**  Representatives of US EPA’ s Office of Pesticide Programs and member companies of the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee (ABSTC) that hold corn rootworm PIP registrations discussed the five key elements of the Agency’s proposal to make changes to the corn rootworm resistance management program and ABSTC’s docket submission ( letter dated February 13, 2015 ). ABSTC’s docket comment reflects their perspective and experience with CRW IRM . In this meeting, ABSTC acted as agents of the CRW PIP registrants.**1. IPM approach** 

ABSTC member companies highlighted their efforts towards implementing best management practices (BMPs) in cases of unexpected damage as a result of corn rootworm feeding. Companies further informed US EPA about the release of additional education materials to grower communities and planned training sessions with independent crop consultants [ http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA- HQ-OPP-2014-0805 - 0008 ] . EPA understands that ABSTC and the National Corn Grower Associations (NCGA) engage in collaborative efforts to reach growers about the need to use BMPs with corn rootworm resistance management . ABSTC and EPA agreed on the need for proactive, up front measures to address corn rootworm resistance. EPA and ABSTC discussed concerns in the docket comments about limited availability of non -CRW Bt seed to growers which restricts accessibility for more diverse IPM tools and EPA’s proposal regarding the use of SAIs with CRW Bt seed. EPA discussed the need for measures to assess the success of the proactive IPM initiative s . **2. Proactive scouting**  Scouting has historically been done and will contin ue to be conducted by growers. ABSTC member companies discussed that other entities can be involved in scouting as well . **3. Removal of random monitoring**  All parties agreed that random insect sampling for resistance monitoring was less effective than focusin g on collecting populations from UXD sites. This would allow biotech companies to divert their resources to other aspects of corn rootworm resistance management. **4. Resistance confirmation process**  ABSTC member companies continue to work on improving the meth odology of the diet bioassays and proposed to use this approach along with an on - plant assay methodology (single on - plant or sub- lethal seedling assay) to measure a significant decrease in susceptibility of populations. EPA and ABSTC agreed on the common goal: to have a good diagnostic tool to accurately detect resistance. **5. Remedial action plans**  The discussion focused on the extent of the remedial action area for UXD sites. EPA continued to emphasize the need for additional empirical dispersal data as we ll as modeling analyses . **Action Items**

 EPA to look at the timing of USDA NASS corn surveys to see if these data might be available to evalu ate the success of IPM measures.  ABSTC to consider ways to measure the effectiveness of their proactive IPM approach.  EPA to review docket comments  ABSTC and EPA to meet again in early May