Petition to Protect Children from Exposure to Pesticide Drift; Notice of Availability

1 March 4, 2010 Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460-0001 Re: Federal Register Notice: November 4, 2009, Page 57166 Re: Draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2009-X Docket No. [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0628] 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behalf of the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), I am pleased to submit our comments and concerns regarding the "Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide Drift Labeling" [74 FR 57166, 11/4/2009, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0628]. ARA is the not-for-profit trade organization representing the nation's agricultural retaildistribution industry segment supplying all the crop input and crop protection materials used by America's farmers. ARA has a long history of commenting on issues that can have broad regulatory implications for retailers and a history of working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on pesticide regulation. ARA member companies own and operate over 6,500 retail facilities located throughout all 50 states and account for about 70-75 percent of US crop pesticide sales. ARA members account for nearly one-half of all domestic crop pesticide ground applications. ARA commends EPA's efforts to improve label language in order to address pesticide drift. However, the positive intentions of the draft PRN are overshadowed significantly by the farreaching and overly restrictive proposed label language. ARA fears that the draft language could severely hurt American agriculture by reducing the amount of available cropland, thereby reducing yields of food and fiber and America's trade surplus, ultimately resulting in increased food costs to the America consumer and inhibiting the ability of the American farmer to compete worldwide. 1156 15th Street, NW ● Suite 302 ● Washington, DC 20005 202-457-0825 ● F: 202-457-0864 ● www.aradc.org 2 Background On November 4, 2009, EPA issued two Federal Register Notices (FRNs) requesting comment on drift-related topics. The Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide Drift Labeling, requests comment on three documents: (1) Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) Draft Pesticide Drift Labeling; (2) Draft Pesticide Drift Labeling Interpretation; and (3) Draft PRN Additional Information and Questions for Commenters. In EPA's November 4, 2009 press release, the Agency indicated that the purpose of the guidance was to clarify the law and reduce spray drift. In the "Draft Pesticide Drift Labeling Interpretation," the Agency references the impetus for its proposed drift language is based on a finding that state lead agencies (SLA) take action in only about one-third of drift cases (p. 6). The Agency seems to be inferring that drift language is unenforceable for regulatory officials, so few cases lead to penalties. One aspect that is notably missing from EPA's finding is that a reason such a small percentage of drift claims are enforced is because many of these claims are undocumented and unfounded, and these numbers reflect that the incident was reviewed and no enforcement action is warranted. The "Draft Pesticide Drift Labeling Interpretation" also says that, "states have increasingly been adopting state-specific drift regulations over the ten years of the survey period." If states have adopted state regulations that work and fit with local environmental conditions there is no reason for EPA to inject national rules that do not fit the local conditions. In fact, the states have authority to address this issue and do so in a manner that best suits them. In a March 2002 letter to the Agency docket in response to EPA's PR Notice 2001-X, the American Association of Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) stated that they had "serious concerns of the Agency's reported reliance on the 1999 AAPCO Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey as a basis for the need for improving labeling, as it may be misleading." The whole of AAPCO has never reached…

1 March 4, 2010 Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460-0001 Re: Federal Register Notice: November 4, 2009, Page 57166 Re: Draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2009-X Docket No. [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0628] 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 Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide Drift Labeling" [74 FR 57166, 11/4/2009, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0628]. ARA is the not-for-profit trade organization representing the nation's agricultural retaildistribution industry segment supplying all the crop input and crop protection materials used by America's farmers. ARA has a long history of commenting on issues that can have broad regulatory implications for retailers and a history of working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on pesticide regulation. ARA member companies own and operate over 6,500 retail facilities located throughout all 50 states and account for about 70-75 percent of US crop pesticide sales. ARA members account for nearly one-half of all domestic crop pesticide ground applications. ARA commends EPA's efforts to improve label language in order to address pesticide drift. However, the positive intentions of the draft PRN are overshadowed significantly by the farreaching and overly restrictive proposed label language. ARA fears that the draft language could severely hurt American agriculture by reducing the amount of available cropland, thereby reducing yields of food and fiber and America's trade surplus, ultimately resulting in increased food costs to the America consumer and inhibiting the ability of the American farmer to compete worldwide. 1156 15th Street, NW ● Suite 302 ● Washington, DC 20005 202-457-0825 ● F: 202-457-0864 ● www.aradc.org 2 Background On November 4, 2009, EPA issued two Federal Register Notices (FRNs) requesting comment on drift-related topics. The Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide Drift Labeling, requests comment on three documents: (1) Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) Draft Pesticide Drift Labeling; (2) Draft Pesticide Drift Labeling Interpretation; and (3) Draft PRN Additional Information and Questions for Commenters. In EPA's November 4, 2009 press release, the Agency indicated that the purpose of the guidance was to clarify the law and reduce spray drift. In the "Draft Pesticide Drift Labeling Interpretation," the Agency references the impetus for its proposed drift language is based on a finding that state lead agencies (SLA) take action in only about one-third of drift cases (p. 6). The Agency seems to be inferring that drift language is unenforceable for regulatory officials, so few cases lead to penalties. One aspect that is notably missing from EPA's finding is that a reason such a small percentage of drift claims are enforced is because many of these claims are undocumented and unfounded, and these numbers reflect that the incident was reviewed and no enforcement action is warranted. The "Draft Pesticide Drift Labeling Interpretation" also says that, "states have increasingly been adopting state-specific drift regulations over the ten years of the survey period." If states have adopted state regulations that work and fit with local environmental conditions there is no reason for EPA to inject national rules that do not fit the local conditions. In fact, the states have authority to address this issue and do so in a manner that best suits them. In a March 2002 letter to the Agency docket in response to EPA's PR Notice 2001-X, the American Association of Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) stated that they had "serious concerns of the Agency's reported reliance on the 1999 AAPCO Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey as a basis for the need for improving labeling, as it may be misleading." The whole of AAPCO has never reached…