Toolkit · Agriculture

The Applicator Compliance, Drift Investigation, and FIFRA Preemption Toolkit

7 U.S.C. § 136

Type
Toolkit
Jurisdiction
National
Date
2024-02-22
Topic
Agriculture

This toolkit supplies the working instruments for pesticide compliance and drift disputes. It begins with the label version request and the pre-application record that together decide most cases before anyone has framed a legal theory. It provides a drift incident log for the affected party, a preservation letter for the applicator, and a sampling instruction that keeps early evidence usable. It includes a records request to the state lead agency, a claim-by-claim preemption worksheet built on the two-part test, and an insurance notice letter drafted around the label-compliance condition. It closes with contract terms for custom application, a sensitive neighbor mapping protocol, an annual audit checklist, and the intake questions that establish exposure in a first conversation.

The Applicator Compliance, Drift Investigation, and FIFRA Preemption Toolkit

Agriculture > Pesticides, Drift, and Applicator Licensing | Published 22 February 2024 - Updated 6 April 2026 | UpLaw - uplaw.us

Tool 1 — Label version request

The single most useful document in a pesticide matter is the label that was in effect on the day of the application. Labels change between seasons. Analysis of the current label is analysis of the wrong obligations.

Request for historical labeling

Re: [Product name], EPA Registration No. [number]

We request the labeling accepted for the above registration and in effect on [date]. Specifically:

  1. The container label as accepted, including the front panel, precautionary statements, agricultural use requirements, and directions for use;
  2. Any supplemental labeling then in distribution for [crop or use];
  3. Any special local needs registration under 7 U.S.C. § 136v applicable in [state];
  4. The notice of acceptance or amendment establishing the effective date of the labeling produced;
  5. Any restricted-use classification then in effect and the basis for it;
  6. Any endangered species bulletin referenced by the labeling, for [county] on [date].

Requested from: the registrant; the state lead agency; and the federal registration file under the applicable public records process.

☐ Sent to all three sources ☐ Responses compared ☐ Discrepancies between what the registrant produces and what the state file contains occur and matter. ☐ Retrieval date recorded on every version ☐ 7 U.S.C. § 136a ☐ 40 C.F.R. Part 152 ☐

Tool 2 — Pre-application record

One page, completed before mixing, signed. This is the instrument that decides most enforcement matters.

Field Entry
Date and time planned
Field identifier and acres
Crop and growth stage
Product, registration number, lot
Label version and retrieval date
Rate planned / label maximum
Applications this season / label maximum
Seasonal rate applied to date / maximum
Pre-harvest interval / planned harvest
Restricted entry interval / planned field work
Adjacent crops, each direction
Sensitive sites within [distance]
Registry checked (date, result)
Species bulletin checked (date, result)
Water within setback distance
Buffer required / buffer used
Wind: forecast, permitted range
Inversion assessment
Nozzle, pressure, boom height, speed, droplet class
Applicator name and certification number
Noncertified handlers and supervision arrangement
Notifications made
Signature and time

☐ Retained with the application record ☐ ⚠️ Its absence is itself evidence ☐

Tool 3 — Condition record at application

Completed at the site, contemporaneously, by the person applying.

Field Start Midpoint Finish
Time
Wind speed
Wind direction
Temperature
Relative humidity
Inversion indicators observed
Instrument used and location

☐ Photographs of the field and of each adjacent property, dated ☐ ☐ Actual rate and total volume applied ☐ ☐ Equipment settings as run, including any change mid-application ☐ ☐ Any deviation from the plan, with the reason ☐ ☐ ⚠️ An applicator who records wind at the truck rather than at the boom, or who records "calm," invites the inference that nothing was measured.

Tool 4 — Drift incident log

For the affected party. The first seventy-two hours determine whether the claim is provable.

Hour Action Done
0 Photograph everything, dated, wide and close ☐
0 Note wind direction and weather now ☐
0–4 Report to the state lead agency; record the complaint number ☐
0–4 Identify the suspected applicator and field ☐
0–24 Preserve samples per the agency protocol; take independent samples in parallel ☐
0–24 Map the injury pattern with distances and directions from the suspected source ☐
0–24 Stop all other applications on the affected area ☐
24–48 Obtain weather data for the suspected window from the nearest station ☐
24–48 Notify your own insurer; notify the certifier if organic ☐
24–72 Retain an agronomic expert; have the expert direct further sampling ☐
24–72 Identify comparable unaffected areas for yield comparison and document them now ☐
72+ Written demand or notice preserving the claim; check the state limitations and notice statutes ☐

☐ ⚠️ Do not destroy the crop before sampling and documentation are complete, whatever the agronomic advice ☐

Tool 5 — Preservation letter

For the applicator, issued internally the day the complaint is learned.

Litigation hold — [product], [date], [field]

Preserve, and do not modify or delete:

  1. All application records for the date and the surrounding week, including the pre-application record and condition record;
  2. The label version used, all supplemental labeling, and any bulletin or registry printouts;
  3. Calibration records and maintenance records for the equipment used;
  4. Guidance system logs, spray controller data, rate controller data, and any telematics or as-applied maps;
  5. Purchase records for the product, including quantity, lot, and date;
  6. Certification records for every person involved, and supervision documentation;
  7. Text messages, emails, and voicemail concerning the application, the weather, the decision to proceed, and any communication with the complainant;
  8. Photographs and video, including personal devices;
  9. Weather data recorded or consulted.

Automatic deletion is suspended. Direct questions to [counsel].

☐ ⚠️ As-applied maps and controller logs overwrite on a cycle. They are the first thing lost and among the most probative.

Tool 6 — Sampling instruction

Given to the person taking samples, before they take them.

☐ Follow the state agency protocol where one exists; where the agency samples, take parallel samples ☐ ☐ Sample the injured tissue and an unaffected control from the same field or a comparable field ☐ ☐ Record for each sample: date, time, GPS location, distance and direction from the suspected source, plant part, and photograph ☐ ☐ Use clean containers; avoid cross-contamination between samples; change gloves ☐ ☐ Chill and ship the same day; use a laboratory that will testify ☐ ☐ Chain of custody signed at every transfer ☐ ☐ Request an analyte list broad enough to detect the suspected product and its degradates, not a single-compound screen ☐ ☐ Request detection limits appropriate to drift concentrations, not to residue tolerance enforcement ☐ ⚠️ A tolerance-level screen frequently reports "none detected" at concentrations that cause visible injury. ☐ Sample soil and any collected water where the pattern suggests it ☐ ☐ Preserve a retained portion for the opposing party ☐ ☐ 21 U.S.C. § 346a ☐ 40 C.F.R. Part 180 ☐

Tool 7 — Agency records request

Public records request — pesticide investigation

Re: Complaint No. [number]; incident of [date] at [location]

We request:

  1. The complete investigation file, including the investigator's report, field notes, and any supplement;
  2. All photographs and video;
  3. All sample results, chain of custody documents, and laboratory reports, including quality control data;
  4. All witness statements and interview memoranda;
  5. Application records obtained from any person, including restricted use records under 7 U.S.C. § 136i and 40 C.F.R. Part 171;
  6. Weather data obtained or relied upon;
  7. Any notice of violation, warning letter, consent agreement, penalty calculation, or licensing action;
  8. The licensing and enforcement history of [applicator] for the preceding [period];
  9. Correspondence with the registrant concerning this incident;
  10. Any bulletin, registry entry, or special local needs registration applicable to the location on the date.

☐ ⚠️ This file is generated at public expense, is largely public, and contains sampling, weather, records, and admissions. It resolves more drift claims than any deposition. ☐ Request the enforcement history separately — it establishes pattern and affects penalty and punitive exposure ☐ ☐ Ask whether an investigation remains open; some states withhold until closure ☐ Calendar a follow-up ☐

Tool 8 — Preemption worksheet

Run every claim through both prongs. The analysis is per claim, not per case. — Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

Claim Prong 1: a requirement for labeling or packaging? Prong 2: in addition to or different from the federal requirement? Result
Failure to warn Yes Usually yes unless genuinely parallel Preempted unless parallel
Design defect No — Survives
Manufacturing defect No — Survives
Negligent testing No — Survives
Express warranty No — a voluntary undertaking — Survives
Breach of implied warranty Generally no — Usually survives
Fraud on the agency — — Foreclosed — Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee
Negligent application No — conduct, not labeling — Survives
Trespass and nuisance from drift No — Survives

☐ Both prongs must be satisfied for preemption. The frequent error is stopping after prong one. ☐ For a parallel failure-to-warn claim, identify the specific federal misbranding requirement the state duty mirrors ☐ ☐ Local ordinance question is separate — Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier ☐ Then check state preemption of local authority ☐ ☐ Drug analogies for impossibility reasoning — Wyeth v. Levine ☐ PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing ☐ Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett ☐ ☐ ⚠️ No private right of action under the statute itself — penalties run to the government, 7 U.S.C. § 136l ☐

Tool 9 — Insurance notice letter

Notice of claim / occurrence

Policy No. [number]; Insured: [name]

On [date] the insured applied [product] to [field]. On [date] the insured learned that [claimant] alleges injury to [crop] on adjacent property attributed to that application. The state lead agency has opened Complaint No. [number].

This letter is notice of an occurrence and of a claim. The insured requests defense and indemnity. The insured has preserved application records, condition records, equipment data, and the labeling and will produce them on request.

The insured requests: (1) confirmation of receipt; (2) identification of the adjuster; (3) a coverage position in writing, with the specific policy language relied upon for any reservation; and (4) if a reservation of rights issues, a statement whether independent counsel is required under applicable law.

☐ ⚠️ Send within the week. Late notice is a recurring defense because growers report to the agency and never think to call the carrier. ☐ Notify every potentially applicable policy: general liability, applicator liability, farm, umbrella, and any policy of a hiring landowner naming the applicator ☐ ☐ Read the pollution exclusion in the actual policy, not from memory ☐ ☐ ⚠️ Identify the label-compliance condition and determine whether it is a warranty or an exclusion. The fact establishing liability may defeat coverage — an applicator can be liable and uninsured for the same reason. ☐ Care, custody, and control exclusion checked against the treated crop ☐ ☐ For the affected party: first-party crop coverage and subrogation position identified ☐

Tool 10 — Custom application agreement terms

Insert these into any custom application arrangement. Their absence is the source of the post-loss dispute.

☐ Product selection. [Party] selects the product and rate and warrants the use is permitted by the labeling for the crop, stage, and location. ☐ Label confirmation. Applicator confirms the label version, restricted-use status, buffers, and applicable bulletins before application and retains the record. ☐ Conditions. Applicator will not apply outside the label wind range or during a temperature inversion and will document conditions at the site. ☐ Adjacent sensitivities. Grower discloses adjacent crops, organic operations, registered hives, and sensitive sites in writing before the season and updates the disclosure. ⚠️ This disclosure allocates a real risk. ☐ Records. Applicator provides application and condition records within [days]; both parties retain them for [period]. ☐ Insurance. Applicator maintains applicator liability coverage of not less than [amount] with express drift coverage, names grower as additional insured, and provides a certificate and the relevant policy pages. ☐ Indemnity. Sized to the actual allocation of decisions, not boilerplate in one direction. ☐ Notice and cooperation. Each party notifies the other of any complaint within [hours] and preserves records. ☐ Certification. Applicator warrants current certification in the required categories and supervision of any noncertified handler consistent with 40 C.F.R. Part 171. ☐ Worker protection. Allocation of posting, notification, and decontamination obligations under 40 C.F.R. Part 170 and, where applicable, 29 C.F.R. Part 1928. ☐ Dispute resolution and venue. Agreed before the loss.

Tool 11 — Sensitive neighbor map protocol

☐ Aerial image of each field with a [distance] ring drawn ☐ ☐ Every adjacent parcel identified: owner, crop, and sensitivity ☐ ☐ Organic and transitional operations marked, with certifier contact ☐ ☐ Registered hives plotted from the state registry, refreshed each season ☐ ☐ Schools, childcare, healthcare facilities, and residences marked, with any notification statute noted ☐ ☐ Surface water, wells, wetlands, and ditches marked with the applicable setback ☐ ☐ Listed species habitat overlay from the bulletin system, with the check date ☐ 16 U.S.C. § 1536; Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife ☐ ☐ Prevailing wind direction by season annotated ☐ ☐ Map reviewed before the season and before each application ☐ Version dated ☐ ☐ ⚠️ Most drift claims involve a neighbor the applicator already knew was sensitive. The map converts knowledge into a defensible practice.

Tool 12 — Annual audit protocol

☐ Pull [N] application records at random and reconstruct each against the label in effect ☐ ☐ Rate exceedance ☐ applications-per-season exceedance ☐ seasonal maximum exceedance ☐ ☐ Restricted entry interval and pre-harvest interval compliance ☐ ☐ Restricted use records complete for every restricted product ☐ 7 U.S.C. § 136i ☐ ☐ Certification currency for every applicator ☐ Supervision documented ☐ ☐ Worker protection training records current ☐ Decontamination supplies verified in the field, not on paper ☐ ☐ Bulletin and registry printouts present and dated for applications requiring them ☐ ☐ Weather records present, site-specific, and plausible ☐ ⚠️ A season of "calm, 68°" entries is a finding. ☐ Container storage and disposal — 40 C.F.R. Part 165 ☐ Storage security ☐ ☐ Water proximity applications reviewed against permitting — 33 U.S.C. § 1342; 40 C.F.R. Part 122; County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund ☐ ☐ Findings written, corrective actions assigned with dates, next audit calendared ☐ ☐ ⚠️ Audit under privilege where the exposure warrants it, and decide that before the audit begins.

Tool 13 — Intake questions

First conversation, either side. Twelve questions that establish exposure.

  1. What product, what registration number, what date, what field?
  2. Do you have the label that was in effect that day, or the current one?
  3. What rate, and what is the label maximum? How many applications this season?
  4. Who applied it, and under what certification? Was anyone noncertified involved?
  5. What were the wind speed and direction, measured how and where?
  6. What is adjacent, in each direction, and what is growing there?
  7. Was a registry checked? A species bulletin? Is there a printout with a date?
  8. Has the state agency opened a complaint? What number, and has anyone been interviewed?
  9. What has been sampled, by whom, and is anything preserved?
  10. Has any insurer been notified, and on what policies?
  11. Is there a written custom application agreement, and what does it say about product selection?
  12. Is any affected land organic or transitional, and has the certifier been told?

☐ ⚠️ Question 2 changes the answer to every other question. Ask it first. ☐ Statutory framework for the answers: 7 U.S.C. § 136; 7 U.S.C. § 136j; 7 U.S.C. § 136d; 7 U.S.C. § 136q; 7 U.S.C. § 136w ☐ ☐ Worker exposure overlay: 29 U.S.C. § 651 ☐ Drinking water overlay: 42 U.S.C. § 300f ☐ ☐ Data and registration review context: 40 C.F.R. Part 158; 40 C.F.R. Part 174 ☐ ☐ Related authority to check on the facts: Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.; Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms; National Pork Producers Council v. Ross ☐

Related Documents