May 15, 2017

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Regulatory Policy and Management
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Mail Code 1803A
Washington, D.C. 20460-0001
Re:

“Evaluation of Existing Regulations” (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190)

The Georgia Department of Agriculture (GDA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
“Evaluation of Existing Regulations”, posted on April 13, 2017, and respectfully submits the
following to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Having been established by the Georgia General Assembly in 1874, the Georgia Department of
Agriculture is the oldest such state agency in the United States. We have thus charged ourselves
with being a global leader in the agriculture community by exhibiting excellence in our
commitments to safety, quality, growth, and innovation. The mission of the Georgia Department
of Agriculture is to protect consumers through education, technology, and a professional
workforce and to promote agriculture on every level.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an important partner with whom GDA works
closely to carry out a number of federal programs and regulations as the state lead agency. Our
Plant Industry Division was born for the purpose of implementing and administering the laws,
rules, and regulations relative to pest control, plant protection, and other inputs of agriculture,
many of which are dictated by EPA. It does so through the effective management of its three
regulatory and inspection programs, as well as four laboratory programs.
The President’s Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” comes at a
time when our industry most needs reform to reduce the regulatory burden faced by our farmers
and agricultural businesses. EPA has been the subject of a number of controversial regulatory
challenges that have adversely impacted the agricultural industry. From the proposed Waters of
the United States Rule to the revision of its Worker Protection Standards, the last decade of
regulatory actions from EPA has shaken the agricultural industry’s confidence in the agency and
in the federal government in general. These actions have strayed far from EPA’s purpose and
even further from the original intent of the underlying statutes.
Producing a more predictable and common-sense regulatory environment is a priority for GDA.
The following are specific comments on EPA regulations which GDA feels should be
immediately addressed.
Page 1 of 4

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
GDA supports the original intent of Congress that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) be the primary federal statute under which pesticide registration and
use is regulated. The registration and use of pesticides should not be impacted by other federal
statutes that were not promulgated with the intent of regulating pesticide distribution, sale, or
use.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are two examples of
statutes whose authority has leaked into the area of pesticide regulation. In 2009, the Sixth
Circuit Court ruled in National Cotton Council v. EPA that National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits under CWA are required for pesticide applications to
Waters of the United States. EPA and state partners are now forced to require NPDES permits in
order to comply with the court’s decision.
Under Section 7 of ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services and National Marine Fisheries Services when any action the agency implements, funds,
or authorizes may affect a listed endangered or threatened species. FIFRA-approved pesticides
already must meet strict requirements concerning their effects on the environment. ESA
consultations are complicated and duplicative processes which have proven to be effective only
in burdening the registration of pesticides.
In situations where conflicting or duplicative requirements of other environmental statutes
overlap with FIFRA, deference should be granted to the FIFRA registration process in a manner
that is science-based, transparent, and allows stakeholders the opportunity to comment upon and
fully analyze the ramifications of the proposed action. Pesticide uses that have been reviewed
and registered under FIFRA should not be subject to additional requirements under other federal
statutes.
GDA believes statutory changes are needed to clarify that pesticides applied in accordance with
FIFRA are not subject to NPDES permitting requirements under the CWA. Additionally, EPA
should work toward establishing FIFRA’s regulatory supremacy in matters of pesticide
distribution, sale, and use. Failure to correct these duplicative regulatory burdens with no added
benefits will continue to subject public health agencies, local governments, pesticide applicators,
and agricultural producers to unnecessary costs and burdens.
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act Reauthorization
The current iteration of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) expires on
September 30th of this year. PRIA provides a stable and predictable funding source for the EPA
Office of Pesticide Programs. PRIA likewise establishes a functional and timely process for
pesticide and inert ingredient review so that registrants are able to efficiently plan for product
approval and market availability. PRIA also provides additional resources to states to conduct
pesticide education, training, and worker protection activities.
Page 2 of 4

 Legislation passed in the House would reauthorize existing provisions for seven years, as
opposed to the five year extensions in previous reauthorizations. The legislation provides two
increases of 5% each on registration fees over the seven years. The bill increases maintenance
fees to $31 million annually from 2017-2023 and provides increased funding for grant programs,
promoting Good Laboratory Practices, and farm worker protection education. This iteration also
sets the appropriations trigger level at 2012 budget levels of $128 million ensuring that the
industry fee supplements appropriations.
GDA urges EPA to secure passage of the House legislation to ensure an efficient registration
process remains intact.
Worker Protection Standards
GDA submitted extensive comments to EPA when the final Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) rule was published in November 2015. In addition to the substantial need for
additional outreach and education on the WPS rule changes, there are two specific provisions
which GDA believes should be addressed prior to implementation. Those provisions include the
Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) and the “designated representative” provision.
The final articulation of the Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ), which EPA has publicly
acknowledged goes beyond the Agency’s stated intent, created a one-hundred foot buffer
surrounding the application equipment that extends beyond the agricultural establishment. This
provision effectively constitutes a “taking” of the grower’s land and prohibits appropriate pest
mitigation activities if there is any kind of structure, permanent or otherwise, inhabited or vacant
within one hundred feet of the agricultural establishment. Furthermore, any individual, structure,
or passing vehicle within one hundred feet of the property can effectively cease the grower’s
application activity. GDA understands EPA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) is working to
issue interpretive guidance clarifying the Agency’s intent under the final regulation; however,
Agency guidance does not carry the weight and authority of a codified federal regulation and
does not provide the necessary clarity to assist state regulatory agencies with compliance and
enforcement activities.
EPA also included a provision that permits anyone claiming to be a “designated representative”
to gain access to a farmer’s proprietary records relating to pesticide use. GDA opposes this very
loose definition of an authorized representative. The addition of this definition will be
counterproductive in the overall goal of the WPS and will ultimately lead to the abuse of our
agricultural employers by parties who have no sincere interest in the protection of our workers.
The implementation and compliance with the WPS rule changes are the responsibility shared by
EPA, state regulatory agencies, agricultural employers, trainers, and workers. Implementing
these regulatory changes without providing the necessary educational resources or training
materials to assist state regulatory agencies and the regulated community in understanding the
new requirements and how to comply with them is both inappropriate and in direct conflict with
the fundamental principle of “educate before you regulate.” An extension to the implementation
timeline is essential to ensure EPA’s state regulatory partners and the regulated community have
Page 3 of 4

 the appropriate information, training, and resources necessary to effectuate a successful
implementation of the WPS rule changes.
GDA asks EPA to extend the implementation timeline and to revisit both the AEZ and definition
of “designated representative” in order to ensure a more balanced final rule which does not
unduly burden our farmers nor submit them to unnecessary risks.
In closing, GDA greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide input for EPA’s request,
“Evaluation of Existing Regulations.” Providing our nation’s businesses with relief from the
patchwork of federal regulations that has accumulated over the past several decades is long
overdue. We hope EPA will take seriously the comments it receives during this process and we
look forward to working with the agency as a state partner to implement these reforms.
Sincerely,

Gary W. Black

Page 4 of 4