Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 36
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`RURAL & MIGRANT MINISTRY, INC.,
`
`ALIANZA NACIONAL DE CAMPESINAS, EL
`
`COMITE DE APOYO A LOS
`TRABAJADORES AGRÍCOLAS,
`
`
`FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA,
`MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK,
`
`PINEROS Y CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL
` Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-10645-LJL
`NOROESTE, RURAL COALITION, UNITED
`
`FARM WORKERS, UNITED FARM WORKERS
` [Related to No. 1:20-cv-10642-LJL]
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 65 AND 5 U.S.C. § 705
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................iii
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR A
`STAY OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE ..............................................................................................2
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................3
`I.
`THE FINAL RULE WILL IRREPARABLY HARM FARMWORKERS, THEIR
`FAMILIES, AND OTHER BYSTANDERS ...........................................................4
`A.
`The AEZ Provides Essential Protection Against Pesticide Poisoning from
`Drift Exposure; Limiting this Protection Threatens Irreparable Harm ........4
`The Final Rule Significantly Weakens the Protections Afforded by the
`AEZ ..............................................................................................................6
`The Provisions of the 2015 WPS Rule that Remain in Place Are Not
`Sufficient, on Their Own, to Protect Against Drift Exposure......................7
`By Weakening AEZ Protections, the Final Rule Will Result in Irreparable
`Harm to Farmworkers, Their Families and Other Bystanders ...................11
`PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS ........................13
`A.
`The Weakened AEZ Violates FIFRA, and EPA’s Contrary Interpretation
`is Not Permissible ......................................................................................14
`The Final Rule Is Arbitrary and Capricious Under the APA .....................16
`B.
`Congress Did Not Sanction the Final Rule Through PRIEA .....................21
`C.
`THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES AND PUBLIC INTEREST FAVOR A STAY
`AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ...........................................................23
`A FURTHER STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION PREVENTING
`IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL RULE MUST APPLY NATIONWIDE
`AND TO THE FINAL RULE IN ITS ENTIRETY ...............................................25
`A.
`A Further Stay Must Apply Nationwide ....................................................25
`B.
`A Preliminary Injunction Must Apply Nationwide ...................................26
`C.
`A Stay and/or Preliminary Injunction Must Apply to the Entire Final
`Rule ............................................................................................................27
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................29
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page number(s)
`
`Beal v. Stern,
`
`184 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1999)...........................................................................................3 n.1
`
`Bostock v. Clayton County,
`
`140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) .......................................................................................................23
`
`Burlington Truck Lines v. United States,
`
`317 U.S. 156 (1962) ...........................................................................................................19
`
`Califano v. Yamasaki,
`
` 442 U.S. 682 (1979) ..........................................................................................................26
`
`Carlson v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n,
`
`938 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ...........................................................................................27
`
`Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Trump,
`
`971 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................26
`
`Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf,
`
`No. 8:20-cv-02118-PX, 2020 WL 5500165 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020) ...............................26
`
`Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`
`467 U.S. 837, 845 (1984) .............................................................................................14, 15
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin.,
`
`538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................21
`
`Davis Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. v. EPA,
`
`108 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................27–28
`
`District of Columbia v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
`
`444 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020) .......................................................................................25
`
`District Hosp. Partners, L.P. v. Burwell,
`
`786 F.3d 46 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................19
`
`Faively Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp.,
`
`559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009).............................................................................................2–3
`
`FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 4 of 36
`
`556 U.S. 502 (2009) ...............................................................................................16, 18, 20
`
`
`
`Harmon v. Thornburgh,
`
`878 F.2d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ...........................................................................................25
`
`HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. v. Gawker Media LLC,
`
`721 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)..................................................................................2
`
`Kiakombua v. Wolf,
`
`No. 19-cv-1872 (KBJ), 2020 WL 6392824 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2020) .................................27
`
`League of Women Voters of U.S. v. Newby,
`
`838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................................23
`
`Libertarian Party of Conn. v. Lamont,
`
`977 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2020)...........................................................................................3 n.1
`
`MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass’n v. FCC,
`
`236 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................28
`
`Merrell v. Thomas,
`
`608 F. Supp. 644 (D. Or. 1985) .........................................................................................14
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) .............................................................................................................19
`
`New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ.,
`
`No. 20-CV-4260 (JGK), 2020 WL 4581595 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2020) .....................2–3, 21
`
`New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
`
`414 F. Supp. 3d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)................................................................................28
`
`New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
`
`969 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2020)......................................................................................... passim
`
`North Carolina v. F.E.R.C.,
`
`730 F.2d 790 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ...........................................................................................27
`
`O.A. v. Trump,
`
`404 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019) ...................................................................................25
`
`Organized Migrants in Cmty. Action, Inc. v. Brennan,
`
`520 F.2d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ...................................................................................22, 23
`
`Pangea Legal Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.,
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 5 of 36
`
`No. 20-cv-07721-SI, 2020 WL 6802474 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020) ................................27
`
`
`
`Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.,
`
`467 U.S. 986 (1984) ...........................................................................................................14
`
`Saint Francis Med. Ctr. v. Azar,
`
`894 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................................28
`
`Sussman v. Crawford,
`
`488 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2007)...........................................................................................3 n.1
`
`Tex. Off. of Pub. Util. Couns. v. FCC,
`
`265 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................19
`
`United States v. Shimer,
`
`367 U.S. 374 (1961) ...........................................................................................................15
`
`West Harlem Env’t. Action v. EPA,
`
`380 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)................................................................................19
`
`Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) .................................................................................................................2
`
`Wright v. Giuliani,
`
`230 F.3d 543 (2d Cir. 2000)...........................................................................................3 n.1
`
`
`STATUTES & LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`
`
`Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018,
`
`Pub. L. No. 116-8, 133 Stat. 484 (2019) ............................................................................21
`
`S. Rep. No. 92-838. 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1972), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News
`1972, p. 3993 .......................................................................................................................14, 22
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS & EXECUTIVE MATERIALS
`
`40 C.F.R. § 170.401 .........................................................................................................................8
`
`40 C.F.R. § 170.401(c)(3)(iv) ..........................................................................................................9
`
` v
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
` 7
`
` U.S.C. § 705 ........................................................................................................................2, 3, 29
`
` U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5) .....................................................................................................................22
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`Pesticides—Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions,
` 80 Fed. Reg. 67,496 (Nov. 2, 2015) .................................................................................. passim
`
`Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Revision of the Application Exclusion
`Zone Requirements, 85 Fed. Reg. 68,760-01 (Oct. 30, 2020) .......................................... passim
`
`
`
`RULES OF COURT
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 .......................................................................................................................1, 29
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Allan S. Felsot et al., Agrochemical Spray Drift; Assessment and Mitigation—A Review,
` 46 J. Envtl. Sci. Health, Part B 1, 2 (2011) ...................................................................................7
`
`Edward J. Kasner et al., Gender Differences in Acute Pesticide-Related Illnesses and
`Injuries Among Farmworkers in the United States, 1998-2007, 55 Am. J. Indus. Med.
`571 (2012) .................................................................................................................................12
`
`
`EPA, Cost Analysis for Revisions to the Application Exclusion Zone in the Agricultural
`Worker Protection Standard; Final Rule (Oct. 14, 2020) .........................................................20
`
`
`EPA, Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions,
`Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184 ................................................................................20
`
`
`Geoffrey M. Calvert et al., Acute Pesticide Poisoning Among Agricultural Workers in the
`United States, 1998-2005, 51 Am. J. Indus. Med. 883 (2008) ..................................................12
`
`
`Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative, “Worker Protection Standard Agricultural
`Worker Pesticide Safety Training,” EPA Worker PST 00017 (2017) ......................................10
`
`
`Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative, “Worker Protection Standard Pesticide
`Handler Safety Training,” EPA Handler PST 00018 (2018) ....................................................10
`
`
`Soo-Jeong Lee et al., Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-Target Pesticide Drift
`from Agricultural Applications, 119 Env’t Health Persp. 1162 (2011) ................................6, 12
`
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 7 of 36
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs request a nationwide preliminary injunction or a continuance of the stay of the
`
`Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Revision of the Application Exclusion
`
`Zone Requirements, 85 Fed. Reg. 68,760-01, 68,773 (Oct. 30, 2020) (“Final Rule”) because they
`
`will otherwise suffer irreparable harm from pesticide poisoning via drift. Copious evidence in the
`
`record for the 2015 Worker Protection Standard (“WPS”) amendments—that EPA itself relied on
`
`and that is included in the administrative record for the Final Rule—demonstrates the extent to
`
`which pesticide drift imperils farmworkers, their families, their children, and other rural
`
`community members. This evidence demonstrates that pesticide drift harms people both on and
`
`off the establishment where the application is taking place. EPA’s solution to address this harm
`
`in 2015 was to promulgate the Application Exclusion Zone (“AEZ”), a simple, common-sense
`
`directive for pesticide applicators to suspend spraying whenever someone was within a
`
`determined radius from the application. EPA’s recent decision to weaken key provisions of the
`
`AEZ leaves farmworkers and bystanders vulnerable to pesticide poisoning through drift and the
`
`range of severe adverse health impacts that result from such exposure.
`
`
`
`In weakening the critical protections provided by the 2015 AEZ, EPA turns a blind eye to
`
`the hazardous consequences of its action. It claims—contrary to its 2015 findings and with no
`
`evidentiary support—that, in fact, the AEZ is not necessary at all. Yet, EPA has not and cannot
`
`explain how weakening protections that EPA found essential in 2015 without adding any new
`
`safeguards, and without pointing to any evidence establishing the protections are no longer
`
`needed, is reasonable. EPA’s failure to consider the evidence before it and its prior findings and
`
`to provide a reasoned explanation for its change in position deem the Final Rule unlawful.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 8 of 36
`
`Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to preliminarily enjoin implementation of the Final
`
`Rule without geographic limitation, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and/or to provide a continuance of the
`
`stay of the Final Rule while judicial review proceeds, 5 U.S.C. § 705. As discussed below and in
`
`Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Order to Show Cause for Emergency
`
`Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and 5 U.S.C. § 705, Dkt. No. 14-1, and as this Court
`
`concluded in its Opinion on Plaintiffs’ Order to Show Cause, Dkt. 37, Plaintiffs satisfy the
`
`standard for such relief: they will suffer irreparable harm if the Final Rule goes into effect, they
`
`are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, and the balance of equities and public interest
`
`favor maintaining the status quo.
`
`STANDARD FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR A STAY
`OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE
`
`To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show that “[it] is likely to
`
`succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
`
`relief, that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public
`
`interest.” New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42, 58 (2d Cir. 2020)
`
`(quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). Because the government
`
`is a party to the suit, “the final two factors merge.” Id. at 59. The standard for grant of a
`
`temporary restraining order is the same. See HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. v. Gawker Media
`
`LLC, 721 F. Supp. 2d 303, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). As this Court held in issuing its temporary
`
`restraining order: “A showing of irreparable harm is ‘the single most important prerequisite for the
`
`issuance of the preliminary injunction.’” Op. & Order at 18 [Dkt. No. 37], citing New York v. U.S.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 9 of 36
`
`Dep’t of Educ., 2020 WL 4581595, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2020) (quoting Faively Transp. Malmo
`
`AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2009)).1
`
`The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) further authorizes courts reviewing agency
`
`actions to, “[o]n such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent
`
`irreparable injury, . . . issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date
`
`of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review
`
`proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. § 705. Courts employ the same four-part test to determine when to issue
`
`a stay under the APA as they do to determine when to issue a preliminary injunction. See New
`
`York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d at 59.
`
`For the reasons below, Plaintiffs meet the standard for a preliminary injunction and a stay.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiffs meet each of the requirements necessary to preliminarily enjoin the Final Rule
`
`and/or to stay its effective date. Given the need for the protections provided by the AEZ and the
`
`Final Rule’s weakening of these safeguards, as well as the arbitrary nature of the decision-
`
`making, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a stay and likely to succeed on the
`
`
`1 In the Opinion and Order, the Court also ruled that “when the injunction would affect
`government action taken pursuant to a regulatory scheme, the plaintiff must show a ‘clear or
`substantial’ likelihood of success on the merits.” Op. & Order at 18, citing Sussman v. Crawford,
`488 F.3d 136, 140 (2d Cir. 2007). However, Sussman is an outlier. Indeed, the cases cited
`in Sussman do not support its holding. Instead, they make clear that movants must show a clear
`or substantial likelihood of success only “when the injunction sought ‘will alter rather than
`maintain the status quo.’” Wright v. Giuliani, 230 F.3d 543, 547 (2d Cir. 2000)
`(quoting Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 175 F.3d 227, 233 (2d Cir. 1999)); Beal v. Stern, 184 F.3d
`117, 122–23 (2d Cir. 1999). By contrast, when movants seek an injunction that will affect
`government action taken pursuant to a regulatory scheme, they need only show a likelihood of
`success. Wright, 230 F.3d at 547. More recent Second Circuit cases agree with this
`distinction. See, e.g., Libertarian Party of Conn. v. Lamont, 977 F.3d 173, 176 (2d Cir. 2020).
`Because Plaintiffs do not seek to alter the status quo, they need only satisfy the lesser burden and
`need not show a clear or substantial likelihood of success. But, in any event, Plaintiffs satisfy the
`more rigorous standard.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 10 of 36
`
`merits once judicial review goes forth. The balance of equities and the public interest also favor
`
`keeping the AEZ in place during the pendency of this litigation.
`
`I.
`
`THE FINAL RULE WILL IRREPARABLY HARM FARMWORKERS, THEIR
`FAMILIES, AND OTHER BYSTANDERS
`
`A.
`
`The AEZ Provides Essential Protection Against Pesticide Poisoning from
`Drift Exposure; Limiting this Protection Threatens Irreparable Harm
`
`The AEZ is necessary to protect farmworkers against irreparable harm because, as EPA
`
`itself found in 2015, the “do not contact” provision is insufficient. Pesticides—Agricultural
`
`Worker Protection Standard Revisions (“2015 Rule”), 80 Fed. Reg. 67,496, 67,524 (Nov. 2, 2015)
`
`(“exposure to drift or direct spray events still happen despite the ‘do not contact’ requirement”);
`
`see also id. (“EPA disagrees with the assertion that the ‘do not contact’ requirements, along with
`
`the other protections on pesticide labels, are by themselves sufficient to protect workers and
`
`bystanders from being directly contacted by pesticides that are applied.”). The AEZ was meant to
`
`directly address the problem of drift-related exposures, and, in combination with multiple other
`
`provisions added by the 2015 Rule, to “prevent unreasonable adverse effects from exposure to
`
`pesticides among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, vulnerable groups (such as
`
`minority and low-income populations, child farmworkers, and farmworker families) and other
`
`persons who may be on or near agricultural establishments, and to mitigate exposures that do
`
`occur.” Id. at 67,496. EPA added the AEZ provision to provide safety measures that increase
`
`compliance with the “do not contact” provision by requiring handlers to suspend spraying
`
`whenever someone was dangerously close, noting that “[t]he new, explicit requirement to
`
`suspend application if people other than handlers are in the application exclusion zone is
`
`intended to supplement the existing ‘do not contact’ requirement by giving the applicator
`
`specific criteria for suspending application.” Id. at 67,524.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 11 of 36
`
`Importantly, this explicit requirement protects bystanders within the AEZ in situations
`
`where the handler mistakenly believes it is safe to continue pesticide application and
`
`inadvertently allows pesticide contact via drift to occur. As noted by the Court in its order, “[t]he
`
`‘do not contact’ requirement . . . could not protect against unintended drift.” Op. & Order at 28;
`
`see also id. at 34 n.4 (“The AEZ was instituted in part to protect against instances of handlers
`
`unwittingly subjecting bystanders to pesticide exposure through drift.”). There may be cases
`
`where the “do not contact” provision is insufficient because the handler does not know that the
`
`only way to prevent exposure would be to suspend spraying. No amount of training—particularly
`
`not the high-level and vague training actually provided to handlers, as explained below—can be
`
`as protective as an explicit, specific requirement. Moreover, enforcement of the “do not contact”
`
`provision is reactive, i.e., whether an applicator has complied with the “do not contact” provision
`
`can only be determined after the fact, when someone has been sprayed by pesticide. By contrast,
`
`the AEZ provision is prophylactic, preventing exposure in the first place with a clear requirement
`
`that can be objectively assessed and enforced before exposure occurs.
`
`For these reasons, the protections afforded by the AEZ—including protections for
`
`bystanders off the agricultural establishment and on easements, as well as protection from drift
`
`from droplets of various sizes—are critically important to protect workers and bystanders from
`
`exposure to pesticides through drift. Indeed, EPA itself concluded that the other provisions in the
`
`WPS “by themselves” are not “sufficient to protect workers and bystanders from being directly
`
`contacted by pesticides that are applied.” 2015 Rule at 67,521. The AEZ protections—or
`
`something equally protective—are essential to ensure that pesticides are not applied in a manner
`
`that causes an unreasonable risk of harm, in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`
`Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”).
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 12 of 36
`
`B.
`
`The Final Rule Significantly Weakens the Protections Afforded by the AEZ
`
`EPA’s changes to the AEZ provision cannot be categorized as “limited,” as EPA asserts.
`
`EPA Br. at 26 [Dkt. No. 30]. Rather, what EPA claims are “modest” modifications in fact
`
`eliminate critical protections from pesticide poisoning to farmers, farmworkers, and rural
`
`communities, including Plaintiffs’ members. For example, limiting the AEZ to the boundaries of
`
`the agricultural establishment hardly qualifies as “modest” to Plaintiffs’ members who live,
`
`work, or attend schools adjacent to properties where pesticides are regularly applied and thus
`
`remain at risk of exposure to pesticides through drift. See Bartolo Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9 (Jan. 6, 2021);
`
`Barragan Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6 (Jan. 6, 2021). As EPA found in 2015, evidence showed that a significant
`
`number of drift-related incidents occur outside of the establishment. 2015 Rule at 67,524; see
`
`also Soo-Jeong Lee et al., Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-Target Pesticide Drift
`
`from Agricultural Applications, 119 Env’t Health Persp. 1162, 1167 (2011), AR-A-0006532
`
`(finding 44.5% cases of drift-related exposure occurred on private residences, 5.6% on roads or
`
`right-of-ways, and 3.6% on school property). The AEZ as enacted in 2015 was needed “to
`
`supplement the existing WPS protections to reduce exposures to workers and other persons from
`
`being directly sprayed with pesticides.” Op. & Order at 28 (quoting 2015 Rule at 67,521). By
`
`limiting the AEZ to within the property lines, the Final Rule significantly weakens protections
`
`from such drift-related incidents.
`
`Likewise, eliminating the protections of the AEZ altogether for bystanders on the
`
`property due to an easement can hardly be deemed a minimal revision. Such bystanders may not
`
`be aware of the hazards of drift exposure and thus may be particularly vulnerable, lacking the
`
`tools necessary to protect themselves against the risk of such exposure. The AEZ may be the
`
`only prophylactic measure protecting such individuals from being sprayed by drift.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 13 of 36
`
`Additionally, EPA’s decision to establish a twenty-five-foot AEZ for all sprayed
`
`applications made from a height greater than twelve inches and to no longer differentiate
`
`between sprayed applications based on spray quality are not insignificant. Smaller droplets are
`
`likely to drift farther than larger ones. See Allan S. Felsot et al., Agrochemical Spray Drift;
`
`Assessment and Mitigation—A Review, 46 J. Env’t Sci. Health, Part B 1, 2 (2011), AR-A-007976
`
`(“In general, all size classes of spray particles are capable of movement off-target, but the
`
`smallest particles will move the farthest before depositing on the ground or striking an object
`
`above ground.”). Accordingly, when it developed the AEZ in 2015, EPA ensured that the
`
`protected area would be larger for applications involving small droplet size. See 2015 Rule at
`
`67,523 (discussing provision requiring larger AEZ for applications with smaller droplet size and
`
`explaining, “[t]he application methods that have an application exclusion zone of 100 feet are the
`
`ones where pesticide is expected to move a longer distance from where they are applied”). By
`
`reducing the AEZ from 100 feet to twenty-five feet for ground applications made with spray
`
`quality smaller than medium and removing the AEZ completely for applications made with spray
`
`quality smaller than medium made from a height of less than twelve inches, the Final Rule
`
`reduces the AEZ by 75–100% for these category of applications. This is hardly a “limited”
`
`change, and increases the risk of exposure from drift from small droplet applications.
`
`In sum, the Final Rule weakens protections significantly, and farmworkers, their families,
`
`and rural communities are likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result.
`
`C.
`
`The Provisions of the 2015 WPS Rule that Remain in Place Are Not
`Sufficient, on Their Own, to Protect Against Drift Exposure
`
`EPA’s assertion that the portions of the 2015 WPS amendments that remain will
`
`sufficiently protect farmworkers from drift cannot pass muster. EPA Br. at 14. While the 2015
`
`WPS amendment consists of various provisions aimed at addressing a wide range of health risks
`
` 7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 14 of 36
`
`connected with occupational and associated pesticide exposure, see, e.g., 2015 Rule at 67,496,
`
`the AEZ provision was the only provisions directly aimed at preventing pesticide exposure due
`
`to drift.
`
`The preamble to the 2015 Rule contained a section titled “Drift-Related Requirements,”
`
`which discussed requirements whose “purpose. . . is to prevent workers and other persons from
`
`being exposed to pesticides by unintentional contact during application.” Id. at 67,520 (emphasis
`
`added). This section talks solely about the AEZ-related provisions, indicating EPA’s intent that
`
`the AEZ be the primary tool for preventing drift-related exposure. Id. at 67,520–25.
`
`Contrary to what EPA claims, the “enhanced training requirements” added by the 2015
`
`Rule are not sufficient to protect farmworkers and bystanders from drift. See Final Rule at
`
`68,773. See Liebman Decl. ¶ 7 (Jan. 5, 2021) (“I do not believe the training provided in [the
`
`EPA-approved worker training] video would be sufficient to protect workers and bystanders
`
`from being sprayed by pesticide drift in the absence of the AEZ.”). An examination of subjects
`
`that are required by regulation to be covered in farmworker trainings demonstrates the limited
`
`role trainings play in preventing exposure via drift. The topics required to be covered in training
`
`include avoiding pesticide-treated areas on the establishment, risks to family members from
`
`pesticide residue that workers take home on their body and clothing, hazards that result from
`
`pesticide exposure, routes of exposure, signs of pesticide poisoning, emergency treatment for
`
`pesticide injuries, decontamination procedures, obtaining emergency care, wearing protective
`
`clothing, protecting against hazards from pesticide exposure on farmworkers’ bodies and
`
`clothing, not carrying pesticides home, and reading safety data sheets. 2015 Rule at 67,505–06;
`
`see also 40 C.F.R. § 170.401. None of these educate farmworkers or applicators on how to avoid
`
`pesticide poisoning from drift in the first instance. See Liebman Decl. ¶ 5 (Jan. 5, 2021)
`
` 8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 51 Filed 01/06/21 Page 15 of 36
`
`(“Trainings provided pursuant to the WPS are largely geared at making workers aware of the
`
`WPS’s regulatory requirements so they know what their rights are and understand that they are
`
`not supposed to be sprayed by pesticides.”).
`
`Indeed, of all the required training topics, only one topic covers drift, and it focuses on
`
`sources of drift exposure, rather than ways to prevent it. It thus falls far short of a substitute for
`
`the AEZ protections eliminated by the Final Rule. Specifically, the drift-related topic that
`
`training must cover is the following:
`
`Where and in what forms pesticides may be encountered during work activities, and
`potential sources of pesticide exposure on the agricultural establishment. This includes
`exposure to pesticide residues that may be on or in plants, soil, tractors, application and
`chemigation equipment, or used personal protective equipment, and that pesticides may
`drift through the air from nearby applications or be in irrigation water.
`
`
`40 C.F.R. § 170.401(c)(3)(iv). Thus, there is no requirement for training to cover how to avoid
`
`exposure from off-target drift or how to apply pesticides to avoid drift but only a requi