Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`20 Civ. 10645 (LJL)
`
`[rel. 20 Civ. 10642 (LJL)]
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`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,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
`PROTECTION AGENCY and ANDREW
`WHEELER, in his official capacity as
`Administrator of the United States Environmental
`Protection Agency,
`
` Defendants.
`
`EPA’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND EXTENSION OF STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AUDREY STRAUSS
`Acting United States Attorney for the
`Southern District of New York
`86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
`New York, New York 10007
`Tel.: (212) 637-2677
`E-mail: samuel.dolinger@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`SAMUEL DOLINGER
`Assistant United States Attorney
`– Of Counsel –
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 44
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND ...............................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Regulation of Pesticides Under FIFRA ...................................................................3
`
`The FIFRA Worker Protection Standard .................................................................4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The 1992 WPS and the “Do Not Contact” Provision ..................................5
`
`The 2015 Rule Revising the WPS ...............................................................5
`
`Response to the 2015 Rule from State Pesticide Regulators,
`Farming-Related Organizations, and Others ................................................7
`
`The Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act ...........................10
`
`EPA’s 2020 Rule Modifying the AEZ Provisions of the 2015 WPS ........10
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................12
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ..................12
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TO STAY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
`EPA’S 2020 RULE, AND INSTEAD SHOULD TERMINATE THE STAY ..................13
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Are Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits of Their FIFRA Claim .............13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The 2020 Rule’s AEZ Modification Is Consistent with FIFRA ................14
`
`EPA’s Interpretation of FIFRA Is Entitled to Chevron Deference ............17
`
`EPA’s Modification of the AEZ in the 2020 Rule Is Not Arbitrary
`or Capricious ..............................................................................................18
`
`(a)
`
`EPA Appropriately Explained the Basis for Its Change in
`Position ..........................................................................................19
`
`(b)
`
`EPA’s Cost Analysis Was Also Appropriate .................................24
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Established Irreparable Harm or Established Standing .........27
`
`The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest Do Not Favor the
`Grant of Preliminary Relief ...................................................................................28
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 44
`
`III.
`
`ANY FURTHER RELIEF AS TO THE 2020 RULE SHOULD BE
`APPROPRIATELY TAILORED, BOTH AS TO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF
`THE 2020 RULE AND AS TO THE INJURIES DEMONSTRATED BY
`PLAINTIFFS .....................................................................................................................30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Any Injunctive Relief Should Only Apply to Specific Provisions of the
`2020 Rule as to Which Plaintiffs Have Met the Relevant Injunctive
`Standards ................................................................................................................30
`
`Nationwide Relief Is Inappropriate Here; Any Further Injunctive Relief
`Should be Narrow, and Apply Only to Specific Harms Alleged by
`Plaintiffs .................................................................................................................32
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 4 of 44
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases
`Able v. United States,
`44 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................................... 13
`Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n,
`988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................................ 34
`Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin.,
`724 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 25
`Bowen v. Massachusetts,
`487 U.S. 879 (1988) ............................................................................................................... 26
`California v. Azar,
`911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................... 32, 33, 35
`Carlson v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n,
`938 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 32
`Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf,
`— F. Supp. 3d —, No. 20 Civ. 2118, 2020 WL 5500165 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2020) .......... 32, 35
`Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) ......................................................................................................... 17, 18
`Clean Water Action v. EPA,
`936 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................. 21
`Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Peck,
`751 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................................. 25
`Defs. of Wildlife v. Adm’r,
`882 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1989) .......................................................................................... 13, 26
`Dep’t of Commerce v. New York,
`139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019)............................................................................................................. 28
`District of Columbia v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
`444 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020) ............................................................................................ 35
`E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.,
`261 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1958) ............................................................................................. 13, 32
`E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr,
`934 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 33
`FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
`556 U.S. 502 (2009) ................................................................................................... 19, 20, 21
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 5 of 44
`
`Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer,
`408 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 27
`Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne,
`538 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................... 19
`Gill v. Whitford,
`138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ...................................................................................................... 32, 35
`L.A. Haven Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius,
`638 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 32
`Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr.,
`512 U.S. 753 (1994) ............................................................................................................... 32
`Martex Farms, S.E. v. EPA,
`559 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 4
`Mass. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. HUD,
`No. 20 Civ. 11765, 2020 WL 6390143 (D. Mass. Oct. 25, 2020) .......................................... 34
`Mazurek v. Armstrong,
`520 U.S. 968 (1997) ......................................................................................................... 12, 30
`MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass’n v. FCC,
`236 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................. 31, 32
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ................................................................................................................. 19
`Munaf v. Geren,
`553 U.S. 674 (2008) ............................................................................................................... 12
`Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA,
`682 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 21, 25
`Nat’l Cable & Telecom. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs.,
`545 U.S. 967 (2005) ............................................................................................................... 18
`Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. EPA,
`286 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 25
`New York v. DHS,
`969 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................. passim
`New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ.,
`No. 20 Civ. 4260 (JGK), 2020 WL 4581595 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2020) ................................. 13
`NRDC v. EPA,
`676 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .............................................................................. 13, 34
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 6 of 44
`
`Nw. Immigr. Rights Project v. USCIS,
`No. 19 Civ. 3283, 2020 WL 5995206 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020) ................................................ 34
`Pangea Legal Servs. v. DHS,
`No. 20 Civ. 7721, 2020 WL 6802474 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020) ......................................... 34
`Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk Cty.,
`600 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 3
`Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA,
`358 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................... 19
`Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.,
`467 U.S. 986 (1984) ........................................................................................................... 4, 14
`Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org.,
`426 U.S. 26 (1976) ................................................................................................................. 28
`Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Fla. v. Veneman,
`289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 35
`Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
`555 U.S. 488 (2009) ......................................................................................................... 27, 32
`Sussman v. Crawford,
`488 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................... 12
`Texas v. EPA,
`829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 34
`The Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. FEC,
`681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 34
`Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.,
`137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 33
`Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project,
`137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 34
`United States v. Mead Corp.,
`533 U.S. 218 (2001) ............................................................................................................... 17
`Va. Soc’y for Human Life, Inc. v. FEC,
`263 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 34
`W. Harlem Envtl. Action v. EPA,
`380 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .................................................................................... 26
`Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo,
`456 U.S. 305 (1982) ............................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 7 of 44
`
`Winter v. NRDC, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Federal Statutes
`5 U.S.C. § 701 ................................................................................................................................ 1
`5 U.S.C. § 704 .............................................................................................................................. 26
`5 U.S.C. § 705 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`5 U.S.C. § 706 .............................................................................................................................. 14
`7 U.S.C. § 136 ....................................................................................................................... passim
`7 U.S.C. § 136a ...............................................................................................................3, 4, 14, 18
`7 U.S.C. § 136j .................................................................................................................................4
`7 U.S.C. § 136l .................................................................................................................................4
`7 U.S.C. § 136n ................................................................................................................ 13, 26, 27
`7 U.S.C. § 136u ................................................................................................................................4
`7 U.S.C. § 136w ................................................................................................................... passim
`7 U.S.C. § 136w-1............................................................................................................................4
`Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018,
`Pub. L. No. 116-8, 133 Stat. 578 (2019) ................................................................10, 14, 18, 29
`
`Regulations
`40 C.F.R. § 156.206 ....................................................................................................................... 5
`40 C.F.R. § 170.1 ........................................................................................................................... 4
`40 C.F.R. § 170.9 ........................................................................................................................... 4
`40 C.F.R. § 170.210 (1993) ........................................................................................................... 5
`40 C.F.R. § 170.303 ....................................................................................................................... 4
`40 C.F.R. § 170.405 ........................................................................................................... 7, 11, 12
`40 C.F.R. § 170.405 (2016) ........................................................................................................... 7
`40 C.F.R. § 170.409 ............................................................................................................... 16, 17
`40 C.F.R. § 170.501 ..........................................................................................................11, 16, 29
`40 C.F.R. § 170.505 ..................................................................................................................... 11
`Pesticides—Agricultural Worker Protection Standard: Revision of the
`Application Exclusion Zone Requirements,
`85 Fed. Reg. 68,760 (Oct. 30, 2020) .............................................................................. passim
`Pesticides—Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions,
`80 Fed. Reg. 67,496 (Nov. 2, 2015) ................................................................................ passim
`Pesticides—Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions,
`79 Fed. Reg. 15,444 (Mar. 19, 2014) ...................................................................................6, 15
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 8 of 44
`
`Revision of the Application Exclusion Zone Requirements,
`84 Fed. Reg. 58,666 (Nov. 1, 2019) ........................................................................................10
`
`Executive Orders
`Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,
`Exec. Order No. 13,777 (Feb. 24, 2017) ....................................................................................9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`Defendants U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Andrew Wheeler, in his official
`
`capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (together, “EPA”), by
`
`their attorney, Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New
`
`York, respectfully submit this memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a
`
`preliminary injunction and to extend the stay of the effective date of an EPA regulation.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs assert causes of action under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
`
`Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA” or the “Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq., and the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., challenging a regulation that EPA issued on
`
`October 30, 2020, which was originally scheduled to go into effect on December 29, 2020. The
`
`relevant regulation modestly modifies a prior set of pesticide-related worker protection
`
`standards—specifically, clarifying that the pesticide Application Exclusion Zone (“AEZ”)
`
`previously implemented by a 2015 EPA rulemaking applies only on an agricultural employer’s
`
`property and simplifying the determination of the size of an AEZ for certain pesticide application
`
`methods. See Pesticides—Agricultural Worker Protection Standard: Revision of the Application
`
`Exclusion Zone Requirements (“2020 Rule”), 85 Fed. Reg. 68,760 (Oct. 30, 2020).
`
`On December 28, 2020, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a
`
`stay under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and 5 U.S.C. § 705, postponed the effective date of the 2020 Rule
`
`until January 11, 2021, and directed further briefing regarding Plaintiffs’ request for a
`
`preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 35 (“TRO Order”). On December 29, the Court issued an
`
`Opinion and Order granting a stay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705, “for 14 days, until January 12,
`
`2021.” Dkt. No. 37 (“Opinion”). EPA filed a certification of the administrative record and an
`
`index of the record on January 4, 2021. Dkt. No. 48. The Court has scheduled a hearing on
`
`January 8, 2021, “as to whether the stay and restraining order should be continued and a
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 10 of 44
`
`preliminary injunction granted or alternatively whether the stay and restraining order should be
`
`lifted and/or modified.” TRO Order ¶ 3.1
`
`Because Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on their claims, irreparable
`
`harm, or that an injunction or stay would serve the public interest, the Court should deny
`
`Plaintiffs’ request and terminate the stay. To succeed on their claims under FIFRA, Plaintiffs
`
`would have to demonstrate that the 2020 Rule was either not in accordance with the Act or that
`
`its promulgation was arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs cannot make either showing. First, the
`
`2020 Rule is in accordance with FIFRA. Congress in 2019 explicitly permitted EPA to modify
`
`the AEZ by regulation, and the FIFRA regulatory scheme that existed for decades before the
`
`AEZ was created in 2015 does not require these specific AEZ provisions to remain in effect.
`
`Second, the 2020 Rule is not arbitrary and capricious. In response to comments from
`
`stakeholders including state pesticide regulators, EPA identified portions of the 2015 rule’s AEZ
`
`requirements that warranted certain modifications to clarify regulatory requirements, improve
`
`enforceability, and reduce the complexity of pesticide applications. The 2020 Rule is a change
`
`from EPA’s prior position regarding the AEZ, but this is unexceptional: the new rule recognizes
`
`that it modifies the prior rule in specific limited respects and appropriately explains the reasons
`
`for the modifications. Most of the 2015 rule, however, remains unmodified, and even the AEZ
`
`provisions provide for the same AEZ size and scope for many types of pesticide applications.
`
`Plaintiffs also have not demonstrated that they will be irreparably harmed in the absence
`
`of injunctive relief. EPA reasonably concluded that protections in place under EPA pesticide
`
`regulations, including worker protection rules added by the 2015 rule—working in conjunction
`
`with the longstanding rule known as the “Do Not Contact” provision, which bars pesticide
`
`
`1 EPA does not plan to call witnesses at the January 8 hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 11 of 44
`
`handlers from applying pesticides in a way that causes human contact—were sufficient to protect
`
`agricultural workers and bystanders alike.
`
`Plaintiffs have neither demonstrated that the balance of the equities tips in their favor, nor
`
`that the public interest supports the issuance of a TRO, preliminary injunction, or stay. EPA
`
`appropriately adopted the 2020 Rule, and Plaintiffs’ opposition does not outweigh the harm to
`
`the agency’s ability to implement its preferred policy. Thus, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’
`
`motion for a preliminary injunction and terminate the stay of the 2020 Rule’s effectiveness.
`
`In the alternative, even assuming arguendo Plaintiffs were to establish their entitlement
`
`to injunctive relief, the Court should narrow its stay of the 2020 Rule. First, any relief should
`
`affect only the provisions of the 2020 Rule that Plaintiffs have challenged, and as to which they
`
`have met their burden, allowing all other portions of the 2020 Rule to go into effect. Second, any
`
`relief should not be nationwide in scope, and should instead be tailored to apply only to harms
`
`Plaintiffs have established as to themselves and their own members.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`Regulation of Pesticides Under FIFRA
`
`A.
`FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y, generally governs pesticide use in the United States. It
`
`regulates the sale, distribution, labeling and use of pesticides while protecting human health and
`
`the environment from associated unreasonable adverse effects. FIFRA authorizes EPA to make a
`
`variety of pesticide-specific decisions and to issue regulations to carry out its responsibilities
`
`under the Act. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. §§ 136a (pesticide registration); 136w(a)(1) (issuance of
`
`regulations).
`
`In its current form, “FIFRA functions as a comprehensive scheme to regulate the use, sale
`
`and labeling, of pesticides.” Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk Cty., 600 F.3d 180, 185 (2d Cir.
`
`2010) (quotation marks omitted). In order for EPA to approve a pesticide product for use, EPA
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 12 of 44
`
`must determine that it “will not cause ‘unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.’”
`
`Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 992 (1984) (citing 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(C)-(D)).
`
`FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to include, inter alia, “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.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb); see 2020 Rule,
`
`85 Fed. Reg. at 68,762.
`
`The Act authorizes the EPA Administrator “to prescribe regulations to carry out the
`
`provisions of” FIFRA. See 7 U.S.C. § 136w(a). Although the Act, as amended, gives
`
`enforcement authority to EPA, it also authorizes EPA to enter into “cooperative agreements”
`
`with the states to enforce FIFRA provisions, and gives states primary enforcement responsibility
`
`over pesticide use violations after they meet certain conditions. 7 U.S.C. §§ 136u, 136w-1.
`
`The FIFRA Worker Protection Standard
`
`B.
`EPA has for decades implemented FIFRA’s mandate to limit adverse effects on human
`
`health in part through the Worker Protection Standard (“WPS”), a set of requirements codified at
`
`40 C.F.R. pt. 170. The WPS’s requirements are generally applicable to pesticides used in crop
`
`agriculture, made applicable to particular pesticide products through FIFRA’s pesticide product
`
`registration process by inclusion of a statement requiring WPS compliance on the product label.
`
`See 40 C.F.R. § 170.303. “The WPS is intended to reduce the risk of illness and injury to
`
`[agricultural] workers and [pesticide] handlers who are exposed to pesticides during the course
`
`of employment.” Martex Farms, S.E. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir. 2009) (citing 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 170.1). “Any failure to comply with the WPS when using a pesticide is a violation of FIFRA.”
`
`Id. (citing 40 C.F.R. § 170.9(a)); see 7 U.S.C. §§ 136j(a)(2)(G), 136l; see also 2020 Rule, 85
`
`Fed. Reg. at 68,762 (WPS “requirements complement the product-specific labeling restrictions
`
`and are intended to minimize occupational exposures generally.”)
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 13 of 44
`
`The 1992 WPS and the “Do Not Contact” Provision
`
`1.
`The 1992 version of the WPS imposed the requirement that the pesticide handler’s
`
`employer and the pesticide handler must ensure “that no pesticide is applied so as to contact,
`
`either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained
`
`and equipped [pesticide] handler.” 40 C.F.R. § 170.210 (1993). As EPA explains, this provision,
`
`known as the “Do Not Contact” provision, is a “key protective and enforcement mechanism[]”
`
`within the WPS, as it “prohibits application in a way that contacts agricultural workers or other
`
`persons both on and off the agricultural establishment where the pesticide is being applied.”
`
`2020 Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. at 68,763. The “Do Not Contact” provision is also implemented through
`
`pesticide labeling requirements. See 40 C.F.R. § 156.206(a) (requiring the following pesticide
`
`label statement: “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.”).
`
`“The ‘Do Not Contact’ provision applies in all situations and application scenarios.”
`
`2020 Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. at 68,768. Regardless of whether workers or bystanders are inside or
`
`outside farm boundaries, or on an easement, the “Do Not Contact” provision requires handlers to
`
`“ensure that their application does not contact persons directly or through drift.” Id. at 68,765. “If
`
`a handler has any reason to believe that workers or bystanders may be contacted by a pesticide
`
`during a pesticide application, the application should not take place until either those individuals
`
`leave the area or the handler can take measures to ensure that contact will not occur.” Id.
`
`The 2015 Rule Revising the WPS
`
`2.
`In 2015, EPA promulgated a regulation that revised the WPS and added a number of
`
`pesticide-related safety measures. It “strengthen[ed] elements of the existing regulation” in areas
`
`including “training, notification, pesticide safety and hazard communication information, use of
`
`personal protective equipment, and the providing of supplies for routine washing and emergency
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 14 of 44
`
`decontamination.” Pesticides—Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions (“2015
`
`Rule”), 80 Fed. Reg. 67,496 (Nov. 2, 2015).
`
`The 2015 Rule’s ultimate version of the AEZ provision was not part of the 2014
`
`proposed regulation underlying that rule. Rather, the 2014 proposal put forward a static “entry-
`
`restricted area” that “would range from the treated area alone to 100 feet beyond the treated area,
`
`depending on the type of product applied and the application method,” but was “limited by the
`
`boundary of the establishment owner’s property.” Pesticides—Agricultural Worker Protection
`
`Standard Revisions (“2014 WPS Proposal”), 79 Fed. Reg. 15,444, 15,490 (Mar. 19, 2014); see
`
`id. (“[E]ntry-restricted areas are limited by the boundaries of the agricultural establishment to
`
`limit the employer’s responsibility under the WPS to the people on his or her establishment.”).
`
`Instead, the 2015 Rule created the AEZ, a transient area moving with the application
`
`equipment, which required pesticide “handlers to ‘immediately suspend a pesticide application’
`
`if anyone other than a trained and properly equipped handler is within the AEZ, including any
`
`part of the AEZ beyond the boundaries of the agricultural establishment.” 2020 Rule, 85 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 68,763-64. “These restrictions were intended to reduce incidents, or the probability of
`
`incidents, in which people in areas adjacent to pesticide applications could be affected by drift,”
`
`by supplementing the “Do Not Contact” provision, and “establishing a well-defined area from
`
`which persons generally must be excluded during applications.” Id. at 68,764. “The AEZ
`
`requirement was just one of the many worker and public health protection tools incorporated into
`
`the 2015 WPS rule to emphasize one of the key safety points in the WPS and on pesticide labels
`
`in general—do not spray people.” Id.
`
`Under the 2015 Rule, the AEZ size depends on the application method. For pesticides
`
`applied “[a]erially,” by “[a]ir blast application,” “[a]s a spray using a spray quality (droplet
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-10645-LJL Document 55 Filed 01/06/21 Page 15 of 44
`
`spectrum) of smaller than medium (volume median diameter of less than 294 microns),” or “[a]s
`
`a fumigant, smoke, mist, or fog,” the AEZ “extends 100 feet horizontally from the application
`
`equipment in all directions during application.” 40 C.F.R. § 170.405(a)(i) (2016). For pesticides
`
`“sprayed from a height of greater than 12 inches from the planting medium using a spray quality
`
`(droplet spectrum) of medium or larger (volume median diameter of 294 microns or greater),”
`
`the AEZ “extends 25 feet horizontally from the application equipment in all directions during
`
`application.” Id. § 170.405(a)(ii). For all other application methods, there is no AEZ under the
`
`2015 Rule. Id. § 170.405(a)(iii).
`
`3.
`
`Response to the 2015 Rule from State Pesticide Regulators, Farming-
`Related Organizations, and Others
`
`Within months of the November 2015 promulgation of the 2015 Rule, EPA began
`
`receiving queries and concerns about the AEZ provisions, particularly from state regulators. See
`
`2020 Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. at 68,764. The application of the AEZ beyond the boundaries of an
`
`agricultural establishment was raised repeatedly by stakeholders:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In December 2015, the director of the North Carolina state pesticide regulator wrote to
`EPA to express “concern” and “dismay[]” about this feature of the AEZ provision, on
`grounds that it was not part of the original proposal underlying the 2015 Rule and would
`unreasonably interfere with agricultural operations. AR-A-8311-12.2
`
`In January 2016, state reg