throbber
Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 28
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`RURAL & MIGRANT MINISTRY, ALIANZA
`NACIONAL DE CAMPESINAS, EL COMITE
`DE APOYO A LOS TRABAJADORES
`AGRÍCOLAS, FARMWORKER
`ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, MIGRANT
`CLINICIANS NETWORK, PINEROS Y
`CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL NOROESTE,
`RURAL COALITION, UNITED FARM
`WORKERS, UNITED FARM WORKERS
`FOUNDATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
`PROTECTION AGENCY and Andrew Wheeler,
`in his official capacity as Administrator of the
`United States Environmental Protection Agency,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Rural & Migrant Ministry, Alianza Nacional De Campesinas, El Comite
`
`De Apoyo a Los Trabajadores Agrícolas, Farmworker Association of Florida, Migrant Clinicians
`
`Network, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos Del Noroeste, Rural Coalition, United Farm Workers,
`
`and United Farm Workers Foundation (collectively, “Farmworkers”), seek declaratory and
`
`injunctive relief related to a final rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
`
`or Agency), Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Revision of the Application
`
`Exclusion Zone Requirements, 85 Fed. Reg. 68,760-01, 68,762 (Oct. 30, 2020) (Final Rule),
`
`attached as Exhibit 1. The Final Rule unjustifiably weakens a regulatory safeguard against
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`pesticide poisoning known as the Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ). The AEZ was enacted by
`
`EPA to protect farmworkers and frontline communities from being poisoned by the drift of
`
`sprayed pesticides at the time of application. The Final Rule’s erosion of this protection poses an
`
`unreasonable risk of harm to human health, in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
`
`and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA’s decision to eliminate AEZ safeguards is an unlawful
`
`reversal of its position from just a few years ago, when it determined the AEZ was necessary to
`
`fulfill its duty under FIFRA. EPA reversed its position and promulgated the Final Rule despite
`
`lack of record support and, therefore, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
`
`2.
`
`Pesticides are inherently toxic chemicals used to kill or control pests. Many
`
`pesticides pose serious public health and environmental threats, but they are of particular concern
`
`for farmworkers, who face the highest levels of exposure to these toxic substances, and their
`
`families, who are exposed to pesticide residues from the workers’ clothing and skin.
`
`Farmworkers provide essential labor that feeds our country, but they continue to face a number
`
`of societal and economic inequities that exacerbate the threats pesticides pose to their health,
`
`safety, and well-being.
`
`3.
`
`In 2015, EPA understood the vital and urgent need for additional protections from
`
`pesticides and created the AEZ. The Agency pointed to overwhelming evidence that people were
`
`still being sprayed by pesticides, both on and off of growing areas, despite existing protections,
`
`such as the “do not contact” provision. This evidence included data from state pesticide exposure
`
`databases and information from commenters and stakeholders. EPA established the AEZ to
`
`address one of the most common causes of pesticide poisoning: exposure to pesticide spray drift
`
`during applications. The AEZ provision provides that during an active pesticide application, no
`
`person can be within a 100-foot radius (or 25-foot radius for certain applications) of the pesticide
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`application equipment. If someone is in this radius, that is within the “Application Exclusion
`
`Zone,” when a pesticide is being sprayed (other than a trained and equipped person involved in
`
`the pesticide application), the applicator must take a simple and common-sense step: suspend
`
`pesticide application immediately until the person has moved outside of the AEZ. The
`
`protections afforded by the AEZ apply whether the person who is in the radius is on the property
`
`of the grower or on neighboring property.
`
`4.
`
`On October 30, 2020, EPA published the Final Rule, which guts the
`
`AEZ protections by limiting its scope to the boundaries of the agricultural establishment, despite
`
`the fact that pesticide drift does not stop at property lines; allowing pesticide handlers to make
`
`or resume an application despite the presence of someone within the AEZ under certain
`
`circumstances; and reducing the AEZ from 100 feet to 25 feet for many applications.
`
`5.
`
`The Final Rule, which takes effect December 29, 2020, threatens the health and
`
`safety of farmworkers, farmworker families, and communities located near agricultural
`
`establishments. Without this protection in place, the rate of pesticide exposures is likely to rise,
`
`increasing the risk to millions of people of adverse health effects ranging from headaches,
`
`nausea, and skin rashes to pregnancy complications, difficulty breathing, unconsciousness, and,
`
`in severe cases, death.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs, a group of organizations representing farmworkers and rural
`
`communities, respectfully request that the Court grant a temporary restraining order and/or
`
`preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the rule, or a stay preventing the modified
`
`AEZ provision from taking effect until this case has been fully adjudicated, and then hold that
`
`(1) the Final Rule violates FIFRA because EPA promulgated it without substantial evidence that
`
`the modified AEZ would avert “unreasonable adverse effects” of pesticide use to workers and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`bystanders and (2) that the Final Rule violates the APA because it is arbitrary, capricious, an
`
`abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law. In addition, Plaintiffs seek an
`
`order vacating the Final Rule.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This action arises under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136 et. seq., and the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§
`
`701–06. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (action arising under the laws
`
`of the United States) and 5 U.S.C. § 702 (judicial review of agency actions).
`
`8.
`
`This Court has the authority to grant the requested declaratory and injunctive
`
`relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–202, and 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706. This Court has the
`
`authority to grant the requested preliminary relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705 and Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
`
`65.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(e), because this civil action is brought against an agency of the United States and Plaintiff
`
`Rural & Migrant Ministry has its principal place of business in Poughkeepsie, New York, which
`
`is in this District, and no real property is involved in the action.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Rural & Migrant Ministry (RMM) is a statewide, non-profit organization
`
`founded in 1981 that advocates for, and works closely with, rural and migrant communities
`
`throughout New York. RMM works with rural leaders towards the creation of a just, rural New
`
`York State through nurturing leadership; standing with the disenfranchised, especially
`
`farmworkers and rural workers; and changing unjust systems and structures. RMM implements
`
`its mission through three programs: an accompaniment program, in which RMM accompanies
`
`and supports rural workers—most often, farmworkers—who seek to improve working and
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`living conditions; an education program to strengthen rural leaders; and a youth empowerment
`
`program committed to empowering rural children to create opportunities for themselves while at
`
`the same time learning how to change their world. The communities that RMM works with give
`
`direct input into RMM’s programs and RMM staff frequently visit farms to speak with workers
`
`and learn about their concerns. RMM’s stakeholders include farmworkers and rural
`
`communities who will be at increased risk of pesticide exposure as a result of the Final Rule.
`
`Furthermore, RMM’s mission to advance a just and rural New York State in which farmworkers
`
`operate in safe working and living conditions cannot be fulfilled when worker protections like
`
`the AEZ are weakened. Thus, in order to notify farmworkers and communities about their
`
`increased vulnerability to pesticides as result of the Final Rule, and how to manage that
`
`increased risk, RMM is planning additional education and outreach programs for farmworkers
`
`on pesticide use and exposure if the Final Rule goes into effect.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Alianza Nacional de Campesinas (Alianza), founded in 2011, is a
`
`national non-profit farmworker organization that serves the unique needs and concerns of our
`
`nation’s more than 700,000 farmworker women and their families. Alianza’s 15 member
`
`organizations include: Organización en California de Líderes Campesinas, Mujeres Luchadoras
`
`Progresistas, La Mujer Obrera, Workers’ Center of Central New York, Workers Justice Center
`
`of New York, Mujeres Divinas, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc, Mujeres Campesinas
`
`Unidas de Florida, and fellow plaintiffs Asociación Campesina de Florida, Pineros y
`
`Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, and Rural Coalition. Alianza works to build the capacity and
`
`leadership of farmworker women through its national organizing efforts, public education and
`
`outreach campaigns, and federal policy-advocacy work, a core prong of which is preventing
`
`exposure to pesticides. Alianza’s members have suffered from exposure to off-target pesticide
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`drift, including pesticides landing on their homes, personal items and clothing, and in many
`
`instances, directly onto them and their children. As a result of pesticide exposure, Alianza
`
`members have suffered health impacts including reproductive harms, and the Final Rule
`
`increases their risk of such harms in the future. To protect farmworker women, their families,
`
`and others from pesticide exposure, Alianza and its member organizations have developed a
`
`national curriculum on pesticide safety, and they work to train staff and members of the
`
`community on pesticide exposure and the illnesses and health effects caused by it.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff El Comite de Apoyo a Los Trabajadores Agrícolas (The Farmworkers
`
`Support Committee or CATA) is a non-profit migrant farmworker organization founded in
`
`southern New Jersey in 1979 to empower and educate farmworkers. CATA, which is comprised
`
`of farmworker members who are actively engaged in the struggle for better working and living
`
`conditions, is dedicated to empowering and educating farmworkers through leadership
`
`development and capacity building. CATA operates in Southern New Jersey, parts of
`
`Pennsylvania, and the Delmarva Peninsula in Maryland. To fulfill its mission of improving its
`
`members’ working and living conditions, CATA offers WPS safety training to farmworkers and
`
`documents pesticide safety practices on certain farms. CATA’s members have suffered from
`
`exposure to off-target pesticide drift, and EPA’s weakening of the AEZ increases their risk of
`
`such exposure.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Farmworker Association of Florida (FWAF) is a non-profit organization
`
`based in Florida. More than 8,000 families are members of FWAF, which has five locations
`
`throughout Central and South Florida. FWAF conducts programs and activities that build
`
`leadership and activist skills among low-income communities of color who are
`
`disproportionately affected by pesticide exposure and health problems as well as environmental
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`contamination, racism, exploitation, and political under-representation. FWAF’s long-standing
`
`mission is to build power among farmworker and rural low-income communities to respond to
`
`the myriad of workplace, economic, health, and environmental justice issues that impact their
`
`lives. FWAF is familiar with personal accounts of farmworkers’ suffering the consequences of
`
`off-target pesticide drift. EPA’s Final Rule increases the likelihood that workers, including
`
`FWAF’s members, will experience both immediate and long-term health effects from pesticide
`
`exposure.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Migrant Clinicians Network (MCN) is a national non-profit organization
`
`with more than 10,000 constituent clinicians who work in community health centers and other
`
`health care delivery sites to provide care for migrants, of which many are farmworkers and live
`
`near farms. To serve immigrants, health centers, and clinicians, MCN develops appropriate
`
`resources, engages outside partners, directs a worldwide continuity of care service, provides
`
`continuing education, and runs programs that support clinical care on the front lines of health
`
`care for immigrant workers, their families, and other underserved populations. Pesticide
`
`exposure is a pressing concern for the populations MCN serves and MCN advocates for policy
`
`changes and reform regarding pesticide use. To that end, MCN has actively advocated for a
`
`stronger WPS that would guard farmworkers against pesticide exposure, and it strongly objected
`
`to EPA’s decision to weaken the WPS. In response to EPA’s Final Rule, farmworkers, migrants,
`
`and others that MCN serves will be at increased risk of pesticide exposure and adverse health
`
`impacts and thus MCN will have to place greater focus on training and education on the
`
`treatment of pesticide injuries and illness, diverting resources needed for other activities.
`
`15.
`
` Plaintiff Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest Treeplanters
`
`and Farmworkers United or PCUN), founded in 1985, is Oregon’s only farmworker union and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`the largest Latino organization in the state. Based in Woodburn, Oregon—the center of
`
`Oregon’s agricultural industry—PCUN’s mission is to empower farmworkers to recognize and
`
`take action against systematic exploitation and all of its effects. Since its founding, PCUN has
`
`registered over 6,000 members, 98 percent of whom are immigrants from Mexico and Central
`
`America. Approximately one-third of PCUN’s members come from indigenous communities in
`
`Mexico and speak indigenous languages, but little to no English or Spanish. Many of PCUN’s
`
`members have experienced the dangerous effects of pesticide exposure at work. In addition,
`
`many PCUN members live very close to areas where pesticides are applied, and, as a result, they
`
`and their family members are threatened by exposure due to pesticide drift even in their homes.
`
`PCUN has worked to raise awareness among its members about the dangers of pesticide
`
`exposure.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Rural Coalition amplifies the voices of its 50 grassroots member
`
`organizations, representing African American, American Indian, Asian American, Euro-
`
`American, Latino, and women farmers, ranchers, farm workers, and rural communities. Rural
`
`Coalition and its members seek just and sustainable food systems, fair working conditions and
`
`dignity for farmworkers and food chain workers, protection of the earth, and safe, adequate, and
`
`healthy food for all. Many of Rural Coalition’s members are farmers, farmworkers, or
`
`individuals who live in rural areas where large amounts of pesticides are applied to crops, and
`
`Rural Coalition’s members are exposed to pesticides through pesticide drift. Rural Coalition has
`
`heard of workers who were sprayed with pesticides directly and suffered severe illness as a
`
`result, and Rural Coalition’s members regularly report exposure to pesticide drift. Due to their
`
`jobs and where they live, Rural Coalition’s members are at increased risk of pesticide exposure
`
`if the Final Rule takes effect.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff United Farm Workers (UFW) is the nation’s oldest and largest
`
`farmworker membership organization. UFW is headquartered in California and serves
`
`farmworkers in offices all across the country. UFW has represented farmworkers for more than
`
`40 years and currently has more than 45,000 members, many of whom are migrant and seasonal
`
`farmworkers. UFW’s mission is to protect and expand farmworkers’ labor rights, including
`
`rights pertaining to health and safety issues. Many of UFW’s members have reported being
`
`exposed to pesticides and developing pesticide-related illnesses, including skin rashes, eye
`
`irritation, nausea and dizziness, pregnancy complications, miscarriages, and permanent
`
`disability. In many instances, UFW’s members were exposed due to off-target pesticide drift.
`
`Exposure due to off-target drift is common because many farmworkers and their family
`
`members work, live, or attend school in areas that border farmlands. EPA’s weakening of the
`
`AEZ will place UFW members and their families at a heightened risk of pesticide exposure
`
`because of the frequency of off-target pesticide drift.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff United Farm Workers Foundation (UFW Foundation) is a dynamic non-
`
`profit organization established in 2006 with the core purpose of empowering communities to
`
`ensure human dignity. UFW Foundation’s regional offices are safe havens that provide
`
`resources and services—such as credible immigration legal representation—and act as hubs for
`
`educational outreach and organizing. UFW Foundation is a sister organization to the United
`
`Farm Workers labor union, and it serves over 100,000 farmworkers and low-income community
`
`members in California and Arizona. UFW Foundation members work on farms where pesticides
`
`are sprayed, and they have been exposed to and harmed by pesticide drift.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs’ members include farmworkers who live and work in areas where there
`
`is heavy pesticide use. They, along with their children and other family members, face a high
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`risk of pesticide poisoning through spray drift, which causes severe health harms. They depend
`
`on provisions, such as the AEZ, to protect them from exposure to pesticides from off-target
`
`drift. Any weakening of such protections threatens to expose them to an unreasonable risk of
`
`harm.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant EPA is an agency of the United States government.
`
`Defendant Andrew Wheeler, Administrator of the EPA, has oversight authority
`
`for all actions taken by EPA and is responsible for ensuring the Agency’s compliance with the
`
`law. Defendant Wheeler is sued in his official capacity.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`FIFRA AND THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD
`
`22.
`
`EPA is required by, and authorized under, FIFRA to ensure that workers, their
`
`families, and surrounding communities are protected from pesticides. Specifically, EPA must
`
`ensure that the use of pesticides does not cause “any unreasonable risk to man or the
`
`environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of
`
`the use of any pesticide.” See 7 U.S.C. §§ 136(bb), 136a. Congress intended FIFRA to protect
`
`man and the environment, and farmers and farmworkers are the most obvious objects of the
`
`statute’s protection. EPA must support the decisions it makes under FIFRA with “substantial
`
`evidence when considered on the record as a whole.” Id. § 136n(b).
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant to this authority, EPA has implemented measures to protect workers,
`
`pesticide handlers, and others from pesticide exposure in two primary ways: (1) through specific
`
`use instructions and restrictions on pesticide product labeling, and (2) through the Agricultural
`
`Worker Protection Standard (WPS), 40 C.F.R. pt. 170. See Pesticides; Agricultural Worker
`
`Protection Standard Revisions, 80 Fed. Reg. 67,496, 67,500 (Nov. 2, 2015).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`24.
`
`The WPS, originally promulgated in 1974 and substantively revised in 1992 and
`
`again in 2015, is a uniform set of requirements for farmworkers, pesticide handlers, and their
`
`employers that provides a comprehensive collection of pesticide management practices that
`
`apply to agricultural pesticide use in crop production and complements the product-specific
`
`requirements on individual pesticide product labels. Id. In EPA’s own words, “[t]he WPS plays
`
`an important role in reducing the risk of pesticide illness and injury among agricultural workers
`
`and pesticide handlers” because it “offers occupational protections to over 2 million agricultural
`
`workers . . . and pesticide handlers . . . who work at over 600,000 agricultural establishments
`
`(farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses).” EPA Office of Inspector General, EPA Needs to
`
`Evaluate the Impact of the Revised Agricultural Worker Protection Standard on Pesticide
`
`Exposure Incidents, Report No. 18-P-0080 at 13 (Feb. 15, 2018),
`
`https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/_epaoig_20180215-18-p-
`
`0080.pdf.
`
`25.
`
`The WPS—with its three key components of information, protection, and
`
`mitigation—is “designed to reduce the risks of illness or injury resulting from workers’ and
`
`handlers’ occupational exposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants on
`
`farms or in nurseries, greenhouses, and forests and also from the accidental exposure of workers
`
`and other persons to such pesticides.” 40 C.F.R. § 170.1. It is “designed to reduce or eliminate
`
`exposure to pesticides and establishes procedures for responding to exposure-related
`
`emergencies.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`26.
`
` “Workers” protected by the WPS are individuals who are employed to “perform[]
`
`activities relating to the production of agricultural plants on an agricultural establishment . . . .”
`
`40 C.F.R. § 170.3. “Handlers” are individuals employed by an agricultural establishment or
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`commercial pesticide handling establishment who, among other things, mix, load, or apply
`
`pesticides; dispose of pesticides; or handle opened containers of pesticides. Id.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
`
`27.
`
`The APA provides for judicial review of agency action, 5 U.S.C. § 702, and
`
`requires the reviewing court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be
`
`arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C.
`
`§ 706(2)(A). An agency acts in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious when it reverses its
`
`position on a policy choice without providing a “reasoned explanation. . . for disregarding facts
`
`and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” Fed. Commc’ns
`
`Comm’n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). An agency also acts in a
`
`manner that is arbitrary and capricious when it fails to “examine the relevant data and articulate
`
`a satisfactory explanation for its action” and when it has “entirely failed to consider an
`
`important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the
`
`evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in
`
`view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State
`
`Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43–44 (1983).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`PESTICIDE EXPOSURE AMONG AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, THEIR
`FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES NEAR FARMS
`
`28.
`
`The approximately 2.1 million farmworkers who are employed annually on crop
`
`farms in this country are laboring in an industry known to be among the most hazardous. See
`
`National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Agricultural Safety, Center for
`
`Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aginjury/default.html.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`29.
`
`EPA estimates that approximately 1,800 to 3,000 acute pesticide exposure
`
`incidents occur each year on agricultural establishments covered by the WPS. See 80 Fed. Reg.
`
`at 67,502. Although these figures account for underreporting, they necessarily are estimates,
`
`given that studies suggest that underreporting of pesticide exposure by farmworkers and
`
`handlers ranges from 20 to 90 percent. See Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
`
`Revisions, 79 Fed. Reg. 15, 444, 15,449 (Mar. 19, 2014).
`
`30.
`
`Health incident surveillance data and studies show that workers and handlers
`
`bring home pesticide residues on their bodies and clothing and thereby also expose family
`
`members, including children, to pesticides. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,502.
`
`31. Moreover, these figures do not include the more difficult to quantify chronic
`
`pesticide exposure that a sizeable portion of the agricultural workforce may be subjected to,
`
`which poses significant short and long-term health risks. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,498-99. Peer-
`
`reviewed scientific literature demonstrates well-documented associations between pesticide
`
`exposure and certain cancer and non-cancer chronic health effects. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 15,450;
`
`see also, Fenske R.A., et. al., Breaking the take home pesticide exposure pathway for
`
`agricultural families: workplace predictors of residential contamination, 56 Am. J. Indus. Med.
`
`1063-71 (2013); Shelton J.F. et. al., Neurodevelopmental disorders and prenatal residential
`
`proximity to agricultural pesticides: the CHARGE study, 122 Env’t Health Persp. A266 (2014);
`
`Paul K. Mills & Sandy Kwong, Cancer Incidence in the United Farmworkers of America
`
`(UFW), 1987-1997, 40 Am. J. Indus. Med. 596, 599 (2001) (finding that, compared to the
`
`general population, farmworkers had a 59% higher rate of leukemia, a 69% higher rate of
`
`stomach cancer, a 63% higher rate of uterine/cervical cancer, and a 68% higher rate of uterine
`
`corpus cancer); Vincent F. Garry et al., Pesticide Appliers, Biocides and Birth Defects in Rural
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`Minnesota, 104 Env’t Health Persp. 394, 395–98 (1996) (birth defect rate was significantly
`
`increased in children born to pesticide appliers); Elizabeth Grossman, From the Fields to Inner
`
`City, Pesticides Affect Children’s IQ, Yale Env’t 360 (May 16, 2011),
`
`https://e360.yale.edu/features/from_the_fields_to_inner_city_pesticides_affect_childrens_iq#:~:t
`
`ext=The%20New%20York%20study%20found,greater%20the%20impact%20on%20cognitio
`
`(babies exposed to high levels of common pesticides in utero have lower I.Q. scores than their
`
`peers by the time they reach school age, according to three new studies); Freya Kamel & Jane A.
`
`Hoppin, Association of Pesticide Exposure with Neurologic Dysfunction and Disease, 112 Env’t
`
`Health Persp. 950, 950 (2004) (poisoning by acute high-level exposure to certain pesticides has
`
`well-known neurotoxic effects; most studies of moderate pesticide exposure have found
`
`increased prevalence of neurologic symptoms and changes in neurobehavioral performance,
`
`reflecting cognitive and psychomotor dysfunction); Victoria McGovern, Autism and Agricultural
`
`Pesticides: Integrating Data to Track Trends, 115 Env’t Health Persp. A504, A504 (Oct. 2007),
`
`(finding an association between autism spectrum disorders and prenatal exposure to
`
`organochlorine pesticides); Caroline M. Tanner et al., Rotenone, Paraquat, and Parkinson’s
`
`Disease, 119 Env’t Health Persp. 866, 868–69 (June 2011), (finding that Parkinson’s Disease is
`
`positively associated with two classes of pesticides).
`
`32.
`
`One of the most common contributors to farmworker pesticide exposure is off-
`
`target drift that occurs when a sprayed pesticide moves beyond its intended target. EPA
`
`previously found that as much as 37% to 68% of acute pesticide-related illnesses in agricultural
`
`workers are caused by spray drift. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 15,448.
`
`33.
`
`Homes, schools, and community spaces are often located next to farms, and
`
`community members in these areas are at risk of pesticide exposure due to off-target drift. For
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
`example, Pedro Olivares, a farmworker at a fernery in Pierson, Florida, lives directly next to the
`
`fernery and he states that when it sprays pesticides, he can smell them inside his house and feel
`
`them inside his mouth and nose and on his skin. See Earthjustice, Photo Essay: Pesticide
`
`Exposure in Muck Fields & Ferneries in Florida, https://earthjustice.org/features/pesticide-
`
`exposure-in-muck-fields-and-ferneries-in-florida. Renato Hernandez, another farmworker in
`
`Pierson, also lives directly next to a fernery, and he explains that the fernery does not provide
`
`any notice before it sprays pesticides, so it is difficult to take precautions to prevent them from
`
`entering his home. Id. In Grandview, Washington, a children’s nursery is across the street from
`
`an orchard, and two day care centers are within a few feet of orchards. See Comments of
`
`Alianza Naciónal de Campesinas, et. al., Comment ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0543-0136, at
`
`11–12 (Jan. 30, 2020) (“Farmworker Comments”), attached as Exhibit 2. In San Benito, Texas,
`
`the parking lot of a lumber company is less than 50 feet from a cornfield, and a school is
`
`approximately 100 feet from a cornfield. Id. at 14. Community members who live near, work
`
`near, and visit these places are all at risk of pesticide exposure due to off-target drift.
`
`34.
`
`The high risks associated with labor in the agricultural sector—for workers and
`
`their families—are particularly troubling in light of the societal and economic challenges facing
`
`the populations that largely occupy this sector. According to the Department of Labor, 70% of
`
`agricultural workers in the United States were born in Mexico, and Central and South America.
`
`See 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,502. Approximately 65% of these workers speak little or no English, and
`
`many have received minimal formal education. Id. A vast majority of agricultural workers do
`
`not have access to employer-provided health-insurance, and most workers fear seeking medical
`
`treatment, as they fear being replaced or fired for being “troublemakers.” Id. A majority of
`
`workers reported a total family annual income below $22,500, id., and many do not have
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-UA Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`permanent housing and generally live close to the agricultural areas where they work and where
`
`pesticides are applied. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 15,457.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`THE 2015 REVISIONS TO THE WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD
`
`35.
`
`In 2014, EPA issued a proposed rule to revise the WPS in light of data showing
`
`that the existing 1992 rule was inadequate to protect against pesticide poisoning. Id. at 15,450.
`
`There was “strong evidence that workers and handlers may be exposed to pesticides at levels
`
`that can cause adverse effects and that both the exposures and the risks can be substantially
`
`reduced” through more protective regulations. Id. at 15,446.
`
`36.
`
`At that time, the main protections in place for agricultural establishments during
`
`pesticide application were (1) a prohibition on allowing or directing any worker to enter or
`
`remain in a treated area, and (2) a requirement that handler employees ensure that pesticides are
`
`applied in a manner that will not contact a worker either directly or through drift, i.e. the “do not
`
`contact” provision. 80 Fed. Reg. at 67,522. The WPS has long included this “do not contact”
`
`provision, which was first added to Part 170 of the C.F.R. in 1974. See Worker Protection
`
`Standards for Agricultural Pesticides, 39 Fed. Reg. 16,825, 16,890 (May 10, 1974).
`
`37.
`
`However, after reviewing numerous cases of workers who were sprayed with
`
`pesticides, EPA concluded that “experiences such as those of workers having to move to get out
`
`of the way of the tractor that was applying pesticide . . . and workers being directly sprayed
`
`confirm EPA’s position that additional protections [were] necessary during pesticide
`
`appl

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket