US EPA - Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Meeting

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES 5

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6

7

8

PESTICIDE PROGRAM DIALOGUE 9

COMMITTEE MEETING 10

DAY TWO - MAY 4, 2017 11

12

13

14

15

Conference Center - Lobby Level 16

2777 Crystal Drive 17

One Potomac Yard South 18

19

Arlington, VA 22202 20

21

22

23

24

25

2

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

- - - - - 2

MR. KEIGWIN: Welcome, everyone, to the 3

second day of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 4

Meeting. For those of you who weren’t here yesterday, 5

I am Rick Keigwin. I’m currently the Acting Director 6

of the Office of Pesticide Programs. 7

We’re going to be spending the morning today 8

getting public input on potential regulatory reform 9

efforts in response to President Trump’s Executive 10

Order 13777. I want to thank in advance all of you 11

who have come to participate in this meeting in person 12

and to those of you that are joining us over the 13

telephone. 14

Just a little bit of background on this new 15

executive order. President Trump issued the order 16

entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” on 17

February 24th of this year. In that order, it directs 18

each agency to develop a regulatory reform task force 19

to oversee the evaluation of existing regulations and 20

to make recommendations about potential repeal, 21

replacement, or modification of those regulations. 22

The executive order also requires the task force to 23

seek input from a variety of entities significantly 24

affected by EPA regulations. So, that’s one of the25

3

purposes of today’s meeting. 1

In March of this year, EPA Administrator 2

Pruitt issued an Agency-wide memorandum on 3

how we would be implementing this executive order at 4

EPA. And among other things, it announced the members 5

of the Regulatory Reform Task Force, which is headed 6

by Samantha Dravis in our Office of Policy. 7

It also describes how the task force is charged with 8

evaluating existing regulations and making 9

recommendations to Administrator Pruitt. 10

The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 11

Prevention intends to submit a draft report of our 12

findings to the task force by May 15th in response to 13

Administrator Pruitt’s memo. 14

So, I know for those of you on the PPDC, 15

you’re seated in a slightly different way than you 16

normally would, this is to accommodate a high turnout 17

of people that registered to participate. I think we 18

have almost 100 people who registered to participate 19

in person and a very large number who are joining us 20

over the telephone. So, thank you for your patience 21

and your flexibility for today. 22

For us at EPA, this is a listening session 23

to hear your thoughts on which pesticide regulations 24

should be repealed, replaced, or modified. We will25

4

not be reacting to any of the comments that are made, 1

but we are here to listen. 2

There will be a transcript generated from 3

today’s meeting, and we will post a copy of that 4

transcript in the docket for the PPDC, as well as on 5

the PPDC web site. That will probably take us a 6

couple of weeks, but it will be there. 7

While we will be taking notes today, we 8

strongly encourage anyone making public comments to 9

also submit those to the docket that was created for 10

this effort. The docket for this effort currently 11

closes on May 15th. There is an information sheet. 12

If you haven’t received it, that gives a little bit 13

more guidance on how to submit those comments and what 14

the docket number is at regulations.gov. 15

So, a couple of logistics for today. We’ll 16

first be taking comments from members of the Pesticide 17

Program Dialogue Committee who are seated up front 18

with us. We have about 20 members of the PPDC who 19

told us in advance that they intended to provide 20

comments. If we still have time remaining before the 21

break, we’ll open it up to the full PPDC to see if 22

there are any other comments that they’d like to make. 23

And then, after the break, we’ll hear from 24

people from the public who have signed up to provide25

5

comments in person. For those of you in the room, 1

we’ll ask you to step up to the microphone. For those 2

of you on the phone, we will work through the 3

logistics, and Claire Gesalman from the 4

Office of Pesticide Programs will help moderate that 5

part of the proceedings. 6

Anyone who is going to provide public 7

comment today, we ask that you, when it’s your turn to 8

speak, to begin by saying your name and your 9

organization that you are representing. Because of 10

the high number of people that have requested to 11

speak, we are limiting people to three minutes so that 12

we can accommodate all of the numbers. 13

Dea Zimmerman, who’s standing up to my left, 14

your right for most of you, will give you a one minute 15

warning sign. So, we’re not going to cut off your mic 16

or anything, but in the interest of letting as many 17

people speak as possible, try to limit your comments 18

to three minutes. 19

And then, one last thing, for those of you 20

on the phone who don’t have the advantage of the one- 21

pager that we handed out, if you’re interested in 22

receiving a copy of that one-pager, you can send an 23

e-mail request to a very long e-mail address. It’s 24

EPA.OPP.regulatoryreform -- that’s all one25

6

word -- @EPA.gov, EPA.OPP.regulatoryreform@EPA.gov. 1

So, we’re going to turn now to our PPDC 2

members who requested to speak. Actually, the first 3

PPDC member that requested to speak is Amy Liebman 4

from the Migrant Clinicians Network. So, Claire, if 5

you can help us open up Amy’s line. 6

MS. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, well, she just 7

needs -- Amy, if you’re on the phone, if you hit pound 8

6, please. 9

MS. LIEBMAN: I just did. Can you hear me? 10

MS. ZIMMERMAN: Yes. 11

MS. LIEBMAN: Wonderful. You ready for me 12

to go? 13

MR. KIEGWIN: Okay, you’re on the clock. 14

MS. LIEBMAN: Good morning. This is Amy 15

Liebman. I’m from the Migrant Clinicians Network. I 16

just wanted to say that I think the EPA has just an 17

incredible responsibility to protect human health and 18

the environment. As such, there are numerous 19

regulations that are critical to the EPA’s mission. 20

So, today, as part of the effort to examine 21

regulations, I want to talk about some important 22

pesticide regulations. I’m going to address the 23

importance of the Worker Protection Standard as well24

7

as the Certified Pesticide Applicator Rule. 1

First, on both rules, I commend the Agency 2

for their long and extensive effort to engage 3

stakeholders as they developed the proposed rule. In 4

2001, I attended my first stakeholder meeting in 5

Orlando, Florida. This is one of many, many meetings 6

that the EPA facilitated across the country to obtain 7

diverse stakeholder perspectives. These perspectives 8

were from industry, from farmworker groups, to 9

clinicians. Their work continued throughout various 10

administrations. 11

In 2006, I participated in the worker 12

protection subgroup of the PPDC. Again, this involved 13

diverse stakeholders. While we often criticize the 14

EPA for how much time it took to revise the rules, the 15

result is that we have rules with input from 16

stakeholders across the spectrum, and it offers 17

stronger protections to the workers that put the food 18

on our tables. 19

It’s not a perfect rule, and there are many 20

protections such as cholinesterase monitoring 21

that the EPA failed to include, but it is important 22

and a moderate step forward. It is based on science 23

and evidence-based best practices. There is finally a 24

much needed minimum age requirement. This is critical25

8

for protecting working children. There are more 1

robust training requirements and notification 2

processes. And, more importantly, it eases worker and 3

clinician access to critical life-saving information 4

about the pesticides used where farmworkers toil to 5

plant and harvest our food. The certification rule 6

also offers important clarifications and stronger 7

protections for worker groups that are likely to be 8

the most overexposed to pesticides. 9

I expect that all stakeholders in this room 10

understand the importance of these rules and that 11

everyone will rally around their implementation. To 12

weaken or reject these rules is simply unconscionable, 13

and this will result in a failure of a profound 14

government responsibility to protect workers. 15

I will remind everyone that these are the 16

only regulations, the only ones, that protect the most 17

overexposed worker population of pesticides. And it’s 18

in everyone’s best interest that these pesticides are 19

applied safely as possible, and that workers are 20

protected. And it is in everyone’s best interest that 21

we move forward with the rules as they stand. Thank 22

you so much for listening to my comments. 23

MR. KEIGWIN: Thanks, Amy. 24

The next person from the PPDC will be Lori25

9

Ann Burd with the Center for Biological Diversity. 1

MS. BURD: We’re here to discuss pesticide 2

regulatory burdens on industry. I want to start by 3

talking about other burdens, those borne by real 4

people, not corporations, those who are exposed to 5

pesticides, for starters, people of color. More than 6

90 percent of children living in areas of heavy 7

pesticide use in California are children of color. 8

What about their burdens? 9

Let’s talk about the burdens borne by those 10

exposed to chlorpyrifos and why Scott Pruitt has 11

refused to ban it, despite abundant science linking it 12

to lower IQs, attention deficit disorders, brain 13

damage, and developmental delays. Over five million 14

pounds of it are still used each year. 15

How can we ignore the burden of people who 16

suffer acute poisoning by dangerous organophosphates 17

like chlorpyrifos? They suffer nausea, confusion, 18

convulsions, and sometimes death by suffocation. And 19

what about subacute effects? I’d love to know. 20

When will we sit here and spend the morning 21

listening to the stories of parents like Magda and 22

Amilcar Galindo who are raising a child 23

developmentally disabled, likely as a result of 24

exposure to chlorpyrifos. 25

10

When Ms. Galindo was pregnant, she was 1

living in Salida, California, down the street from 2

fields where chlorpyrifos was sprayed during her 3

second trimester. As most of us in this room know, 4

women who live within a mile of fields where 5

chlorpyrifos is sprayed during their second trimester 6

triple their chance of having an autistic child. 7

Her beautiful, tall, lanky 12-year-old Eva 8

is autistic and has ADHD. Because of Eva’s 9

differences, her classmates are sometimes unkind to 10

her. Her parents worry about bullying. She has a 11

hard time with reading and requires help in social 12

situations. 13

How can we sit here and talk about ways to 14

make life easier for industry and ignore the burden of 15

the Galindos and countless other families in 16

California’s central valley who suffer the effects of 17

exposure to pesticides? 18

When will we bring in the parents, children, 19

and spouses of those who have lost their battles with 20

non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer that the World Health 21

Organization has linked to glyphosate use? When will 22

these people be asked to share their ideas for 23

regulations to reduce their burden? 24

Perhaps they would identify regulations and25

11

ensure that never again will the chair of a cancer 1

assessment review from this office promise to, and 2

apparently achieve success, in killing another 3

agency’s review of a pesticide safety. That’s exactly 4

what Jess Rowland told Monsanto he would do 5

when the Department of Health and Human Services 6

indicated interest in reviewing glyphosate. 7

And then, there’s the burden of those who 8

can’t speak. Litigation has finally forced this 9

agency to stop ignoring its legal responsibility to 10

protect our nation’s most imperiled plants and animals 11

and complete its first ever biological evaluation of 12

just a few pesticides, including chlorpyrifos. 13

This analysis, on just three of the 14

thousands of pesticides registered by this office, has 15

revealed that they’re likely to adversely affect 16

almost all endangered species in this country. Now, 17

this office is considering requests from Dow and Crop 18

Life asking it to simply pull the analysis because 19

they don’t like it and refusing to come up with a 20

schedule for completing consultations for any 21

pesticides that it doesn’t have court enforced 22

deadlines for. 23

When we will spend a day together in this 24

room talking about the species who these actions may25

12

well drive to extinction? Who here is ready to 1

declare that they’re okay with letting the whooping 2

crane or Karner blue butterfly or any other species 3

go extinct? So, yes, please, let’s talk about burdens 4

and regulatory reform. 5

I can talk to you all day about how Section 6

18 provides a back door for registration of dangerous 7

pesticides. But really, we need to talk about the 8

changes that must be made. I can tell you, I lose 9

zero sleep over the burdens of the pesticide industry, 10

but I lose lots of sleep over wildlife disappearing 11

forever because of pesticides that also cause families 12

like the Galindos to suffer in unimaginable ways. 13

These are real burdens, matters of life and death. 14

When we will take the time to discuss how regulatory 15

reform can help ease these burdens? 16

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker will be 17

Cheryl Cleveland with BASF. 18

MS.ZIMMERMAN: Or we’ll go with Mark. 19

She’s not quite ready yet. 20

MR. KEIGWIN: Okay, Marc Lame with Indiana 21

University. 22

MR. LAME: Good morning, and may the fourth 23

be with you. My name is Dr. Marc Lame. I’m an 24

entomologist and professor at the School of Public25

13

Environmental Affairs, SPEA, at Indiana University 1

where I teach graduate environmental management and 2

policy. SPEA’s graduate environmental program is 3

ranked number one in the United States. I have been a 4

FACA appointed member for six years. 5

Tens of thousands of American lives every 6

year are lost early and unnecessarily to environmental 7

health hazards. As well, the doctors of our children, 8

the American Academy of Pediatrics, recognize that 9

legally used pesticides are detrimental to children’s 10

health. Unfortunately, many public servants, 11

environmental regulators, are not being allowed or 12

supported to achieve their mission of protecting human 13

health and the environment. 14

I believe all Americans can agree that we 15

want assurance that the water we drink, the air we 16

breath, the objects we come in contact with, food, 17

soil, toys, are safe. However, that assurance can 18

only be given if those assuring the environmental 19

protection can answer who their clients are. Are they 20

the pesticide companies and users, a mandate to 21

regulate, or the public, you, me, and our children? 22

This lack of mission oriented management is 23

not only a result of strategic ineptitude but of 24

malice. Administrations opposed to environmental25

14

regulations appoint like-minded environmental 1

administrators who not only ignore their mission and 2

legal obligation to pursue it, but openly display a 3

distaste in the disrespect to managers and scientists 4

who are attempting to protect human health and the 5

environment. 6

So, reforms that are not needed. To believe 7

the pesticide regulation should be further relegated 8

to the states is folly. In the past decade, there has 9

been an increasing degradation of environmental and 10

health protection orchestrated by many state appointed 11

officials. Many of our state environmental agencies 12

have been drastically downsized, and regulators have 13

been relegated to act as clerks in state-run permit 14

shops. 15

To further focus regulatory performance in 16

how many registrations to pesticide manufacturers are 17

issued, as opposed to monitoring for compliance and 18

enforcement, will result in poor water quality, 19

increased rates of childhood asthma and cancer, as 20

well as further endangerment of threatened species. 21

Increasing jobs by decreasing environmental 22

protection with reduced regulation does not work and 23

is illogical. In fact, most economists recognize that 24

well-crafted and implemented environmental regulations25

15

force countries, as well as industries, to innovate, 1

yielding a dual benefit of increased efficiency and 2

increased competitiveness in the market. 3

Reforms that are required. First, help 4

citizens understand that downsizing of both EPA and 5

state environmental agencies that paralyze regulatory 6

function is a bureaucratic disease. It is not only 7

dangerous in the short run but will take decades to 8

recover from. Citizens must recognize that rigorously 9

trained environmental management professionals will 10

either leave public service or decide not to serve for 11

the protection of future generations. 12

Second, the Agency’s inspector general 13

should provide increased oversight to EPA regional 14

offices, assuring that states do not sacrifice 15

environmental health and that the public is the most 16

important client of government services. 17

Third, research shows that regulation of 18

pesticide users is more cost effective when combined 19

with technical assistance. Thus, any regulatory 20

reform should include serious robust and significantly 21

funded technical assistance programs such as 22

integrated pest management. 23

Fourth, that additional reforms include 24

increased oversight and state pesticide regulatory25

16

agencies and their associations regarding their 1

relations with those they regulate. Clearly, 2

associations of regulators should not allow the 3

appearance of collusion or co-optation to undermine 4

public health and trust. 5

And finally, fifth, there would be increased 6

oversight by the Agency’s inspector general to ensure 7

regulated entities cannot directly or indirectly craft 8

regulations. As the Agency’s current administrator 9

has a history of submitting verbatim comments on 10

behalf of regulated industries, his office should 11

receive special attention to avoid conflicts of 12

interest, including co-optation, collusion, or 13

corruption. Thank you. 14

MR. KEIGWIN: Liza Fleeson-Trossbach from 15

Virginia Department of Agriculture. 16

MS. TROSSBACH: Good morning. I’m Liza 17

Fleeson-Trossbach with the Virginia Department of 18

Agriculture and Consumer Services. I serve as a PPDC 19

representative for the Association of American 20

Pesticide Control Officials, or AAPCO, and I’m making 21

comments today on their behalf. 22

AAPCO is a national professional association 23

representing pesticide regulatory officials from the 24

50 states, tribes, and territories with responsibility25

17

for the effective implementation and enforcement of 1

FIFRA and, as such, are co-regulators with EPA. One 2

of our key objectives is to engage with the Agency 3

to ensure workable, effective, and efficient 4

regulation of pesticides of both the state and federal 5

level. 6

While supporting the goal of the recent 7

revisions to the Worker Protection Standard and the 8

pesticide applicator certification rule, we do have 9

concerns for states, specifically implementation time 10

lines, resource demands, and the development of 11

compliance materials. 12

AAPCO acknowledges and appreciates the 13

Agency’s consideration of the many concerns expressed 14

by states. However, they believe further 15

modifications would be beneficial to states and the 16

regulated industry while still being protective of 17

human health and the environment. 18

AAPCO supports the delayed implementation of 19

WPS to allow time for meaningful outreach and 20

education, as well as the delayed implementation of 21

the certification rule to allow specific issues to be 22

addressed. 23

AAPCO firmly believes the NPDES pesticide 24

general permit requirements are duplicative of federal25

18

pesticide registration requirements without providing 1

additional tangible water quality protections and 2

should be repealed. 3

In 1996, the Agency exempted minimum risk 4

pesticides from product registration in order to 5

reduce cost and regulatory burdens. This exemption 6

shifted costs and the regulatory burdens to state lead 7

agencies, many of which require state registration of 8

products. 9

States are finding more products in the 10

marketplace which do not meet the federal requirements 11

for the exemption from registration. But, due to low 12

priority assigned by the Agency for violations of 13

appropriate and timely action by the Agency, it’s not 14

pursued. The exemption should either be repealed or 15

the Agency should place a higher priority on products 16

which do not meet the requirements for this exemption. 17

With the proposed reductions to EPA budget, 18

AAPCO would be amiss if it did not offer that any 19

reductions to the state tribal assistance grants will 20

make it difficult, if not impossible, for states to 21

continue enforcement of FIFRA. States have 22

historically had to work with increasing mandates 23

under reduced STAG funding available for pesticide 24

programs cooperative agreements. Should there be25

19

additional reductions to STAG funds, states would be 1

faced with limiting participation or, in some cases, 2

returning regulatory responsibilities to the Agency. 3

AAPCO fully supports EPA in their efforts 4

towards the development and utilization of technology 5

in the pesticide registration, state grant reporting, 6

and enforcement tracking processes, and dedicating 7

resources to fund these efforts. The implementation 8

of technology will increase efficiencies, provide for 9

more consistency in data collection, and enhance 10

reporting capabilities and information exchange 11

between states and EPA. 12

Finally, AAPCO would also like to express 13

our support for and the importance of continued 14

funding for the Pesticide Regulatory Education 15

Program, or PREP, the Pesticide Inspector Residential 16

Training program, PIRT, and the State FIFRA Issues 17

Research and Evaluation Group. Each of these has 18

contributed to improving regulatory decisions, 19

priorities, and program implementation, for example, 20

the development and implementation of performance 21

measures for the enforcement program. 22

PREP, PIRT, And SFIREG provide an 23

opportunity to increase the depth of understanding and 24

consistency and implementation of FIFRA for both state25

20

and EPA carrying out the pesticide program objectives. 1

AAPCO will provide detailed comments to the docket to 2

address these and other items and appreciates the 3

opportunity to comment today. 4

MR. KEIGWIN: Gabrielle Ludwig with the 5

Almond Board of California. 6

MS. LUDWIG: So, Gabrielle Ludwig with the 7

Almond Board of California. The comments I’m making 8

are on behalf of the Almond Alliance, an almond 9

voluntary grower and handler association. I’m also a 10

six-year member of the PPDC. 11

From a grower’s perspective, one of the 12

things we need to note is we need a credible, 13

efficient, science-based, and transparent Office of 14

Pesticide Programs process to assess the potential 15

risks and benefits to society of the use of pesticides 16

and to register the uses where appropriate. We do not 17

want to see actions that undermine the credibility of 18

the OPP. 19

A couple of sort of overarching comments on 20

issues we see, we do think that we need some review of 21

the water modeling, just in the last six months. For 22

the Almond Alliance, we have submitted comments on 23

around 10 active ingredients. The one issue in 24

comments have been concerns about pesticides in water. 25

21

1

We want to suggest that a process be 2

developed for collaborative review of the models and 3

assumptions that go into the calculations for the 4

potential for a pesticide to make it into surface 5

water and the possibility into drinking water and/or 6

affect aquatic species. 7

From what we can tell of the grower group, 8

there are several assumptions that could possibly be 9

refined. The main one from our perspective is when it 10

is or is not appropriate to use the spray drift factor 11

from young dormant trees. Another one is timing of 12

applications versus the chances of rainfall. That’s 13

certainly relevant to California conditions. 14

There may also be opportunities to see 15

confined ways to develop more regionalized models or 16

new or less deterministic approaches. In the process, 17

maybe sort out a better way to develop monitoring data 18

to help define the models. So, to improve 19

efficiencies, step back to publicly review and assess 20

what options for refining the water, drift, runoff 21

calculations exist. 22

The next one is complying with Endangered 23

Species Act. It is clear that the intense efforts by 24

both OPP and the Services to develop processes to25

22

comply with the Endangered Species Act are simply 1

still too cumbersome. We’ve done it and are taking up 2

more resources than the agencies have. 3

Let’s suggest revisiting the efforts to 4

develop counterpart regulations to streamline the 5

process. Fundamentally, OPP has the knowledge as to 6

how pesticides behave in the environment and to 7

conduct pesticide risk assessments, which the Services 8

do not, and certainly do not have enough expertise to 9

keep up with the constant stream of regulatory 10

decisions by OPP. 11

Similarly, the Services have the knowledge 12

of the species and habitat requirements. It doesn’t 13

make sense -- so, therefore, you know, we basically 14

say let’s step back and see how that can be made more 15

efficient. For those of you who do care deeply about 16

the Endangered Species Act, you realize it’s exactly 17

these frustrations that call for the complete overhaul 18

of ESA. So, I think working together on this one 19

would be wise. 20

Another area is just continued engagement on 21

international -- participating in various 22

international activities. This came up yesterday at 23

the PPDC meeting, whether you’re looking at the 24

biopesticides, the use of new testing methods, and so25

23

forth. I just wanted to say that we really think that 1

there’s a lot of opportunities for harmonization. 2

Both previous administrations and this administration 3

say that they want to increase agricultural exports. 4

We need help in that arena. But again, it goes beyond 5

just the MRL issues. It really gets into the 6

methodologies and so forth. 7

One thing to realize there’s an opportunity 8

for some extra training, there’s an extraordinary JMPR 9

session coming up in the spring of 2019. That might 10

be a great opportunity to expose some new people from 11

OPP to that process. 12

And then the third one is just from the 13

Office of Research and Development, just to ensure 14

that any efforts by the Office of Research and 15

Development are meaningful to the regulatory sister 16

offices within EPA. Similarly, any efforts to conduct 17

research on pesticides affects the other government 18

agencies, such as USDA/ARS, are funded by USDA and NIFA, 19

should require engagement with OPP staff prior to 20

embarking on the research to ensure that the research 21

will be relevant and useful to OPP. 22

Research that meets regulatory needs is not 23

the same as research for research’s sake. The vast 24

majority of pesticide related research is not usable25

24

in the regulatory processes and sometimes can even 1

help inform the process, thus requiring US government 2

agencies that conduct research related to pesticides 3

consult with OPP would help to ensure that more of 4

the research would truly help clarify when and when 5

not pesticides have unintended consequences. 6

MR. FREDERICKS: My name is Jim Fredericks. 7

I’m with the National Pest Management Association. I 8

thank you for the opportunity to make some comments 9

this morning. I have four brief comments. 10

First of all, by way of introduction, the 11

National Pest Management Association is the only 12

national organization representing the structural pest 13

management industry. NPMA’s members protect public 14

health and property in countless homes, businesses, 15

and public buildings across the United States. 16

First, we encourage the Agency to carefully 17

consider the benefits of pest control tools during 18

their registration and registration review process, 19

including use patterns that are specifically for 20

nonagricultural users. 21

Regarding protecting endangered species, we 22

encourage the EPA and the Services to develop a more 23

efficient and less bureaucratic process to make 24

decisions regarding endangered species, developing a25

25

smarter way to allocate resources to protect our 1

nation’s environment. 2

Thirdly, NPMA applauds the Agency on the 3

significant improvements made to the final rule for 4

certification of pesticide applicators, ensuring 5

proper training. The efforts taken by the EPA to 6

consider concerns from stakeholders in crafting the 7

final rule was a model for how the process should 8

work. 9

And finally, NPMA encourages EPA to engage 10

user groups and stakeholders to help make pesticide 11

labels easier to use and understand, streamlining the 12

cumbersome label language that users must read, use, 13

follow, and understand to ensure safe and effective 14

use. 15

NPMA will be submitting full written 16

comments to flesh out some of these points. Thanks. 17

MR. KEIGWIN: Cheryl Cleveland with BASF. 18

MS. CLEVELAND: Thank you. So, I am also an 19

exiting six-year tenured member of the PPDC. I’ve 20

really been honored to be part of this process. It’s 21

given me great insight as to all the issues and 22

complexity that you as servants for our government 23

face. 24

I want to focus on the fact that the25

26

executive order that we’re responding to also includes 1

modifications. I can’t speak to the specifics of the 2

rules and regulations that you need, but I would like 3

to speak to the priorities that you will need to think 4

about as you review your own internal system. 5

It’s my understanding that the Office of 6

Pesticide Programs exists because pesticides are 7

proven useful tools to protect crops, increase yield, 8

and thereby significantly contribute to a global food 9

supply that is low cost and abundant. But there is 10

also a need for rigorous data review and processes in 11

place that balance food security along with food 12

safety. 13

So, I would suggest that from my 14

perspective, there are three areas that have some 15

barriers to best achieving some of that. I’ve watched 16

over the six years here in discussions. There’s 17

something in the way of data management. As much as 18

you try to be transparent, there’s rules and 19

regulations, and there’s IT contracts, and there’s 20

stuff that isn’t helpful. 21

And even though the things that we discussed 22

yesterday in trying to get through a new data 23

reporting process, there was a focus on data elements, 24

and there wasn’t the ability to talk across the whole25

27

process. Similarly, the SmartLabel idea is a great 1

idea at a high level, but there’s something getting in 2

the way of its best implementation. So, I don’t know 3

what the government needs to do to remove that, but 4

that’s something that needs to be streamlined and 5

thought about. 6

The second thing that I would ask you to 7

focus on is the use of real world monitoring 8

information to help incorporate for refined risk 9

assessment. We see that need in the ESA model that 10

let’s through 97 percent of things. We see that need 11

in the water modeling that continues to focus on 12

models instead of real world data. I think that’s a 13

real need to continue to vet precise models against 14

real world information. 15

The third thing, and I want to combine this 16

with also the executive order where there was the 17

promoting agricultural and rural prosperity in 18

America. One of the points there was to encourage the 19

production in exports and the use of domestically 20

produced agricultural products. 21

There’s a desperate need for international 22

engagement, because you can’t export products -- 23

growers can’t use them in the US no matter how 24

rigorous and wonderful we set up our tolerances and25

28

MRLs -- if you have other countries that won’t 1

establish the same MRLs for export. 2

And the EU is tremendously engaged at the 3

international level and they’re promulgating their 4

hazard cutoffs. We have other countries that only 5

have the ability to use screening models. Without 6

understanding the data rich information on the 7

consumption side as well as the models, there’s a hole 8

left. That would be very useful for the US 9

participation as well. 10

MR. KEIGWIN: Thank you. 11

Our next speaker will be Komal Jain from the 12

American Chemistry Council. 13

MS. JAIN: Good morning. My name is Komal 14

Jain. I’m the Executive Director of the Biocides 15

Panel of the American Chemistry Council. Thank you 16

for the opportunity to provide oral comments on 17

regulatory reform as it relates to the pesticides 18

program. 19

Let me note up front that I do not represent 20

the agriculture community. I represent the 21

antimicrobial or biocides industry, and our 22

applications consist of material preservation, water 23

treatment, antifouling, and controlling of pathogens 24

and processing through facilities and hospitals.25

29

The Biocides Panel will be submitting 1

detailed written comments. So, given my time 2

allotment, I am going to highlight only two areas of 3

likely several areas where reform and clarity could 4

improve outcomes for both the Agency and the 5

registrants. 6

We greatly support and appreciate the work 7

of OPP and AD. We recognize their time and resources 8

are not infinite, and, thus, we are looking for ways 9

there can be greater efficiencies. As an example, 10

there are opportunities for EPA and FDA to reduce 11

their duplication of work. When EPA and FDA have 12

standards that are similarly close or sufficiently 13

close, FDA and EPA could cut down on bureaucracy and 14

needless duplications by recognizing each other’s 15

reviews. 16

For example, certain food additives are 17

regulated by FDA and EPA. And even though substances 18

are approved by FDA by a food contact notification, 19

EPA may also conduct a risk assessment of those 20

substances already approved by FDA. Rather than 21

having agencies review the same substances, EPA could 22

avoid duplication of work and the potential for 23

conflicting risk assessments by accepting the review 24

of FDA. Statutory obligations and implementing25

30

regulatory rules need to be assessed to see what can 1

be modified or rescinded. Other tools such as MOUs 2

could possibly be employed. 3

The second theme I want to point out is 4

implementation of procedures, and particularly 5

notification procedures, so that they are fully 6

recognized by EPA. Under the regulations, any 7

modifications to the composition, labeling, or 8

packaging of a registered product can only be 9

submitted through the amended registration process. 10

That also includes the PRIA fee. 11

However, there is another section of the 12

regulations that allows minor changes to be made 13

through notification or non-notification. The stated 14

intent is to streamline and accelerate many minor 15

changes that could be determined to have no potential 16

to cause unreasonable adverse effects. To implement 17

that regulation, EPA issued PR notices, the most 18

current being PR 98-10. It contains specific time 19

lines for informing registrants if the notification 20

has been rejected. 21

For antimicrobial registration, the 22

requirement is that the Agency respond within 30 days, 23

along with the reasons. However, registrants are not 24

receiving those decisions within 30 days, particularly25

31

disapprovals. It’s more in the 90-day time frame. 1

And even when submissions fully comply with 2

the requirements of 98-10, the Agency has rejected the 3

notification and required submission for amended 4

registration. That’s dismissing the value of the 5

notification process and their own regulations. This 6

puts an unnecessary regulatory burden on both 7

registrants and the Agency. The notification 8

requirement should be revisited under both regulation 9

and PR notices, or PR 98-10, and clarity should be 10

provided through regulations or implementing 11

guidelines. 12

Again, these are only two areas of several 13

that the Biocide Panel plans on discussing or 14

commenting on. And again, I thank you for your 15

attention. 16

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker will be Pat 17

Bishop with People for the Ethical Treatment of 18

Animals. 19

MS. BISHOP: Hi, I’m Pat Bishop. I’m with 20

PETA and representing the animal welfare community 21

which advocates for the replacement and reduction of 22

animals used in regulatory testing and use of more 23

human relevant approaches. 24

So, one of the areas we’d like EPA to look25

32

at as part of this regulatory reform is to conduct 1

some systematic reviews of toxicology tests required 2

under Part 158 of Data Requirements for Pesticide 3

Registration. These tests use thousands of animals to 4

test a single pesticide active ingredient. The test 5

requirements for both human health effects and 6

ecotoxicity have been in place for decades but have 7

rarely been reviewed with respect to the information 8

they supply for risk assessment and setting exposure 9

limits. 10

Efforts should be initiated to 11

retrospectively examine how the data have been 12

historically used and which tests might be identified 13

that provide little or no value in setting pesticide 14

exposure when it’s in risk assessment. 15

In a few cases where this has already been 16

done, EPA was able to eliminate test requirements or 17

provide guidance for waivers. A prime example is a 18

one-year chronic test in dogs which had been required 19

for years along with the 90-day subchronic dog test. 20

A thorough retrospective review clearly showed that 21

the chronic test offered little additional value when 22

the 90-day was available. 23

Accordingly, EPA eliminated the requirements 24

of the chronic dog test in 2007. With respect to the25

33

90-day, there are some researchers now that are saying 1

that the regulatory needs for this study may not be 2

needed any longer, as other techniques may be applied 3

to the 90-day study in rats. 4

Yesterday, we discussed the acute thermal 5

toxicity data and the waiver that has been issued. 6

Again, we encourage EPA to look at some of the work 7

that Health Canada has done and see if that waiver 8

could also be applied to the active ingredients. 9

Another area which we also discussed 10

yesterday was again GHS, looking at that and hopefully 11

transitioning to that to avoid having two systems in 12

use for industry. 13

And finally, we would also encourage EPA to 14

again look at Part 158 and perhaps add a statement 15

that would require that non-animal methods of toxicity 16

testing be used if they are available and accepted by 17

OPP. Thank you. 18

MR. KEIGWIN: Thanks, Pat. 19

Our next speaker is Virginia Ruiz with 20

Farmworker Justice. 21

MS. RUIZ: Good morning. My name is 22

Virginia Ruiz. I’m the Director of Occupational and 23

Environmental Health at Farmworker Justice. 24

Farmworker Justice is a national organization that25

34

strives to improve the living and working conditions 1

of farmworkers in the United States. I have been a 2

PPDC member for six years, and I’d like to thank EPA 3

for the opportunity to participate in these dialogues 4

and to speak this morning. 5

I just wanted to say that I reject the 6

premise that rules and regulations that protect human 7

health and the environment are a burden to any 8

individual or industry. Without common sense federal 9

rules, like the recently revised Worker Protection 10

Standard and Certification of Pesticide Applicator 11

rules, the burdens of illness and injury from 12

pesticide poisonings, medical care, missed work days, 13

and environmental contamination would fall on those 14

who can least afford it, pesticide handlers, workers, 15

and agricultural fields, orchards, greenhouses, and 16

their children. 17

These regulations call for basic preventive 18

measures that will save millions of dollars in medical 19

costs and lost productivity due to illness. Employers 20

who strive to promote a culture of safety in the work 21

places already implement these common sense measures, 22

and some even go beyond measures, like annual basic 23

safety training, posting of information, meaningful 24

hazard communication, functioning personal protective25

35

equipment, adequate supervision, and prohibiting 1

children from handling pesticides. 2

EPA developed these regulations after 3

decades of complication with all stakeholders, 4

including laborers, employers, state agencies, public 5

health professionals, and educators. Many states are 6

already successfully implementing revisions to the 7

Worker Protection Standard. 8

Efforts to delay, modify, or rescind the WPS 9

and Certified Pesticide Applicator rule are an affront 10

to those who served in some previous administrations 11

at EPA who actually did listen to all stakeholders and 12

an insult to those who have worked for years to move 13

forward on occupational safety and agriculture and to 14

the men, women, and children who benefit from safe 15

working conditions and a clean environment. Thank 16

you. 17

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker will be 18

Cynthia Palmer with the American Bird Conservancy. 19

MS. PALMER: Thank you. I’m Cynthia Palmer. 20

I’m Director of Pesticides Science and Regulations for 21

the American Bird Conservancy. 22

I just returned from the gymnastics national 23

championship in Michigan watching my child compete her 24

double flips and other tricks. If these flips go just25

36

millimeters off track, these young athletes risk 1

concussions. So, there are crash pads everywhere. 2

The American bald eagle and other raptors, 3

we see this same combination of power, grace, and 4

honorability. The eagles can fly 10,000 feet in the 5

air and can dive a 100 miles per hour. Yet, one meal 6

of a brodifacoum-laced rat is enough to 7

cause death from internal bleeding. 8

Our nation does great things, but we need 9

our crash pads, our safeguards for the times when 10

things go slightly off track, our protection from the 11

pesticides that throw off the arctic tern’s navigational 12

systems on their 44,000 mile annual trek, and that 13

cause our children’s IQs to plunge. 14

EPA scientists work tirelessly to study the 15

impacts of pesticides and to develop the regulations 16

needed to keep us safe. A single regulation can take 17

years of tedious hard work by EPA scientists and by 18

stakeholders. To dismantle these safeguards make 19

sense only if EPA no longer cares about health and 20

safety. 21

EPA desires more litigation, as evidenced in 22

ignoring the science on chlorpyrifos, or EPA prefers 23

to squander the nation’s resources by relegating to 50 24

state governments the work that can and should be done25

37

cost effectively by pesticide experts here at EPA. 1

The wealthy may be able to buy themselves out of some 2

dangers with bottled water, organic food, and 3

carefully chosen neighborhoods, but regular people can 4

seldom afford to do so. 5

Looking at the official list of questions, I 6

can only conclude they’re the wrong ones to be asking. 7

That said, as the Agency moves to electronic reporting 8

for FIFRA 6(a)2, which, of course, makes sense for the 9

sake of trees and efficiency, please also fix the 10

glaring deficiencies outlined in our rule making 11

petition, in particular, the unrealistically high 12

numbers of dead animals needed to trigger incident 13

reporting requirements. 14

Under the current regs, pesticide 15

registrants are not required to report wildlife kills 16

unless they involve 1,000 of a schooling species of 17

fish, 50 herding mammals, 5 raptors, or 200 of a 18

so-called flocking species of birds, and also 19

problematically fix the lack of public access to 20

incident reporting data without time and resource 21

intensive FOIA requests. Deaths of frogs or owls 22

should not be treated as state secrets. Thank you. 23

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker is Nina 24

Wilson on behalf of the Biopesticide Industry25

38

Alliance. 1

MS. WILSON: Thank you. Thank you for the 2

opportunity to comment. I’m not coordinated enough to 3

stand and read my notes at the same time, so I’ll sit. 4

BPIA is the Biological Products Industry 5

Alliance, and we are a national trade organization of 6

producers of biopesticides and biostimulants. These 7

are low risk tools that are designed for use in both 8

the organic and also the conventional ag and non-ag 9

markets. Our members rely on a predictable science- 10

based risk assessment process where the requirements 11

are commensurate with these low risk products. 12

As an example, for EPA knows this well, if I 13

call acetic acid a pesticide, it is subject to all the 14

requirements of FIFRA, just like any other pesticide 15

would be. However, when I go home, I call acetic acid 16

vinegar, and I use it liberally over my salads. 17

We appreciate having continued dialogue with 18

EPA on the existing emerging issues in this very 19

rapidly growing market. Generally, we don’t believe 20

added regulations is needed, but clarification around 21

the working definition of a biostimulant is something 22

that we are looking forward to. We’re looking forward 23

to the comment period and the publication of that 24

document.25

39

EPA’s current risk assessment, and in 1

particularly BPPD, these are a stand-alone group of 2

people who register products, the Biopesticide and 3

Pollution Prevention Division, their global model for 4

low risk regulation. We do want to make sure that 5

increased and unnecessary interpretation of the 6

existing regulations do not stifle innovation and is an 7

option of these lower risk products. We do support 8

EPA, specifically BPPD, in having resources to help 9

bring our lower risk products to market. 10

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker is Dan Kunkel 11

with IR-4. 12

MR. KUNKEL: Thank you. I’m with the IR-4 13

program. We are a publicly sponsored program. Our 14

headquarters is at Rutgers University. We’re 15

sponsored primarily by the USDA to generate data and 16

make regulatory submissions to EPA. We make 17

submissions to the Registration Division, PRD, and 18

also Biopesticide Pollution Prevention Division as 19

well. 20

We make these submissions in support of pest 21

control products for specialty crop growers, and we’ve 22

had a longstanding partnership with the Agency in 23

continuing to effectively address grower pest control 24

needs, especially crop grower needs.25

40

While it may be difficult at times for IR-4 1

to adopt new submission requirements that are often 2

added in response to new regulations, such as the 3

preliminary risk assessments with FQPA, then exemption 4

justifications for PRIA, we have been able to adapt 5

with the support from registrants in EPA. We feel 6

that the new electronic submission portal has been a 7

significant improvement. In our view and in our work, 8

we feel that the Agency has essentially made a 9

complete transition to electronic reporting. 10

There can be some regulatory review 11

redundancies when adding specialty crops to already 12

registered products, especially when new 13

considerations come into play that can delay 14

registration of minor uses. These are uses that are 15

grown on limited acreage. So, we continue 16

consideration reevaluation of the various tools used 17

for risk assessment. It may help to streamline the 18

process when adding some of these minor uses and make 19

the process less burdensome for EPA and the data 20

generators that provide these products to growers. 21

Finally, IR-4 and the specialty crop growers 22

appreciate the hard work and dedication of OPP staff 23

that continues to provide growers with access to the 24

latest technology that’s so important to pest control,25

41

especially considering invasive pests, pesticide 1

resistance, and often these new products are very 2

important and fit well into IPM programs. 3

In 2016, EPA established more than 150 4

tolerance submissions based on IR-4 data and also 5

registered 4 new biological products, biopesticide 6

products, that the specialty crop growers can now use. 7

So, thank you. 8

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker is Nichelle 9

Harriott from Beyond Pesticides. 10

MS. HARRIOTT: Hello, good morning. My name 11

is Nichelle Harriott. I represent Beyond Pesticides. 12

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 13

Under FIFRA, EPA has the responsibility to 14

ensure that pesticide substances do not pose 15

unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. 16

The regulations and safeguards set up by FIFRA are 17

necessary to ensure the safety of people and the 18

environment from hazardous pesticides. 19

Recent efforts by EPA to address children’s 20

exposure to the neuro-oxic pesticide chlorpyrifos and 21

the subsequent failure of the Agency to move forward 22

with its proposed restriction of the chemical 23

demonstrates that the safeguards defined under FIFRA 24

are often ignored. This puts children and vulnerable25

42

farmworker communities at risk and must not be allowed 1

to continue. 2

The Agency is asking for which regulatory 3

provisions should be repealed, replaced, or modified. 4

We insist that current regulations under the Office of 5

Pesticide Programs are necessary for protecting human 6

and environmental health and must be improved. 7

The pesticide registration program is 8

intended to ensure that pesticides meet safety 9

standards before they are used or sold. To improve 10

this program, EPA should not allow pesticide 11

registration and use without a full understanding of 12

all the potential risks to the public and to non- 13

target organisms. 14

Data gaps continue to plague the Agency, and 15

EPA must refuse registration requests if all the 16

required information to conduct a comprehensive safety 17

review is not provided. Data gaps still exist for 18

chemicals that have been on the market for years but 19

(inaudible) through their registration review cycle, 20

and outstanding studies are still awaiting submission. 21

This means that the conditional registration 22

protection under FIFRA Section (3)(e)(7) should be 23

disallowed. 24

Incident reporting is a useful tool that25

43

helps the Agency run concise risk management 1

conclusions with real world events. Currently, 2

Section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA allows manufacturers to submit 3

incident reports to EPA as a mechanism for which these 4

incident reports can be made is inadequate. Threshold 5

numbers that trigger reporting requirements for non- 6

target species are extraordinarily high, arbitrary, 7

and not supported by scientific or biological reasons. 8

These thresholds should be disallowed. 9

EPA is asking us to reduce regulatory 10

burdens regarding reporting requirements, including 11

reducing the frequency of reporting. However, 12

reducing regulatory burdens should not be done at the 13

expense of public health or the environment. 14

Currently, industry bears the burden of reporting 15

incidents under Section 6(a)(2), and that burden should be 16

theirs to bear, as it is their registered products that 17

are involved in the reported incident. 18

Frequency in reporting is the result of 19

frequency in harms being inflicted on non-target 20

species. These incidents come about as a result of 21

poorly regulated products, unclear labels leading to 22

misuse and a general lack of understanding of the 23

potential hazards of pesticide exposures due to the 24

allowance of outstanding data gaps and assumed risks.25

44

If EPA wants to reform how they conduct risk 1

assessments and refuse to register products that have 2

the potential to pose harm to non-target species, then 3

there will be no need for burdensome or frequent 4

incident reporting. 5

Lastly, there are many important programs 6

overseen by OPP that we hope would not suffer from 7

unjust regulatory reform as a means for industry 8

to share commitments that adhere to federal laws and 9

safeguard public and environmental health from the 10

pesticides they market. These include EPA’s 11

pollinator protection program, the endocrine 12

disruption screening program, worker protection 13

initiatives, and the consultation process for the 14

endangered species protection program. 15

We believe these programs are critical to 16

improving our understanding of pesticide hazards and 17

exposures and help the Agency refine its risk 18

assessment methodologies. Although these may be 19

difficult decisions for the Agency, we urge 20

prioritizing protections for human and environmental 21

health as mandated by FIFRA so that the Agency does 22

not lose sight of its mission and purpose. Thank you. 23

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker will be 24

Sheryl Kunickis with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.25

45

MS. KUNICKIS: Thank you very much. My name 1

is Sheryl Kunickis. I’m the Director in the USDA 2

Office of Pest Management Policy. I just want to 3

thank EPA for the opportunity to be a part of this 4

meeting today. It’s very, very important. 5

At the end of the day, pesticide regulation 6

is about farmers having the tools they need to achieve 7

food security. That is the bottom line. So, I just 8

have a few comments. I want to keep within the three 9

minutes. 10

First of all, USDA supports revisions to the 11

worker protection standards, including the designated 12

representative provision, the application exclusion 13

zone, and the definition of a farm family, which is 14

defined a little differently by EPA. 15

EPA has a request from our partners at the 16

National Association of State Departments of 17

Agriculture and from the American Farm Bureau 18

Federation, asking for a delay in implementation of 19

the Worker Protection Standard final rule. USDA 20

supports that delay and welcomes the opportunity to 21

work with EPA and other stakeholders to revise that 22

rule. 23

USDA applauds EPA for reducing the burden 24

associated with the certification and training rule25

46

making effort which aims to increase certification and 1

training requirements for certified applicators of 2

restricted use pesticides. However, USDA is not 3

confident that these new federal regulations will 4

result in significant benefits in terms of reducing 5

risks to applicators. 6

It is clear that through the implementation 7

of this rule, it will be costly for states, tribes, 8

and other certifying entities, as well as for 9

applicators and farm owners. USDA also supports the 10

delay requested by NASDA. 11

On the Endangered Species Act on pesticides, USDA 12

supports EPA stepping back from the current mammoth process 13

that’s being developed in order to reevaluate and forge a 14

more reasonable path forward. USDA genuinely appreciates 15

EPA’s efforts in the process, but the outcomes of the current 16

interim approaches are troubling to the agricultural community. 17

USDA has voiced strong opinions regarding 18

blanket proposals restricting tank mixes unless 19

scientific evidence points otherwise. This will 20

result in serious effects for growers and issues for 21

growers and has the potential for a domino effect. 22

If efficacy is impacted by restrictions,23

47

we may see more resistance and subsequently lower 1

yields and less food. The restrictions will increase 2

the number of trips across the fields affecting soil 3

compaction, fuel use, safety for workers, and the 4

potential for off-target impacts. 5

USDA is very concerned that multiple 6

alternative active ingredients are being mitigated 7

simultaneously with benefits assessments for one AI or 8

active ingredient assuming that an alternate active 9

ingredient will be available, even though the 10

alternative active ingredient is also being mitigated. 11

We’re unaware of examples of going back to unmitigated 12

chemical and thus, we could be left with resistance 13

issues and fewer alternatives to combat wheat, insect 14

pests, and diseases. 15

Then, lastly, numerous stakeholders, 16

including some of EPA’s scientific advisory panel and 17

USDA, requested that EPA seek public comment to 18

finalize their 2010 framework for incorporating human 19

epidemiologic and incident data in risk assessments 20

for pesticides before using it in regulatory work. We 21

learned it was posted without comment or notice in 22

December of 2016. 23

Because epidemiological studies have an 24

important role, we would like to understand how this25

48

framework will be used in regulatory decisions. If 1

it’s likely to alter EPA’s analysis of epidemiological 2

studies to change what is required of registrants or 3

to be used as a justification for any regulatory 4

actions, we request that the framework be subject to 5

public review and comments. 6

We would also like EPA to reconsider 7

subjecting any risk assessments that relied on the 8

draft framework to re-review and additional public 9

comment. USDA looks forward to continuing to work 10

with EPA as we have in the past on all future 11

endeavors. Thank you so much. 12

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker will be Donnie 13

Taylor with the Agricultural Retailers Association. 14

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. I’m going to stay 15

seated because if I stand up, the view in this area is 16

not very effective, so I’ll stay where I am. 17

Also, I’d like to thank everybody at EPA. I 18

know you’re all very hard working people. I know you 19

have a cross section of this country that represents 20

all the views that are being represented here. We 21

appreciate that. We know you’re mothers, and fathers, 22

and daughters, and sons, so we know you have the same 23

concerns we do. So, thank you for your efforts. 24

I’m Donnie Taylor. I’m with the Ag Retailers25

49

Association. I’m representing them today, I’m 1

representing my family today, and I’m representing my 2

history of being born and raised on a farm today. So, 3

that’s what I’m representing. 4

We’ll start off with ARA. We’re the 5

nation’s agricultural retailers and distributors 6

association, also referred to as the farmer’s supply 7

dealers. How many of you remember the Dodge truck 8

commercial? Paul Harvey “gotta be a farmer” during 9

Super Bowl? Oh, come on. That’s who we service. So, 10

that’s the people that we provide products and 11

services to. 12

So, these people are located throughout the 13

United States, range in size from local family held 14

businesses, farmer cooperatives that are local, to 15

large companies with multiple outlets. We play an 16

important role in providing farmers with essential 17

crop input products. Our industry is a cooperating 18

partner in the regulated community and fully 19

understands the importance of chemical safety as well 20

as security. 21

So, ARA members engage in communication, 22

engage their employees and local first responders and the 23

the community to enhance environmental, health, 24

safety, and security matters. They are very active25

50

and love their local communities. 1

So, ARA supports EPA. We’ve tried to work 2

jointly with EPA as far as compliance and regulations 3

are concerned. We recently worked on a brochure 4

together on choosing the right herbicide. So, we’re 5

all about education and compliance. When regulations 6

come in place, we know we ask a lot of stupid 7

questions with a lot of stupid detail, but, in 8

actuality, we’re trying to make sure that we’re in 9

compliance and we communicate that message of 10

compliance to our members. 11

So, as far as things to think about, you’ve 12

got a lot on your plate. Your budget constrained as 13

well. But we can do a FIFRA, go back to the basics, 14

if we can eliminate some duplications that occur out 15

here in the marketplace, be sensitive to the cost 16

versus benefit ratio, particularly for those small 17

business owners that we represent, and we appreciate 18

the partnership that we have. 19

So, the last question. I like to end with 20

questions. How many of you here live on a farm or were 21

born and raised on a farm? How many of you plan on 22

eating today? I think that’s why we created the 23

community, to bring those two groups a lot closer 24

together. So, my last parting words are, if you have25

51

an opportunity, hug a farmer today. 1

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker is Allen 2

McLaurin with the National Cotton Council. 3

MR. McLAURIN: Thank you, Rick. My name is 4

Allen McLaurin. I represent the National Cotton 5

Council who represents the cotton industry throughout 6

the United States. But actually, I’m a farmer. I’m 7

probably the only farmer in the room, and I’ll be 8

standing outside after the meeting if you want to come 9

hug me. So, I’ll be there. 10

Anyway, we have a couple of concerns. One that 11

Sheryl mentioned is the language in the worker 12

protection standards, the designated representative 13

language of the role needs to be removed. This opens 14

up producers to serious privacy, confidentiality 15

information regarding the business and security 16

issues. 17

Also, under conflicting messages to 18

producers, the Agency has lost consistency of messages 19

to regulatory process. On one hand, the Agency talks 20

about pollinator habitat around fields. But, on the 21

other, the Agency tells the producers to keep the 22

fields mowed and free of wheat for resistance 23

management. So, we’re just asking for a little 24

consistency in the language. 25

52

I’m going to stick myself out on a limb, 1

Rick, and thank you and EPA staff and the PPDC committee 2

for bringing this group together as you have for many 3

years and listening to different sides. You all have 4

a tough job, and it really makes me proud to be a 5

farmer in the southern part of North Carolina every 6

time I come up here. You all do a great job. Thanks. 7

MR. KEIGWIN: Thanks, Allen. 8

Our next speaker is Richard Gragg with 9

Florida A&M University. 10

MR. GRAGG: Good morning. I’m Richard 11

Gragg. I’m a professor of environmental science and 12

policy at Florida A&M University School of the 13

Environment. My specific discipline is toxicology, 14

and I would say I’m speaking from the perspective of 15

my 25 years -- I think my retirement form says 25 16

point 6. I’m trying to get to 30 -- of teaching 17

research and public policy in looking at the impact of 18

environmental stressors on human health. As I 19

tell my students, who I just turned in their grades 20

this semester, that they have to cite their sources. 21

So, my first comments are based on an article by Dr. 22

Cash and others called “Scale and Cross Scale 23

Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multi-Level 24

World.” 25

53

I’d like to be able to continue to advocate 1

to my students that the EPA meets Dr. Cash’s 2

statements or research where EPA has been a leader in 3

facilitating the task of governance and information 4

through overcoming the challenges of ignorance, 5

mismatch, and plurality by being a leader in promoting 6

institutional interplay, co-management, and serving as 7

a bridging organization for all of the stakeholders of 8

concern. 9

Let’s see if I can get to my comments now. 10

So, I believe that regulatory reform should enhance 11

the protection of human health and the environment 12

through the continued application and innovation of 13

science and policy, especially for vulnerable 14

citizens, including children, people of color in low 15

wealth populations, and farmworkers who are 16

disproportionately exposed and cumulatively impacted 17

by pesticides and other environmental, social, and 18

economic stressors. Thank you. 19

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker is Sharon 20

Selvaggio with the Northwest Center for Alternatives 21

to Pesticides. 22

Oh, I skipped Steven. 23

MR. COY: Did you do that on purpose? 24

MR. KEIGWIN: No, sorry, Steven Coy on25

54

behalf of the American Honey Producers Association. 1

MR. COY: Steven Coy. I’m a commercial 2

beekeeper. I’m also a farmer, and I’m better looking 3

than Allen. 4

Someone asked me just yesterday has progress 5

been made. My answer is no, not real progress. Yes, 6

awareness on both managed bees, as well as all 7

pollinators, has increased. Communication between all 8

stakeholders now exists. Label language has been modified. 9

Pollinator protection plans have been implemented. 10

Yet, last year’s winter loss of managed bees was 11

nearly 30 percent, with an annual loss of 44 percent. 12

This clearly indicates the nation’s managed bees are 13

not healthy, and nothing significant has been done to 14

reduce the impacts of pesticides on them. 15

The distinction between bees under contract 16

and those not under contract is illogical. If bees 17

are truly to be protected from pesticide exposure, 18

they must be protected from pesticides throughout the 19

year, regardless of where they’re located. Contract 20

or no contract, bees are not expendable. 21

The recommendation to eliminate that do not 22

apply to blooming crops or weeds language from the 23

environmental hazard section of the label is absurd. 24

The label is the law, and prohibitory language such as25

55

this must not be eliminated. Some state lead agencies 1

claim this label language is unenforceable. Is it 2

really or are they merely unwilling to enforce it? 3

Risk assessments should be conducted on 4

formulated products, not simply active ingredients. 5

In addition, risk assessments of IGRs, fungicides, in 6

addition to that, the common tank mixes, including 7

adjuvants, needs to be addressed/assessed for their 8

ability to negatively impact brood development. 9

Every year, unnecessary damage to hives 10

occurs due to lack of appropriate warning statements 11

on the labels of these products. Rick Keigwin and OPP 12

staff have indicated that this should start later this 13

year on the common tank mixes, and I hope it does. 14

MP3s are good for establishing communication 15

between beekeepers and pesticide applicators, but they 16

are not the answer to solving the bee pesticide 17

issues. Clear, enforceable label language which prohibits 18

application of certain bee toxic compounds to blooming 19

plants is the basis of effective pollinator 20

protection. 21

The label language for neonics, which we 22

challenged back in 2013, remains a very serious issue. 23

The list of exemptions that allow applications to 24

proceed from that label language, which are merely25

56

loopholes that allow bee kills to occur legally. A 48- 1

hour notification program should not be reason to 2

allow legal applications of toxic products to blooming 3

plants. It is impossible to move, cover, or otherwise 4

protect all bee colonies within the area of pesticide 5

applications to blooming plants. 6

The California model allows applications of 7

bee toxic products 48 hours after notification as long 8

as all label restrictions are followed. The 2013 9

label language for neonics releases the applicator 10

from liability as long as the notification is made. 11

This is totally ridiculous. 12

All pesticide application recommendations 13

are based on the threat of significant crop loss, so 14

any application is allowed. Applications of long 15

residual products made after sunset may save a few 16

bees, but will likely kill many more bees in the 17

ensuing days of the residual activity. 18

An EPA representative was publicly asked at 19

a recent Crop Life of America conference if EPA 20

honestly believes bees will be safer from pesticide 21

exposure if this language were eliminated. After 22

considerable hemming and hawing, the representative 23

finally stated that he hopes so. He hopes so? Given 24

all the bee health problems our industry continues to25

57

face, we need real protection from pesticide exposure 1

through better labeling restrictions, not less. 2

MR. KEIGWIN: Now Sharon Selvaggio with 3

Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides. 4

MS. SELVAGGIO: Thank you. Hello, my name 5

is Sharon Selvaggio, and I’m honored to speak today on 6

behalf of my organization Northwest Center for 7

Alternatives to Pesticides located in Eugene, Oregon. 8

Founded in 1977, NCAP works to protect 9

community and environmental health and inspire the use 10

of ecologically sound solutions to reduce the use of 11

pesticides. For the record, although the majority of 12

my career has been spent in conservation and 13

management on federal land, I did manage a farming 14

program for three years. We have thousands of farmers 15

that we actively work with at NCAP. 16

So, the EPA has offered this opportunity to 17

the public today to provide input on regulatory 18

reform. At this time, we recommend that no 19

regulations be repealed, particularly as they relate 20

to safety of pesticides in regards to human health and 21

the environment. 22

We have four main comments related to the 23

need to maintain such existing regulations. Pesticides 24

are hazardous materials designed for the purpose of25

58

killing or suppressing pests. The World Health 1

Organization tells us that pesticides have caused 2

millions of cases of human poisoning. 3

Additionally, many pesticides have been long 4

acknowledged to be carcinogenic. The scientific 5

evidence links others to neurodevelopmental and other 6

serious conditions. EPA’s regulations, starting from 7

registration and extending through residue limits are 8

designed to limit these risks. 9

FIFRA is already limited in its statutory 10

reach by the requirement that pesticide registration 11

decisions involve a cost benefit assessment, the 12

narrow unreasonable adverse effect clause. This acts 13

as a built-in check on so-called regulatory overreach 14

that might result from a more absolute direction to 15

protect human health and the environment. 16

Using the regulatory environment in the U.S. 17

may have little effect for growers. Any grower 18

exporting food is aware that the tolerance standards 19

set by other countries are frequently more restrictive 20

than those in the U.S. Regulatory reform is likely to 21

create more difficulty for American growers to access 22

export markets, not less. 23

And then, regulations do not exist in a 24

vacuum but often have the effect of spurring25

59

technological innovations. Just yesterday at the 1

PPDC, we learned of the development of sterile insect 2

release and genetically engineered mosquitoes to combat 3

the Zika virus. These technologies and the ability to 4

harness them in such a dramatically short amount of 5

time likely would never have been possible without 6

pesticide regulation on behalf of safety in the 7

environment. These technologies, you know, have been 8

in development for other pest problems for decades. 9

So, the Zika virus effort was able to take advantage 10

of technological advances that have occurred in the 11

past. 12

On modification, we do have two comments. 13

Far from acting as a damper on business activity, EPA 14

has generally ignored pesticide impact to the most 15

vulnerable species, those listed under the Endangered 16

Species Act. To our knowledge, necessary procedures 17

to assess pesticide impact to listed species, as 18

recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, are 19

not codified in any current regulation. 20

As a result, almost none of the registered 21

active ingredients on the market today have been 22

analyzed for the impacts on listed species. Of 23

those that have, more than 20 active ingredients 24

remain on the market, despite the fact that these25

60

active ingredients have been determined to jeopardize 1

the continued existence of dozens of species of 2

Pacific salmon. 3

So, we recommend that registration 4

regulations be strengthened to incorporate the 5

concepts and procedures for listed species 6

evaluations, as outlined in the 2013 NAS report during 7

the registration and registration review processes. 8

Finally, no federal requirement exists for 9

pesticide use reporting. This hampers society’s 10

ability to understand how actual use is related to 11

empirical data on impact to human health and the 12

environment. We think requiring such data and having 13

it available would actually streamline difficult and 14

controversial analyses such as consultation documents. 15

So, we recommend that the EPA modify existing 16

regulations to require mandatory pesticide use 17

reporting. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 18

MR. KEIGWIN: And the last member from the 19

PPDC who is registered to speak this morning is Ray 20

McAllister with Crop Life America. 21

MR. McALLISTER: My name is Ray McAllister. 22

I’m the Senior Director of Regulatory Policy for Crop 23

Life America. We’re the national trade association 24

that represents the manufacturers, formulators, and25

61

distributors of crop protection products in the U.S. 1

We will be submitting written comments for the docket 2

but wanted to make a few brief remarks here. 3

We recognize this is one of multiple 4

opportunities and forums to discuss and advance 5

regulatory improvements, both grand and small. 6

Agriculture as a whole depends on a predictable, 7

science-based, and robust regulatory process to allow 8

crop protection products to reach farmers in a timely 9

fashion and to ensure that crops are protected, food 10

is safe, and the environment is also protected. 11

We recognize the burden placed on American 12

industry and agriculture by unnecessary, duplicative, 13

or overly complicated regulations, no matter how well 14

intentioned. We support efforts to streamline the 15

regulatory process and to make certain that it is 16

guided by common sense. 17

But we don’t want to throw out the baby with 18

the bath water. In the middle of regulatory reform, 19

we do not want the basic, but hard, and important work 20

done by OPP, to be lost or delayed. 21

To help support OPP’s important work, CLA 22

asks that the administration support reauthorization 23

of PRIA, the private sector funded fee for service 24

system that provides a portion of resources needed for25

62

OPP to do its work in a timely fashion. 1

We also urge the Administration to budget 2

funding to states to support pest control operations 3

and to support technology, product development at 4

agencies like EPA and USDA. Pest surveillance and 5

pest control to deal with mosquitoes is as important as 6

is vaccine development. 7

While we support OPP’s mission, the Agency 8

needs a reset in some areas to preserve risk-based 9

regulation for pesticides based on sound science and a 10

predictable regulatory process. Past weaknesses in 11

EPA’s risk assessment process have threatened the 12

effectiveness and range of crop protection tools 13

available to farmers and ranchers. Resetting the 14

process in science and restoring transparency and 15

predictability to the registration and review of 16

pesticides can resolve many of these concerns. 17

We believe that USDA’s role is essential. 18

We are confident that regulator and meaningful 19

involvement of USDA and its extensive expertise can 20

help improve the process of regulating crop protection 21

products that are so critical for American 22

agriculture. 23

As we discussed yesterday, we can do better 24

when it comes to proper implementation of the25

63

Endangered Species Act. We look forward to continuing 1

the hard work to find a path forward at the 2

intersection of FIFRA and ESA. Thank you. 3

MR. KEIGWIN: Thanks, Ray. 4

We have a few minutes before the break. Let 5

me just see if there are other members from the PPDC - 6

- Robyn Gilden? 7

MS. GILDEN: Hi, I am with the University of 8

-- Robyn Gilden with the University of Maryland School 9

of Nursing and also the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy 10

Environments. I’m not going to take my three minutes, 11

but I just wanted to say thank you very much for 12

having me on the PPDC for the past six years. 13

I also want to just encourage EPA to not 14

take away regulations that protect human health. I’m 15

a nurse. I care deeply about the health side of 16

things. I care about the babies, and the elderly, and 17

the pregnant moms, and the most vulnerable of our 18

populations. 19

So, I want the public health protections to 20

be the focus. I know that pesticides are important in 21

their place, but I strongly support the IPM model 22

where you eliminate the pests structurally before you 23

get down to the chemicals. Thank you. 24

MR. KEIGWIN: Are there any other PPDC25

64

members? Andy Whittington? 1

MR. WHITTINGTON: Thank you. Andy 2

Whittington with the Mississippi Farm Bureau 3

Federation on behalf of American Farm Bureau 4

Federation. 5

I do want to support the comments submitted 6

by USDA this morning. We are in concert with most of 7

those comments, especially an extension of the 8

compliance date with the WPS provisions. It’s not 9

necessarily about the content of the WPS provisions, 10

but it is making sure that we have a timely manner to 11

get all of the farmers, and handlers, and workers 12

properly trained to be in compliance with those 13

regulations. 14

There’s plenty of evidence from the speakers 15

this morning that EPA has an incredibly tough job to 16

do balancing the need of the farmers and the 17

consumers, as well as the environmental protections 18

that are required. So, we do appreciate that effort, 19

and we will be submitting comments to the docket 20

related to this issue. Thank you. 21

MR. KEIGWIN: Any other PPDC members? Oh, 22

Valentin, Valentin Sanchez with the Oregon Law Center. 23

MR. SANCHEZ: Good morning, everyone. My 24

name is Valentin Sanchez. I currently work with the25

65

Oregon Law Center as a community educator. Prior to 1

that, I was a farmworker for several years. My 2

parents are currently working as farmworkers in Santa 3

Maria, California. I’m very excited that we, you 4

know, do special accommodations to listen to people -- 5

I wish we could do special accommodations to listen to 6

the stories of farmworkers. 7

My native language is not Spanish; it’s 8

Mixteco. Pretty soon, we’re going to start 9

reaching out to farmworkers in the state of Oregon. 10

In the state of Oregon, there are over 160,000 11

farmworkers and more if we add the family members as 12

well. So, I’ve been speaking with farmworkers for the 13

last 14, 15 years visiting labor camps, conducting 14

outreach to parents, just making sure that the 15

community knows about, you know, the few laws to 16

protect them. 17

So, I want to speak to the importance of 18

WPS. I’ve been speaking with farmworkers, and about 19

half of them are receiving training about how they can 20

protect themselves and protect their family members. 21

Even those who do receive training are receiving 22

inadequate training because the materials that are 23

being used were developed in the 1990s. So, there’s a 24

need for better information. There’s a need for more25

66

resources to make sure that farmworkers know how they 1

can protect themselves. 2

I also want to quickly mention the 3

importance of having the designated representative. 4

As I’ve said, I’ve spoken with farmworkers who are 5

afraid of speaking with their employers because 6

they’re afraid of being retaliated against, they’re 7

afraid of losing their jobs. So, oftentimes they 8

don’t speak up for themselves. They need to rely on 9

someone else to obtain information about which 10

pesticide they were exposed to. 11

So, this is very important, especially for 12

clinicians, to be able to treat the patient who has 13

been exposed to pesticides. They need to know the 14

name of the chemical that they were exposed to. 15

So, I want EPA to continue to, you know, 16

implement, have worker protection standards. Very 17

important. There’s a huge need in the farmworker 18

community. So, I want to encourage you to continue to 19

do that. Thank you. 20

MR. KEIGWIN: Let me just see if there’s -- 21

we probably have time for one more. Dawn Gouge? 22

MS. GOUGE: Thank you. Dawn Gouge, urban 23

entomologist at the University of Arizona. I would 24

just ask EPA to not delay the implementation of worker25

67

protection standards, not for a minute. There’s two 1

things that drive innovation: regulation and 2

disasters. Let’s go the regulation way rather than 3

further disaster. 4

I’m a strong advocate for integrated pest 5

management and integrated vector management. So, I 6

just wanted to throw that term out there so that 7

everybody goes away and Googles integrated vector 8

management. Thank you. 9

MR. KEIGWIN: Okay, so we’re at about 10:00 10

Eastern Time. We’re going to take a 15-minute break. 11

And then, when we return, we’ll open it up for public 12

comments. We’ll start with people who are here in the 13

room in Virginia and then we’ll turn things over to 14

people who are participating via telephone. Thank 15

you. 16

(A brief recess was taken.) 17

MR. KEIGWIN: Okay, everybody, if we could 18

take our seats, and we’ll start the public comment 19

session. So, we’re going to move on to the public 20

comment session now. We will start with people who 21

registered in advance and are here in the room here in 22

Crystal City. We have posted up on the screen here 23

the order in which people registered to speak. 24

So that I don’t butcher names, if you could25

68

just come up to the mic that’s here in the center of 1

the room, introduce yourself and your affiliation. 2

And as with the session earlier this morning, there’s 3

enough time for about three minutes of remarks. Dea 4

will hold up her one minute warning sign. 5

So, I believe the first speaker registered 6

is Julie Spagnoli, and we can go from there. 7

MS. SPAGNOLI: Julie Spagnoli, JM Specialty 8

Consulting. I’m an independent consultant, but I’ve 9

been in this industry for about 33 years. So, I’ve 10

been involved with OPP for a long time. 11

I’ve recently also become a farmer in the 12

last four years, so I’ve gotten out and learned 13

firsthand how difficult farming can be and some of the 14

challenges that you face when you actually go out 15

there and do it. 16

But to speak specifically to this topic, I 17

just wanted to touch on a few things. I won’t go into 18

a lot of details. We know that the Agency is facing 19

limited resources in a lot of areas. We’ve seen it in 20

particular in the registration area. 21

So, one of the suggestions is to look at 22

ways that we can reduce any unnecessary paperwork 23

burdens for both the industry and the Agency, 24

paperwork that’s just not really used for any25

69

particular purpose. This would include things like 1

final printed labeling, which because of the new 2

process that we have for getting label approvals, the 3

label is approved as a complete label. The final 4

printed label is made. There may be multiple 5

packages. It’s really not serving a useful purpose 6

for the Registration Division. It is, obviously, a 7

compliance and enforcement issue, but that’s done out 8

in the field. 9

The other one, and it was touched on earlier 10

from the antimicrobial side, but also from the 11

registration side, is use of notification. That can 12

be a way to greatly streamline process for both the 13

Agency and registrants. We’d like to see that process 14

kind of go back to where it used to be where it really 15

was a notification. That way, like I said, it’s less 16

paperwork for the Agency for processing and less work 17

for the registrants. 18

The last one is the use of what we want to 19

call a commonly used or commodity inert. These are 20

inerts that are commonly used materials such as corn 21

cob, peanut holes, food items like dried milk or 22

peanut butter. Right now the rules require that the 23

registrant must identify every potential supplier of 24

those inerts, and it just creates a paperwork burden25

70

where they have to file a new confidential statement of formula, 1

every time they add a supplier. For materials like that, it 2

just becomes a paperwork exercise and really doesn’t provide any 3

additional protection. 4

There will be probably more details on some 5

of these things, but those are just some of the things 6

we think can streamline the processes. Thank you. 7

MR. KEIGWIN: The next speaker is Steven 8

McFadden. 9

(No response.) 10

MR. KEIGWIN: Okay, the next person we have 11

registered is Kerry Richards. 12

MS. RICHARDS: Good morning. I’d like to 13

thank you for the opportunity to speak. I spent the 14

last 27 years of my career at the pesticide safety 15

education program at Penn State University. For seven 16

years, I was director of that program. 17

Currently, I’m working with the University 18

of Delaware to revitalize their pesticide safety 19

education program. I’m working 40 percent of the time 20

with the new initiatives. That is the National 21

Pesticide Safety Education Center. That 40 percent 22

time means that now instead of working 180 hours, like 23

most of my colleagues do, I only work about 40 hours a24

71

week. 1

So, I’m not speaking on behalf of any of 2

those organizations, but I wanted to give you a 3

perspective of my years and perspective of over 30 years 4

as a pesticide safety educator and someone who grew up 5

on a research farm who did research on chemicals and 6

pesticides that came onto the market. 7

Before I do that, I did have one of my AAPSE 8

membership ask me to just kind of relay the 9

concern about EPA’s mandate or requirement to help 10

support pesticide safety education programs through 11

funding, through state programs. It is in FIFRA law 12

that the EPA -- it’s stated that the EPA is to use the 13

cooperative extension services to provide training. 14

The extension service is overseen by USDA NIFA and, as 15

such, is part of the land grant institution. 16

With EPA’s mandate to ensure that state 17

plans provide state funding to pesticide safety 18

education programs, he indicates that he feels that it 19

can be perceived as any state at any time desires a 20

certified applicator, the governor shall decide which 21

program and the EPA administrator shall approve those 22

state programs. I mean, if it requires that approval, 23

that support for pesticide safety education programs 24

financially should be included in that approval of the25

72

state plan. 1

What I wanted to bring to -- Liza spoke much 2

of the comments I was going to make. We’re going to 3

submit them publicly. So, in the interest of time, I 4

would just echo what Liza said and ask that the EPA do 5

their diligence in providing education by helping and 6

continuing to support pesticide safety education that 7

serve in all 50 states. 8

I’ve been the classic example of when there 9

is support from those Departments of Agriculture in 10

Pennsylvania. They were hugely supportive of our 11

program, and we were able to serve not only the 12

certified applicators in Pennsylvania but the 13

consumers and the public as well. 14

Over the last three years, I’ve been working 15

with Delaware, who received no support from their 16

Department of Agriculture. Like most of my 17

colleagues, many states do the same thing. It’s like 18

being McGyver where you just pull all the pieces apart 19

and somehow we accomplish the purposes and educate the 20

stakeholders, the growers, the workers, and everyone 21

that is out there that can potentially be affected by 22

the misuse or the concerns of pesticide exposures. 23

So, I would urge EPA to continue that 24

support and increase it whenever possible, especially25

73

with the new National Pesticide Safety Education 1

Center. The mission is to gather all these resources, 2

not just from pesticide safety education programs but 3

all the resources out there, so there’s one consistent 4

repository so everyone can utilize their educational 5

materials to the most effective use and most efficient 6

use. 7

MR. KEIGWIN: Thank you. 8

Jennifer Sass from NRDC. 9

MS. SASS: Thanks very much. Thank you for 10

the opportunity to provide comments to support the 11

EPA’s pesticide office and the important work that you 12

guys do. 13

NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 14

is speaking on behalf of our two million members and 15

online supporters. NRDC objects to the false premise 16

of the executive order that public safeguards are or 17

would hold back the nation. 18

In reality, the safeguards that the Office 19

of Pesticide Programs must provide to the public are 20

vital to the health and safety of all, particularly 21

children and future generations. They’re good for 22

business and the U.S. economy. I have citations to a 23

number of letters and articles from the ASBA, the 24

American Sustainable Business Association, testifying25

74

to that. 1

One important critical example of the health 2

protective safeguards of the Office of Pesticides has 3

been the Food Quality Protection Act, FQPA. It was a 4

bipartisan law that passed Congress unanimously in 5

1996 and the first environmental law that required 6

pesticide regulations to include specific protections 7

for the health of infants and children. 8

As a result of FQPA implemented by the 9

pesticide office, the nation’s use of pesticides has 10

moved away from some of the most dangerous ones, 11

particularly the organophosphates, or OP insecticides. 12

EPA actions to protect children from harmful 13

pesticides is good for health and good for business. 14

A 2015 European Union study cited costs 15

associated with lost IQ points and intellectual 16

disabilities arising from only two categories of 17

chemicals, the PBDEs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, 18

which are flame retardants, and organophosphate 19

pesticides, are estimated at 155 billion euros, about 20

$170 billion US annually for one member. There are 21

citations for all of that that are included. 22

For one member of the OP pesticides, 23

chlorpyrifos, scientists have shown that it interferes 24

with brain development resulting in poor working25

75

memory and reduced IQ and developmentally exposed 1

children. For these reasons, all home uses of 2

chlorpyrifos were cancelled in 2001, but the 3

negotiated requirement for that cancellation was that 4

although there was a reduction of over six million pounds 5

annually used in people’s homes, the agriculture uses 6

were able to continue. 7

EPA’s protective actions on chlorpyrifos in 8

the residential cancellations resulted in a 66 percent 9

reduction in poisonings since that, demonstrating the 10

importance of regulatory safeguards for keeping our 11

loved ones safe. I have references to that from 12

presentations by EPA to the PPDC in November of 2006. 13

Unfortunately, chlorpyrifos, while no longer 14

allowed in homes, is still allowed in agriculture at 15

somewhere between 5 and 10 million pounds a year on 16

many crops, including crops that children regularly 17

eat, as well as being responsible for a number of 18

worker poisonings and drifts to suburban and 19

residential homes. 20

Federal experts also reported recently that 21

chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate pesticides 22

still used on crops are harmful to almost 1,800 23

critically threatened or endangered species, making it 24

a threat to wildlife and ecosystems as well.25

76

Over 60 scientists and medical professionals 1

wrote in 2016 to support EPA in their proposal to 2

cancel all food tolerances. Under the Obama 3

Administration, EPA developed a 2015 proposal, again 4

confirming it in 2016 to do this. 5

Unfortunately, the White House and Dow 6

Chemical, which donated $1 million to President 7

Trump, and whose CEO is the White House pick for 8

heading up the American Manufacturing Council, appears 9

to have dodged the cancellation. Instead of enforcing 10

legally mandated safeguards, Pruitt Pollutes 11

is allowing EPA to let this continue to harm children. 12

Thank you. 13

MR. KEIGWIN: Next speaker is Peter Jenkins 14

with the Center for Food Safety. 15

MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Rick, and members 16

of the panel. I’m an attorney and policy analyst for 17

the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit group 18

headquartered in DC but with offices in San Francisco, 19

Portland, Oregon, Honolulu, and 830,000 members. 20

First, I want to address President Trump’s 21

Executive Order 13771, which was in the materials. 22

It’s sort of part of this deregulatory package but 23

hasn’t been talked about yet. That’s the one that 24

proposes elimination of two existing regulations for25

77

each new regulation adopted. 1

I think there’s been no support for that 2

from any speaker. I don’t think you’re going to find 3

any support for that from anyone familiar with this 4

pesticide regulatory world. There’s no place for it 5

in the FIFRA pesticide context. For example, the 6

tolerances for pesticides on foods are adopted by 7

regulation. It’s absurd to suggest that you should 8

eliminate two tolerances for each new tolerance 9

adopted. 10

So, we hope that your agency recognizes that 11

the two for one idea is inherently arbitrary and 12

capricious, would violate underlying statutory 13

standards and is going to lead to unnecessary 14

litigation. So, convince the administrator to 15

convince OMB that the two for one really has no place 16

in this world. 17

Now, with respect to the President’s 18

Executive Order 1377, which is kind of the focus here 19

on regulatory costs, I guess I would respectfully 20

disagree with some other speakers that the questions 21

under that public announcement that EPA put out were 22

not good questions, because there are some good 23

questions there. For example, which existing 24

regulations are obsolete, which existing regulations25

78

are not transparent, which existing regulations are in 1

need of modification. 2

There are several. We will submit written 3

testimony to that effect about several of them, but I 4

want to just focus on two of high priority. The first 5

is 40 CFR 152.25A, otherwise known as the treated 6

article exemptions, adopted in 1988. 7

1988 was long before this notion of using 8

systemic seed coatings as pesticides to get absorbed 9

into the plant and then make the plant itself 10

pesticide before that was realized. Yet, the Agency 11

is using that 1988 treated article exemption to exempt 12

the most prevalent widespread use of insecticides in 13

the country, which is the seed coatings, the 14

neonicotinoid seed coatings, clothianidin, 15

thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid especially. That’s 16

causing extreme harm and burden on the environment, on 17

water quality, and I’m going to mention in particular 18

with respect to beekeepers. 19

Last week, the three major beekeeping 20

organizations in the country, along with several 21

environmental groups, the American Bird Conservancy, 22

Center for Food Safety, individual beekeepers and 23

farmers all submitted a petition to you to revise your 24

interpretation of that old out-of-date obsolete25

79

regulation to bring it into the current reality, which 1

is, you’ve exempted the most widespread use of 2

insecticide in the country from actual enforceable 3

labels and actual safety standards that the farmers 4

have to comply with. 5

As a result, beekeepers have no recourse 6

when their bees get killed by the dust. There’s no 7

enforcement against the harms that are being caused 8

from these coated seeds going into the waters, killing 9

birds, killing bees, you name it. American Honey 10

Producers Association, American Beekeeping Federation, 11

Pollinator Stewardship Council have all endorsed it. 12

When the three major national beekeeping 13

organizations are telling you you need to change your 14

regulation, you should take it seriously if you want 15

to get serious about protecting bees, which is an 16

important big ag interest, very important to 17

agriculture. Pollination is suffering, yet your 18

regulatory problem has created this loophole. So, 19

reform that one, please. 20

MR. KEIGWIN: So, I think in the interest of 21

time, I think we need to go on to the next speaker. 22

If there’s time remaining, you could come back up. 23

But we do have a number of other speakers registered. 24

MR. JENKINS: Thank you, will do.25

80

MR. KEIGWIN: Daniel. 1

MR. RAICHEL: Good morning, my name is Dan 2

Raichel. I do eat food, and I have a 3

family that I want to protect, which is probably why 4

I’m an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense 5

Council, which for over 45 years has fought to protect 6

people and the environment from the harms of toxic 7

chemicals. 8

I speak today to remind the Agency, as it 9

appears poised on carrying back critical protections 10

for clean air, clean water, and healthy ecosystems, 11

that it is not at liberty to shirk its 12

responsibilities under our nation’s bedrock 13

environmental laws by eliminating regulations. It 14

needs to comply with those laws. 15

Specifically, EPA must not attempt to cut 16

corners in its mandatory review of registered 17

pesticides, including assessment of their known or 18

likely harms to our nation’s pollinators and 19

endangered species. Some of those harms are already 20

apparent. For over 10 years, we’ve seen bee 21

populations succumb to massive losses, concurrently 22

with the growth and widespread use of a new class of 23

pesticides, neonicotinoids or neonics. 24

Indeed, just this March, the rusty patched25

81

bumblebee, once common in 28 states, became the first 1

bee in the continental U.S. to be placed on the 2

endangered species list. The listing decision 3

identifies the use of neonics as a contributing factor 4

in the bee’s close to 90 percent decline in the last 5

20 years. 6

Equally, or perhaps more important in the 7

well known harms however, are the ones that we are 8

just now learning about. In January, EPA put out 9

biological evaluations for three pesticides, 10

chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and Malathion, concluding that 11

collectively, their use is likely to adversely affect 12

almost 1,800 protected species. These evaluations 13

represent only a small fraction of the outstanding 14

endangered species evaluations EPA now needs to 15

perform. 16

Performing those evaluations, along with the 17

required registration reviews, is important work. 18

Significantly, it is also work EPA is required to do 19

by law. The Agency must ensure that any action it 20

carries out is not likely to jeopardize a federally 21

protected species and that the pesticides it registers 22

do not cause unreasonable adverse effects on people or 23

the environment. 24

That work is fundamental to the Agency’s25

82

purpose. It ensures that our ecosystems aren’t 1

hallowed out by careless disregard, that Americans 2

aren’t needlessly exposed to toxic pesticides, and 3

that in the case of pollinators, we do not heedlessly 4

destroy a group of species that are critical to 5

producing 70 percent of the major crops we consume. 6

Now, over the years, EPA has developed rules 7

designed to assure that the Agency complies with the 8

letter of the law. Those rules cannot now be 9

eliminated only to satisfy an arbitrary rulemaking 10

principle -- and that’s just what Peter just talked 11

about -- particularly when they are essential to 12

protecting people and natural resources like 13

pollinator populations that we all depend on. 14

Accordingly, as EPA moves forward with 15

implementation of the president’s executive order, we 16

caution the Agency to be mindful of its mandatory 17

statutory responsibilities and that we will be 18

watching this process very carefully. Thank you. 19

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker is Tiffany 20

Finck-Haynes. 21

MS. FINCK-HAYNES: Thank you. I’m here 22

representing Friends of the Earth and our over one 23

million members and supporters nationwide. Friends of 24

the Earth is a national environmental organization25

83

that is working to defend the environment and champion 1

a healthy and just world. 2

We’re part of a federation of groups 3

internationally working in 76 countries on today’s 4

most urgent environmental and social issues. 5

Discussing what existing pesticide regulations should 6

be fleshed is sacrificing public health on the altar 7

of corporate profits and will destroy America, not 8

make it great. 9

Pesticide regulations have a number of 10

benefits, including protecting our environment, our 11

critical habitat, wildlife, water, soil, and public 12

health. Many of the pesticides EPA is currently 13

reviewing are highly toxic and contribute to human 14

diseases such as cancer and liver disease. 15

Other countries have restricted or banned 16

these pesticides, such as glyphosate, 17

neonicotinoids, atrazine, and pyrethroids. 18

Regulations on these chemicals should be strengthened 19

to follow in the footsteps of what other 20

countries have done. We must take these chemicals off 21

the market to safeguard public health and the 22

environment. 23

We urge EPA to not put millions of lives at 24

risk so that polluters can further profit from25

84

destruction of our environment. Pesticide regulation 1

should be grounded in science and the law so that our 2

soil, water, wildlife, and public health can keep us 3

healthy and thriving. 4

We believe this conversation is dangerous 5

and based on corporate greed and environmental 6

pollution. We call on EPA to uphold its mission and 7

protect public health and our environment by 8

strengthening existing laws and regulations. Thank 9

you. 10

MR. KEIGWIN: So, I believe our next speaker 11

is going to be Brett Hartel. Jim Tozzi, who is up on the 12

board, had to leave early. 13

MR. HARTEL: This is Brett Hartel at the 14

Center for Biological Diversity. I’ll do my best to 15

keep this to three minutes, but I don’t have a million 16

dollars like Dow Chemical to give to President Trump. 17

So, if I go over, I apologize. 18

The premise of this ridiculous sham hearing 19

that the pesticide industry is somehow overburdened by 20

reasonable regulations designed to protect the health 21

of people, wildlife, and the environment we share is 22

fatally flawed. Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt’s 23

transparent attempts to enrich themselves and their24

85

special interest masters quite literally puts lives at 1

risk. It puts our environment at grave risk, and it 2

moves dozens of endangered species closer to 3

extinction. 4

To suggest that common sense measures to 5

protect us all from toxic chemicals should be repealed 6

is unconscionable and will not be tolerated by the 7

American people. The notion that the pesticide 8

industry, which includes some of the richest 9

corporations in the world, with billions in profits 10

last year, can’t handle the so-called burdens of 11

regulations is laughably absurd. 12

The pesticide industry has effectively 13

written most of the regulations that govern the 14

pesticide approval process. As a result, thousands of 15

miles of streams and rivers are impaired by the EPA’s 16

own estimates by pesticide pollution. The last time 17

the EPA had the courage to cancel a pesticide due to 18

the imminent hazard provision of FIFRA was more than 19

30 years ago. 20

The so-called ecological risk assessment 21

process now in place is not much more than a rubber 22

stamp to approve pesticides that conclude that 23

everything is fine, when it isn’t. And yet, the 24

pesticide industry cries that the sky is falling when25

86

actual scientists at the US Fish and Wildlife Service 1

and the National Marine Fishery Service conclude that 2

an insecticide, like chlorpyrifos, might actually kill 3

endangered insects like butterflies. 4

But here are the actual facts. There are 5

270 different recovery plans for endangered species 6

that have concluded that pesticides are a key threat 7

to their survival and recovery. In the last few 8

years, species like the Dakota skipper and the rusty 9

patch bumblebee have needed protection under the 10

Endangered Species Act because of status quo use of 11

pesticides. 12

The facts are irrefutable. The EPA 13

desperately needs to improve and strengthen its 14

existing regulations so that ecological risk 15

assessment process complies with the law, and it 16

protects people and endangered species. Instead of 17

protecting industry, EPA should do what is needed to 18

be done to protect people from the more than one 19

billion pounds of pesticides that are applied across 20

the United States every year. 21

I’ll note, and it’s simply a matter of law, 22

any time this Agency takes a discretionary action to 23

repeal any regulation or to weaken a regulation that 24

harms an endangered species, we will fight you every25

87

step of the way. 1

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker is Stephanie 2

Kurose. I apologize if I pronounced that 3

incorrectly. 4

MS. KUROSE: No, that’s right. Hi, my name 5

is Stephanie Kurose, and I am with the Center for 6

Biological Diversity. My parents are beekeepers, so 7

this issue is near and dear to my heart. But today 8

I’m not going to talk about bees; I’m going to talk 9

about the monarch. 10

The monarch is a beautiful animal, and it’s 11

an incidental pollinator. There used to be so many of 12

them that the sound of their wings was described as a 13

rippling stream for a summer rain. There are early 14

descriptions of tree branches breaking from the weight 15

of so many butterflies. Every winter, they undertake 16

a legendary 2,000 mile journey from Canada to their 17

over wintering sites in Mexico. They use the very 18

same trees every year when they migrate, which is 19

pretty amazing because they aren’t the same 20

butterflies that were there the year before. 21

Now, thanks to glyphosate and the widespread 22

use of pesticides and herbicides, monarchs are now 23

plummeting towards extinction. The monarch population 24

has declined over 80 percent in the last 20 years. 25

88

The 2017 overwintering count released in February 1

found that butterfly numbers fell by nearly one third 2

from last year’s count. Scientists estimate that the 3

monarch has lost more than 165 million acres of 4

habitat, an area about the size of Texas, in the last 5

20 years. They have also lost nearly a third of their 6

summer breeding ground. 7

Last year, a study by the U.S. Geological 8

Survey concluded that the monarch now faces extinction 9

within 20 years. Monarchs only eat one thing, and 10

it’s milkweed. The animals used to rely on milkweed 11

in corn and soybean fields in the Midwest until 12

glyphosate started being widely used, which kills 13

milkweed. 14

Glyphosate is now used on over 90 percent of 15

all corn and soy and has removed nearly all the 16

milkweed. So, basically, you have one type of 17

herbicide that has virtually wiped out an entire 18

species. California recently announced that it would 19

list glyphosate as a human carcinogen under its 20

Proposition 65. Yet, pesticide companies want a 21

swift re-registration of the ingredient. 22

Honestly, I’m in disbelief that the EPA 23

would consider anything less than issuing more 24

stringent regulations over the use of toxic25

89

pesticides. Instead, we’re here at the behest of 1

Scott Pruitt who hates the mission of environmental 2

protection to gut regulations. The idea that EPA 3

would hesitate to regulate chemicals that can wipe out 4

pollinators critical to our ecological health and food 5

security is beyond ridiculous. 6

Now is not the time to be complacent. We 7

will have tragic consequences if you guys don’t act to 8

safeguard humans and wildlife from toxic chemicals. 9

Thank you. 10

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker is Howard 11

Crystal. 12

MR. CRYSTAL: Good morning, my name is 13

Howard Crystal. I’m an attorney in the Climate Law 14

Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. 15

Because this meeting is being conducted to carry out 16

the regulatory reform executive order, I want to begin 17

by reiterating that while the executive order directs 18

agencies to remove “unnecessary regulations,” it also 19

makes clear that it must be done “consistent with 20

applicable law.” 21

Therefore, while the executive order speaks 22

to reforming regulations which may be outdated or 23

ineffective, it does not and cannot give EPA the power 24

to alter Congress’ mandate that you prevent25

90

unreasonable adverse effects on the environment from 1

pesticides. 2

Regulating pesticides, like any other 3

regulation, imposes some burden. It would obviously 4

be more profitable to simply sell a poison than to get 5

government approvals, create proper labeling, and 6

ensure appropriate usage. But congress made the 7

judgment in FIFRA that just a minor burden pales in 8

comparison to the public benefit of protecting humans 9

and the environment from harmful chemicals. Neither 10

the executive order nor this agency has the 11

constitutional power to change either that judgment or 12

the EPA’s mandate under the statute. 13

To follow that congressional mandate, it is 14

absolutely clear that rather than remove regulations, 15

EPA has enormous work to do to protect the environment 16

from the ongoing environmental harm caused by 17

pesticides. For example, it is well recognized that 18

in addition to human harm, pesticides are responsible 19

for putting other species in peril of extinction. 20

Salmon, frogs, and salamanders are just a few of the 21

species especially sensitive to pesticides, and 22

further regulations of pesticides is essential to 23

protect and recover these species. 24

It’s also essential to consider the25

91

relationship between climate change and pesticide use. 1

By reversing progress made to combat climate change, 2

this administration is exacerbating changes in weather 3

patterns and other factors that will undoubtedly pose 4

increasing challenges to farmers in years to come. 5

Allowing increased reliance on pesticides to 6

mitigate those challenges may well become tempting, 7

but it cannot be more clear that the most effective 8

and cheapest way to address these problems is to take 9

the steps necessary to minimize climate change rather 10

than trying to protect our food supply from its impact 11

by further poisoning the environment with toxic 12

pesticides. Thank you. 13

MR. KEIGWIN: Our next speaker is Bill 14

Jordan. 15

MR. JORDAN: Thank you for the opportunity 16

to speak to you. My name is Bill Jordan, and I used 17

to work at EPA. I’m now an independent consultant 18

working with law firms, corporations, environmental 19

advocacy organizations, and the like. 20

I want to start off by noting that the 21

comments so far have just suggested a lot more work 22

than I think is possible for EPA to do. So, you all 23

are going to have to make some choices about which of 24

the proposals you pursue. I’d like to offer a25

92

suggestion about a way to think about that. 1

I think you ought to try to find regulatory 2

relief that reduces burdens and at the same time 3

provides environmental protection or improves human 4

health protection. 5

The second category of suggestions I think 6

you should look at are those that improve efficiency 7

which makes it possible for EPA to move regulatory 8

decisions through more efficiently, more 9

transparently, that provides support to the public so 10

they can be effectively involved. 11

Then, the third category are the ones that 12

are really tough choices where you’re trading off 13

reducing some regulatory burdens, but those regulatory 14

burdens may also be ones that involve real 15

protections. I think the suggestions about worker 16

protection standards and certification training fall 17

into that category. 18

I have one suggestion that nobody has 19

mentioned that falls, I think, into the first 20

category. That’s how EPA policies affect the handling 21

of damaged pesticide containers. Large lawn and 22

garden stores like Home Depot or Walmart or others 23

occasionally find that the bags of pesticides and 24

fertilizers are damaged during transportation and25

93

handling. EPA says that those containers have to be 1

diverted to the hazardous waste stream. 2

It seems to me that if there were another 3

alternative, which EPA policies could promote, of 4

repackaging and reconditioning those products safely, 5

that it would both save money for industry and reduce 6

the amount of pesticides that goes into the 7

environment with no pesticidal benefit. 8

I have a number of suggestions that relate 9

to clarifying the jurisdiction between EPA and other 10

agencies that I think could fall into the second tier 11

of changes, changes that would address, for example, 12

places where jurisdictions are either overlapping or 13

unclear or maybe both. 14

Pesticides and new animal drugs, for 15

example, something that’s added to an aquarium for 16

protecting the fish from parasites, FDA’s new animal 17

drug or EPA’s or what. I think you could look 18

seriously at pesticides and medical devices. Most 19

disinfectants are considered medical devices as well 20

as pesticides. 21

There are several others I can go through at 22

a later point. Thank you. 23

MR. KEIGWIN: Okay, that concludes those who 24

had registered in advance. We’re now going to go to25

94

the people who registered in advance on the phone. 1

And then, time permitting, we’ll come back to here in 2

the room. So, at this point, I’m going to turn the 3

moderator duties over to my colleague, Claire 4

Gesalman. 5

MS. GESALMAN: Thank you very much. I 6

would ask as I call a person’s name who has registered 7

to speak on the phone, that you press pound 6 to 8

unmute your line. You will hear the operator say 9

unmuted. At that point, please give your name and, if 10

you have an affilliation, you may give that. 11

We will say thank you or something along 12

that line, at which point you know we’re hearing you 13

and you can go ahead and speak. Each person has three 14

minutes. Since I can’t hold up a card to the folks on 15

the phone, if you can keep an eye on your clock, and 16

I’ll basically tell you when your time is up. Then, 17

when the time is up for your three minutes, please 18

press star 6 to remute yourself. 19

The first person on our list, and I 20

apologize in advance if I mispronounce anyone’s name, 21

is Telisport Putsavage. Please press pound 22

6 to unmute. 23

MR. PUSAVAGE: Good morning, I just unmuted. 24

This is Telisport Putsavage.25

95

MS. GESALMAN: Great, thank you. Go 1

ahead. 2

MR. PUSAVAGE: Thank you. Thank you for the 3

opportunity to address pesticide regulatory reform 4

issues. By way of brief background, I’m an attorney 5

with 35 years of FIFRA experience. I counseled the 6

pest management program of the New York State 7

Department of Environmental Conservation for 15 years, 8

and I’ve had a FIFRA-focused private practice for 20 9

years. I have also owned a farm. 10

The Agency is undertaking this examination 11

of regulatory reform at a time when it is facing great 12

stress, both budgetary and programmatic. As an 13

example of already existing stress, I would note that 14

while industry is fortunate to have PRIA and its 15

deadlines, the resulting impact on non-PRIA actions 16

have made the term fast track amendment an oxymoron. 17

In light of this stress, my suggestions 18

focus not on rules to change but on urging the Agency 19

to focus its efforts and resources in order to 20

preserve the primary mission of the program. OPP 21

should adhere to FIFRA and the rules as currently 22

promulgated rather than stretching Agency and 23

regulated party resources in efforts that are perhaps 24

well-intentioned but ignore existing law and25

96

regulation. 1

A most graphic recent example of this 2

Overreach is the December 1, 2016, memorandum from the 3

directors of the Registration and Antimicrobial 4

Divisions, which allegedly clarifies requirements for 5

the location of the first aid statement on labels of 6

toxicity category two and three products. Not content 7

with and notwithstanding the express authority of 40 8

CFR 156.68(d), which states that such statements may 9

appear “on any panel of a product,” this memorandum 10

purports for the first time under FIFRA to define the 11

term panel in relation to a label. 12

In addition, the memorandum renounces the 13

past agency approach to this issue, declaring that the 14

new definition of panel has been in effect all along 15

and intimates that the registrants face potential 16

enforcement action against labels approved by the 17

Agency. 18

Another example was a demand by a product 19

reviewer expressly stating concern over childhood 20

consumption of apples, that apples should be removed 21

from an insecticide label. This demand expressly 22

conflicted with the re-registration eligibility 23

document, which determined that continued use of the 24

ingredient on apples posed no unacceptable risk. That25

97

position resulted in needless waste of time required 1

to obtain reversal from highest level staff. 2

Another example is an effort by a region to 3

prosecute a registrant for allegedly unlawful conduct 4

over a 15-year period by a distributor registrant 5

despite the fact that the Agency acknowledges that the 6

primary registrant canceled the distributor 7

registration (inaudible) earlier. 8

Well, the rules clearly provide that a 9

primary registrant is liable for the conduct of a 10

distributor registrant. Agency materials also make 11

clear that such liability extends for only 18 months 12

following the cancellation of the distributor 13

registration. 14

MS. GESALMAN: Thank you very much for 15

your comments. 16

If anyone else has unmuted their line, 17

please remute yourself. 18

The next person is Jeannie Economos. Please unmute. 19

MS. ECONOMOS: Can you hear me? 20

MS. GUESSELMAN: Yes. Please start. 21

MS. ECONOMOS: This is Jeannie Economos from 22

the Farmworker Association of Florida. 23

There would be no farms if there were no24

98

farmworkers. The majority of the public in the United 1

States would not have food to eat if there were no 2

farmworkers in the fields harvesting the food that all 3

the rest of us eat. Yet, in order to get that food to 4

our table, farmworkers have to put their lives at risk 5

every day in the fields from multiple hazards in the 6

workplace, especially from exposure to pesticides. 7

Farmworkers are the most vulnerable in our community, 8

and they deserve our attention and respect. 9

In regards to regulations, I would like 10

people to come here and sit in our office where every 11

day we see farmworkers coming into our office. I have 12

to sit face to face with farmworkers and look them in 13

the eye and tell them that there’s nothing I can do 14

because the rules are not strong enough to protect 15

them. 16

Farmworkers who tell me that their children 17

were born with learning disabilities, with ADHD, with 18

other behavioral and neurological problems because of 19

exposure to pesticides, I have to tell them that the 20

cost to their children is a benefit to the industry. 21

That is not acceptable. 22

In regards to the designated representative 23

provision in the WPS, Florida has had a Florida right- 24

to-know law in the state of Florida since 1994 and25

99

‘95, and there has never been any cases of any issues 1

that the farm bureau is concerned about in terms of 2

any kind of retaliation or problems to farmers because 3

of the Florida right-to-know law. So, that shows that 4

it’s possible to have it nationwide, and the fears 5

around the designated representative are unfounded. 6

So, I just wanted to say that we need to 7

keep the protections of the farmworker protection 8

standard and the designated representatives and also 9

the strengthened certified applicator regs, because I 10

work with farmworkers every day. Our organization is 11

a grassroots organization. We see farmworkers in our 12

offices all the time, and we see firsthand the effects 13

of both short term and long term effects of pesticides 14

on farmworkers. 15

When we’re discussing these regulations, we 16

need to think about the next generation and the costs 17

to our healthcare, our public health, from the effects 18

of pesticides. We’re not even talking about long-term 19

consequences and combinations of pesticides because 20

farmworkers are exposed all the time. 21

We need stronger protections. Farmworkers 22

deserve stronger protections. Anybody that eats -- 23

MS. GESALMAN: Thank you very much for 24

your comments.25

100

The next person on the list is Antonio Tovar. 1

Antonio, are you there? 2

(No response.) 3

MS. GESALMAN: Okay, the next person on 4

the list is Tim Creger. 5

MR. Creger: This is Tim. Can you hear me? 6

MS. GESALMAN: Yes. 7

MR. Creger: Hi, this is Tim Creger. I’m 8

with the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. I’m a 9

past president of AAPCO, which Liza Fleeson currently 10

is representing on the PPDC. I want to make four 11

comments, first a general comment to the Office of 12

Policy, and then I want to address specific examples 13

of burdensome regulations, experience that we’ve 14

experienced on the state level, and past attempts at 15

reducing regulation that did not result in the 16

anticipated benefits, then again a cooperative 17

federalism, which has not been addressed too much in 18

any of the comments today. 19

First, specific to the Office of Policy at 20

EPA, I just would like to have them understand how 21

FIFRA is different than most of the other federal 22

environmental laws that EPA administers. When we talk 23

about federal regulation of pollutants, programs such 24

as TSCA, Clean Air, Clean Water, those programs are25

101

designed to remove or eliminate pollution from the 1

environment that impacts our human health. 2

When it comes to FIFRA, however, it’s 3

important to realize and understand that federal law 4

actually requires EPA to not only protect human health 5

in the environment, but it also requires them to 6

ensure that there are safe and effective pesticides 7

available to the consuming public. 8

It’s not to argue the benefits of the 9

pesticides, but it is to argue that -- it’s important 10

to remember FIFRA does allow for those toxicants to be 11

placed in the environment. They need to be regulated 12

appropriately. 13

When I address burdensome regulations, I 14

think it’s important to understand that state lead 15

pesticide agencies such as ours rely heavily on the 16

financial and knowledge support that we receive from 17

EPA. However, since 2009, funding from Congress has 18

been static or reduced to state agencies, as well as 19

to those universities that conduct pesticide 20

applicator education. 21

The recent revisions to three of the major 22

regulations has effectively increased the work burden 23

on the state lead agencies, while realizing less money 24

to support them. Those regulations are the container25

102

containment regulations, Section 19 of FIFRA, the 1

Worker Protection Standard rule, and the Certification 2

and Training rule. 3

Addressing experiences in the past that have 4

not resulted in what the intended effect was, previous 5

regulatory reduction programs EPA has attempted have 6

resulted in significant increased impacts to state 7

lead agencies. 8

As indicated by the gentleman from Purdue 9

University, actions by EPA to exempt numerous active 10

ingredients under section 25(b) of FIFRA has resulted in 11

a patchwork of state regulation that is nearly 12

impossible for industry and the public to understand 13

or navigate. 14

It should be noted that in the absence of 15

federal regulation, states are faced with the decision 16

to either exempt or further regulate those pesticides 17

creating that patchwork of different regulations on the 18

state level. 19

MS. GESALMAN: Thank you very much for 20

your comments. If you have further comments, 21

everybody is reminded to put them in the docket, which 22

you have information through the various resources 23

that we have. 24

The next person on the list is Carrie Hugo. 25

MR. TOVAR: Hello, can you hear me now? 26

103

MS. GESALMAN: Yes, we can hear you. 1

MR. TOVAR: Yes, this is Antonio Tovar. 2

Sorry, I was trying to unmute my phone before. 3

MS. GESALMAN: Is this Antonio? 4

MR. TOVAR: Yes. 5

MS. GESALMAN: Okay, great, thank you. 6

MR. TOVAR: Okay, thank you. So, until last 7

fall, I was the pesticide (inaudible) investigator for 8

the Florida Department of Health. Full disclosure, this 9

position was funded by EPA. So, I’m talking on a 10

personal behalf. I’m not talking about the Department 11

of Health. As I mentioned, I just end my work in 12

there. 13

But I’ve been working for farmworkers for 10 14

years. I work with the population as an educator, as 15

a researcher, as an epidemiologist. EPA has been an 16

important source of data for me for all these years as 17

a guidance for the regulations that look for the well 18

being of workers, residents, and the environment. I’m 19

disheartened by the proposed changes. 20

Many before me have mentioned the scientific 21

value you provide and how these knowledge guide most 22

of the EPA regulations. So, I want to focus a little23

104

bit on the cases that I investigated. 1

During my time at the Department of Health, 2

I investigated several cases of workers or residents 3

in rural areas, many times not for bravery but because 4

they end up in the hospital with the damaging effects of 5

pesticides. Many of these cases demonstrate the alleged 6

violations of workers’ protections and improper use of 7

pesticide, neglection and even cases of retaliation by 8

growers and even the pesticide producers and lack 9

complete disregard for environment. 10

Without the EPA regulations, we’d all be 11

more vulnerable in this regard for what’s happening. 12

So, I would like to propose these kind of changes. 13

Thank you. 14

MS. GESALMAN: Great, thank you for your 15

comments. 16

The next person on the list is Carrie Hugo. 17

You can unmute. Press pound 6 to unmute, Carrie. 18

(No response.) 19

MS. GESALMAN: Okay, Diane Boesenberg, you can 20

unmute. 21

MS. BOESENBER: This is Diane. Can you 22

hear me? 23

MS. GESALMAN: Yes, I can. Go ahead. 24

MS. BOESENBERG: Okay, great. So, my name25

105

is Diane Boesenberg. I’m the Director of Regulatory 1

and Government Affairs at Reckitt Benckiser. As a global 2

manufacturer of end use products in the antimicrobial 3

space and also with a line of products that work with 4

the FDA, we see a lot of areas for improvement with 5

regulatory reform. This includes looking outside the 6

current EPA process for best practices, which will 7

lead to efficiency and resource savings opportunities, 8

leaving the EPA with time to do other things. 9

In addition to the comments already made on 10

questions of jurisdiction, we intend to put these 11

comments and some others into the official regulatory 12

reform process. 13

Some of the things that we see that could 14

save resources and time significantly is, again, to 15

look outside of the current process. For example, the 16

FDA has a note to file process which eliminates the 17

need to submit every single piece of paper to the FDA. 18

Those changes to registration on the FDA side get 19

caught up in audits or future registration 20

submissions. 21

We think the EPA could benefit from looking 22

at some of the FDA processes. This could be used, for 23

example, for notifications, non-notifications, supplier 24

changes on CSFs. Also, Canada has a monograph process25

106

for antimicrobials where a particular active 1

ingredient has been studied for so long that claims to 2

be made without the need for data to be submitted to 3

the Agency when a product contains a specific active 4

at a predetermined level. So that could be also a 5

very useful process. 6

We also see the need for better clarity for 7

OECD and U.S. EPA GLP harmonization where studies could 8

be done at labs globally for a global company like 9

ours that could be submitted to the EPA without the 10

need for doing additional testing. 11

Also, we’d like to see something about 12

mutual recognition of data generated by published 13

antimicrobial efficacy methods for global product 14

registration without the need for additional EPA 15

review of the published methods. There are lots of 16

examples where this could save significant time and 17

resources on the Agency’s part. 18

Then, finally, harmonization of federal EPA 19

reviews and California reviews, so not only is that a 20

federal savings, but it also saves times at the 21

states. 22

So, again, we really see areas for 23

harmonization and efficiency at the Agency level to 24

help us with some of the other time line issues, you25

107

know, processing of PRIA applications in a more 1

efficient and timely way, and hope that we can help in 2

that space. Thank you. 3

MS. GESALMAN: Thank you very much. 4

The next person on the list is Dave Tamayo. 5

Please unmute by pressing pound 6. Dave? 6

(No response.) 7

MS. GESALMAN: Okay, Mary Lamielle. 8

Are you on the line, Mary? Mary Lamielle. Press pound 6. 9

(No response.) 10

MS. GESALMAN: Okay, Karin North, please 11

press pound 6 to unmute. 12

MS. NORTH: This is Karin North. 13

MS. GESALMAN: Great, hear you. Go ahead. 14

MS. NORTH: Hi, this is Karin North. I am 15

the watership protection manager for the city of Palo 16

Alto. I just wanted to comment and thank you so much 17

for allowing comments from California. But we 18

appreciate the Environmental Protection Agency’s goals 19

to safeguard human health and the environment. 20

I’m giving a different perspective from the 21

regulated community wearing the stormwater and a 22

wastewater perspective. So, we actually need to make 23

sure that our waterways are safe from aquatic --24

108

protect the environment and -- sorry, I’ve been up 1

since very early this morning -- but to protect the 2

environment and ensure that the aquatic organisms are 3

safe. 4

So, we actually rely heavily on the 5

Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations on 6

pesticides to ensure that we don’t have toxicity in 7

our wastewater that gets discharged out into the San 8

Francisco Bay, and also that we’re not causing 9

Non-point source pollutant toxicity into stormwater. So, 10

we actually think that there needs to be more 11

regulations to improve and enhance the protection of 12

the aquatic organisms. 13

We also support the safeguarding of human 14

health. We really need you as a partner agency 15

because many things we’re regulated on that we cannot 16

actually do anything. But we need EPA to help ensure 17

that the pesticides being applied are not going to 18

cause toxicity. The city also has an integrated pest 19

management policy, so we try and use the least toxic 20

pests obviously rather than the toxic ones. 21

Anyway, we will submit lengthy comments on 22

behalf of the stormwater and the waste water community 23

in Palo Alto. Thank you again. 24

MS. GESALMAN: Okay, thank you very much.25

109

The last call for Carrie Hugo, Dave Tamayo, 1

or Mary Lamielle? 2

MR. TAMAYO: This is Dave Tamayo. Can you 3

hear me? 4

MS. GESALMAN: Yes, we can. 5

MR. TAMAYO: Oh, good. I finally figured 6

out how to get back to that screen. 7

Hi, I’m Dave Tamayo. I’m with the 8

California Stormwater Quality Association, otherwise 9

known as CASQA. I just wanted to thank you for this 10

opportunity and also say hello to many of the people I 11

served with on PPDC for six years. Thank you for this 12

opportunity. 13

You know, as we’ve mentioned many times over 14

the last 20 years in commenting to EPA, the stormwater 15

agencies in California that represent and that serve 16

the vast majority of California residents have been 17

saddled with the effects of currently registered 18

pesticides that are used in urban areas that impact 19

urban water quality. 20

Because it’s observed throughout the state 21

and because we have obligations to comply with Clean 22

Water Act permits, we’ve been saddled with costs for 23

monitoring, tracking registration activities, trying 24

to influence how pesticides are registered, and,25

110

ironically, trying to convince consumers and licensed 1

users that they need to be more careful of how to use 2

beyond what the label requires to prevent water 3

quality impacts. 4

We learned early on in the process that both 5

consumers and licensed users rely on the assumption 6

that products that are registered by EPA and used the 7

way they’re supposed to be used will be sufficiently 8

protective of the environment. Unfortunately, in many 9

important cases in urban areas, that is not yet the 10

case. 11

I do want to acknowledge that EPA has made 12

some significant efforts and improvements in that 13

area, but there’s still some important areas that 14

would help reduce the regulatory burden and economic 15

burden on local and state agencies here. 16

One is that EPA needs to implement the use 17

of models and realistic model parameters that 18

adequately predict the fate and transport and impacts 19

of urban use pesticides. 20

We also support the need to develop a more 21

efficient system for working through the requirements 22

of the Endangered Species Act. An essential tool for 23

that would be to require a set of aquatic toxicity 24

data that’s robust enough to support a high level of25

111

confidence among the various stakeholders that the 1

toxic effects are adequately identified, which would 2

lead to more rational registration decisions and 3

mitigation requirements that arise from that. 4

Finally, we want registration decisions to 5

include economic impacts on folks that are sort of 6

downstream of the users. You know, we have some 7

direct clean water act economic impacts on both 8

state and local agencies. Those can be very 9

significant. It can cost between half a million and a 10

million dollars to do one TMDL in a watershed area. 11

As I said, there’s impasse throughout the state. 12

We also believe that the consideration of 13

underlying ecological effects that affect beneficial 14

uses need to be part of the economic analysis that’s 15

done when making registration decisions. And if these 16

things are done well and robustly enough, then that 17

would be an important part of achieving predictability 18

and consistency in regulation. 19

MS. GESALMAN: Thank you for your 20

comments. 21

Is Carrie Hugo or Mary Lamielle on the phone? 22

Either one of you can press pound 6 to unmute. 23

(No response.) 24

MS. GESALMAN: It sounds like that25

112

concludes the telephone portion of this program. 1

MR. KEIGWIN: Thanks, Claire. We did have a 2

couple of additional people sign up to speak that just 3

came to my attention. So, Dudley Hoskins from NASDA. 4

MR. HOSKINS: Thanks, Rick. I’m going to 5

start my timer, so hopefully I won’t go over three 6

minutes. 7

First off, my name is Dudley Hoskins. I’m 8

with the National Association of State Departments of 9

Agriculture. Our members are the commissioners, 10

secretaries, and directors in all 50 states and four 11

territories. In 43 states, the state department of ag is 12

the lead FIFRA state agency. So, in short, we’re 13

regulatory partners with EPA. For us, it’s a really 14

critical partnership, and we really appreciate both 15

the work here at OPP headquarters and the work that 16

goes on around the regions. 17

So, NASDA will be submitting comments to the 18

docket, EO 1377. They will be more comprehensive and 19

hopefully more articulate than what I’m going to blast 20

through real quick right here. But just a few things 21

we wanted to touch on, put forth for the Agency to 22

hopefully consider some regulatory assistance on. 23

The first one is the certification and24

113

training of pesticide applicators. I want to note 1

that at NASDA, we greatly appreciated all the work and 2

improvements that EPA invested into that rule. What 3

came out as the final regulation is something we were 4

very supportive of. There’s probably one provision 5

there we’d like to work with the Agency on to see if 6

we can modify how that’s written. But, by and large, 7

we really appreciate the work that went into that. 8

We’ve joined a couple other groups, AAPCO, 9

ASPCRO, and some of the regulated community in asking 10

EPA to extend the effective date of that rule. Just 11

by and large, states across the board, we have a lot 12

of logistical resource and capacity challenges, and 13

additional time to work through this would be greatly 14

appreciated. 15

I should have noted, as part of the NASDA 16

family, we have 23 affiliate organizations. Several 17

of those are represented here in the PPDC and work 18

closely with EPA. Both AAPCO, the American 19

Association of Pesticide Control Officials, ASPCRO, 20

the American Association of Structural Pesticide 21

Regulatory Officials, the National Plant Board, and 22

the Apiary Inspectors in America are all groups who 23

work closely around the FIFRA mission areas. 24

I would like to thank Liza for her25

114

leadership on a number of these fronts, and Tim Creger 1

from the Nebraska Department of Ag who called in. 2

Just quickly, under the Worker Protection 3

Standard, we have a request pending with the Agency 4

requesting additional time on the implementation of 5

that regulation. We would really appreciate EPA 6

considering that request. 7

In addition to needing more time around the 8

implementation, we would love to have the opportunity 9

to revisit a few specific provisions in that rule 10

around the designated representative and the 11

application exclusion zone. Both of those, for our 12

purposes, are really challenging to better understand 13

and assist with compliance assistance, education 14

enforcement components. 15

I’m over time, I’m sorry. I just wanted to 16

mention, on the pollinator front, I really appreciate 17

all the great work that OPP has done and the 18

leadership that you all have invested in that in the 19

state managed pollinator protection plans. I really 20

look forward to working with you all to stand those 21

up. 22

A robust, well-funded, and fully staffed OPP 23

is something that NASDA is very supportive of, and we 24

really appreciate the work you all do. Thank you for25

115

the opportunity to comment. 1

MR. KEIGWIN: Are there others in the room 2

who haven’t had an opportunity to speak? Please come 3

sit by the microphone and identify yourself. 4

MS. BADEN-MAYER: My name is Alexis Baden- 5

Mayer. I’m the political director of the Organic 6

Consumers Association. 7

This is not a normal EPA hearing. We’re 8

here today because Trump and Pruitt have invited the 9

companies that sell toxic pesticides to tell the EPA 10

which regulations to get rid of. It’s not normal, and 11

it’s not legal. The EPA’s Office of Pesticide 12

Programs has the duty to preserve and enforce the laws 13

Congress passed to protect human health and the 14

environment. 15

Chemicals found in plastic bottles, flame 16

retardants, metal food cans, detergents, cosmetics, 17

and pesticides cost the U.S. more than $340 billion a 18

year in health costs and lost earnings. 19

Organophosphate pesticides are associated with 1.8 20

million lost IQ points and 7,500 cases of intellectual 21

disability in the U.S. each year, at an estimated cost 22

of $44.7 billion dollars. Economic and social costs of 23

pesticide exposure are devastating. 24

Harmful chemicals should be banned, not25

116

deregulated. The EPA must put American’s health above 1

Dow Chemical’s wealth. The EPA must protect us. Don’t 2

let Trump make us sicker so that his corporate donors 3

can get richer. Trump is America’s first billionaire 4

president. Corporations are seeing an unprecedented 5

opportunity to merge their power with the government. 6

As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said recently, 7

while Trump is president, the various checks and 8

balances of the American system must do their part to 9

check Trump and corporate influence. Senator 10

Whitehouse said, “If it fails, this could be Mussolini 11

time in America, and that would not be good.” 12

On the that would not be good side is Dow 13

Chemical. In Trump’s first three months, Dow Chemical 14

spent $5.2 million dollars on lobbying, making it the seventh 15

biggest spender among all corporations by influence in 16

Washington. At $13.5 million dollars a year, or actually in 17

2016, sorry, Dow’s lobbying expenditures topped all of 18

its competitors, including Bayer, DuPont, Monsanto, 19

and Syngenta. Dow also donated $1 million dollars to Trump’s 20

inauguration. 21

Being a big spender has given Dow 22

extraordinary access to the administration. CEO 23

Andrew Liveris was appointed to head a 24

White House manufacturing council. After Trump signed25

117

the executive order to roll back regulations, he 1

handed the pen to Liveris. 2

Greasing palms is just the cost of doing 3

business for Dow, and a relatively minor one. The 4

company reported $888 million dollars in net income for the 5

first quarter of 2017 in its April 27th earning 6

statement. Money talks; children’s health walks. 7

Under Obama, Dow was going to have to stop 8

selling chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that inhibits brain 9

development with effects ranging from lower IQ rates 10

to autism. But, under Trump, the decision was 11

reversed. We cannot have the health of future 12

generations stripped from us just so that Dow can meet 13

its short term profit goals. The employees of the EPA 14

must resist Trump before it is too late. We cannot 15

let Trump get rid of regulations to protect human 16

health from toxic pesticides. 17

Unfortunately, the merger of corporate and 18

government power at the EPA did not begin with Trump. 19

Through a lawsuit on behalf of glyphosate exposed 20

cancer victims, we learned that Anna Lowit, 21

currently at the Office of Pesticide Programs -- 22

MR. KEIGWIN: Time. 23

MS. BADEN-MAYER: -- was accused by a 24

colleague of intimidating EPA scientists --25

118

MR. KEIGWIN: I’m sorry. 1

MS. BADEN-MAYER: -- and changing the 2

outcome of EPA reviews to favor companies like 3

Monsanto. My request to all current EPA employees is 4

this. Leave the laws that Congress passed to protect 5

human health and the environment and enforce them. 6

Resist Trump’s arbitrary and capricious edicts. He is 7

not a dictator yet. We still have regulatory agencies 8

staffed by scientists and qualified professionals. Do 9

your job. Speak out. Blow the whistle if you have 10

to. The future of butterflies, bees, and babies 11

depend on you. 12

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I’m so sorry, but 13

we’ve reached the end of your time. 14

MR. KEIGWIN: Are there any other speakers 15

in the room? 16

(No response.) 17

MR. KEIGWIN: Peter, I think you had wanted 18

to finish your remarks, so you can come forward. 19

MR. JENKINS: After the last speaker’s eloquence, 20

mine is a bit more mundane. Again, I’m trying to see 21

the questions that were in the EPA’s announcement and 22

identify useful questions that were raised. So, one 23

of them was, which regulations are based on data, 24

information or methods that are not publicly available25

119

or that are insufficiently transparent. I think we’ll 1

be able to identify a number of such regulations. 2

But the one that I’m going to focus on here 3

is really an obscure one but really an important one. 4

It’s 50 CFR 158.400(e)(1), really buried in your 5

regulations. It’s one that says that for pesticide 6

applicants, people that are trying to get approval for 7

a new registration, it says the Agency has waived the 8

requirement to submit product performance data, with a 9

few exceptions. Agency is not requiring product 10

performance data. 11

I don’t know when that was implemented. I 12

think it was about 10 or 15 years ago, but the Agency 13

used to require transparency about product performance 14

so people could FOIA that and we could have access to 15

whether these products really worked as claimed. But 16

the Agency no longer requires that. 17

Well, the most absurd result of that is that 18

with respect to insecticide seed coatings on soybean 19

seeds, in 2015, EPA did a detailed, costly, public 20

paid benefits assessment and determined that actually 21

seed coatings on soybeans provided no benefits to 22

farmers on the whole, very little, if any, was, I 23

think, the exact words from EPA’s assessment. 24

It’s been backed up by several other25

120

independent assessments, including one by the Center 1

for Food Safety. So, that was 15 years after it first 2

allowed seed coatings to go onto soybean seeds, or at 3

least 12 years after. So, we, as a nation, 4

experienced 10 or 15 years of these products that 5

actually provide no benefit because of this obscure 6

regulation that allowed the applicant to not have to 7

provide performance data. Do you see what I’m getting 8

at? 9

So, cost benefit analysis is part of what 10

the Trump executive order is asking for. It’s good 11

business to be cost beneficial. So, the Agency should 12

not be allowing pesticide products to go into the 13

market that provide no ultimate benefit to the users. 14

So, the farmers are getting ripped off. It’s a big 15

consumer protection scandal in my opinion, for the 16

farmers are getting ripped off by these products. 17

We, as environmentalists, as bird lovers, as 18

beekeeper supporters, are getting harmed by the side 19

effects of these products. So, that’s the end of my 20

comments. Thank you. 21

MR. KEIGWIN: Are there any other commenters 22

in the room? 23

(No response.) 24

MR. KEIGWIN: Bill, I know you had wanted to25

121

say a little bit more as well. 1

MR. JORDAN: Thank you. My name is Bill 2

Jordan. 3

I just want to take a moment to say that I 4

know two of the individuals who have been mentioned, 5

Jess Rowland and Anna Lowit, as employees of EPA whose 6

integrity has been challenged in comments made this 7

morning. I know both of them well, and I think those 8

comments are completely unfounded. 9

Those two individuals, like many, many, many 10

other people who work in the Office of Pesticide 11

Programs, maintain a high standard of integrity, 12

competence, and commitment to the work of the Agency. 13

It is disrespectful and shameful, in my opinion, to 14

criticize them in that manner. 15

MR. KEIGWIN: I think I see one last 16

commenter. 17

MS. WALKER: Hi, I’m Larissa Walker and I’m with 18

the Center for Food Safety. I wanted to provide a quick 19

comment today to stress the importance of EPA’s mandate 20

to protect human health and the environment and encourage 21

EPA to uphold and strengthen many of the key regulations that 22

are intended to support the Agency’s core mission, 23

regulations that protect farmworkers, as we heard24

122

today, children, pregnant women, vulnerable 1

communities, endangered species, pollinators, our 2

water, our air, and the broader environment, all of 3

which are threatened by the rampant use of toxic 4

pesticides, pesticides that EPA is obligated to 5

protect against unreasonable adverse harm from. 6

So, I want to echo many of the important 7

comments today made by my colleagues and urge EPA to 8

uphold its commitment to human health and the 9

environment and not weaken or completely throw away 10

critical regulations that protect us against serious 11

harms from pesticides. Thank you. 12

MR. KEIGWIN: Thank you. I think I see one 13

more hand here, if you want to come up to the 14

microphone. Please introduce yourself. 15

MR. PETERS: Hello, my name is Joshua Peters 16

(phonetic). I’m not with any agency. I’m a former 17

school teacher of 13 years. As part of my training, I 18

traveled to different countries. In 1996, I was in 19

Guatemala. I visited many of the outlying areas 20

around the capital. In a place that was just coming 21

out of a really tumultuous period, there was very 22

little regulation. 23

A scene that has always stuck out in my 24

memory was playing soccer with a group of what I25

123

thought were children all around my hip height -- me 1

being a short person, that’s not very tall -- only to 2

find out that these were children in their 20s and who 3

have all been victims of rampant dumping of chemical 4

waste and toxicity. 5

I’ve always looked towards the EPA as an 6

agency that ultimately has humanity’s best interest at 7

heart. The son of a physicist who spent his last 15 8

years working for NOAA and a family generally 9

committed towards working towards human good, I’d 10

hoped that this organization had the wherewithal and 11

character to stand up for what is scientifically 12

correct and morally right for the United States 13

population. 14

MR. KEIGWIN: One last call for speakers in 15

the room. 16

(No response.) 17

MR. KEIGWIN: All right, thank you for all 18

of you who participated today. This closes our public 19

comment session of the PPDC meeting. 20

Just to wrap things up, as far as it goes 21

for the PPDC meeting, just a reminder that the public 22

comment period on the executive order and the 23

implementation here at EPA closes on May 15th of this 24

year. 25

124

As we mentioned at the beginning of the 1

meeting, there will be a transcript available from 2

this morning’s discussion, available on the PPDC 3

website within the next couple of weeks. 4

As I mentioned yesterday, we have just 5

completed a new membership drive for the Pesticide 6

Program Dialogue Committee. We’ll soon be reviewing 7

the nominations that came forward and making a 8

recommendation internally through the Agency. Over 9

the next few months, we will be announcing the 10

reconstituted membership of the Pesticide Program 11

Dialogue Committee. 12

For all of you, the next PPDC meeting is 13

scheduled for November 1st and 2nd of this year. 14

Then, before we conclude, I just want to 15

give several mentions of thanks, first to the PPDC 16

members for all of your efforts. We had a great 17

dialogue yesterday, and I think we got some valuable 18

input from you all as we think about how we advance 19

some of the issues that we brought to you. 20

And for the members of the PPDC who have 21

been term limited, I really want to thank you for your 22

dedication over the last six years. We get a lot out 23

of the work that you all do, and we know that you have 24

other jobs that you’re doing. So, squeezing in the25

125

time to provide input to us is invaluable. So, thank 1

you for that. 2

I also really want to thank Dea Zimmerman 3

for all of her help. When we learned of the need to 4

hold the public meeting regarding the executive order 5

and we scrambled given the time frame that we had, we 6

knew we had this opportunity to PPDC. Rather than 7

seeing it as a challenge, Dea just really ran with it. 8

I think she spent about three or four Monday mornings 9

with us, calling in from Chicago, while we were all 10

trying to figure out how do we do this. She had the 11

clarity of sight to kind of figure it out and get it 12

done right and pull together really an army of people 13

from across the Office of Pesticide Programs to get 14

this to run as smoothly as it did. So, I just want to 15

thank Dea personally. 16

We also got a lot of assistance from our 17

colleagues in Office of Land and Emergency Management 18

in terms of trying to figure how to run today’s 19

meeting in particular and how to get as many of you in 20

the room as possible, how to run the phone lines. We 21

couldn’t have pulled this off without the efforts of 22

our sister office. So, thank you to our OLEM colleagues 23

as well. 24

And then, again, thank you to all of you for25

126

participating. This concludes the PPDC meeting. 1

Thank you, and have a good rest of the day. 2

(The meeting was concluded.) 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

127

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTIONIST 1

2

I, Marilynn H. McNulty, do hereby certify 3

that the foregoing transcription was reduced to 4

typewriting via audiotapes provided to me; that I am 5

neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any 6

of the parties to the action in which these 7

proceedings were transcribed; that I am not a relative 8

or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the 9

parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise 10

interested in the outcome of the action. 11

12

13

14

MARILYNN H. McNULTY 15

Transcriptionist 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25