Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulator Public Docket (7502P)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-001

Subject: Re-registration of fomesafen (Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0239)

Current proposed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Re-Registration regulations for
fomesafen will restrict vegetable production in Georgia. These regulations would eliminate the most
effective tool to manage Palmer amaranth and morningglory in 67% of Georgia’s snap bean acreage
(farm gate value of $22.6 million). These regulations will also eliminate the benefits of fomesafen
currently being developed for fruiting vegetables and cucurbits (farm gate value exceeding $387 million),
including its role as a key herbicide in the development of methyl bromide alternative systems.
The EPA’s objective, to protect endangered species from any pesticide, including fomesafen, is
admirable, and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association support the goal of this mission.
However, we believe this objective can be achieved without such detrimental regulations. Realistically,
some Georgia growers dependent on fomesafen will have only two options if these regulations are passed
into law:

1) stop producing the impacted crops or
2) producing these crops following current practices while ignoring the law.

With these proposed regulations being similar for both clomazone and fomesafen, one would anticipate
similar proposed regulations for all herbicides (if not all pesticides) once each product faces reregistration.
Regulations such as those proposed by the EPA will not only greatly restrict agricultural
production in the United States, they will also restrict the ability of University and Industry researchers
from developing new and innovative technologies that are needed to feed the world.
We are struggling to understand the validity of these proposed regulations. First, how did the EPA
determine “that the use of pesticides containing fomesafen is likely to adversely affect a variety of listed
species”? A literature search of many endangered plant species in Georgia and their relationship with
fomesafen showed little to no data results; this suggests the sensitivity of endangered plant species to
fomesafen may not have been determined scientifically.

Secondly, we challenge the theory that an 850-foot buffer between a target area and a wetlands,
waterway, or other endangered species habitat, is needed with a herbicide such as fomesafen. The
University of Georgia has shown herbicide drift can be managed and, in some instances, avoided completely. Thus, the logic of assigning a buffer zone distance of 850 feet, considering the diversity of
application techniques and environmental conditions, appears both non-scientific and unrealistic. We
agree that additional efforts could be made to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, off-target pesticide
movement; however, the EPA should invest their efforts in working with manufactures and universities to
improve application techniques and understand herbicide movement and fate before imposing restrictions
that could regulate the American farmer out of business.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Please feel free to contact me should you have
any questions.

Sincerely,

Charles T. Hall, Jr.
Executive Director

Current proposed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Re-Registration regulations for
fomesafen will cripple cotton and vegetable production in Georgia. These regulations in Georgia cotton
alone would potentially reduce farm gate values in excess of $156 million. Additionally, these
regulations would eliminate the most effective tool to manage Palmer amaranth and morningglory in 67%
of Georgia’s snap bean acreage (farm gate value of $22.6 million). These regulations will also eliminate
the benefits of fomesafen currently being developed for fruiting vegetables and cucurbits (farm gate value
exceeding $387 million), including its role as a key herbicide in the development of methyl bromide
alternative systems. These proposed regulations would negatively impact Georgia’s number 3 (cotton),
18 (watermelon), 19 (soybean), 20 (bell peppers), 31 (tomato), 38 (yellow and winter squash), 41 (snap
beans), 42 (cantaloupe), 43 (zucchini squash), 44 (eggplant), and 47th (other peppers) most valuable
agricultural commodities.

The EPA’s objective, to protect endangered species from any pesticide, including fomesafen, is
admirable, and the University of Georgia strongly supports this mission. However, we believe this
objective can be achieved without such detrimental regulations. Realistically, some Georgia growers
dependent on fomesafen will have only two options if these regulations are passed into law: 1) stop
producing the impacted crops or 2) producing these crops following current practices while ignoring the
law. Additionally, these regulations would likely prohibit The University of Georgia from 1) developing
alternatives to methyl bromide, 2) developing effective weed management programs for cotton and
soybean producers, and 3) hampering the adoption of new pesticides that are safer for the environment,
the applicator, and the end user. With these proposed regulations being similar for both clomazone and
fomesafen, one would anticipate similar proposed regulations for all herbicides (if not all pesticides) once
each product faces re-registration. Regulations such as those proposed by the EPA will not only greatly
restrict agricultural production in the United States, they will also restrict the ability of University and
Industry researchers from developing new and innovative technologies that are needed to feed the world.

The authors of this document are struggling to understand the validity of these proposed regulations.
First, how did the EPA determine “that the use of pesticides containing fomesafen is likely to adversely
affect a variety of listed species”? A literature search of many endangered plant species in Georgia and
their relationship with fomesafen showed little to no data results; this suggests to us that the sensitivity of
endangered plant species to fomesafen may not have been determined scientifically. Secondly, we
challenge the theory that an 850-foot buffer between a target area and a wetlands, waterway, or other
endangered species habitat, is needed with a herbicide such as fomesafen. The University of Georgia has
shown in this document that herbicide drift can be managed and, in some instances, avoided completely.
Thus, the logic of assigning a buffer zone distance of 850 feet, considering the diversity of application
techniques and environmental conditions, appears both non-scientific and unrealistic. The authors agree
that additional efforts should be made to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, off-target pesticide
movement; however, the EPA should invest their efforts in working with manufactures and universities to
improve application techniques and understand herbicide movement and fate before imposing restrictions
that could regulate the American farmer out of business.

Obviously, no Georgia farmer wants any pesticide to move from the intended target area, and growers
would welcome new and innovative ways to limit pesticide movement. The University of Georgia is
willing to fully cooperate with the EPA and industry to conduct research to further understand the most
effective ways to mitigate herbicide spray drift and volatility. Additionally, the University of Georgia is
excited about using its Extension system to deliver new information on techniques that may eliminate off
target pesticide movement.

Click here for full document

Subject:  EPA’s Fumigant Cluster CommentsEPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123 – Methyl Bromide Docket

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0124 – 1,3-Dichloropropene Docket

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0125 – Metam Sodium/Potassium Docket

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0128 – Dazomet Docket

EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350 – Chloropicrin Docket

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments and the associated attachment filed in response to the Reregistration Eligibility Decisions(REDs) released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 10, 2008.  The REDS include a series of risk mitigation measures intended to protect handlers, re-entry workers, and by-standers from risks due to exposure to soil fumigants including methyl bromide and chloropicrin.  While the purpose of the REDs are to reduce exposure, even the EPA acknowledged in the rule documents that “incidents for soil fumigants generally occur at a low frequency relative to the total number of fumigations annually” (Chloropicrin RED; page17).

During the RED process, growers, commodity associations, university researchers, and fumigant manufacturers have provided EPA with information on the use of soil fumigants, including an incident rate of less than 0.1 percent and the devastating effects of large buffer zones.  Despite grower/user input and their own knowledge of low fumigant incidents, EPA has recommended buffer zones, monitoring requirements, extended re-entry periods, and several other practices that will have a devastating impact on Georgia growers.  These REDS will result in the US consumer relying more heavily on imports from other nations where Good Agricultural Practices, sanitation, or food safety is not a part of any monitored standard.

The use of soil fumigants in Georgia play a major role in Georgia’s agricultural production of fresh fruits and vegetables.  Plasticulture production of vegetables alone adds over $ 281 million dollars to Georgia’s economy at the farm gate each year.

The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association is in full support of efforts to better protect work workers and bystanders where there is a real risk.  Fruit and vegetable growers do not want accidents on their farms or production areas.  In addition they do not want to do anything that might harm themselves, their families, their workers, their neighbors or their environment.  We believe that most of the mitigation measures dictated by these REDs are unnecessary, expensive, and do not improve safety in any way and could actually result in the application of more pesticides into the environment or cause undue stress and concern to the general public.

As noted in the attached research study conducted by the University of Georgia and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, the report outlines the need for further study of the buffer zone distances based on recent research findings.  The UGA/GFVGA study shows the serious impacts from the EPA’s proposed buffers for Georgia vegetable production.  These proposed regulations for Georgia’s vegetable plasticulture production, at a minimum, would:

1. Reduce farmer income $20.94 million or 15.3% of their total income,
2. Reduce sales value or output impact by $73.13 million,
3. Reduce labor income $35.1 million,
4. Would eliminate at least 775 workers.

Every day Georgia farmers have to make tough decisions balancing the risk management requirements of the crops they grow to the profitability generated.  If the proposed REDs are implemented, we anticipate a significant reduction in the production of fruits and vegetables in Georgia and other southeastern states.  Where will our nation’s supply of fresh fruits and vegetables come from then?  The answer is clear – from other nations that do not have the food safety oversite that is an integral part of Georgia vegetable production.  By EPA’s own statements, “The trade off to growers, however, will be some combination of more trips to fumigate the field, use of more expensive high barrier film, delays in planting due to longer fumigation operations, and more trips to the field for planting and other operations if fumigating in smaller blocks results in staggered operations. Some of these costs could be substantial.” (Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) EPA, June 24, 2008).

We call on EPA to seriously review the input from its stakeholders and evaluate the dramatic requirements created by the proposed REDs.  It is our belief the significant economic impact to Georgia growers caused by the implementation of the REDs, is not justified to address a problem which EPA has admitted ‘occurs at a low frequency relative to the total number of fumigations’.  Thank you for the opportunity to file these comments.

Sincerely,

Charles T. Hall, Jr.

Executive Director
Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association

Current proposed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Re-registration Eligibility
Decisions for fumigants, including chloropicrin, metam potassium, metam sodium and methyl
bromide, will cripple vegetable production in Georgia. The adoption of these regulations in
Georgia vegetable plasticulture production, at a minimum, would 1) reduce farmer income by
$20.94 million or 15.3% of their total income; 2) reduce sales value or output impact by $73.13
million; 3) reduce labor income by $35.1 million; and 4) would eliminate at least 775 workers.
In bareground vegetable production, these proposed regulations would completely eliminate
fumigant use. Similar reductions in farmer income, labor income, loss of jobs and loss of
fumigate use will also occur in Georgia’s fruit production (peach, blueberry, & strawberry).

The EPA’s objective to make fumigation safe for workers and bystanders is a goal that we share
and value; however, this objective can be achieved in the absence of these overly restrictive
regulations. Realistically, Georgia fruit and vegetable growers that depend upon these fumigants
for crop production will have only two options if these regulations are passed into law: 1) going
out of business or 2) keep producing their crops following current practices while ignoring the
law assuming fumigant manufacturers, distributors, and applicators are able to remain in
business in light of the additional operating cost burden and reduction in fumigate demand
resulting if these rules are implemented.

Proposed regulations are developed from fumigant emission studies that were conducted using
cultural practices common for the application of methyl bromide. As methyl bromide is being
removed from the market place, alternative systems are being adopted that utilize different and
often more intense management practices requiring that fumigation applicators understand soil
texture, soil moisture, soil temperature, and soil compaction . Research from 2008 shows that
cultural and management practices have a tremendous impact on fumigant emissions (often a
reduction of over 50%). Reduced fumigant emissions indicate increased fumigant retention,
which would likely improve pest control. Improved pest control should lead to reduced fumigant
rates with time. Adopting these practices would be extremely economical for the grower and
effective at protecting agricultural workers and bystanders from fumigant exposure. These
results are in stark contrast to the impact that the proposed EPA regulations would have on
fumigant use and vegetable production in the United States.

In light of the changes in cultural practices, coupled with the on-going research focusing on
mitigating fumigant gas emissions by using soil texture, soil moisture, soil temperature and soil
compaction, the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association (GFVGA) and The
University of Georgia (UGA) are requesting changes be made to the proposed regulations.
Regulations that are of concern include the following: 1) buffer zones distances to homes or
occupied structures; 2) right-of-way buffer zones distances; 3) buffer zones adjacent to field
areas treated the previous day; 4) respiratory requirements for handlers; 5) warning zones; 6)
notification of state agency; and 7) and the fumigant management plan. Concerns with these
regulations and potential solutions to these regulations are discussed throughout this document.
The UGA and GFVGA are willing to fully cooperate with the EPA in any means necessary to
obtain or develop research needed by the EPA in an effort to protect agricultural workers and
bystanders while sustaining a vibrant fresh fruit and vegetable industry in Georgia.

To view full document click here