Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

EPA’s Oversight of 

State Pesticide Inspections

Needs Improvement to

Better Ensure Safeguards 

for Workers, Public and 

Environment Are Enforced

Report No. 15-P-0156 May 15, 2015

 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Chemical Safety
Report Contributors: Jeffrey Harris

Jee Kim

Calvin Lin

Kalpana Ramakrishnan

Denton Stafford

Steven Weber

Abbreviations

EOY end-of-year 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FY Fiscal Year

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OIG Office of Inspector General

WPS Worker Protection Standard

Cover photo: Pesticides being applied. (EPA photo)

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an

EPA program?

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)

Washington, DC 20460

(888) 546-8740

(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

More information at www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html.

EPA Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-2391

www.epa.gov/oig

Subscribe to our Email Updates

Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig

Send us your Project Suggestions
 

 15-P-0156

May 15, 2015

Why We Did This Review

We conducted this review to 

determine how

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) oversight of state 

pesticide inspections ensures 

the quality of state-performed 

Worker Protection Standard and 

certification inspections. We 

evaluated how the EPA selects 

inspection reports for oversight,

documents its reviews, and

conducts follow-up on oversight 

findings.

Under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), Worker Protection 

Standard inspections aim to 

protect agricultural workers from 

the effects of exposure to 

pesticides. FIFRA certification 

inspections ensure that all 

applicators of pesticides are 

certified and are applying 

pesticides in certified areas.

This report addresses the 

following EPA goal or 

cross-agency strategy:

 Ensuring the safety of 

chemicals and preventing 

pollution.

Send all inquiries to our public 

affairs office at (202) 566 2391

or visit www.epa.gov/oig.

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2015/ 

20150515-15-P-0156.pdf

 

EPA’s Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections 

Needs Improvement to Better Ensure Safeguards 

for Workers, Public and Environment Are Enforced

 What We Found

The EPA regions we reviewed did not 

consistently document or retain evidence of

the quality of state-performed FIFRA Worker 

Protection Standard and certification 

inspections. It was difficult to analyze EPA 

project officer oversight reviews for adequacy 

because of an overall lack of records and 

transparency on how issues associated with 

state inspections are addressed. Specifically:

 EPA reviewers did not consistently document, report or retain records of 

issues found during reviews.

 EPA files did not provide specific documentation on how state enforcement 

actions were consistent with state enforcement policies and procedures.

 EPA often relied on the state agency to select inspection reports for review, 

which may introduce bias.

 Most EPA regions did not provide or document formal feedback on issues

found during reviews so that states could improve their inspections.

EPA oversight weaknesses occurred because of inadequate guidance and 

training. Improvements are needed to increase assurance that standards for 

workers who handle pesticides, as well as standards concerning pesticide 

application and use, are being met and risks to human health and the 

environment are being managed.

Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that the EPA revise the FIFRA Project Officer Manual to include 

specific requirements for selecting inspections; reporting, documenting and 

retaining inspection review records; documenting states’ consistency with 

enforcement policies; and communicating results of regional inspection reviews.

We also recommend that the agency require periodic project officer training and 

ensure the above requirements are included in the training.

The agency agreed with our recommendations. This report contains one 

resolved recommendation with corrective actions pending and one unresolved 

recommendation needing further planned corrective actions and an estimated 

completion date.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

Improvements in the EPA’s 

inspection report review 

process will increase

assurance that state 

inspections are preventing 

unreasonable risk to human 

health and the environment 

from pesticides.
May 15, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA’s Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections Needs Improvement to Better Ensure 

Safeguards for Workers, Public and Environment Are Enforced

Report No. 15-P-0156

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe problems the 

OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in 

this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

The EPA offices having primary responsibility for the issues evaluated in this report are the Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s Office of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance’s Office of Compliance.

Action Required

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report 

within 60 calendar days. You should include planned corrective actions and a completion date for the

unresolved recommendation. Your response will be posted on the OIG’s public website, along with our 

memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file 

that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; 

if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with 

corresponding justification. 

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
EPA’s Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections 15-P-0156

Needs Improvement to Better Ensure Safeguards for 

Workers, Public and Environment Are Enforced

Table of Contents

Chapters

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1

Background................................................................................................ 1

Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 4

2 Improvements to EPA Oversight of State Inspections Needed..................... 6

Improvements in Oversight by EPA Project Officers Needed ..................... 6

Inadequate Guidance and Lack of EPA Regional Project Officer

 Training Contributed to Inadequate Oversight Reviews....................... 9

State Review Framework-Type Approaches Could Be Applied to 

 FIFRA Reviews ................................................................................... 9

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 10

Recommendations..................................................................................... 10

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation...................................................... 10

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 12

Appendices

A Agency Response to Draft Report................................................................... 13

B Distribution ....................................................................................................... 16
15-P-0156 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

We conducted this review to determine how U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) oversight ensures the quality of state-performed Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Worker Protection Standard 

(WPS) and certification inspections1regarding pesticides. We evaluated how the 

agency selects inspection reports for oversight, documents its reviews, and 

conducts follow-up on oversight findings.

Background

FIFRA 

FIFRA provides the EPA authority to regulate the registration, sale and use of 

pesticides. Under FIFRA, pesticides must be registered with the EPA in order to 

be sold or distributed. The EPA will register a pesticide if the applicant shows, 

among other things, that the pesticide will not generally cause unreasonable 

adverse effects on human health or the environment when used in accordance 

with specifications. Under the authority of FIFRA, the EPA established the WPS 

in 1992 aimed at reducing the risk of pesticide poisoning and injury among 

millions of agricultural workers and pesticide handlers.

State Primacy for Enforcement of Pesticide Use

Under FIFRA, states may receive primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for 

pesticide use enforcement. All the states except Wyoming have primacy. In each 

primacy state, the EPA has an oversight role to ensure the adequacy of the state 

pesticide use program, the achievement of federal laws, and a level playing field for 

states. States with primacy conduct most compliance monitoring activities within 

their jurisdictions.

Regarding pesticide use enforcement, FIFRA Section 12(a)(2)(G) states: “...it 

shall be unlawful for any person ... to use any registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling....” For example, if an inspector finds a person using 

a pesticide outdoors that is labeled “for indoor use only,” the person has used the 

pesticide “in a manner inconsistent with its labeling” in violation of FIFRA.

 

1 The term “certification inspection” does not refer to a specific FIFRA inspection. The Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) used the term because certifications are a component of most FIFRA inspections. We focused on a 

representative selection of state FIFRA inspections reviewed by EPA regional project officers.
15-P-0156 2

Pesticide use violations can have detrimental effects. In the largest FIFRA criminal 

penalty in history to date, the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company—a producer of 

pesticides for commercial and consumer lawn and garden uses—was sentenced in 

federal district court in Columbus, Ohio, to pay a $4 million fine and perform 

community service for 11 criminal violations of FIFRA. Scotts pleaded guilty in 

February 2012 to illegally applying insecticides to its wild bird food products that 

are toxic to birds, falsifying pesticide registration documents, distributing pesticides 

with misleading and unapproved labels, and distributing unregistered pesticides. 

Categories of FIFRA Pesticide Inspections

There are 12 types of FIFRA pesticide inspections. We reviewed the EPA’s 

oversight of six of the 12 state-conducted inspections.2 EPA regional offices

perform oversight of state-conducted inspections. In addition to the WPS 

inspections, certifications are also a component of most FIFRA inspections. 

Below we provide a brief description of the WPS inspection and the five 

non-WPS inspection categories that the OIG referred to as “certification 

inspections.” All of the inspections listed below include a review of 

certifications associated with applicators and handlers. 

WPS Inspections: The WPS is aimed 

at reducing the risk of pesticide 

poisoning and injury among 

agricultural workers and pesticide 

handlers. Routine WPS inspections are 

conducted at agricultural 

establishments. The inspections are 

designed to ensure pesticide users 

subject to WPS comply with product 

label requirements. Inspectors examine 

practices of employers and employees 

to ensure compliance with:

 Product-specific worker protection requirements included on 

product labeling, such as need for personal protective 

equipment, restricted entry intervals, and oral and posted 

warnings used at the establishment.

 Other WPS requirements, such as providing pesticide safety 

information, decontamination supplies, safety training, 

emergency assistance and worker notification requirements.

Use Inspections: Use inspections encompass a wide variety of 

pesticide use circumstances and inspection sites. Although many 

 

2 The six FIFRA inspections that we did not review are: Good Laboratory Program inspections, import/export 

inspections, experimental-use permit inspections, restricted-use applicator inspections, establishment inspections, 

and cancellation and suspension inspections. 

A WPS-compliant warning 

sign. (From EPA website)

The WPS Helps Protect Agricultural 

Workers and Pesticide Handlers

According to the EPA, associations 

between pesticide exposure and certain 

cancer and non-cancer chronic health 

effects are well documented. Reducing 

these chronic health effects is an 

important FIFRA goal. The WPS is

intended to prevent unreasonable 

adverse effects from pesticide 

exposures among agricultural workers 

and pesticide handlers, as well as such

vulnerable groups as minority and lowincome populations, child farmworkers, 

and farmworker families.
15-P-0156 3

aspects of pesticide compliance are involved, the primary focus is on use 

inconsistent with the label and the WPS. 

For Cause Inspections: For cause inspections substantiate and document alleged 

pesticide misuse. They are usually initiated in response to a complaint, damage 

report, referral or tip following a pesticide application.

Certified Applicator License and Records Inspections: Normally conducted at a 

pesticide applicator’s place of business, this type of inspection determines whether: 

(1) the applicator is properly certified and/or licensed, (2) the required records are 

being maintained, (3) the applicator is applying pesticides only in those areas for 

which certification has been issued, and (4) the records indicate that all applications 

have been made in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Restricted-Use Pesticide Dealer Inspection: These inspections are conducted to 

determine compliance with FIFRA recordkeeping requirements regarding sales 

and distribution of Restricted-Use Pesticides and to ensure that such pesticides are 

sold only to certified applicators or non-certified persons for application by a 

certified applicator who is specifically certified for use of the particular 

Restricted-Use Pesticide.

Marketplace Inspections: Marketplace inspections ensure industry compliance 

with product registration, formulation, packaging and labeling requirements; and 

that products are correctly distributed through trade channels.

EPA Review of State FIFRA Inspection/Enforcement Files

The EPA partners with states to regulate pesticides and funds cooperative 

agreements and grants that help states implement pesticide programs. According 

to the agency’s FIFRA Project Officer Manual, the EPA regions conduct annual

end-of-year (EOY) evaluations to assess state performance in running their 

pesticide programs. Five major factors for why the evaluations are necessary are 

because they:

 Ensure that state pesticide programs are being implemented consistent 

with the intent of federal, state or tribal law.

 Identify strengths of state programs, recognizing the goals, achievements 

and contributions made to the pesticide program.

 Identify any weaknesses of or obstacles to state programs.

 Identify performance problem obstacles to completing negotiated tasks.

 Make recommendations for improvements or resolution of any 

deficiencies or problem areas.

During the EOY evaluation, EPA regional project officers review all aspects of 

the state’s pesticide program. The oversight evaluation includes an in-depth look 

at the state’s activities, such as inspection reports and enforcement actions.
15-P-0156 4

Regional reviews determine whether the state is taking appropriate enforcement 

action where warranted and achieving compliance from the regulated community.

For example, if the state is conducting inspections under the cooperative 

agreement, the project officer should review a selected number of the state’s 

inspection files to determine whether the state is conducting inspections properly, 

appropriate inspection procedures are followed, and sufficient evidence is 

collected.

For WPS inspection reviews, regional focus is on the following compliance areas: 

 Notification and posting of pesticide application.

 Application and entry restrictions.

 Personal protective equipment and pesticide handling equipment.

 Pesticide safety training.

 Pesticide safety information.

 Decontamination supplies.

 Emergency assistance.

 Retaliation.

For non-WPS inspection reviews, the regional focus relates to the specific type of 

inspection. For example, the regional review of marketplace inspections focuses 

on assurances that industry complied with product registration, formulation, 

packaging and labeling requirements; and that products are correctly distributed. 

The regional review of Certified Applicator License and Records Inspections 

focuses on determining whether the applicator is properly certified and is

applying pesticides in accordance with certification, maintaining records, and 

making all applications in compliance with all applicable laws. 

Responsible Offices

The EPA offices having primary responsibility for the issues evaluated in this 

report are the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s Office of 

Pesticide Programs and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance’s 

(OECA’s) Office of Compliance.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 

the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our results based upon our 

objectives. We conducted this audit from December 2013 to February 2015.

We reviewed relevant materials, including laws, regulations, procedures and 

guidance. Our review included the following documents: Office of Pesticide 
15-P-0156 5

Program/OECA 2015–2017 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance, 2002 

FIFRA Project Officer Manual, 2013 FIFRA Inspection Manual, 2013 and 2014 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention National Program Manager 

Guidance, and the 2012 WPS Agricultural Inspection Guidance.

We selected four EPA regional offices (Regions 1, 4, 7 and 8) as the focus of our 

evaluation. We selected individual case files to review at the state offices from 

regional lists of case file reviews they conducted in fiscal years (FYs) 2012 and 

2013. We judgmentally chose for review one or two states within each of the four 

selected EPA regions based on the number and type of cases reviewed, issues 

found during project officer review, and location. The states selected were 

Massachusetts in Region 1, Georgia and North Carolina in Region 4, Missouri in 

Region 7, and Colorado and North Dakota in Region 8. Table 1 summarizes the 

different types of FIFRA inspection case files we reviewed at the different regions 

and states.

Table 1: Summary of case file reviews 

Source: OIG analysis.

We interviewed Office of Pesticide Programs and OECA headquarters managers, 

and EPA regional pesticide and enforcement managers. We also interviewed 

regional project officers to better understand the case file review process. We 

compared regional project officer notes with the content of the inspection reports. 

We collected and reviewed FY 2012 and 2013 EOY reports for the six states that 

were part of our evaluation. We also interviewed state staff from state 

departments of agriculture to gather information on working relationships with 

EPA regions and their role in the inspection report review process.

Type of inspection reviewed

Region State WPS Use

MarketplaceFor 

Cause

Certified 

Applicator 

RestrictedUse Total

1 MA 5 2 3 10

4

GA 5 1 2 1 1 10

NC 2 1 3

7 MO 6 2 2 2 12

8

CO 7 1 3 11

ND 6 1 2 9

TOTAL 29 5 4 4 5 8 55
15-P-0156 6

Chapter 2

Improvements to EPA Oversight of 

State Inspections Needed

The EPA regions we reviewed did not consistently document or retain evidence of 

the quality of state-performed FIFRA WPS and certification inspections. It was 

difficult to analyze EPA project officer oversight reviews for adequacy because of 

an overall lack of records and transparency in how issues associated with state 

inspections are addressed. In the sample we reviewed, we found the following:

 EPA reviewers did not consistently report, document or retain records of 

issues found during their review.

 None of the EPA regional review notes provided specific documentation

on how the states’ enforcement actions were consistent with state

enforcement policies and procedures. 

 EPA regions often relied on the state agency to select inspection reports 

for review, which may introduce bias.

 Three of the four EPA regions did not provide or document formal 

feedback on issues found during reviews so that states could improve their 

inspections. Region 4 provided feedback to North Carolina but not 

Georgia.

Regional oversight of FIFRA inspections are intended to protect humans and the 

environment from adverse pesticide use. However, EPA oversight weaknesses

occurred because of inadequate guidance and training. Improvements are needed 

to increase assurance that pesticides are not misused and do not pose unnecessary 

risks to human health and the environment. 

Improvements in Oversight by EPA Project Officers Needed

EPA Project Officers Did Not Consistently Report, Document or 

Retain Records of Issues Identified During Reviews

In most instances, the information contained in regional inspection report review 

notes and the information reported in the respective EOY reports differed. The 

FIFRA Project Officer Manual states that the EOY reports will detail a 

“discussion of problems and proposed resolutions, including specific 

recommendations for each problem identified.” For example, the Region 4 

FY 2013 EOY for Georgia said, “The reviewer did not find any cases that did not 

meet the minimum standards set by the EPA.” However, the regional review notes 

for this period stated that “...some photos were fuzzy...” and noted “...potential 

violation in worker interview....” The Region 7 FY 2012 EOY for Missouri said 

“Inspection files were complete and detailed...,” but the regional project officer’s 
15-P-0156 7

notes for that period said “Appears to have incorrect date on inspection 

narrative...” and “...date of inspection and inspection number are different....”

The agency stated that most of the issues the OIG found in the review notes of the 

project officers are addressed through “informal” channels (email, phone calls, 

etc.) and are not documented in the EOY reports. However, without 

documentation on how issues detailed in the project officer review notes are 

addressed, the resolution of issues is unverifiable.

Only one state EOY report in our sample described quality or compliance issues 

found during the project officer’s file review. The Region 4 Georgia FY 2012 EOY 

report contained information such as “...the EPA found that some inspection 

narratives required more clarity” and “legible photographs from pesticide labels 

continue to be an area warranting improvement.” The remainder of the EOY 

reports generally described the files reviewed as complete but did not describe 

issues found during project officer review. For example, the Region 1 

Massachusetts FY 2013 EOY stated that “...enforcement documentation and 

inspection records were complete...,” but the project officer’s notes regarding a 

particular file stated “Target pest not listed on use observation form.” When 

regional project officers do not include the issues found during their reviews in the 

EOY reports or explain in reports why the issues are not relevant, it raises questions 

as to whether the EPA is holding the states accountable.

We also found some regional documentation of file reviews to be minimal or 

absent. An OECA manager said that in addition to documenting which and how 

many case files were reviewed, project officers are to note any concerns they 

observe. The FIFRA Project Officer Manual provides worksheets for project 

officers to record and summarize comments on each case file reviewed. In several 

instances, the EPA project officer did not document any notes on any form. For 

example, North Carolina WPS inspection reports reviewed during FYs 2012 and 

2013 did not have any notes because the project officer reviewed the electronic 

inspection reports on a state-designated computer. The project officer recorded 

the number of inspection reports reviewed but did not take notes or identify 

specific reports reviewed. Additionally, the North Dakota EPA project officer said 

he did not document notes for inspection reports reviewed during FYs 2012 and 

2013 because North Dakota sent him case files electronically so he did not see the 

need to keep notes of his review. The absence of recorded review notes and 

comments impedes oversight of project officer reviews, and institutional 

knowledge cannot be passed on when project officers retire or leave the agency.

Some EPA regional project officers said there is little guidance on how long to 

retain records of file reviews. One regional project officer disposed of review 

notes for FYs 2001 through 2012 as part of an agencywide records management 

effort. The regional project officer was unable to identify which inspection reports 

were reviewed during those years. This action was a violation of the agency’s 

record retention policy. According to OECA headquarters managers, per EPA 

Record Schedule 1003, grant and other agreement oversight records are to be 
15-P-0156 8

retained for 10 years after agreement closeout. These records of project officer 

file reviews are important to support and monitor any determination of a state’s 

ongoing adequacy to maintain primacy and/or requests to improve any issues

found. When regional project officers do not adequately report, document and 

retain the records of their case file reviews, there is no assurance that the EPA’s 

oversight of state pesticide inspections is helping to prevent unreasonable risks to 

human health and the environment.

Project Officers Did Not Provide Evidence That State Enforcement 

Actions Were Consistent With State Policies

While some regions reported in EOY reports that state enforcement actions taken 

were in accordance with state enforcement response policies, none of the regional 

review notes provided evidence of how the states’ enforcement actions were 

consistent with state enforcement policies and procedures that implement FIFRA. 

Some of the regional review notes in our sample included generic statements

indicating that enforcement action was appropriate. There was no documentary 

evidence that the regional project officers validated whether the enforcement action 

taken by the state was in accordance with the state’s enforcement response policy. 

According to the FIFRA Project Officer Manual, “the project officer should ensure 

that the state’s or tribe’s enforcement actions are consistent with its enforcement 

policies and procedures, and that inspections and enforcement actions are 

consistent with the recipient’s policies and procedures approved by EPA.” That

manual, however, does not specifically state the region should also provide

documentation that the enforcement action was in accordance with the state’s 

policies. 

An OECA Associate Director said one of the most important reasons for a project 

officer to review inspection reports and case files is to ensure that the state is able 

to take appropriate enforcement actions to maintain primacy. An OECA chief

stated that consistency with the enforcement response policies is “self-evident.” 

However, what is “self-evident” depends on the skills, knowledge and experience 

of individuals. Providing documentation to support that a state acted in

accordance with its own enforcement response policies is a more robust control.

Project Officers Allowed States to Select Files for Review

EPA regional project officers often requested the state departments of agriculture 

to select inspection reports to be reviewed on their behalf. The FIFRA Project 

Officer Manual language is vague on the selection process, noting “inspection 

reports should be selected and reviewed in accordance with national and regional 

guidance and must include files from each category of inspection activity.” EPA 

regional project officers interviewed said they generally request the state agency 

to select inspection reports randomly for review. One regional project officer said 

this was done in the interest of time. Two regional project officers said they may 
15-P-0156 9

request the state to pull inspection reports that profile “significant cases” of 

human health and environmental violations. However, in most instances, the state 

departments of agriculture select the inspection reports for review. There is a 

potential for bias in inspection report selection if the state agency is allowed to 

select inspection reports for the EPA’s review.

Project Officers Did Not Document Closeout Meetings 

EPA regional project officers did not document communication with state agencies 

about discrepancies or problems regarding inspection reports or methods to 

improve the reports. According to the FIFRA Project Officer Manual, “a closing 

discussion among review participants should be held upon completion of the 

evaluation. The project officer should discuss findings and recommendations, 

including any unresolved problems identified in prior evaluations.”

Most state agencies said the EPA regional project officer will ask questions or 

make comments during the review process. These feedback sessions are not 

documented, nor is documentation suggested in the FIFRA Project Officer 

Manual. Many regional project officers said their findings are conveyed in the 

EOY report. As noted earlier, all but one EOY report in our sample commented 

on issues found during their review. Only one regional project officer sent an 

email with findings during the review separate from the EOY. While not required 

by the FIFRA manual, it is good business practice for regions to document 

feedback and the topics discussed, to prevent conflicting explanations of issues 

associated with inspections and to ensure information is retained and available. 

Inadequate Guidance and Lack of EPA Regional Project Officer 

Training Contributed to Inadequate Oversight Reviews

In addition to the inadequate guidance, as discussed in the prior sections, we 

found that EPA regional project officers had not been trained on their oversight 

duties in over 10 years. Training will help regional project officers ensure quality 

of state FIFRA inspections. According to the agency, FIFRA project officer 

training was offered in March 2015, and a plan for future training was in 

development.

State Review Framework-Type Approaches Could Be Applied to 

FIFRA Reviews

In 2005, the EPA implemented the State Review Framework, designed to bring a 

systematic and consistent approach to regional enforcement oversight of state 

programs for air, water and waste. The framework established standard protocols 

and procedures for conducting state oversight reviews—including an established 

methodology for selecting files for review and having consistent file review 

discussion guides—and required a consistent level of management involvement. 

The State Review Framework also focuses on communication with a state 
15-P-0156 10

throughout the process, starting with an opening letter to the state from senior 

EPA management through entrance and exit conferences, and concluding with 

draft and final report processes. The EPA’s FIFRA state oversight review process 

currently lacks consistency in how state oversight reviews are planned, performed

and documented. To ensure national consistency in EPA oversight practices and 

that states are conducting inspections appropriately, the EPA should establish a 

more systematic approach to FIFRA reviews similar to the State Review 

Framework.

Conclusions

The EPA needs procedures and training that provide specific direction to EPA 

oversight staff on selecting inspections, reporting and documenting review 

findings, and communicating review findings to state partners. These actions 

should result in consistent and more effective regional oversight of state 

performance, which will lead to increased assurance that the EPA’s oversight 

process will detect pesticide misuse and unnecessary risks to human health and 

the environment.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance:

1. In conjunction with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention, revise the FIFRA Project Officer Manual to include specific 

guidance for:

a. Reporting, documenting and retaining records from project officer

inspection reviews.

b. Providing documentation on how a state’s enforcement actions are 

consistent with the state’s enforcement policies and procedures.

c. Selecting inspection files for review.

d. Documenting closeout meetings with states.

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention and the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance:

2. Ensure that required FIFRA project officer training is conducted 

periodically and the above guidance is included in the training.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

The agency commented on our findings and conclusions and, where appropriate, 

we made changes in our report. The agency agreed with our recommendations. 
15-P-0156 11

Regarding Recommendation 1, the agency provided a corrective action plan and 

estimated completion date, and that recommendation is considered resolved and 

open with corrective action pending. Regarding Recommendation 2, while we 

acknowledge that the agency conducted project officer training in March 2015, 

during which the OIG findings were discussed, the agency is still developing 

plans for future trainings and will provide the plan as its corrective action. 

Therefore, Recommendation 2 is considered unresolved pending the providing of 

further corrective action plans and an estimated timeframe for completion. The 

agency’s full response, and our embedded comments, are in Appendix A.
15-P-0156 12

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 10 In conjunction with the Office of Chemical Safety 

and Pollution Prevention, revise the FIFRA Project 

Officer Manual to include specific guidance for:

a. Reporting, documenting and retaining 

records from project officer inspection 

reviews.

b. Providing documentation on how a state’s 

enforcement actions are consistent with the 

state’s enforcement policies and procedures.

c. Selecting inspection files for review.

d. Documenting closeout meetings with states.

O Assistant Administrator for

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

6/30/17

2 10 Ensure that required FIFRA project officer training 

is conducted periodically and the above guidance

is included in the training.

U Assistant Administrator for 

Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention

and

Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed. 

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
15-P-0156 13

Appendix A 

Agency Response to Draft Report

March 23, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Comments on Draft Report: “EPA’s Oversight of State Pesticide Inspections 

Needs Improvement to Ensure that Safeguards for Workers, the Public, and the 

Environment are Enforced,” Project No. OPE-FY14-0007

FROM: Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

TO: Arthur A. Elkins Jr, Inspector General

Office of Inspector General

We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with comments on the draft report (OPE-FY14-

0007). EPA agrees that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluation of EPA’s oversight of 

state implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

identified opportunities for improvements to EPA’s oversight practices in the FIFRA program. 

We are committed to strengthening FIFRA by addressing the recommendations in this report in a 

timely manner. 

While we agree that oversight can be strengthened, EPA does not believe that the examples cited 

in the OIG report demonstrate the existence of national problems or a lack of state 

accountability. We acknowledge that consistency across EPA regions and project officers can be 

improved, but EPA does not agree those individual shortcomings are a basis to “question 

whether EPA is holding states accountable.” Regional oversight, similar to state performance, 

benefits from a base level of standard procedures and training with flexibility to utilize unique 

approaches that account for regional and state differences. Last, statements on page six and the 

Conclusion on page 10 stating “improvements are needed to increase assurance that pesticides 

are not misused and do not pose necessary risks to human health and the environment” and 

“Continued weakness in the EPA’s regional oversight process may result in failure to detect 

pesticide misuse and unnecessary risks to human health and the environment” are not supported 

by the scope or findings of this OIG assessment. We respectfully request the OIG remove these 

statements from its report.

OIG Response: The OIG edited, but did not remove, these statements. 
15-P-0156 14

EPA has taken several steps in the past few years to strengthen our guidance, training and 

oversight in the FIFRA program. An effort jointly conducted by Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) and Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

(OCSPP) concluded its own two-year assessment of oversight policies and procedures of the 

FIFRA program that will result in improvements that will address virtually all of the issues 

raised in this draft report. One of the major efforts resulting from EPA’s assessment is a revised 

Project Officer training program that does take into account the importance of documenting 

findings and corrective actions that come out of regional reviews. Other actions EPA has taken 

include revising the Cooperative Agreement Guidance, developing new measures and a new 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the FIFRA program, FIFRA e-learning courses for 

inspectors, and the design of a FIFRA program performance dashboard to publicly display 

information reported by states on the 5700 form. These steps will strengthen FIFRA program 

management and oversight.

EPA does have a few specific comments on the draft report. On page two of the OIG draft report, 

five non-WPS inspection categories are referred to as “certification inspections.” EPA would like 

to clarify that our program does not use the term “certification inspections” to characterize a 

FIFRA inspection type. We do not believe the OIG needs to group and rename the FIFRA 

inspection types, and instead we request that you simply refer to the common inspection types.

OIG Response: The OIG included a footnote to clarify our use of the term “certification 

inspections.”

Page nine mentions that project officers do not document closeout meetings following reviews. 

This is a practice that has been affected by the decline in resources available to the regions for 

the FIFRA program. Historically the regions have spent up to a week on file reviews. As 

resources have declined, this process has been streamlined to several hours, often involving the 

electronic submission of files to conserve state and EPA resources while still addressing EPA 

requirements and priorities. In conjunction with the new Project Officer Training and a future 

revised Project Officer Manual, EPA agrees we can highlight best practices in documenting 

communications with state agencies about discrepancies, problems, or improvements.

The OIG draft report explains EPA’s State Review Framework (SRF), designed to bring a 

systematic and consistent approach to regional enforcement oversight of state programs for air, 

water and waste. The OIG suggests establishing a more systematic approach to FIFRA reviews 

similar to the SRF. EPA wants to emphasize that the resources allocated to the FIFRA program 

are significantly smaller than those compared to the CAA, CWA, and RCRA programs covered 

by the SRF process. The FIFRA program also has limitations in its ability to oversee FIFRA in 

the same manner as is done in CWA, CAA or RCRA due to state primary enforcement 

responsibility for pesticide use violations (primacy) in the FIFRA program and the lack of 

facility-specific reporting of state activities to EPA. The SRF process starts with media-specific 

data metrics that would be difficult to establish from the summary data provided to EPA for the 

FIFRA program areas. EPA, through its actions over the past few years, has taken a modified 

approach to FIFRA compliance and enforcement oversight due to these differences and 

limitations. These modifications will improve oversight and state accountability, and build a 
15-P-0156 15

foundation on which states and EPA together can consider new ways to make program 

implementation and management more efficient. 

OIG Response: The OIG changed the title of the section to “State Review Framework-Type 

Approaches Could Be Applied to FIFRA Reviews,” to more clearly reflect the OIG’s intent to 

highlight approaches used in the State Review Framework.

The findings in this draft OIG report reinforces our work to improve Project Officer guidance 

and training. EPA agrees with the recommendations. EPA has recently provided and will 

continue to periodically provide training to regional project officers as well as our grantees. We 

also agree to update the Project Officer Manual so it is consistent with the new training and the 

FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance.

Planned corrective action completion dates are:

1. Recommendation 1 – Revise the FIFRA Project Officer Manual by June 30, 2017.

OIG Response: Recommendation 1 and its inclusion of the findings of this report have been 

confirmed by the agency. This recommendation is resolved and open with corrective action 

pending.

2. Recommendation 2 – Conducted FIFRA Project Officer training on March 3-4, 2015.

Conduct an additional training session by March 24, 2015.

OIG Response: The OIG received information from the agency detailing plans in development 

for future training sessions. This recommendation is therefore considered unresolved until the 

agency provides further corrective action plans and an estimated timeframe for completion.

If you have any questions concerning this response, please feel free to contact Gwendolyn 

Spriggs, the OECA Audit Liaison, at 202-564-2439.
15-P-0156 16

Appendix B

Distribution

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention