December 15, 2010

Katie H. Weyrauch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OPP/Pesticide Re-evaluation Division
One Potomac Yard
2777 S. Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202

Dear Ms Weyrauch:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft FR Notice and letter from the Migrant Clinicians Network requesting that all pesticide labels be available in both English and Spanish. I provided the documents to the SFIREG Pesticide Operations and Management (POM) Working Committee and ask that you consider these comments on behalf of SFIREG POM as you consider the Migrant Clinicians Network request.

For the following reasons, the SFIREG POM Committee opposes the proposal to require all pesticide labels to be available in both English and Spanish:

1.	Pesticide labels are already long and complicated.  Adding a Spanish section to each label will essentially double the length of labels, making it more difficult for users to read and understand the label. This will decrease compliance and increase risk.

2.	EPA has been intensively working with SFIREG for quite some time to develop clear, concise, and enforceable pesticide labels.  This has been a major undertaking in English, let alone in another language.  Allocating EPA resources toward developing Spanish labels will certainly detract from the work being done on label improvement.

3.	Very few states have bi-lingual inspectors that are fluent in both English and Spanish.  At the present time, there are many labels that contain Spanish, although the official, enforceable label is the English version.  If Spanish labels become required, they will likely be viewed as enforceable documents and inspectors will eventually encounter a Spanish-speaking applicator that will claim that they are using a pesticide according to the Spanish label. In that situation, how will non-Spanish-speaking inspectors be able to determine whether or not the applicator is complying with the Spanish labeling?  

4.	If inclusion of Spanish labeling is required, somebody at EPA (and in many states) will need to verify that the Spanish text is an accurate translation of the English label. In the current system of voluntary Spanish labels, this is not a requirement because the enforceable label is the English version.  Verifying that the Spanish label is an accurate translation will present major challenges for EPA and states, especially at a time in which many government agencies are experiencing budget and staff reductions.

5.	If EPA grants the Migrant Clinicians Network request to require pesticide labels in Spanish, it is a small leap to assume that some pesticide users will argue that they do not need to speak or read English to use pesticides in the Unites States.  It is also a small leap to assume that users will then request that certification programs and exams be offered in Spanish.  Very few, if any, states have the staff and resources to offer training or exams in Spanish or any language other than English.  It should be noted that most pesticide training programs are experiencing serious budget decreases.

In summary, SFIREG POM does not oppose the current system of voluntary inclusion of Spanish language on pesticide labels because it is understood that the enforceable label is the English version. However, we would oppose any requirement for Spanish to be included on pesticide labels because it would require significant commitments of time, staff, and money to develop, enforce, and review the Spanish labeling.  In our opinion, EPA and state lead agency time and resources would be better spent on working together to ensure that English versions of labeling are clear, concise, and enforceable.

If the Agency does decide to go ahead and require the inclusion of Spanish on some or all pesticide labels, then SFIREG POM feels strongly that the only enforceable label should be the English version.  State lead agencies would use only English labels for compliance and enforcement purposes.  It is would also be advisable for EPA to require registrants to self certify that the English and Spanish labels are identical in every way. If not, then registrants would be in violation for multiple counts of distributing misbranded products.

Again, the SFIREG POM Committee appreciates the opportunity to review and offer input on the draft FR Notice and request from the Migrant Clinicians Network.  We would welcome the opportunity to expand on our comments and discuss our concerns further.

Please contact me at 701-328-1505 or jgray@nd.gov with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,


Jim Gray
North Dakota Department of Agriculture
Chair, SFIREG POM Committee
