Clomazone

Agricultural Retailers Association 1156 15th Street, NW Suite 302 Washington, DC 20005 August 20, 2009 Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20460-0001 Re: Clomazone and Fomesafen Registration Review Draft Ecological Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability; Extension of Comment Period; Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2009--0186 To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), I am pleased to submit our comments and concerns regarding the Draft Assessment Conducted by EPA on the Herbicide Fomesafen. ARA represents the nation's agricultural retail-distribution industry segment. ARA member companies own and operate over 6,500 retail facilities located throughout all 50 states and are responsible for about 70-75 percent of US crop pesticide sales. ARA members also account for nearly one-half of all domestic crop pesticide ground applications. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent assessment of Fomesafen has caused growers and agricultural retailers a great deal of concern regarding their continued ability to produce a safe and abundant food supply. Several areas in the proposal do not appear to have scientific justifications and use outdated or overly conservative agency models to determine ecological effects. Fomesafen is not a new crop protection material. It has been widely used for 21 years on nearly 50 million acres of U.S. cropland and millions of acres worldwide with no documented adverse effects on humans or the environment. Furthermore, the chemical incident reports reviewed by EPA did not indicate any significant adverse effects. The costs and risks of farming in America continue to increase due to the price and profit squeeze caused by increased costs of fuel, fertilizer, and crop protection chemicals. Implementation of regulations using scientific models based on future predictions make limited, if any, practical sense when products already have long use histories with minimal or no adverse effects. The U.S. must support domestic farmers and other agricultural-related businesses with common-sense, science risk-based regulations in order to ensure a safe and abundant food supply, the backbone of U.S. exports and the domestic economy. Specifically, we are concerned about the following proposals in the regulations: •The buffer zones are not practical for modern farming practices. New high-tech ground application equipment keeps any potential spray drift to a de minims level, making the new proposed buffers unnecessary. ARA recommends that the EPA keep the drift language as flexible as possible, as new technologies are continually being developed and incorporated into spray systems that mitigate drift more effectively than repressive requirements such as buffers. ARA would be pleased to have EPA officials involved in this process, accompany industry leaders to a retail facility to view actual pesticide applications. The certified applicators (many of which are CCA qualified), employed by retail crop protection suppliers are experts who understand Best Management Practices (BMP's). Certified applicators are well-trained, highly skilled and experienced individuals, in ensuring that the least amount of non-target spray deposition is ever in contact with people or any sensitive environments. The proposed buffer requirements, if allowed to stand, would make regulatory compliance very difficult and even doubtful by non-certified applicators circumventing the spirit and intent of the rule, thus leading to less, environmental protection. •The proposed buffer zones are only one way to protect non-target species from coming into contact with unintended spray drift. Training, testing and certifying applicators is the best way to avoid drift incidents. It has been brought to ARA's attention that the model used by the agency is not state of the art. The model the agency is us…