## Summary of Second ABSTC 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, May 20 th , 2015 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

ATTENDEES:

Kimberly Nesci, US EPA/OPP/BPPD Alan Reynolds, US EPA/OPP/BPPD Jeannette Martinez, US EPA/OPP/BPPD Mike Mendelsohn, US EPA/OPP/BPPD Ann Sibold, US EPA/OPP/BPPD Jonathan Becker, US EPA/OPP/BEAD Tony Burd, Syngenta/ABSTC Dave Guyer, Syngenta/ABSTC Graham Head, Monsanto/ABSTC Jeff Bookout, Monsanto/ABSTC Christina Lawrence, Monsanto/ABSTC Nick Storer, Dow AgroSciences/ABSTC Mark Kimm, Dow AgroSciences/ABSTC Clint Pilcher, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC Michael Smith, DuPont Pioneer/ABSTC

AGENDA:

 Introductions

 ABSTC response/counterproposal to EPA proposed changes to CRW RM program
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 action plansSUMMARY OF MEETING MINUTES

Element 1: IPM Approach

ABSTC member companies proposed to expand the current IRM education programs to include IPM (Integrated Pest Management) + IRM (Insect Resistance Management) for all corn growers regardless of location. The IPM tools recommended (also referred to BMPs) are similar to the IPM measures proposed by EPA, but include the use of soil

- applied insecticides for corn rootworm control on Bt corn

a lso containing CRW traits. ABSTC proposed to address e ducation on the BMP use of SAIs in the expanded education programs

. ABSTC and EPA agreed on the benefits of a baseline survey

- designed and conducted in 2016 by an independent third party

- to determ ine the current state of IPM use by growers who plant Bt corn. ABSTC proposed future surveys to assess the success of the educational program and growers’ compliance with implementing IPM + IRM for corn rootworm and Bt PIPs.

ABSTC agreed to provide the E PA with additional details on the education programs, including such information as the mechanism for implementation.

Element 2: Proactive Scouting and Detection of UXD

ABSTC agreed to use the Node Injury Scale (NIS) threshold proposed by EPA of 1.0 for s ingle Bt PIPs

. ABSTC proposed a different NIS score than that proposed by EPA for pyramided Bt PIPs to determine whether unexpected damage (UXD) had occurred in a cornfield. ABSTC committed that e very effort
would be made to collect adults from UXD sites the year the damage was reported if beetles were
present.

ABSTC and the Agency agreed that corn growers should have access to information about UXD
occurrences for Bt corn rootworm traits in their state in order to make informed decisions

. CRW registrants within ABSTC agreed to develop a standardized CRW resistance monitoring, resistance detection, resistance confirmation, and mitigation plan that would be agreed upon by BPPD and the CRW registrants prior to 2016 field season, and this plan would incorporat e most of the elements proposed previously by EPA

.

Element 3: Removal of Random Monitoring

ABSTC concurred with EPA’s proposal to remove the requirement for collecting random samples of corn rootworm from the major corn growing states for the purpose of resistance monitoring.

Element 4: Resistance Confirmation Process

ABSTC proposed to continued use of diet bioassays in addition to using a plant assay (sublethal seedling assay or single on

- plant assay). ABSTC committed to provide a standardized approach for diet bioassay methodology to EPA.Element 5: Remedial Action Plans

ABSTC proposed to replace “Remedial Action” with “mitigation” and to mitigate resistance us ing the

same BMPs as those in the education program described under Element 1 . Mitigation wa s proposed to

occur on a per

- field basis.