*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

March 31, 2015    Page 1 of 9

EPA’s Responses to a Summary of USDA’s Comments on the Draft Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking & Economic Analysis

EO12866_Rin2070‐AJ20_PesticideCertApp_NPRM_EPA Responses to USDA_NPRM&EA_2015‐03‐31.docx

1 Summary of Comments on the Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

2 1. USDA Comment: USDA included line edits to the text of the NPRM.

3 EPA Response: EPA has reviewed the comments embedded in the Notice of Proposed

4 Rulemaking (NPRM).  Where appropriate, EPA has incorporated USDA’s suggested changes.  A

5 copy of the NPRM showing all changes made to the documents sent to USDA for review are

6 included have been provided to USDA..   

7

8 2. USDA Comment: USDA raised concerns that the certification rule impinges on sovereign immunity

9 and requested information on what statutory provision requires development and implementation of

10 Government Agency Plans or federal agency certification plans. USDA also inquired about the specific

11 statutory authority that would allow EPA to codify the existing policy related to federal agency

12 certification programs.

13 EPA Response:  The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act requires the certification

14 of applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs), regardless of where in the United States the

15 RUPs are used or by whom. 7 U.S.C. 136a(d) and 136i.  EPA may either approve a plan submitted

16 by a state (under FIFRA, “state” means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of

17 Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and American

18 Samoa, 7 U.S.C. 136(aa)) that meets the requirements established in FIFRA and under EPA’s

19 regulations, 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(2) or EPA may administer a plan directly in states where no

20 certification plan is in effect. 7 U.S.C. 136i(a)(1). Thus, the purpose of the 40 CFR 171 is to

21 provide mechanisms to enable would‐be users of RUPs to obtain the certifications necessary for

22 them to comply with the requirements of FIFRA.

23 In developing the existing regulations at 40 CFR 171, EPA noted that employees of

24 federal agencies might apply RUPs in multiple state jurisdictions, and might therefore need to

25 obtain certifications from multiple states.  At EPA’s discretion and as an accommodation to

26 federal agencies, EPA included in the existing regulation a provision that allows federal agency

27 employees to be certified under a single federal agency plan. Further, recognizing that a single

28 federal government‐wide plan would not meet the needs of the various agencies, EPA

29 developed a policy that allowed each federal agency to develop its own plan for certifying

30 pesticide applicators.  Both the government agency plan option and subsequent policy related

31 to federal agency certification require federal employees to satisfy any additional requirements

32 for each state in which they use RUPs because any state that has jurisdiction to administer its

33 own certification program has jurisdiction over anyone applying RUPs within the state.

34   

35 3. USDA Comment: USDA noted many places in which states are already doing what EPA is proposing in

36 this action.

37 EPA Response: EPA recognizes that states have taken various actions in most areas in which EPA

38 is proposing to change the rule.  However, action at the individual state level only affects the

39 certification program within that state.  EPA is proposing changes that would improve the

40 certification program and competency of RUP applicators nationally.  EPA did consider the

41 actions taken by states when developing the changes proposed in this rulemaking.

42
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

March 31, 2015    Page 2 of 9

43 4. USDA Comment: USDA asked whether independent databases (e.g., Agrian, CDMS) have data on the

44 relative usage of RUPs vs. general use or unclassified pesticides.  

45 EPA Response: Data on RUP usage is hard to gather because the decision on whether to restrict

46 a product is made at the product level, while most usage data is available at the active

47 ingredient level.  Some data is available relative to usage of active ingredients that may have

48 products that are RUPs in agriculture.  However, similar data is not available outside of

49 agriculture.  EPA is not aware of data from Agrian or CDMS that would provide information on

50 the relative usage of RUPs versus general use or unclassified pesticides across all application

51 sites.  

52 5. USDA Comment: USDA questioned EPA’s assertion that most of the estimated 800,000 farms that

53 might be impacted by the proposed rule are unlikely to apply RUPs.   

54 EPA Response: EPA changed “most” to “about half.”  According to the 2007 Census of

55 Agriculture, almost 860,000 small farms (gross revenue < $750,000) use pesticides.  Including

56 large farms (revenue > $750,000), there are almost 920,000 farms that use pesticides.  EPA data

57 show about 480,000 private applicators and some, particularly large farms, may have more than

58 one certified applicator.  Using this information, EPA estimated about 400,000 private

59 applicators on the 860,000 small farms, meaning just under half of the small farms would be

60 affected by the proposed rule.   

61 6. USDA Comment: Isn’t a person who passes the core exam for commercial applicators to qualify as a

62 noncertified applicator (using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator) actually

63 considered a certified applicator?  Who can administer training or exam for noncertified applicators?

64 EPA Response: No, taking the core exam for commercial applicators alone would not qualify

65 anyone as certified to apply RUPs without direct supervision by a certified applicator.  The core

66 exam for commercial applicators is one element of commercial applicator certification; the

67 person seeking certification as a commercial applicator must pass the core exam and an exam in

68 at least one category in which he or she intends to apply RUPs.  Passing the core exam for

69 commercial applicators is also not sufficient to certify a person as a private applicator.  To

70 become certified as a private applicator under the proposal, a person must either pass the exam

71 for private applicators, which covers content from the commercial core exam plus information

72 on pesticide use in agriculture, or must attend a training covering content outlined in the

73 proposed rule.  Therefore, passing the core exam for commercial applicators alone is not

74 sufficient to qualify a person as either a private or commercial applicator.  

75 EPA is proposing to allow noncertified applicators to be trained by certified applicators,

76 persons designated by the state as a trainer of applicators, or persons who have completed a

77 train‐the‐trainer program under the Worker Protection Standard (WPS).  EPA is also proposing

78 that each certifying authority may designate who can train noncertified applicators, giving each

79 certifying authority discretion to adopt requirements more stringent than what is included in

80 EPA’s proposed regulations related to the qualifications of persons as noncertified applicators.

81 Whether the training for a noncertified applicator conducted in one jurisdiction could be carried

82 over into another jurisdiction would depend on the relationship between the two jurisdictions.  

83 For example, in some cases training conducted in state A would not be valid in state B if state B

84 does not permit anyone who is not a certified applicator to use RUPs (i.e., no RUP use under the

85 direct supervision of a certified applicator).  
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

March 31, 2015    Page 3 of 9

86 Unlike EPA’s proposal to allow a variety of persons to conduct training for noncertified

87 applicators, only the certifying authority that administers exams for applicator certification

88 would be permitted to administer the core exam for noncertified applicators.

89

90 7. USDA Comment: How does the minimum age for commercial, private, and noncertified applicators

91 affect family farms?  Compare this proposal with the immediate family exemption in the Worker

92 Protection Standard (WPS).

93 EPA Response: There is no “family farm” provision in the Certification rule.  FIFRA requires all

94 persons using RUPs to be certified, whether using them on their own property or using them

95 commercially. Any minimum age requirement would apply to any person using an RUP,

96 regardless of the circumstances or location of the use.  RUPs pose elevated risks to the health of

97 the applicator, the target site, bystanders, and the environment whether used on a family farm

98 or in a commercial setting.   

99 The WPS has a provision that exempts the owner of a farm or any of his or her

100 immediate family members (as defined by the rule) from many provisions of the WPS, including

101 the proposed minimum age provision; employees on “family farms” who are not immediate

102 family members of the owner are covered by all applicable provisions of the WPS.  The WPS is

103 designed to protect agricultural workers and handlers from occupational pesticide risk.  No

104 parallel exemption exits for the Certification rule because its intended protections are broader

105 and the Certification rule deals with pesticides that EPA has determined need to be applied only

106 by qualified persons in order to avoid unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the

107 environment.

108

109 8. USDA Comment: USDA expressed concerns that states that require private applicators to pass an

110 exam violate FIFRA’s prohibition against requiring private applicators to take an exam.

111 EPA Response: FIFRA allows states to regulate the sale or use of any registered pesticide, but

112 only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by FIFRA and

113 not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or

114 different from those required under FIFRA. 7 USC 136v.  Therefore it is permitted under FIFRA

115 for a state to enact a law under its own inherent police powers to require private applicators to

116 take a written examination as a precondition for certification.

117

118 9. USDA Comment: USDA requests that EPA make allowances to the proposed minimum age

119 requirement for youth training programs where persons who do not meet the minimum age work under

120 the direct supervision of a certified applicator and for educational programs for youth in high school.

121 EPA Response: EPA recognizes USDA’s interest in youth training and educational programs.  EPA

122 is requesting comment on USDA’s suggestion; however, EPA did not revise the proposal related

123 to establishing a minimum age for users of RUPs to allow an exception to the age requirement

124 for participants in these programs.  The proposal establishes a minimum age to protect the

125 health of adolescents as well as to ensure that RUPs are handled by persons who have

126 developed judgement and maturity in order to handle these higher‐risk products in a manner

127 that would not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.

128 Participants in such programs have several other options to learn about proper use and

129 handling of pesticides without access to RUPs.  For example, they can practice using application

130 equipment with a non‐pesticide liquid (e.g., colored water).  Alternatively, they can have hands‐

131 on experience with pesticide application, such as mixing and loading pesticides, calculating the

132 amount of pesticide needed, calibrating equipment, and making applications, with non‐RUP

133 pesticides.  
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

March 31, 2015    Page 4 of 9

134 See also EPA’s response to Comment 1 of USDA’s Comments on the Proposed Rule.  

135

136 10. USDA Comment: Regarding the proposed elimination of the option for limited certification for

137 persons who cannot read and are seeking private applicator certification: the WPS requires pesticide

138 training to be offered in the language commonly spoken by the worker.  How does the implementation

139 of this provision coordinate with the WPS?  Would a requirement limiting certification of private

140 applicators to those who speak English affect how much they charge for their services?

141 EPA Response: The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) is designed to protect agricultural

142 workers and handlers from occupational risks associated with pesticides.  The Certification rule

143 establishes competency standards for persons to be certified to use RUPs – both private

144 applicators (farmers) and commercial applicators (for‐hire and government) – and outlines how

145 certification programs can be administered. These separate regulations address different

146 populations who bear significantly different responsibilities and who face – and contribute to –

147 significantly different levels of risk.  There is some overlap between the WPS and the

148 Certification rule, e.g., a person covered as a handler under the WPS could be using an RUP

149 under the direct supervision of a certified applicator and therefore covered by the training

150 requirement of both rules.  The WPS requirements related to training (e.g., training must be

151 provided in a manner the worker or handler understands) do not apply to applicators seeking

152 certification under this rule.  There is no requirement in the certification rule, current or

153 proposed, that requires persons seeking private applicator certification receive instruction in a

154 manner they understand.

155 A private applicator must be competent to use an RUP in a manner that will not cause

156 unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment.  A critical element of safe

157 pesticide use is reading, understanding, and following the pesticide labeling.  EPA specifies that

158 the private applicator must be competent to read, understand and follow the labeling, but

159 leaves it to the certifying authority to determine competency – whether through a training

160 program, written exam, combination, or other mechanism. States also have discretion about the

161 language in which training or exams are offered, but EPA’s registration eligibility decisions for

162 RUPs are contingent upon the presumption that the applicator can read and follow pesticide

163 labeling. EPA requires labeling to be available in English and permits registrants to make labeling

164 available in other languages at their discretion.

165 The proposed change to eliminate the option for limited certification for persons who

166 cannot read should not impact the amount that private applicators charge to make applications.

167 By FIFRA’s definition, a private applicator can only make applications for producing an

168 agricultural commodity to his or her own property, the property of his or her employer, or on

169 the property of another only if applied without compensation other than trading of personal

170 services between producers of agricultural commodities.  Private applicators cannot charge to

171 apply pesticides as a service – that would make them commercial applicators.  Private

172 applicators may earn wages to apply RUPs to the land of their employers.  EPA does not

173 anticipate that the wages of private applicators making RUP applications on their employers’

174 property would be affected by this proposal.  Private applicators will not be able to charge more

175 to make applications to others’ (non‐employers’) property because such applications cannot be

176 made for compensation.  

177

178 11. USDA Comment: USDA noted that both the proposed rule and current regulation only list 10

179 categories of certification for commercial applicators, while EPA says that there are 11.  

180 EPA Response: EPA has clarified the preamble to note that there are 10 numbered federal

181 categories of certification.  EPA and other certifying authorities may sometimes refer to 11
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

March 31, 2015    Page 5 of 9

182 categories of certification if the two subcategories under agricultural pest control are counted as

183 individual categories.  Considering these categories as separate brings the total number of

184 categories to 11.

185

186 12. USDA Comment: USDA asked whether the proposed rule would incorporate reciprocity, such that an

187 applicator taking an exam in one jurisdiction would not have to retake the same exam in a second

188 jurisdiction to be certified in the second jurisdiction.  Is EPA developing a standardized, nation‐wide

189 exam system?

190 EPA Response: While EPA is not proposing mandatory reciprocity between jurisdictions, EPA is

191 proposing new requirements that promote reciprocity.  States have raised differences in

192 administration of both exams and recertification programs, as well as the recertification period,

193 as barriers to issuing reciprocal certifications. However, the proposed exam security standards

194 (i.e., photo identification and proctored, closed‐book exams), and minimum standards and

195 length for recertification should facilitate more reciprocity between states where they have the

196 same/a similar category.  Further, EPA is proposing to require state certification plans to outline

197 whether, and under what circumstances, the state would recognize a certification issued by

198 another jurisdiction.   

199 EPA is also not proposing to develop a standardized, nation‐wide exam system.  EPA is

200 committing to support development of certification exams and training materials for federal

201 categories that can be used directly or adapted and used by states, tribes, and federal agencies.  

202 These resources will be available for use by any entity administering a certification program, but

203 not required.

204

205

206 Summary of Comments on the Economic Analysis

207 13. USDA Comment: USDA included line edits to the text of the Economic Analysis.

208 EPA Response: EPA has reviewed the comments embedded in the Economic Analysis (EA).  

209 Where appropriate, EPA has incorporated USDA’s suggested changes.  A copy of the EA showing

210 all changes made to the documents sent to USDA for review are included have been provided to

211 USDA.  

212

213 14. USDA Comment: Did EPA consult youth‐training programs?  USDA would appreciate the impact of

214 its impact/non‐impact of this proposal on youth training programs for pesticide applications.

215 EPA Response: EPA did not consult any youth‐training programs in the development of this

216 proposal.  EPA considered the impact of the proposal on those who may use RUPs as certified

217 applicators or noncertified applicators working under the direct supervision of certified

218 applicators.  EPA has amended the NPRM to request comment on the impact of the minimum

219 age proposals on youth‐training programs specifically.

220

221 15. USDA Comment: Which groups representing noncertified applicators and growers were approached

222 for feedback? Were they asked specifically regarding each proposed change in this proposed rule?  

223 What feedback was received?

224 EPA Response: EPA had formal and informal meetings with stakeholders related to this

225 potential rulemaking.  Formal engagement included meetings held as part of the National

226 Assessment of the Worker Safety Program, the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel and the

227 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Worker Safety Regulations Workgroup. The feedback

228 from these groups is included in the docket. EPA also met with other groups informally. EPA did

229 not meet with any groups that represent only noncertified applicators.   
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

March 31, 2015    Page 6 of 9

230 While EPA did not ask any group specifically about each proposed change, EPA did

231 discuss potential areas of change generally.  EPA is requesting specific feedback on each area of

232 proposed change during the public comment period.   

233

234 16. USDA Comment: USDA requested a copy of the National Assessment of the Worker Safety Program.

235 EPA Response: EPA provided this document to USDA; it is also available at

236 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/2005/workersafety‐assessrpt.pdf.

237

238 17. USDA Comment: EPA’s wage estimates seem to support BLS figures.  But should NASS data be used,

239 or are BLS data based on NASS data?  

240 EPA Response: For the cost analysis, EPA used national average wage rates from BLS that

241 specifically relate to pesticide applicators. NASS does not report wage rates specifically for

242 pesticide applicators working on farms nor does NASS report wages for commercial applicators

243 who work in the non‐agricultural sectors.  In order to make the cost analysis consistent, EPA

244 used private and commercial applicators from a single source, BLS.

245

246 18. USDA Comment: Because a number of states have developed certification requirements for soil

247 fumigants, it might be instructive to compare the costs incurred by those states and industry to EPA’s

248 estimates for states currently without training requirements for commercial and private applicators.

249 EPA Response: EPA will consider comparing the costs incurred by states and by industry related

250 to the new requirements on soil fumigant labeling with EPA’s estimated costs for adding a soil

251 fumigation category.  EPA has amended the NPRM to request feedback on the costs associated

252 with developing certification requirements for soil fumigants. However, EPA has not revised the

253 EA for this proposed rule with this information.  EPA will consider all available information

254 before issuing a final rule.

255

256 19. USDA Comment: USDA requested a cost analysis on family farms.

257 EPA Response: As EPA understands USDA’s concerns, USDA is requesting a cost analysis on

258 family farms to determine the impact that the proposal would have on these entities.  The only

259 area of the rule in which USDA has requested EPA to consider different treatment of family

260 farms is related to the proposals to establish a minimum age to be a certified applicator or to

261 use RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.  EPA has prepared a cost analysis

262 on family farms related to the minimum age provisions.  See Private Age‐03: Minimum Age of

263 18; Minimum Age of 16 for Family Members for Certified Private Applicators and Private Age‐06:

264 Minimum Age of 18; Minimum Age of 16 for Family Members for Noncertified Applicators in

265 Appendix A to the EA for the detailed cost analysis for family members working on their farms.

266

267 20. USDA Comment: The assumption that private applicators of RUPs can be as young as 14 would be in

268 contrary to the Fair Labor Standard Act, its regulations and state laws for acutely toxic pesticides. As EPA

269 stated in the draft FRN, “The Fair Labor Standard Act’s child labor provisions, which are administered by

270 the Department of Labor, permit children to work at younger ages in agricultural employment than in

271 non‐agricultural employment. Children under 16 years old are prohibited from doing hazardous tasks in

272 agriculture, including handling or applying acutely toxic pesticides.”

273 EPA Response: The Fair Labor Standards Act has a parental exemption for youth employed in

274 agriculture.  This exemption permits a youth under the age of 16 to perform any work if he or

275 she is employed “by his parent or by a person standing in the place of his parent on a farm

276 owned or operated by such parent or person.” 29 U.S.C. 213(c)(2).  
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

March 31, 2015    Page 7 of 9

277 Based on this statutory exemption from the FLSA’s minimum age for hazardous work in

278 agriculture, EPA included an assumption that private applicators could be as young as 14 years

279 old although it might result in an overestimation of the costs.  

280

281 21. USDA Comment: Are the costs for changing state laws included in the estimated costs of Admin‐02:

282 Revise State Regulations and Update Plans?

283 EPA Response: Yes, Admin‐02 includes these costs.  The estimation includes the staff time to

284 change state laws and to update certification plans.

285

286 22. USDA Comment: How was $3,000 arrived at as the estimation for federal agencies to change their

287 certification plans (Admin‐02)?

288 EPA Response: The cost to federal agencies was estimated based on the time needed to update

289 the certification plans.  The costs to states includes updating certification plans and working

290 through legislative and/or regulatory change in order to have the legal authorities in place to

291 submit a revised certification plan for EPA approval.  EPA is not aware of any federal agencies

292 that would need to effectuate regulatory or legislative changes in order to update their

293 certification plans.

294

295 23. USDA Comment: USDA suggests that NASS data be used for calculating the wage rates for

296 commercial applicators, while EPA cites BLS data.  Was the BLS data used derived from NASS?  

297 EPA Response: The BLS data cited in the EA was not derived from NASS.  For the cost analysis,

298 EPA used national average wage rates from BLS that specifically relate to pesticide applicators.  

299 NASS does not report wage rates specifically for pesticide applicators working on farms nor does

300 NASS report wages for commercial applicators who work in non‐agricultural sectors.  For the

301 cost analysis to be consistent, EPA used a single source (BLS) for private (agricultural or farm)

302 and commercial applicator wages.

303

304 24. USDA Comment: In relation to the discussion of the Potential Impacts on Small Businesses (Section

305 5.7), which grower groups were consulted by EPA?  Were they asked for their thoughts concerning each

306 proposed change in this Certification and Training proposed rule?

307 EPA Response: USDA’s comment here is related to EPA’s discussion of the thresholds used for

308 determining the “substantial” number of impacted entities, based on Wyatt 2008, “Screening

309 Level Analysis of the Small Business Impacts of Revoking Carbofuran Tolerances.”  For the

310 Worker Protection Standard and Certification rules, EPA convened a SBREFA panel meeting with

311 stakeholders, including applicator organizations.  EPA has provided USDA with a copy of the

312 SBREFA Panel Report, which includes the topics discussed and the Small Entity Representatives

313 that participated in the discussion.

314 Again, EPA did not discuss each specific proposed change with stakeholders.  EPA

315 expects all interested parties to provide feedback on the specific proposed changes during the

316 public comment period after the proposed rule is issued.

317

318 25. USDA Comment: “Could be substantial” is not a solid basis for promulgating new regulations.  

319 Although the deaths are unfortunate, geese, blackbirds, grackles and gulls are not scarce species and

320 certainly far from extinction.

321 EPA Response: The deaths of birds and other ecological incidents due to RUP use are only part

322 of the justification for the proposed rulemaking.  EPA is basing the cost and benefits of the rule

323 on acute health effects from RUP use.  EPA presents ecological incidents to show that certified

324 applicators make mistakes that can lead to negative environmental consequences as well as to
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

March 31, 2015    Page 8 of 9

325 provide an overview of the type of incidents that can be caused by applicators who meet

326 current standards for competency. Note too that it is the fact that geese, blackbirds, grackles

327 and gulls are not scarce species that allows the mass mortality events that are most likely to be

328 noticed and reported.  Uncommon, threatened or endangered birds face precisely the same

329 risks, yet their numbers dictate that their deaths are less likely to be observed.

330

331 26. USDA Comment: EPA cites a BLS occupational illness report and highlights carcinogens.  Because this

332 proposed rule concerns RUP applicators, EPA should provide stronger evidence that the RUP applicator

333 population is more vulnerable to pesticides which are carcinogens instead of stating “some correlation”

334 may exist.

335 EPA Response: EPA used the BLS occupational illness report to highlight how occupational

336 illnesses, especially exposure to carcinogens, can be difficult to track.  EPA is citing existing

337 information, rather than making assertions about the RUP applicator population.  

338

339 27. USDA Comment: Because EPA wishes to add additional training categories for aerial, chemigation,

340 soil and non‐soil fumigants, a review of incident data for these four RUP uses would be instructive

341 compared to the numbers of applications a year without incidents.

342 EPA Response: EPA agrees that it would be helpful to have a complete count of how many and

343 what types of incidents occur for different application methods.  Available data, however, do

344 not permit such an analysis.  EPA has included in the incident review all available incidents

345 related to RUPs.  Where possible, EPA has included the application method in the description of

346 incidents considered.  Section 6.5.2 of the EA outlines factors that contribute to significant

347 underreporting of pesticide‐related human health incidents.  In addition to underreporting of

348 incidents, some information, such as the application method, is not available for all incidents

349 reviewed.  As discussed in the response to USDA’s summary comments, EPA has not and does

350 not plan to estimate the number of applications per year overall or by application method.

351

352 28. USDA Comment: Previously registered pesticides which contained dioxin impurities should not be

353 held up as an example since these are no longer used in the US. The remaining arsenical pesticides will

354 soon be canceled.  If EPA believes that certain products contain unacceptable risk, EPA has the authority

355 to remove them from use.  If they remain registered by EPA, then it should be assumed that they can be

356 used safely when applied as labeled.

357 EPA Response: EPA has removed the reference to dioxin and arsenical pesticides.  EPA included

358 these examples to show how the international epidemiological community view the potential

359 long‐term health effects of pesticide exposure as important, EPA is not asserting that these are

360 potential exposures today.  In registering a pesticide, EPA concludes that the product, when

361 applied as labeled, is safe.  As new information about risks or exposure arise, EPA changes

362 labeling requirements.  When a product is registered as “restricted use,” EPA assumes that the

363 person using the product has demonstrated competency to read and follow all labeling

364 instructions to ensure safe application. EPA is proposing changes to the certification regulation

365 to ensure that applicators continue to meet the standards of competency necessary to follow

366 the labeling of RUPs.

367

368 29. USDA Comment: Publications dated 2014 from the US Agricultural Health Study still highlight the

369 uncertainty of a causal relationship between currently registered pesticides and chronic illnesses despite

370 years of investigation.  While USDA supports refinements to the certification rule, USDA asserts that

371 EPA's justification for increased regulation is not strongly backed by the current literature. For example,

372 in the Ag Health Study, the only statistically significant positive exposure response trend observed for
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review***

March 31, 2015    Page 9 of 9

373 Non‐Hodgkins lymphoma was for lindane and DDT. These two pesticides are now cancelled pesticides.  

374 Other pesticides have only shown suggestive links or associations. Because epidemiological studies are

375 only suggestive, it is must still be proven that additional training will result in a reduction of the cited

376 chronic illnesses.

377 EPA Response: EPA agrees that the Agricultural Health Study outcomes have not established

378 any causal relationships between continued exposure to multiple pesticides and chronic health

379 effects.  EPA is not asserting that additional training will result in a reduction of the cited chronic

380 illnesses. Rather, the EA notes that studies have only shown associations between pesticide

381 exposure and some chronic illnesses.

382

383 30. USDA Comment: USDA suggests that EPA use caution to base conclusions to mitigate risk based on

384 the outcomes from the National Agricultural Health Study because applicators were recruited in 1993‐

385 1997 after being exposed for a number of years to pesticides that EPA has since cancelled.  USDA also

386 notes that the Worker Protection Standard, which went into effect in 1993, should have protected

387 pesticide applicators, among other workers.  USDA recommends that EPA use studies of chronic illnesses

388 of RUP applicators who began applying RUPs after the WPS went into effect in 1993.

389 EPA Response: The certification rule has been in effect since 1974.  While EPA may have

390 cancelled or further restricted the use of some pesticides that the applicators in the Agricultural

391 Health Study have been exposed to, the applicators in the study are certified applicators of RUPs

392 covered by the certification rule.  Since individual product labeling requirements and applicator

393 competency as required by the certification rule work hand in hand to ensure RUPs can be used

394 safely, EPA believes it is appropriate to consider potential effects of RUP exposure since the

395 certification rule was implemented.  However, for the quantified benefits of avoiding acute

396 health incidents, EPA has limited its consideration of data to 2009 and 2010.  In addition, EPA

397 looked at cases involving high severity illnesses and fatalities in three different databases,

398 covering the years 2001 through 2014.  

399 The WPS is designed to protect agricultural workers and handlers from occupational

400 risks associated with pesticides.  The Certification rule establishes competency standards for

401 persons to be certified to use RUPs – both private applicators (farmers) and commercial

402 applicators (for‐hire and government) – and outlines how certification programs can be

403 administered. There is some overlap between the WPS and the Certification rule, e.g., a person

404 covered as a handler under the WPS could be using an RUP under the direct supervision of a

405 certified applicator and therefore covered by both rules.  Implementation of the WPS did not

406 affect the competency required for applicators of RUPs – they were held to the same standards

407 before and after the WPS was implemented.  Therefore, EPA did not limit consideration of

408 studies to the period after the WPS was implemented.

409

410 31. USDA Comment: USDA made several comments requesting that EPA limit consideration of incidents

411 to those associated with RUPs.   

412 EPA Response: EPA has adjusted the EA in response to USDA’s comments.  See EPA’s response

413 to General Comment 4 of USDA’s Comments on the Proposed Rule for further detail.