1

Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, OPPTS January 26, 2010

USEPA Headquarters 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Owens,

With this letter, the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) formally requests that EPA 

delay implementation of changes to the labels of the soil fumigant products (chloropicrin, dazomet, metam 

sodium/potassium and methyl bromide) as detailed in the recently finalized Amended Reregistration Eligibility 

Decisions (REDs). While state lead pesticide agencies support adopting measures to protect human and 

environmental health, the scheduled 2010 mitigation measures have not allowed sufficient time for training of 

state lead agency personnel or education and outreach to the pesticide user community. The most desirable 

outcome would be to defer implementation of all changes until the 2012 growing season, however, deferral of the 

changes slated for implementation in 2010 until at least 2011 would allow state lead agencies critically needed 

time to prepare enforcement staff and train end users on the specifics associated with product label changes. With 

the collective experience of state lead agencies, we can say with certainty that successful implementation of the 

soil fumigant mitigation measures slated for 2010 cannot be achieved under the current timeline.

This request is founded on our belief that the current implementation timeline is unrealistic and will be 

counterproductive to our mutually shared goals of common sense regulation. AAPCO appreciates the process by 

which EPA has developed the REDs and the willingness of the Office of Pesticide Programs staff to seek and 

consider public input in doing so. While the Agency has been very industrious in developing a broad range of 

mitigation measures, the effort to develop a carefully coordinated implementation plan has not kept pace. 

Unfortunately, the high level of uncertainty and a lack of specifics or guidance associated with the new label 

language, together with the complete absence of a compliance strategy, has prevented states from taking the steps 

necessary to prepare for successful implementation prior to the 2010 growing season. 

The changes dictated under the REDs are extremely diverse and complicated, and will fundamentally change the 

way in which soil fumigations are made. With all due respect to EPA’s ambitious and worthy goals, there seems 

to be a disconnect between EPA’s role in determining the mitigation measures necessary to ensure the safe use of 

fumigants and the understanding of the roles and abilities of its partners to successfully implement them. As of 

today, agricultural producers who must comply with the changes, university extension personnel responsible for 

providing training, and state lead agencies charged with enforcing the changes have not seen finalized labels for 

any of these products. Without final label language, states have been unable to conduct any meaningful outreach 

to the affected industries, to create effective training materials for applicators, or prepare enforcement personnel 

for the upcoming use season (in some states the 2010 use season has already begun). 
2

In early December 2009, EPA staff provided information indicating that the agency “expects to approve the 2010 

labels near the end of 2009,” with registrants submitting them to state registration programs “early in 2010.” They 

also indicated that the “label tables” were still undergoing revision as “additional clarification and wording 

changes [are made] to enhance clarity and enforceability.” This extensive review and revision process has 

significantly delayed the approval process for soil fumigant labels. Windows of opportunity for education and 

outreach for the 2010 use season have already been lost and those for 2011 are beginning to close. As a result, 

many state lead agencies are left with no practical choice but to delay registration of the new labels until training 

and compliance programs have been established. In the meantime, end users will need to use the previous 

labeling that was supposed to change for the current use season. If states do not do this, the result will be 

widespread confusion and potential non-compliance with complex new labels, a situation most states would prefer 

to avoid.

Our states have a great deal of experience in implementing changes to pesticide use requirements. To ensure 

success, we prepare implementation plans, work with our partners, give presentations at pesticide applicator

recertification meetings, develop training materials and, if necessary, examinations, gather lists of affected 

individuals who may not yet be certified applicators, perform mailings, schedule training programs, make any 

necessary database changes and prepare our enforcement personnel. Without exception, states have been unable 

to complete any of these tasks due to EPA’s unrealistic implementation schedule. Labels are still in transition, 

although EPA staff have been working recently on implementation plans, responses to many questions posed by 

the states remain unanswered, registrants are still developing label-mandated training, and fumigation 

management templates continue to be revised. 

States have worked diligently to gain the respect and cooperation of the regulated community. Such positive 

relationships help to ensure the effective regulation of pesticides and ultimately the protection of human health, 

the environment and our food supply. If EPA continues down the road of prematurely enacting the mitigation 

measures on soil fumigant labels, it will have a significant negative impact on the reputation of both EPA and 

state partners. In addition, the strong state-federal co-regulatory partnership we have enjoyed over the years will 

be needlessly tarnished at a time when it is critical that we effectively work together to succeed in the 

implementation of important protective measures.

Many of the states grappling with the soil fumigation mitigation measures are also faced with implementation of 

the NPDES permits, county endangered species bulletins resulting from the biological opinions from NMFS, and 

new pesticide container/containment regulations. While state resources continue to erode we are all now faced 

with great uncertainty in regards to our base program budgets. The one thing that does appear certain is the 

continuing lack of Federal funding available for implementation of these new mandates.

We strongly urge that you defer implementation of the 2010 soil fumigant mitigation measures and work with us 

to develop a realistic, meaningful and successful implementation plan. To do otherwise sets the stage for failure 

by your state partners, the regulated community, and the new soil fumigation mitigation measures themselves.

Sincerely,

Tim Creger, President of AAPCO

Cc: Stephen Bradbury, Acting Director, OPP

John Leahy, OPP

Ed Kee, President, NASDA

Jack Peterson, Chair, SFRIG

Dean Herzfeld, President, AAPSE