Ples Spradley 

AAPSE President 

C/O University of Arkansas Extension 

2301 S. University 

Little Rock, AR 72204

501-671-2234

July 28, 2009 

Debra Edwards, Director 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail Code: 7501P 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Ms. Edwards: 

The American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) is very concerned over the 

consideration and approval of recent labeling risk mitigation measures that 1) require training 

beyond the restricted-use pesticide (RUP) standard defined in FIFRA and 2) are registrant-productspecific -- not based on risk profile, but product. AAPSE is also concerned that certification and 

training partners were not invited to discuss this mitigation option prior to it being implemented. In 

addition, more opportunities for internal EPA discussion among the Field and External Affairs 

Division – Certification Branch, Special Review and Reregistration Division, and Registration 

Division (RD) should be provided. AAPSE strongly suggests that prior to EPA moving in this 

direction, discussions occur to develop standards or policies for additional training requirements 

which are beyond the scope of FIFRA-mandated RUP certification programs for commercial and 

private applicators. This letter intends to point out serious flaws with the registrant-product-specific 

training mitigation approach included in the condition of registration for the active ingredient 

picloram (4 registrant companies) and under review in the soil fumigant registration eligibility 

document. To clarify, AAPSE is not necessarily opposed to additional training requirements, but 

wants to be assured there is a well-thought out plan for using this potential mitigation approach; we 

suggest some considerations for developing a plan of action to use this mitigation approach. 

The catalyst for this letter is our understanding that the active ingredient picloram underwent an 

interim review due to new registration applications and that RD determined that categorizing 

picloram as a restricted use pesticide was insufficient to mitigate the risk. Several mitigation options 

were considered by RD and the requirement for additional training was agreed upon between RD 

and the registrants as a viable option. 

AAPSE’s primary concern is why EPA believes RUP certification training is insufficient. 

What triggered the picloram decision related to RUP protections? This question is critical and must 

be clearly answered. Would restrictions for use “only by certified applicators” with no allowance for 

supervision mitigate the risk sufficiently? If so, the change is straight forward. Does the current 

RUP certification standard need updating with new risk categories (water quality, spray drift, soil 

fumigation) because RUP certification is insufficient? EPA must be able to assure stakeholders that 
the EPA-approved additional training components truly cover added risk information when 

compared to the basic RUP certification training criteria that are implemented in states, territories 

and tribal lands today? For example, soil fumigants pose unique risks that are not covered in basic 

certification programs; however with picloram, phytotoxicity and surface and groundwater concerns 

are largely covered. 

EPA must compare the risk to the goal or target of the additional training program; the goal must be 

to reduce the risk, not merely to develop training resources or offer training. 

The AAPSE Board of Directors believes the four-hour training requirement for picloram, which 

Dow AgroSciences has sent to states for continuing education credit approval, is largely duplicative 

of basic RUP certification training. Very little material in the Dow AgroSciences packet, which EPA 

RD found suitable, contains information AAPSE perceives to be above and beyond RUP training 

standards. To require four hours to cover a risk concern about phytotoxicity and water quality that is 

greatly diluted with other “filler” information, will likely distract the applicator and the intended risk 

message may not be heard or understood. Keep the message simple and straight forward with 

suitable examples of the concern – train on the risk for mitigation, don’t just train to train and do not 

set hour limitations without good reasoning. 

Registrant-product-specific training invites exclusionary registrations. From a marketing 

perspective registrant-product-specific training requirements makes sense for those who pay to 

develop/offer training and for controlling access to products, if enforced; however, from a risk 

education perspective this is only a burden to the end user. Developing a quality risk-based 

approach instead of product-specific could require support by manufacturers to develop national or 

regional training materials and outreach efforts that target the risk. 

Why does the burden fall to the applicator? This may be the most important point. If someone 

chooses to, or because of marketing in their area, purchase similar products that require they be 

trained, they must be trained by multiple registrants for the SAME risk profile? For example a 

company or applicator that ends up with two or three picloram products in their storage, must attend 

two or three different training programs for the same risk. AAPSE can easily envision some users, 

because of their scope of work and the markets they do business in, needing to comply with (attend) 

two or more trainings on the same risk profiles. This does not meet the reality check. 

Most importantly, consider the end user and the confusion stemming from multiple training 

requirements, recertification requirements, and who they need to contact for which training and 

when. AAPSE members are already receiving calls asking why the state lead agency or Extension 

Service added these new requirements to picloram and why they have to take more training. They 

also have asked what other products will have these stipulations. 

How does EPA envision any additional training requirement in relation to FIFRA’s 

requirement for continuing competency (i.e. state recertification programs)? We assume that 

any product requiring additional training is already classified RUP. Should label-mandated retraining be outside of the state’s RUP recertification requirements, or rolled into it? The initial 

training is outside the context of RUP certification, so what about retraining? If rolled in, do the 

label-mandated continuing education requirements closely match the state’s current requirements for 

recertification or numbers of credits? This sets the stage for applicators to meet the registrantproduct-specific label-mandated continuing education requirements; thus meeting the state’s 
requirements without receiving any training targeting on issues such as other laws, safety, or pest 

management topics. 

AAPSE’s secondary concern is one of noncompliance. 

This additional training requirement is not a condition for the legal sale of the product containing 

picloram, simply its use. Certified applicators can purchase RUP picloram products after 

demonstrating basic competency through state exams and certification programs to become FIFRAcertified commercial or private applicators. However to legally use this product with the revised 

label, any person making the application (certified or supervised) must be trained by one or more of 

the registrants in order for the application to be legal. In the rural Northern Plains and West access to 

both face-to-face or Internet training, especially for a significant number of certified private 

applicators, is a real issue that has created compliance issues already for existing certification 

programs. If certified applicators can legally purchase the product and there is no significant 

enforcement effort put forward for the new label-mandated training requirement, many applicators 

may simply ignore that part of the label. This sets up a very poor mitigation measure that could 

result in noncompliant applicators ignoring other label protections. AAPSE strongly advises EPA 

that any additional training requirement, including proof of that training, be a condition of sale and 

use, not just use. If the condition of sale is in place “to only certified applicators who have proof of 

additional training,” noncompliance issues are greatly reduced and more easily enforced using 

current methods. 

AAPSE strongly suggests any new training or certification standard be for groups of products 

that share the same risk profile. If EPA is finding risk concerns that RUP certification does not 

address, registrant-product-specific training is not the answer. How many more herbicides that 

undergo review will share a similar risk profile to picloram? EPA must be able to explain what the 

risk is that requires mitigation and the need for an additional training burden for certified private and 

commercial applicators. The applicator must be able to get training for a range of products sharing 

the same risk and EPA should not expect the applicator to obtain that education one product at a 

time. As currently envisioned registrant-product-specific training is not reciprocated for users of 

another manufacturer’s product with the same active ingredient. We suggest EPA bring together a 

community of stakeholders to develop a roadmap for the risks associated with product groups. 

AAPSE suggests EPA 1) develop a plan of action for this decision making and 2) whether it 

should or should not be integrated into the existing certification and training program. 

AAPSE recognizes there are risks that will be identified that are beyond the current scope of the 

RUP certification program. Education may be a key mitigation measure, but we need a roadmap to 

get there. Applicators have an existing relationship with state lead agencies and their certification 

program as well as university extension services for education programs. Confusion is on the 

horizon for new players and requirements for training. 

AAPSE encourages EPA to carefully assess the suitability of stewardship programs. If such 

programs are deemed necessary, AAPSE requests EPA formalize a process to address risk 

mitigations when RUP certification is insufficient; a roadmap for assessment and implementation 

must be crafted before using label-mandated training mitigation measure. If additional training is to 

be required by the label, it must be a condition of sale and based on the risk, not the product. 

 

If label-mandated training becomes the best option for risk mitigation, AAPSE strongly 

recommends that EPA must clearly ask and set policy as to: 
1) who defines the scope of training: risk manager, product manager, multiple divisions 

a. must target risk and not be redundant of existing training requirements 

b. national, regional, or small-scale scope 

2) who within EPA approves the training curricula: RD, RD or C&T, outside stakeholders 

3) whether training requirement should be melded into current state C&T programs or be 

independent (registrant-sponsored), 

a. the current certified applicator program is regulated and enforced 

4) whether face-to-face courses and internet training can be adequately monitored and, if so, 

how often to ensure training criteria are being presented and received? Does inadequate 

training (too little time and reduced quality) allow for enforcement action? What are the 

consequences to the course sponsor and to attendees if insufficient? 

5) what funding sources are needed to develop curricula, outreach, enforcement, and tracking of 

application training and retraining? 

6) the implementation of a field enforcement program that ensures compliance. 

We appreciate your consideration of these concerns for registrant-product-specific label-mandated 

training requirements and look forward to working directly with the different EPA divisions to 

increase communications regarding devising a roadmap and setting new guidance policies. We 

pledge a standing offer to visit with EPA to explain state certification programs to the registration 

divisions and risk assessors. 

Sincerely yours, 

Ples Spradley 

cc: Bill Diamond, Kevin Keaney, FEAD 

 Lois Rossi, John Leahy, Dirk Helder and Dan Kenny, RD 

 Steven Bradbury, SRRD 

 Jack Peterson, SFIREG Chair 

 Maureen Serafini, AAPCO President 

 Liza Fleeson, TPSA President 

 Steven E. Dwinnel, ASPCRO President 

 Roger Flashinski, CTAG Co-Chair