STATE OF INDIANA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
State House, Second Floor
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Eric J Holcomb
Governor

May 15, 2017
Administrator Scott Pruitt
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Evaluation of Existing EPA Regulations, 82 FR 17793-01
Dear Administrator Pruitt,
The following comments are provided by the Indiana State Department of Agriculture
(ISDA), the Indiana Environmental Management Agency (IDEM), and Office of Indiana
State Chemist & Seed Commissioner (OISC), pursuant to the Environmental Protection
Agency’s call for comments under the President’s regulatory reform Executive Order
(EO 13,777).
The purpose of these comments is to express our general concerns about federal
regulatory over reach, regulatory inefficiencies, and limited value added benefits of
parts or all of the referenced items. Below regulations are listed, state impact
described, and proposed EPA fixes are outlined addressing concerns for each of our
agencies.
Indiana State Department of Agriculture
Regulation: Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), Energy Independence and Security Act
State Impact: Ethanol is a critical component of a diverse agricultural economy,
particularly when commodity prices remain low and farm incomes are experiencing a
steep decline in four consecutive years. The RFS bolsters rural economies by creating an
additional market for corn, promotes energy independence, creates jobs, and reduces air
pollution. Unfortunately, the EPA has set proposed volume standards below the levels
called for by law. This creates market uncertainty which can stall the growth in the
renewable energy sector and in rural communities.
Proposed Fix: EPA should abide by its statutory directive and set forth the volume
standards called for in the law. This will provide clarity and certainty in regulation and in
the market place.
Regulation: Restricted sale of E15 blended fuels from June 1 through September 15.
State Impact: Indiana farmers and consumers suffer an economic disadvantage because
of the regulatory blockade EPA imposes upon the sale of E15 during the summer months.
From June 1 through September 15, EPA prohibits the sale of E15 in much of the
country, and all of Indiana, in order to limit evaporative emissions from fuels, which
occur at higher rates in hotter temperatures. The emissions rate is determined using the

 Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard – the higher the RVP of a fuel, the worse its
emissions. E15 is a cleaner burning, lower emitting fuel than straight gasoline, which is
allowed to be sold year-round.
Proposed Fix: EPA should extend the Reid Vapor Pressure waiver to E15 or higher
blend fuels to allow for their sale year-round. Congress should pass legislation to make
this change permanent.
Regulation: Renewable Enhancement and Growth Rule (REGS Rule)
State Impact: Under this proposed rule, EPA purports to facilitate further expansion of
ethanol blended fuels. However, as part of this rule, EPA would classify midlevel ethanol
blends (E16-E83) as suitable only for Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) on the grounds that such
fuels are not “substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized” in the certification
of new motor vehicles. Under this misinterpretation EPA would have to grant a waiver to
allow midlevel blends to be sold for use in non-FFVs. But ethanol is presently used in the
certification of new motor vehicles and therefore meets the “substantially similar” fuels
test.
Proposed Fix: EPA should revisit its interpretation of the Clean Air Act as to allow the
use of midlevel ethanol blends in gasoline vehicles dated 2001 or newer. This would
promote public health, create more choice for consumers, and spur additional demand in
the agricultural sector.
Regulation: Waters of the U.S. Rule, Clean Water Act
State Impact: Although designed to provide clarity from EPA as to the definition of a
“waters of the United States” the proposed rule generated more confusion and concern as
it vastly expanded the breadth and scope of the definition to capture large swaths of dry
land. If implemented, this expansion might have required farmers to seek permits from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for conducting basic farming operations on their land.
Proposed Fix: EPA should withdraw the rule and replace it with a definition that
complies with the intent of the Clean Water Act and respects the States’ jurisdictions over
their own water ways.
Regulation: Draft Ecological Risk Assessments: Atrazine, Simazine, and Propazine
Registration Review, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
State Impact: Crop protection products are crucial to many of Indiana’s farmers because
they assist in the safe and efficient production of our nation’s food, fuel, and fiber supply.
FIFRA imposes an exacting process for evaluation and review of these products and
requires the use of reliable science in determining the registration and re-registration of
these technologies. EPAs use of questionable studies for evaluating these products raises
concern and confusion in the regulated community; and the draft ecological risk
assessment for these products does not comply with the agencies obligations under the
statute.
Proposed Fix: Rely only on reliable science in the evaluation of these products and
conduct ecological risk assessments according to the obligations imposed by FIFRA.

2

 Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Regulation: Clean Power Plan (40 CFR Part 60)
State Impact: The rule called for large reductions in emissions from Indiana power
plants and did not give us the time to make wise decisions about how to accomplish this
with minimal cost or interruption of power. The rule is currently on hold by the US
Supreme Court.
Proposed Fix: EPA should rescind the rule. Incoming EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt,
recently stated in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that “he expects to quickly
withdraw both the Clean Power Plan (President Obama’s premier climate regulation) and
the 2015 Waters of the United States rule (which asserts EPA power over every creek,
pond or prairie pothole with a “significant nexus” to a “navigable waterway”). “There’s a
very simple reason why this needs to happen: Because the courts have seriously called
into question the legality of those rules,” Mr. Pruitt says. He would know, since his state
was a party to the lawsuits that led to both the Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power
Plan and an appeals court’s hold on the water rule.”
Regulation: Waste Water Rule requiring 85% removal requirement in the secondary
treatment standards (40 CFR 133.102).
State Impact: This is a requirement from the 1970’s that has not evolved since then
and we got away from in permits a long time ago and issued permits for 20 years without
it and not a blink from EPA until the end of 2013 when it blew up. They threatened to
object to permits if we did not include the requirement so we have been putting it back in
to permits and it is causing problems for facilities with low strength/dilute influent. We
fought this as we only included the 85% removal in instances where the effluent limits
were based on secondary and didn’t have more stringent Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations (WQBELs). Illinois is still taking the exact same approach we used to have
apparently without comment from EPA. Here is Illinois’ approach on this: “IEPA
includes 85% removal requirements for municipal wastewater treatment plant permits
where the biochemical oxygen demand/carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand and
total suspended solids concentration limits are based on the federal secondary treatment
standards. The percent removal requirements are not included in permits when the
concentration limits for these parameters are more stringent than the secondary treatment
concentration limits. All municipal major dischargers and all dischargers with a dilution
ratio of less than five to one (design average flow for the facility to the 7Q10 flow for the
receiving water) have concentration limits more stringent than those required under
federal secondary treatment standards. IEPA believes that by meeting these limits,
dischargers will also satisfy the percent removal requirements.” This quote was taken
from https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/illinois_final_profile.pdf Page 8.
Proposed Fix: In lieu of a regulation re-write and/or revision to give states immediate
relief from the requirement EPA should apply that when final effluent limitations are
more stringent than secondary, then the 85% removal requirement does not apply.

3

 Regulation: NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR 127). The table of required
elements is Appendix A found at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-0909/pdf/2016-21204.pdf
State Impact: The Federal eReporting Rule, which became effective in December 2015,
is generally a good thing, as it transitions permittees away from preparing and submitting
paper monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (and other reports as well) and to electronic
reporting. EPA billed the rule as simply requiring the switch from paper reporting to
electronic reporting, with no additional data being required. Even though there was a
great deal of public input, including from IDEM, the final rule came out with many fields
that will have to be reported to EPA electronically that are new. In some sense their
claim is at least partially true, in that some of these fields could have been reported to
EPA in the past but were generally ignored by the states. Now with the eReporting Rule,
this flexibility is disappearing. If you open the attached spreadsheet, you will see that
Columns L & M identify fields required by this rule and where there is no corresponding
field in the ICIS data system to record the data. This sort of thing tells us that EPA is
asking for information they might be able to collect without really considering what it
really takes to collect and submit it, or even what they would do with it if they had it.
Proposed Fix: EPA could simply declare that certain fields are required and others
optional until a time where they understand the purpose for gathering this
information. When the rule passed there were around 1000 fields. Since then EPA has
deleted around 200, but there are still many that some states use and others don’t, and
likely some fields that no one uses, yet as written they pretty much all become
mandatory.
Regulation: Section 425 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (40 CFR Parts
122 and 123)
State Impact: All CSO communities in Indiana currently must comply with public
notification requirements specified in 327 IAC 5-2.1, which already requires notice to the
public and affected entities when CSO discharges occur or are imminent. Reported CSO
discharge volumes and information related to CSO community Long Term Control Plans
is already available to the public. The proposed rulemaking would not result in reduction
of CSO flows, nor provide the public with meaningful information that is not already
otherwise available. In practice, this rule would triple the regulatory burden to CSO
communities and affected State regulatory agencies by the requirement to submit initial
notices followed by supplemental notices followed by annual notices, all for the same
CSO events.
Proposed Fix: EPA should rescind the rule.
Office of Indiana State Chemist and Seed Commissioner
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170 and 170.5)
State Impact: Without some sort of significant verification process to determine the
identities of both the worker/ handler and the authorized representative involved,
this activity could result in numerous fraudulent claims of representation and
numerous data fishing expeditions by quasi-authorized representatives hoping to
cherry pick violations. This would be counterproductive to the regulatory process
4

 and the true purpose of the protections intended by this rule.
Proposed Fix: Authorized representative should be deleted. This concept would be
unwieldy and problematic to SLAs.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.9a)
State Impact: Extending regulatory requirements to issues beyond the WPS is
exceeding the intent and scope of this rule. This is a WPS rule, not a rule to make
agricultural employers, who may or may not be certified pesticide applicators,
responsible for general label compliance. The current FIFRA pesticide applicator
certification program is based on label compliance by individuals who have
demonstrated competency to apply pesticides. Arbitrarily extending those
requirements to non­certified individuals is completely contradictory to that
premise. If it is the Agency's intent to develop a shared liability provision for label
compliance, that objective should be addressed through a separate and distinct rule
addressing all pesticide products or through a revision of FIFRA. It should not be
buried in a WPS rule intended to protect workers and handlers. Any provision not
specifically targeting protection of workers and handlers should be removed from
this rule.
Proposed Fix: This section should be revised to make the agricultural employer
responsible for compliance with only the WPS portions of the pesticide product
label, not the entire pesticide product label and labeling.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.9g)
State Impact: While notifying a mechanic that equipment to be repaired has been
used for pesticides is a reasonable practice, the risk assessment for this individual is
undoubtedly significantly different than that for a true agricultural employee. If
similar protections are not going to be provided for mechanics of equipment used for
non-agricultural applications, this requirement should be removed. It is reasonable to
suspect that lawn care equipment or structural pest management equipment may
require as much or more repair as agricultural equipment. Keep the focus on those
individuals most at risk.
Proposed Fix: This section should be modified to make the requirements for training
and notification of equipment mechanics applicable only for those agricultural
employees who are otherwise workers or handlers at the establishment, not for the
local machine shop mechanic.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.11b)
State Impact: Under FIFRA, labeling means "all labels and other written, printed, or
graphic matter accompanying the pesticide at any time or to which reference is made
on the label or on in literature accompanying the pesticide." Based on this definition,
the universe of labeling materials for any pesticide can be huge and very poorly or
imprecisely defined. It can include advertising, brochures, pamphlets, web site
information, etc. There is no real practical need to provide all of this ill-defined detail
to a worker or handler or to keep all of this ill-defined detail as part of a record
somewhere. This is another example of unnecessary detail in rule that will inevitably
make technical violators out of most otherwise responsible agricultural employers.
5

 The label and the EPA registration number of the product are sufficient to provide
appropriate information for emergencies, etc.
Proposed Fix: This section and numerous other sections throughout this rule should
be revised to reference pesticide product "labels" not "labeling".
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.13)
State Impact: While notifying a mechanic that equipment to be repaired has been
used for pesticides is a reasonable practice, the risk assessment for this individual is
undoubtedly significantly different than that for a true agricultural employee. If
similar protections are not going to be provided for mechanics of equipment used for
non-agricultural applications, this requirement should be removed. It is reasonable to
suspect that lawn care equipment or structural pest management equipment may
require as much or more repair as agricultural equipment. Keep the focus on those
individuals most at risk.
Proposed Fix: Commercial pesticide handler employer duties (k)(2)(i) and (ii)
sections should be deleted from the emergency information assistance requirements.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.13.I)
State Impact: While notifying a mechanic that equipment to be repaired has been
used for pesticides is a reasonable practice, the risk assessment for this individual is
undoubtedly significantly different than that for a true agricultural employee. If
similar protections are not going to be provided for mechanics of equipment used for
non-agricultural applications, this requirement should be removed. It is reasonable to
suspect that lawn care equipment or structural pest management equipment may
require as much or more repair as agricultural equipment. Keep the focus on those
individuals most at risk.
Proposed Fix: This section addressing equipment mechanics should be modified and
make the requirements for training and notification of equipment mechanics
applicable only for those agricultural employees who are otherwise workers or
handlers at the establishment, not for the local machine shop mechanic.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.101.c4ii)
State Impact: As proposed, this adds an unnecessary level of complication and
confusion to a rule that is already too complicated and confusing. It is logically
inconsistent to believe that the basic skill set of a trainer of workers is significantly
different from that of a trainer of handlers. Neither EPA nor SLAs are qualified or in
a position to be able to evaluate the proficiency of one type of trainer versus another.
Those distinctions are very subjective and beyond the capabilities of those
responsible for compliance with this rule. In addition, the logic is further turned
upside down when one considers that a certified pesticide applicator is legally
capable of training and supervising a non-certified applicator to apply restricted use
pesticides around people and into the environment, but is not capable of training a
worker about how to protect himself from pesticide exposure.
Proposed Fix: This section should be revised to reflect that there is no distinction or
difference between a trainer eligible to train workers or handlers.

6

 Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.101.d)
State Impact: This appears to be nothing more than a shifting of current regulatory
responsibility from the Agency and SLAs who have historically implemented this
provision to agricultural employers. In addition, the cost and confusion of
implementing and maintaining a new record keeping requirement seems considerable
for an unproven benefit or improvement, especially if the recordkeeping
requirements are susceptible to fraud and forgery. This seems like a make-work
provision for both agricultural employers who must comply and SLAs who must
determine compliance.
Proposed Fix: This recordkeeping section should be deleted. If the Agency's intent is
to improve upon or add reasonable options to the current training verification
provisions, OISC would recommend that consideration be given to the creation of a
national database designed to identify trained workers and handlers. Such a precedent
has already been established for 'trained soil fumigators'.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.105)
State Impact: While limiting pesticide exposure to all persons is certainly a good
thing that should be supported and promoted whenever possible, extending
protections of this rule to individuals who are not agricultural workers or handlers, if
necessary, should be accomplished by means other than the WPS rule. Again,
creating protections for 'other persons' in a WPS rule appears to be exceeding the
scope and intent of the rule, even if it seems like a good idea. In addition, if such
provisions are warranted based on the risk assessments performed for 'other persons',
it seems that non-agricultural products should receive the same consideration as is
being proposed for agricultural WPS products. The concept of a regulatory
requirement to keep individuals out of varying widths of areas surrounding treated
areas seems quite difficult for an agricultural employer to implement and next to
impossible for an SLA trying to ensure compliance. The logic behind such a safety
measure is understandable and supportable, but making this a regulatory requirement
with an expectation of compliance monitoring and enforcement is not.
Proposed Fix: All references in this section, corresponding tables in this section, and
other sections of this rule to 'other persons' should be deleted.

Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.405.a-b)
State Impact: The concept of an AEZ was not introduced for comment as part of the
proposed rule, therefore, the requirements for effective communication or
implementation of such a regulatory provision were not well thought out. This
portion of the rule is so confusing that EPA has needed several pages of interpretive
guidance from the EPA program office as well as input from the Office of General
Counsel just to communicate the intent of the requirement with state regulatory
partners. The AEZ does not provide any additional protections. Pesticide labels all
currently read, "Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other
persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area
during application."

7

 Proposed Fix: Delete drift mitigation language because regulatory protection of
workers and other persons is already provided under other provisions of FIFRA, this
amounts to nothing more than regulatory over reach in an overly complex and
lengthy rule designed for worker protection.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.109.b.1.ii)
State Impact: There are a variety of provisions within the existing rule that can be
considered somewhat subjective.
Proposed Fix: This section should be revised to add to the end of the posting timing
requirement, "unless weather or circumstances beyond the control of the applicator
or agricultural employer delays the application." Adding a provision that recognizes
the realities of weather and planning seems reasonable to avoid additional
unnecessary technical violations.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.109.b.1.iv)
State Impact: If protection of workers and handlers is truly the intent of this rule,
the violation of the posting provision should be allowing a worker or handler to enter
a posted field, regardless of the application date or the REI. Creating the possibility
of a technical violation for failure to remove a posting sign by a specified date adds
an unnecessary level of complication without adding any real additional protections
for the workers or handlers. The impetus to remove the posting signs to allow reentry and return to unimpeded agricultural operations will be with the agricultural
employer. A similar state regulatory requirement in Indiana for removal of lawn
posting signs was rescinded after ten years of rule implementation because of the
realization that it was impossible to monitor and provided no additional protections.
Proposed Fix: The three day after application or REI posting sign removal
requirement in this section should be deleted.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.201.c.1)
State Impact: If training is being facilitated by an approved video or some other
media that does not require continuous attention by the trainer, it is of little value
that the rule create another opportunity for a technical violation that adds unproven
additional protections to workers or handlers. The important point would seem to be
that the trainer be available immediately following the presentation for questions
and comments. Even face-to-face trainers will often request that trainees hold
questions until the end of the session so as to not disrupt the flow and distract other
trainees.
Proposed Fix: This section should be revised to require only that the trainer be
available during the training session rather than continuously present throughout the
entire training.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR
170.201.c.2.iv.vii.ix)
State Impact: Although OISC strongly supports training pesticide users about all of
these elements, this type of training requirement is already covered in applicator
certification training and in non-certified applicator supervision requirements. That
8

 is where training requirements for pesticide applicators should be addressed, not
inserted through some back door requirement of a WPS rule that addresses only
agricultural pesticides
Proposed Fix: These items should be deleted from required training elements for
handlers.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.201.d)
State Impact: This extensive recordkeeping requirement for proof of training creates
an unnecessary burden and expense for the agricultural producer. The current
requirements in the existing rule are adequate. From a compliance standpoint, if an
SLA is investigating a for-cause complaint for determination of compliance with the
training requirement, examining training records alone will probably not satisfy the
burden of proof for a significant enforcement action. This is especially true if any
training records are found not to be 100% accurate and complete for all trainees.
Again, adding this recordkeeping requirement creates the opportunity for technical
violations without a demonstrated improvement in actual protections for workers
and handlers. It should also be noted that since the inception of the original WPS rule
OISC has not investigated a single complaint focusing solely on failure to provide
training. If training was not being provided, it was a case of the agricultural
employer not complying with any of the WPS rule provisions.
Proposed Fix: This section should be deleted.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.201.c.2)
State Impact: Requirements like these belong in a certification standards and
supervision rule, not a WPS rule targeting solely agricultural workers, handlers, and
pesticide products.
Proposed Fix: This section should be deleted.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.207.b.s.iii)
State Impact: If such disposal regulations actually exist, adding this provision in a
WPS rule adds no value or regulatory authority. It just begs the question of what
those regulations may be and adds another technical violation to the WPS rule that
really needs to applicable to all pesticides.
Proposed Fix: The requirement for contaminated glove liners to be disposed of in
accordance with federal, state, or local regulations should be deleted. Eliminate the
additional confusion. States and localities can address disposal requirements through
state or locality specific regulations as they see fit. Again, this is a worker/handler
protection rule, not a disposal compliance rule.
Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.207.d.2)
State Impact: If such disposal regulations actually exist, adding this provision in a
WPS rule adds no value or regulatory authority. It just begs the question of what
those regulations may be and adds another technical violation to the WPS rule that
really needs to applicable to all pesticides.
Proposed Fix: The reference to PPE disposal according to federal, state, or local
regulations should be deleted.
9

 Regulation: Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Rule (40 CFR 170.301.a.2)
State Impact: While limiting pesticide exposure to all persons is certainly a good
thing that should be supported and promoted whenever possible, extending
protections of this rule to individuals who are not agricultural workers or handlers, if
necessary, should be accomplished by means other than the WPS rule. Again,
creating protections for 'other persons' in a WPS rule appears to be exceeding the
scope and intent of the rule, even if it seems like a good idea. In addition, if such
provisions are warranted based on the risk assessments performed for 'other persons',
it seems that non-agricultural products should receive the same consideration as is
being proposed for agricultural WPS products. The concept of a regulatory
requirement to keep individuals out of varying widths of areas surrounding treated
areas seems quite difficult for an agricultural employer to implement and next to
impossible for an SLA trying to ensure compliance. The logic behind such a safety
measure is understandable and supportable, but making this a regulatory requirement
with an expectation of compliance monitoring and enforcement is not.
Proposed Fix: The reference to "other persons" should be deleted.
Regulation: Expand the Content of Worker and Handler Pesticide Safety Training
State Impact: While OISC strongly supports these training requirements for noncertified applicators being supervised by certified applicators, we believe that is
exactly the mechanism that should be utilized to ensure that pesticides are being
applied legally and with environmental safety in mind. These items do not relate
directly to worker and handler safety and protection. This is a WPS rule, not an
applicator certification rule. By including these training points in WPS, it appears as if
the Agency is attempting to expand the regulatory liability of handlers beyond the
intent and scope of the rule. It should be noted that Indiana already requires training
and competency examination of most agricultural handlers (non-certified applicators
being supervised by certified applicators).
Proposed Fix: Training points should not be considered in the final proposal: 1)
environmental concerns, 2) information on proper application and use of pesticides,
3) requirement for handlers to follow all pesticide label directions, and 4) format and
meaning of all information contained on pesticide labels and labeling, environmental
concerns, such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards.
Regulation: Posted Notification Timing & Oral Notification
State Impact: OISC opposes any oral notification if the Agency truly expects the
requirement to be inspected and enforceable. We believe that it would be impossible
to effectively enforce, with or without a recordkeeping requirement. In addition,
OISC is opposed to any additional recordkeeping requirement, since such records
would be costly to keep and are susceptible to fraud. A record does not ensure that
oral notification actually occurred, only that a record was created.
Proposed Fix: Remove oral notification requirement.

10

 Regulation: Exam Validation (40 CFR 171.105)
State Impact: EPA first recognized and promoted good practices in licensure exam
development almost 20 years ago (CTAG, 1999). This Executive Summary fails to
reflect a long-running conversation with the states regarding exam validation.
Proposed Fix: Allow states flexibility to develop exams that are demonstrably jobrelated instead of favoring codifying standards.
Regulation: §171.101 (m) (n)
State Impact: OISC recommends deleting the split of the general fumigation and soil
fumigation categories. A careful review of the proposed standards for those
"separate" categories reflects that 80% of those standards will be identical. Any
separate categories with such a high degree of similarity should be considered for
consolidation.
Proposed Fix: EPA should delete all references to method-specific certification
categories. Most states, have already established categories as needed. EPA splitting
categories out differently and assigning them to a new class of category labeled
"method-specific certification" makes no practical sense for a well-functioning
program.
Regulation: §171.303(c)
State Impact: We see little benefit from reporting on items (i) (ii) (iii) (iv). It takes
a great deal of time to generate these numbers. If EPA is using these numbers to
create a funding formula for states, the cost to generate the numbers likely exceeds the
dollars received. Item (vii) is a summary of enforcement activities related to the use
of restricted use pesticides. This requirement is redundant with data already reported
to EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and the recently revised
Enforcement Performance Measures (see the 2015-2017 Cooperative Agreement
Guidance, Section VII. Reporting and Enforcement Measures ). The Cooperative
Agreement Guidance was revised such that all states would use a national,
standardized template to establish mutually agreeable objectives and reporting
criteria. In it, EPA and the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
worked for three years to revise and adopt significantly improved reporting measures
which include much of the information EPA has proposed in the certification and
training rule. It is redundant to ask states to report this data twice, and objectionable
to states that have worked hard to eliminate the amount of narrative dialog
submitted with annual reports, given EPA's own admission that those narratives are
rarely reviewed by management at EPA Headquarters.
Proposed Fix: EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs consult with EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to share the data states already report. If
EPA currently has difficulty communicating effectively between different Agency
sections or feels the need to amend cooperative agreement reporting data, those
issues should be addressed in a forum outside of a federal rule.
Regulation: §171.3
State Impact: The proposed definition of competent entails possession of,
"...practical knowledge necessary to perform functions associated with restricted use
11

 pesticide application. The term practical knowledge is subsequently defined as, "...the
possession of pertinent facts and comprehension sufficient to properly perform
functions associated with application of restricted use pesticides... " The first
definition is unsatisfactory because it only raises the question, "Who determines
what counts as practical?" The second, supporting definition fails entirely because it
neither answers the question suggested by the first, nor clarifies the qualifier
'practical. 'The credentialing community addresses the identification of "practical
knowledge" (and its determiner) by stipulating job analysis as the primary basis for
licensure test content (American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999,
Standard 14.14, p. 161). Job analysis is understood as the collection and organization
of information about a job in terms of what jobholders do and the qualities they need
to possess in order to perform the job (Williams & Crafts, 1997}. Job analysis data
are derived from representative jobholders and yield competencies (i.e. job
knowledge and skills} necessary for safe and effective practice with special emphasis
on activities related to public protection.
Proposed Fix: Revisions to §171.3 - Definitions in the proposed rule: Delete the
definition of competent and replace it with a definition of competencies to read,
"The collective knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform a job."
Delete the definition of practical knowledge and replace it with a definition of job
knowledge to read, "An article of information that jobholders need to know in
order to perform the job." Add a definition of job skill to read, "An acquired
proficiency needed to perform a job activity." Add a definition of job analysis to
read, "The collection and organization of information about a job in terms of what
jobholders do and the qualities they need to possess in order to perform the jobderived from actual jobholders or persons who immediately supervise the work."
Add a definition of standard to read, "A recognized degree of proficiency, as
determined by a passing score on a job-related examination." The term "mishap" is
not appropriate in the proposed rule, and inconsistent with terminology used for
pesticide incidents or events. OISC urges EPA to remove this term from the proposed
rule, or revise it such that it is more consistent with what the majority of states
already have in statute or regulation.
Regulation: National Pesticide Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for Pesticide
Applications
State Impact: OISC strongly agrees with the need for an effective regulatory
mechanism to protect waters of the U.S. from harm by pesticides that may
intentionally or inadvertently be discharged into those waters. However, we have
concerns that the proposed NPDES permitting process may not be the most effective
or efficient mechanism to achieve that objective. As proposed, the permit creates
additional overlapping and duplicative state regulatory mechanisms at a time when
federal and state resources for implementation and enforcement are scarce or nonexistent. Specifically, the proposed permit does not adequately recognize extant
pesticide regulatory mechanisms and safeguards that may be appropriate for
consideration as "control measures" to be relied upon to meet non-numeric

12

 technology-based effluent limitations in the permit. Compliance with the pesticide
label is a cornerstone to this permitting initiative.
Proposed Fix: A more logical approach would be to add additional safeguards and
prohibitions that might be needed for protection of water to existing pesticide
labeling and to insure that the applicable pesticide products are being applied by
competent applicators. EPA needs to clearly recognize and capture in this permit the
value and benefits of formally incorporating the state lead pesticide agency expertise
in the administration and enforcement of this regulatory requirement.
Regulation: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Sections 8 and 9
State Impact: Neither FIFRA or any of the CFR promulgated under FIFRA designates
what an "appropriate credential" may be. EPA policy has been that an appropriate
credential means a federally issued FIFRA credentials. OISC agrees that for purposes
of uniformity and consistency between federal inspectors and state authorized
inspectors, issuance of a federal FIFRA credential seems to be optimal. However,
many states already have state authority, credentials, and staff training necessary to
conduct federal product compliance inspections. Some state authorities may actually
exceed federal authorities afforded state employees with federal credentials making
the federal credential a nice, but not required “appropriate credential”. To compound
the frustration with the unnecessary duplication the process established by EPA to
issue federal credentials is cumbersome, inefficient, time consuming, and unreliable.
These short comings continue to exist in spite of repeated efforts by States and EPA
to improve the process. Regardless, EPA remains committed to the requirement for
State inspectors, in spite of requests for documentation of need, legal precedence, or a
clear explanation of the value added component to the regulatory process.
Proposed Fix: This situation could be improved by nothing more than an operating
policy change.
•

Questions regarding any of these recommendations for regulatory improvement may be
directed to the agency impacted. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input and
comment.
Kind Regards,
Ted McKinney
Director, ISDA
tmckinney@isda.in.gov
Bruno Pigott
Director, IDEM
bpigott@idem.in.gov
Dr. Robert D. Waltz
State Chemist & Seed Commissioner, OISC
765.494.1492
13