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 profil e, 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 di scussion among the Field and External Affairs

Division – Certification Branc h, 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 RU P certification programs for commercial and private applicators. This letter intends to point out serious flaws w ith the registrant-product-specific training mitigation approach included in the cond ition of registration fo r 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 i ngredient picloram underwent an interim review due to new registration applica tions and that RD determ ined that categorizing picloram as a restricted use pesticide was insufficien t to mitigate the risk. Several mitigation options were considered by RD and the requirement fo r 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 RU P protections? This questi on is critical and must be clearly answered. Would restrictions for use “o nly by certified applicators” with no allowance for supervision mitigate the risk sufficiently? If so, th e change is straight forward. Does the current RUP certification standard need updating with new risk categories (water qua lity, spray drift, soil fumigation) because RUP certi fication is insufficient? EPA must be able to assure stakeholders thatthe EPA-approved additional training component s truly cover added risk information when compared to the basic RUP certification training crit eria that are implemented in states, territories and tribal lands today? For example, soil fumiga nts pose unique risks that are not covered in basic certification programs; however with picloram, p hytotoxicity 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 continui ng education credit approva l, 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 phytot oxicity and water quality that is greatly diluted with other “filler” information, will like ly 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-sp ecific training requirements makes sense for those who pay to develop/offer training and for c ontrolling 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-spec ific could require s upport 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 picl oram products in their storage, must attend two or three different training programs for the sa me risk. AAPSE can easily envision some users, because of their scope of work and the markets th ey do business in, needing to comply with (attend) two or more trainings on the same risk prof iles. This does not meet the reality check.

Most importantly, consider the end user and the confusion stemming from multiple training requirements, recertification requirements, and w ho 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 produc ts will have these stipulations.

How does EPA envision any additional trai ning 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 recertifica tion requirements, or rolled into it? The initial training is outside the context of RUP certification, so what about re training? If rolled in, do the label-mandated continuing education requirements cl osely match the state’s current requirements for

recertification or numbers of credits? This sets the stage for applicators to meetthe registrantproduct-specific label-mandated continuing educa tion requirements; thus meeting the state’srequirements without receiving any tr aining 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 lega l sale of the product containing picloram, simply its use. Certified applic ators can purchase RUP pi cloram products after demonstrating basic competency through state ex ams and certification programs to become FIFRAcertified commercial or private applicators . However to legally use th is product with the revised label, any person making the application (certi fied or supervised) must be trained by one or more of the registrants in order for the application to be lega l. In the rural Northern Plains and West access to

both face-to-face or Internet trai ning, especially for a signific ant number of certified private applicators, is a real issue that has created compliance issu es already for existing certification programs. If certified applicat ors can legally purchase the pro duct and there is no significant enforcement effort put forward for the new labe l-mandated training require ment, many applicators may simply ignore that part of the label. This sets up a very poor mitigation measure that could result in noncompliant applicat ors ignoring other label protecti ons. AAPSE strongly advises EPA that any additional training requirement, including pr oof of that training, be a condition of sale and use, not just use. If the condition of sale is in place “to only certified appl icators who have proof of additional training,” noncompliance issues are gr eatly reduced and more easily enforced using

current methods.

AAPSE strongly suggests any new training or certif ication 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 ri sk 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 appli cator must be able to get traini ng for a range of products sharing the same risk and EPA should not expect the appli cator to obtain that education one product at a time. As currently envisioned registrant-product-s pecific training is not r eciprocated for users of another manufacturer’s product with the same active ingredient. We suggest EPA bring together a community of stakeholders to develop a roadma p for the risks associated with product groups.

AAPSE suggests EPA 1) develop a plan of action for this decision maki ng and 2) whether it should or should not be integrated into th e existing certification and training program. AAPSE recognizes there are risks th at will be identified that ar e 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 relationshi p with state lead agencies and their certification program as well as university ex tension services for education programs. Confusion is on the horizon for new players and requirements for training.

AAPSE encourages EPA to careful ly assess the suitability of st ewardship programs. If such programs are deemed necessary, AAPSE requests EPA formalize a process to address risk mitigations when RUP certification is insuffici ent; 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 trai ning: 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 pr ogram is regulated and enforced 4) whether face-to-face courses a nd internet training can be ad equately monitored and, if so, how often to ensure training criteria are bei ng presented and received? Does inadequate training (too little time and reduced quality) a llow for enforcement action? What are the consequences to the course sponsor and to attendees if insufficient? 5) what funding sources are needed to develop curr icula, outreach, enforcement, and tracking of application traini ng 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 regardin g devising a roadmap and setti ng new guidance policies. We pledge a standing offer to visit with EPA to explai n 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