March 31, 2002
Public Information & Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
Information Resources & Services Division (7502C)
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on New Labeling Statements for Spray and Dust Drift Label Statements for Pesticide Products (Docket Control Number OPP-00730)
Dear Sir/Madam:
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) respectfully submits the following comments on the agency's proposed draft guidance for labeling statements for controlling pesticide spray and dust drift from application sites.
NASDA represents the commissioners, secretaries, directors of the state departments of agriculture in the fifty states and four territories. Our members are partners and co-regulators with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the lead state agencies responsible for administering, implementing and enforcing federal pesticide laws and regulations. In addition to our general views outlined in this letter, we endorse and support the comments submitted separately by our affiliate organization, the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO). Individual state departments of agriculture are submitting independent comments that will address their specific questions and concerns about the PR Notice.
There are numerous pesticide related functions that states perform, and we support efforts to ensure that pesticide use does not cause unreasonable adverse affects to human health and the environment. For example, NASDA members have consistently called for increased funding for certification and training programs for pesticide applicators, as well as public education efforts. These programs are essential to the safe use of pesticides.
EPA's draft PR Notice raises a number of serious issues and questions that could have adverse impacts on state pesticide regulatory activities, pesticide products and use, individual growers, land use and agricultural production. We offer the following comments:
Zero Threshold for Spray Drift
NASDA is particularly concerned that the proposed label statement will essentially impose a zero threshold for drift. This will have a significant and unnecessary impact on agriculture. In the draft PR Notice, the following label language is proposed:
"Do not allow spray to drift from the application site and contact people, structures people occupy at any time and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, non-target crops, aquatic and wetland areas, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or animals."
We believe compliance and enforcement with this proposed label would be impossible. Technically, it is not achievable and imposes unrealistic requirements on applicators. In fact, it contradicts EPA's statement in the PR Notice that some de minimus level of drift will occur in most or all situations. Furthermore, we are concerned that the proposal substitutes an "exposure-based" policy standard instead of using a risk-benefit assessment. NASDA strongly urges EPA to consider language recommended by AAPCO that reads:
"Do not apply this product in a manner that allows spray drift from the application target site and cause harm to humans, animals or other non-target sites."
This language is protective of the sites listed in EPA's proposal and eliminates the concern about occupied buildings versus unoccupied structures. It also provides the necessary flexibility to states to allow for responsible and enforcement judgements that take regional, state, and site-specific issues into account.
Specific Requirements for Applicators
EPA has proposed specific requirements for applicators to use "all measures" possible to reduce drift, regardless of their local utility. NASDA believes this proposed language should be deleted. The statement is too vague and subjective to be enforceable, and does not provide any guidance to applicators about what is expected for a particular application. Drift mitigation requirements should be performance driven and provide the applicator with the flexibility to utilize the most appropriate technologies, techniques, and practices as dictated by the circumstances of each application and based on their professional judgement.
Definition of "No Spray Zones"
In addition to labeling statements, EPA is proposing "no-spray" zones as an additional drift management tool for applicators to protect people and "sensitive areas" from drift. The PR Notice provides little discussion about how, why, and when such "no spray" zones should be included on the label, and does not provide any definition for "sensitive areas." Sites needing to be protected from spray drift must be reasonably defined to ensure protection of appropriate areas without the unwarranted removal of agricultural lands from production. In addition, the criteria and methodology used to determine "no spray" zones should not only be clear and consistent, but also based on available information about the pesticide's uses and risk assessments. EPA's proposal does not provide any of this critical information.
Pesticide Safety
The PR Notice refers to bio-pesticides as "low risk" examples where spray drift mitigation would not be required. State departments of agriculture have encouraged the substitution of reduced risk pesticides for conventional pesticide materials whenever the reduced risk pesticide offers a practical alternative in terms of cost and effectiveness. EPA should recognize that there are many reduced risk pesticides in addition to bio-pesticides. The PR Notice states that the proposed language will not be appropriate for all products and that exceptions will be granted when appropriate. EPA should provide more details about how and when such exceptions will be granted.
Finally, EPA should acknowledge that many states already have additional regulatory requirements regarding pesticide drift and drift management. NASDA members appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments As partners in the regulation of pesticides, state departments of agriculture stand ready to work with EPA to develop a responsible, reasonable, and workable approach to spray drift mitigation in a manner that provides the necessary pest management tools to agricultural producers.
Sincerely yours,
<signed>
Richard W. Kirchhoff
Executive Vice President & CEO