FR 2025-00251

The recent document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register addresses a petition from the Attorneys General of several states. They are calling for changes to the pesticide labeling rules. These changes would ensure that state pesticide labeling complies with the EPA's assessments regarding health risks, such as cancer or birth defects. Individuals and entities interested in this issue have the chance to comment until February 20, 2025. The aim is to standardize labeling requirements, potentially preventing states from going beyond what the EPA considers based on its risk assessments.

General Summary of the Document

The EPA received a petition from Attorneys General of 11 states—Nebraska, Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota. These Attorneys General request that the EPA align state pesticide labeling requirements with federal assessments on health risks. They propose that labels differing from EPA findings should be considered misleading or misbranded. The EPA is currently inviting public comments on this petition to evaluate whether such changes should be implemented.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One notable issue with the document is that it provides limited details on the potential impacts or implications of the proposed rule change. The lack of specificity may prevent stakeholders from fully understanding the possible outcomes of these regulatory adjustments. Additionally, the broad description of affected groups as "the public in general" could be more refined to help specific stakeholders recognize their relevance to this issue.

The instructions for submitting comments, especially those containing Confidential Business Information (CBI), appear complex. This complexity may discourage some stakeholders from participating in the public commenting process. Furthermore, instructions for hand delivery of comments are available online, which could be a barrier for individuals lacking internet access or technical skills.

Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders

General Public Impact

The proposed labeling changes have the potential to impact public health and safety by ensuring consistent and scientifically backed information is available to consumers across all states. By aligning state labels with federal risk assessments, consumers could have greater reassurance about the safety of pesticides in their state. However, these changes might also reduce the authority and flexibility of states to address specific local concerns through stricter labeling.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

• Pesticide Registrants and Manufacturers: Aligning state labeling with the EPA's national guidelines may streamline processes and reduce the complexity of complying with varying state regulations. This simplification could lower compliance costs for businesses but may restrict their ability to incorporate state-specific scientific findings or concerns not addressed by national assessments.

• State Governments: The proposed rule might limit a state's ability to enforce additional labeling requirements that reflect unique environmental conditions or health concerns within their jurisdiction. State officials might view this as an encroachment on states' rights to protect their residents.

• Environmental and Health Advocates: These groups may view the proposal with mixed feelings. On one side, a unified national standard based on scientific risk assessments could be viewed positively, ensuring credible and consistent information. On the other, advocates may worry about the reduced capacity for states to impose stricter health and safety measures than those federally acknowledged.

Overall, while the document seeks to harmonize labeling practices and reduce contradictions across states, it raises questions about the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy. Public participation in the commentary process is crucial to navigate these nuanced considerations.