Document 3J7QEaYJQG0dkryeZyOe97Gbn

1320 Research Park Drive Manhattan, Kansas 66502 (785) 564-6700 Jackie McClaskey, Secretary Kansas Department of Agriculture agriculture.ks.gov 900 SW Jackson, Room 456 Topeka, Kansas 66612 ___________ (785) 296-3556 Governor Sam Brownback November 28, 2016 Mr. James J. Jones Assistant Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W, Mail Code: 7101M Washington, D.C. 20460 Assistant Administrator Jones: I appreciate the explanation regarding outreach, communication and training related to the implementation of revised agricultural worker protection regulation included in your August 29th letter. However, my larger concern lies with the revised regulation itself and the manner in which significant input from industry and states regarding the regulation seems to have been ignored by EPA in writing the revised regulation. Furthermore, the challenges o f implementation are directly linked to concerns with the regulation . In fact, many o f the comments against the proposed regulation related to the difficulty o f implementing such intrusive and far-reaching rules. In the Kansas Department o f Agriculture comments on the regulation we highlighted the following concerns which were not addressed in the final rule: Economic Impact: EPA has continued to underestimate the impact on industry as well as state and local governments. Training Requirements: We don't support separate annual training requirements and believe this should be conducted concurrently with the individual state's training on pesticide handling. In addition, all education and training should be consistent with and complimentary to state-based training requirements. Requirements to train individuals on environmental concerns, as an example, are not in the purview of the worker protection regulation. Extensive technical knowledge o f a pesticide has little practical application and the rale should remain focused on worker protection. Applicator-specific knowledge o f the products in question should be delivered in applicator training. Finally, the elimination of the handler training exception for certified applicators is a mistake. Certified applicators are already identified as acceptable trainers for handling. Handler training points are covered in certified applicator training and requiring additional training that will be remedial and redundant for applicators is a poor use o f resources. s Handler Requirements: Farms and forests are included in entry-restricted-areas which the rale now calls application exclusion zones. This adds no value beyond the existing requirement to avoid applying pesticide on people. ka M anhattan C ardTM < ity Paramh S la flo n l Si Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00044543-00001 While I understand your efforts in rolling out the revised regulation, Xwill reiterate that the bigger issue is the revisions to the regulation. Kansas is aligned, with the NASDA position on delaying implementation o f the revised worker protection regulation until at least January 2018. In September 2016 NASD A embarked on an effort to underscore the importance of cooperative federalism and a true state-federal partnership. Rolling out a revised regulation to be implemented without the support of your state partners does not match with, the ideals of cooperative federalism. Sipcerely, .'.A ' m " pr. Jackj McClgkef, 0dpretary ] / KansasJbeparpiient o fAgriculture/ C.d: Dr. Barbara Glenn, CEO, National Association o f State Departments o f Agriculture w -'M r. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 7 Mr. Richard Fordyce, Director, Missouri Department of Agriculture Mr. Bill Noithey, Secretary, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship Mr. Greg Ibach, Director, Nebraska Department of Agriculture Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00044543-00002