1 

State FIFRA Issues, Research & Evaluation Group (SFIREG) 

Pesticides Operations & Management (POM) Working 

Committee 

MINUTES September 17-18, 

2012

EPA POTOMAC YARDS 

BLDG., ARLINGTON, VA 

MEETING CALLED 

BY Cary Giguere, Chair, SFIREG, POM WC 

TYPE OF MEETING Issues, Research & Evaluation

NOTE TAKER Grier Stayton, Exec. Sec., AAPCO

ATTENDEES

Members of the Committee: Cary Giguere, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets; Brian 

Rowe, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development; Dave Scott, Office of Indiana State 

Chemist; Rose Kachadoorian, Oregon Dept. of Agriculture; John Peckham, Minnesota Dept. of 

Agriculture; Jeanine Broughel, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (via 

conference call-in); George Farnsworth, California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation; Laura 

Quakenbush, Colorado Dept. of Agriculture; and Bonnie Rabe, New Mexico Dept. of Agriculture. 

SFIREG associates who were present included: Steve Dwinell, Florida Dept. of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services, and Chair, SFIREG; Richard Beard, Utah State University, representing AAPSE; 

Jeaneanne Gettle, EPA Region 4 (Regional Liaison); David Stangel, EPA, OECA; Jim Roelofs, EPA, 

OPP, FEAD; and Grier Stayton, AAPCO/SFIREG Secretary. Also in attendance were registrants, 

trade association representatives and EPA staff. 

Attachment 1 Agenda, and Attachment 2 Meeting Attendees 

INTRODUCTIONS 

Following introductions, Steve Dwinell gave a brief update on the status of SFIREG grant funding. 

The number of SFIREG Working Committee members shall remain reduced by two, pending full 

funding of the 2013 grant period. 

Jeaneanne Gettle, Region 4 EPA, announced this would be her last meeting as a Regional 

representative to POM. Gettle has received a promotion to Deputy Director of the Region 4 EPA 

Division of Air, Pesticides, and Toxics. Gettle spoke of the importance of the Working Committee 

and commended POM for their work. 

Meeting Convened at 8:05 a.m., September 17, 2012 

 

8:30 – 9:15 A.M. OECA AND OPP UPDATE DAVID STANGEL, OECA; 

AND JIM ROELOFS, OPP 

DISCUSSION 

Stangel provided an OECA update:

1) Pesticide Drift, PIRT Training, West Lafayette, IN was concluded September 10-13, 2012, and feedback was very 

positive. Basic Pesticide Use Enforcement, PIRT Training, is underway in Asheville, NC - September 17-20, 2012. 

2) Pesticide Inspector’s Manual, is still under review by EPA management. 

3) Distributor Label Initiative will remain an OECA priority. Inspections are ongoing. 

4) Enforcement Performance Measures – one more meeting and a webinar are scheduled for the workgroup. The 

SLA pilots will move forward shortly. 

5) Inspector Credentialing – Nothing new to report on credentialing. There has been no decision on acceptance of 

annual state health and safety training. 

6) E-Learning Website – the NETI on-line training is moving to a new E-Learning website and will feature updated 

training. EPA hopes to have the new site finished by the end of the year. 

Dwinell asked if OECA had received distributor label referrals and information from the states. Stangel replied yes and 

identified Brian Joffe as the contact for more information. Giguere asked if the feedback mechanism to State Lead 

Agencies (“SLAs”) was in place. Gettle replied there was more Region input on the subject and it was not complete. 

Dwinell stated he would ask for an update to the full SFIREG.

Gettle stated the grant template should be in place next spring. Rabe noted some states are testing the template now. 

Stangel noted there is a new, upgraded grant format being developed. Gettle asked if there was any information from 

EPA on the “Next Generation Compliance” initiative. Stangel explained this initiative is exploring the use of electronic 

monitoring vs. “in-the-field, inspection.” Quakenbush asked if this meant fewer inspections. Stangel replied this electronic 
2 

monitoring would augment standard inspections. Gettle cited an example of perhaps using applicator GPS equipment to 

automatically upload application data. The concept is speculative but SLAs should be thinking about it. 

Roelofs reported:

1) New EPA mosquito control website – opened September 13th. The site is a good resource and provides a number 

of links (CDC, etc.). http://www.epa.gov/mosquitocontrol/

2) OPP Updates – Roelofs referenced the public participation comment link for pesticide labels under review. The 

site is accessed from the OPP home page. Draft labels are posted and available for comment. 

3) Label Consistency website – posting of an issue paper relating to the use of the word “new” on labels 

(http://blog.epa.gov/enablethelabel/) 

4) Conclusion of the Scott’s Case- this case has been a huge resource drain on staff – now free to work on other 

tasks. 

5) Incident Data System – has now surpassed one million reported incidents. 

6) FTC Crackdown on 25(b) Bedbug Products 

7) Label Training Day- Following request from HED, EFED, and PRD staff, Roelofs is developing a Label Training 

day. 

8) Label Review Manual Update- The LRM has been under review for 2 years. Seven chapters have been edited 

(Chapters 8 & 9 have just been finished). Roelofs expects several more Chapters to be posted for comment by 

the end of September. The LRM workgroup has been disbanded. The Label Consistency Committee is still doing 

their part in the review. 

9) NonCrop - an issue paper was posted on the use of the label term “non-crop.” There were only 8 comments. In 

general commenters agreed the term “non-crop” was a problem. Roelofs will brief senior management and there 

will be a determination on the degree of outreach to industry. Options include a Pesticide Registration Notice; 

internal guidance; or a rule. The term “non-crop” presents a big problem for EPA risk assessments. Giguere 

asked if POM could help Roelofs in their effort. 

Kachadoorian asked if OPP was using a “Draft” watermark on proposed labels. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture has 

experienced problems with the downloading and distribution of proposed Special Local Need labels. Kachadoorian also 

asked if the LRM could discuss the use of the terms “buffer zone” and “no spray areas” – their use is not consistent. 

Stangel replied the terms are very risk dependent. Roelofs stated the LRM does not specifically address the use of the 

terms.

Mary Frances Lowe, EPA, discussed PRN 2012-1 (Attachment 3). The OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) 

addresses workplace chemicals. OSHA’s HazCom 2012 final rule revises the HCS to align with the Globally Harmonized 

System (GHS), including specific hazard statements, signal words, and pictograms. Some of the HCS label elements may 

differ from FIFRA label elements for the same hazards. EPA worked with OSHA to develop guidance (PRN 2012 -1) to 

prevent Safety Data Sheet users from being mis-lead and aid the regulated community in complying with both agencies 

rules. PRN 2012-1 guidance is effective immediately and is available at http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/. The FIFRA label 

will not need to change.

Giguere asked if POM should track labels posted on the web, and to whom comments would be directed. Roelofs 

recommended POM use the Label Consistency Committee to address more generic/policy comments. For specific draft 

labels, as posted, Roelofs recommended use of the public participation, web docket set up. Giguere agreed to track draft 

labels and send them out to select members as needed. Dwinell asked what labels are being posted. Roelofs replied, only 

those going through registration review, significant new use, or first food use. Giguere will schedule a conference call 

after the POM meeting to discuss how best to split reviews of these labels.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Conference call to discuss process for POM review of posted labels – 

possible formation of an ad hoc committee Giguere 1-2 weeks 
3 

9:15- 10:00 A.M. “GRANT GUIDANCE 

WORKGROUP UPDATE” 

CARY GIGUERE, VT AND JEFF 

COMSTOCK, VT 

DISCUSSION Attachment 4 – Grant Guidance Workgroup Presentation 

Attachment 5 - FY 14-16 FIFRA Program Areas/Goals

Comstock discussed the Workgroup composition: Molly Miller, Region 4, and Dea Zimmerman, OPP, (Co-Chairs); Jamie 

Green, Region 7; Eliza Farrell, OPP; Julie Simpson, OC; David Stangel, OC; Shannon Joyner, NC Dept. of Ag; and, Jeff 

Comstock, VT Dept. of Ag. The purpose and mission of the Workgroup is to provide EPA with a recommended 

framework for the 2014 – 2016 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance (CAG). Comstock provided details on the 

process of developing the CAG framework, with the goal of aligning EPA and SLA priorities. Objectives were outlined as:

1) Effectively communicate the thread of priorities from EPA to Grantees; 

2) Provide CAG structure to facilitate flexible responses between and within priority areas; 

3) Improve understanding of and distinction between mandatory and non-mandatory activities; 

4) Streamline the body of the CAG to succinctly articulate work expectations; background, definitional and narrative 

information included as appendices; 

5) Result in reliable data/information reporting to demonstrate results, support current work, determine future 

priorities and tell the story of the National Pesticide Program. 

Comstock noted the fundamental purpose of the CAG is to develop a workplan. Under the current guidance, states often 

use a highlighter pen and mark the activities they need to do. It was decided to position the “to-do” list up front and 

move the narrative portions of the guidance to the appendices. “Priority Areas” and “Work Functions” were defined by the 

group. Several options were presented in structural tables. The tables were designed to facilitate the building of each 

SLA’s workplan. One option was “Priority-based” and one option was “Work Function based.” After further analysis, the 

workgroup agreed on a hybrid of the “Priority-based” table: 

The Workgroup has completed its task and disbanded. The next step for the CAG is for EPA to decide what the priority 

areas for the guidance should be. Comstock noted the significant role EPA Regional Offices will have in building flexibility 

and consistency in the SLA workplans under the CAG. Dwinell asked if the EPA priority areas would be provided to SLAs for 

comment. Comstock replied yes. Scott and Rabe expressed their thanks to the Workgroup and their support for the 

proposed CAG framework. Ann Pontius, OECA, thanked the Workgroup and SLAs for their participation in the process and 

referenced the OECA FY 14-16 FIFRA Program Areas/Goals outlined in a chart (Attachment 5). The chart is based on 

conversations with the Regions. Priorities for the listed Program Areas have not been determined. Pontius noted there 

will be training of Regional Project Officers so they know what a good job looks like and to provide some consistency 

between the Regions. There followed a discussion on automation and revisions to reporting. 

CONCLUSIONS

 

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE
4 

10:15 – 10:45 A.M. FOCUS WORKGROUP 

RECOMMENDATIONS

MARYFRANCIS LOWE, ACTING BRANCH 

CHIEF, FEAD, OPP, EPA; 

CARY GIGUERE, POM CHAIR 

DISCUSSION Attachment 5 - Program Areas for FY 14-16 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance

Lowe referenced the Program Areas chart as a basis for discussion on work done by the FOCAS Workgroup and input from 

the Regions. Lowe asked for additional input from SLAs and the Regions. Regions have been asked to discuss the chart 

further with the SLAs – with comments to be provided by the end of September. Lowe asked the SLAs to focus on what 

should be in the chart. Some of the terminology has changed from previous. Some of the questions presented to the 

Regions from Lowe included:

1. Will this approach allow SLAs to focus on risk reduction? 

2. Is there general support for the “pick list” approach? 

3. Are there additional program areas that should be included? 

4. What is the appropriate level of detail in the guidance - what level of flexibility and consistency needs to be in 

the guidance? 

5. Is there a need to consider a mechanism to recognize outstanding projects? 

Dwinell commented that expecting SLA comments by the end of September is too soon and suggested compiling comments 

for the December SFIREG. Several POM members commented they had not received the questionnaire email from the 

Regional Offices. Gettle stated she would send a reminder to the Regions to forward. Helfgott stated SLA responses could 

not wait until the December SFIREG meeting. 

Comstock made a comment about the “Support of the Ag Sector” on the priority list. In terms of risk reduction, should 

there be a specific focus on the ag sector? Lowe replied the SLA may elect to have this as a priority. Farnsworth 

suggested the possible inclusion of Environmental Justice as a focus area. Region 9 has informed CA that the San Joaquin 

Valley will be a focus for the next several years. Rowe noted Environmental Justice activities are typically worked out 

through discussions with the Region and individual states. Scott asked the guidance to be clear and not open to Regional 

interpretation - to avoid SLAs waiting six months for additional Regional guidance. Lowe noted some Regions do specific 

Regional guidance – some do not. Gettle stated Regional Administrators may ask their staff to add priorities or activities. 

Rabe suggested an “other” elective for SLAs to have the flexibility of adding something unique to their state. Giguere felt 

the chart captured “core” activities very well. Kachadoorian asked how many electives can be chosen and is there money 

associated with each. Kachadoorian questioned why Endangered Species is cited as an elective. Lowe replied the 

enforcement of the Endangered Species Act is not an elective but ESA may be a higher priority in some states than others. 

Lowe asked SLAs to comment on how many electives should be chosen. Scott asked that “Core” program areas include 

some means of recognizing SLA resources spent on label improvement (thereby decreasing misuse). Giguere agreed that 

label improvement is a foundation of the Pesticide Program and should be recognized. Gettle commented that the last 

three items on the list would be primarily Region-State negotiated. 

 

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Compile POM comments on Grant Guidance provided by Mary Frances 

Lowe. Comments from POM members due by September 27th. Giguere Sept 30, 2012 

10:45 – 11:00 A.M. 

SOIL FUMIGATION 

MITIGATION LABEL 

AMENDMENTS UPDATE 

JOHN LEAHY, PRD, OPP, EPA; JOHN 

PECKHAM, MN DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 

DISCUSSION 

Leahy reported on the status of Phase 2 labels, the registrants training program, and Community Outreach for soil 

fumigants. Most Phase 2 labels were approved in January and February 2012. Sale and distribution of existing Phase 1 

label stock will be permitted through December 1, 2012. As of their June 1, conference call registrants reported to EPA 

few issues with the distribution of new labels. The next call is September 26th. This call will focus on any registrant issues 

with specific states. Implementation is on track for December 1st. 

Registrant training programs have progressed. On-line and in-person training will be available. Volunteers from AAPSE 
5 

and CTAG have participated in the EPA review of training. Comments and correction to slides were provided. Exam 

questions were also reviewed. On August 21, the final program administration description was provided to EPA from 

registrants. Final pdf copies of corrected slides and exam questions were received last week. EPA anticipates approval of 

the registrant training program in the next few days. There has been no description from registrants how they will 

administer the in-person sessions. Indications are they will be providing this soon (confirmed by Sara Beth Watson, 

Steptoe & Johnson, LLP). Peckham commented the labels are more or less in the states. Farnsworth noted that CA PDR is 

going through the process of comparing Phase 2 labels with their regulations (e.g., buffer zones).

Community outreach as required by the RED is not enforced by SLAs. The outreach is addressed toward 1st Responders, 

medical professionals, and information provided to communities.

Rowe asked how SLAs will verify applicator training in the field. Leahy replied that registrants (through the company 

Achieva) are developing a database to be accessed by telephone. Sara Beth Watson noted SLAs may access via telephone 

or email request. Leahy stated if the applicator has no training documentation and there is no evidence of completed 

training through Achieva, the applicator is in violation of the label. Scott asked for an explanation of the registrants’ issue 

with applicator privacy. Watson replied that a list would become a public document and there were individuals who did 

not want their names publicly listed just because they had completed training. Scott suggested any future endeavors 

involving applicator certification and training should be a public record.

Giguere thanked Leahy for EPA’s outreach and cooperation with SLAs throughout the process of implementing the RED. 

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DUE DATE

11:00 – 11:45 A.M. PPDC POLLINATOR 

PROTECTION WORKGROUP BRIAN ROWE, MI DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 

DISCUSSION Attachment 6 – Rowe July 2012 PPDC MtgNotes; Attachment 7 – Rowe Sept 2012 PPDC MtgNotes; 

Attachment 8 – Draft PRN 2000-XX Bee Labeling 

Rowe referenced the draft PRN 2000-XX on precautionary bee labeling and the recent efforts of the PPDC Pollinator 

Protection Workgroup. The Workgroup has split into three focus areas: training, education, and labeling. Training has 

focused on standardizing applicator training. Education has focused on pollinator protection and identifying what materials 

are already available. Labeling discussion began with the subject of revising the Label Review Manual, but is now fixed on 

how labels can identify risk of toxicity. Enforcement has focused on bee kill investigations and how to investigate and 

document. Rowe outlined the following BMPs open for discussion:

1) Use of the term “apply only at night.” 

2) Standardize training materials for applicators and bee keepers 

3) Use case studies for documenting increase in yield resulting from pollinator protection 

4) Residual toxicity and better solutions for seed coatings 

5) Is there a way to restrict applications when the plant is actively producing pollen and nectar. 

6) Accounting for extended residual toxicity in the LRM. Using a numerical ranking for product toxicity. 

Rowe stated there is a regional project to review and develop inspection procedures of bee hives. Rowe will stay involved 

with the PPDC Workgroup and report to POM. At some point, AAPCO/SFIREG will be called upon to provide comment. 

Dwinell stated he has been contacted by the PPDC Workgroup. In addition he stated the December SFIREG will have 

further discussion on the topic and the results of the SFIREG survey on bee kill investigations.

Giguere thanked Rowe for staying engaged in the subject. 

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS
6 

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Need for official AAPCO appointment of person to Workgroup Dwinell – Alessandri 

1:00 – 1:45 P.M. 

RISK MITIGATION 

MEASURES THAT GO BEYOND 

THE APPLICATOR 

CARY GIGUERE, VT; VENUS EAGLE, RD, 

OPP, EPA 

DISCUSSION Attachment 9 – Giguere presentation 

Giguere identified risk “gaps” related to specific uses and the inability of an SLA to prevent harm based upon product 

labeling, Consumer Information Sheets, seed tags, etc. The first VT encounter with this issue involved a drinking water 

well contaminated from the placement of a pentachlorophenol treated telephone pole. The pole is a treated article. A 

consumer fact sheet advises against placing poles where they may come into direct or indirect contact with public drinking 

water. In addition, the RED for pentachlorophenol identifies the risk to water. Giguere asked if Consumer Information 

Sheets are considered “labeling.” The second case involved plant injury resulting from the use of compost containing 

herbicide residues. Certain pasture herbicide uses haves resulted in harmful levels of residues in manure used for 

compost. Also certain lawn herbicide uses have resulted in harmful levels in lawn clippings used for compost. To 

complicate the matter, manure and lawn clippings are often collected by a third party for delivery to a composter. The 

last case referenced by Giguere concerned treated seeds (a treated article and exempt from FIFRA authority). Treated 

seeds are being distributed with tags and label statements - which raise the question of who is responsible for enforcing 

the pesticide precautions and restrictions provided. In summary, Giguere noted that risk mitigation measures often look 

good on paper but are not reflective of field reality. There is very little SLAs can do to enforce these measures.

Quakenbush suggested the elimination of the exemption for treated articles. Scott noted that his office will investigate 

complaints regardless whether they involve treated articles. He questioned if the presence of a pesticide on a treated 

article results in harm, is the pesticide misbranded? Dwinell commented that if a risk is not being mitigated, then the risk 

mitigation measures need to be changed. Stangel recommended SLAs notify EPA when a risk mitigation goes wrong. 

Kachadoorian stated OR is checking seed treatment facilities and finding not all of the required risk mitigation information 

is put on the seed tags. Rabe suggested starting with educational outreach on these issues through trade associations 

(composters, utility pole treaters, etc.). Giguere commented that the initial response from composters was to ban the 

problem herbicide(s). Farnsworth relayed an incident involving illness in cold storage workers from MeBr exposure from 

imported Chilean grapes. CA determined they can hold the owner of the grapes accountable. Comstock stated the SLAs 

need the authority to remediate harm and suggested a re-definition of “use.” Eagle suggested a dual approach to the 

problem: SLAs use available means to address the gap in risk mitigation, while pushing EPA to address the labeling 

aspects. Gettle felt that “mitigating risk” does not equate to “eliminating risk” but some language changes may help 

narrow the gap. Dwinell concluded that when SLAs have these issues, they need a process to let EPA know there is a 

problem. 

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Draft Issue Paper Dwinell

1:45 – 2:15 P.M. PPE GARMENT STANDARDS CAROL BLACK, NASDA RESEARCH 

FOUNDATION 

DISCUSSION Attachment 10 – Personal Protective Clothing presentation 

Black (formerly Ramsay) is currently the Washington State Cooperative Extension Pesticide Safety Educator, and works for 

the NASDA Research Foundation. Black began with a summary of the International Symposium on PPE for Ag Pesticide 

Applicators, held August 6-7, 2012, in Campinas, Brazil. The goal of the symposium was to promote PPE dialogue among 

industry and government officials, trainers, and researchers. The symposium looked in some depth at the risk assessment 

process for determining PPE requirements. Regulatory requirements for PPE were presented, along with PPE challenges in 

the field. Tim Drake, SC, represented AAPCO. Overall the conference was very informative. Black praised Dr. Anugrah 

Shaw, Ph.D., Consulting Scientist, NASDARF, for her work presented at the conference. Black discussed the role of the 
7 

Label Review Manual and displayed a chart from the LRM on PPE. Market availability of PPE for applicators was mentioned 

as a common problem. Black suggested using PPE levels of 1, 2, 3 based on ISO and ASTM standards for certifying 

garments, gloves, and headwear. Certain countries already use these standards for PPE garments. Respirator standards 

have already been established under NIOSH, but labels should be reviewed and updated to these standards. 

Black stated that pictograms are used extensively to relay PPE garment requirements in South America. Black addressed 

the need for applicator training and a feedback mechanism to educators and regulators to gauge the effects and limits of 

PPE. Delivery of training needs to account for applicator education, size of the operation (corporate vs. small farm) and 

other community factors.

Black discussed label statements and the importance of the Dr. Shaw’s research. Three sample labels and their PPE 

requirements were displayed. The variability in requirements and inferred protection (chemical resistant often effectively 

meant “water proof”) was discussed. Currently label language is based on garment type and layers of garments. Fabric 

performance varies considerably and the protection, to a great extent, is dependent on the material and the finish applied 

to the fabric. Black noted there are ASTM and ISO performance-based standards now available, based on laboratory and 

exposure study data, which could be used as the basis for risk mitigation and label language. 

Using data from Dr. Shaw, Black illustrated that out of 1,868 ag labels, 1,583 required only long sleeve shirt and long 

pants. Coveralls were required by only 5 ag labels in the study. ISO 27065:2011 Protective clothing – Performance 

requirements for protective clothing worn by operators applying liquid pesticides, was referenced. Black expressed future 

needs as: 

 

1) Industry Interest - in looking at new fabrics 

2) Garment Wear Studies 

3) Functional Design 

4) Label Changes 

5) Marketplace Development 

Black discussed glove standards in some detail. Waterproof and chemical-resistant are not defined, yet both terms are 

sometimes used in the description of the same product. Additionally, similar descriptions are used for different categories. 

Referencing Dr. Shaw’s data, of the 1,848 labels, 1552 required chemical resistant gloves and of these 648 needed to be 

category A – water resistant. Based upon this, Black felt glove label statements could be simplified (e.g. Class 1, water 

proof; Class 2, Nitrile, etc.). A simplified chart for glove PPE label requirements was displayed showing examples for 

Levels 1, 2, and 3 protection. Conceivably existing risk categories A-H could be aggregated into these three levels. Black 

closed her report with a discussion of current research efforts. 

Keaney stated an international consortium will develop a statement of intent – aimed at providing clear and simple 

statements on labels.

Giguere offered the support of POM relating to PPE label language and Label Review Manual tweaking. Black stated she 

has some suggestions. Roelofs noted Chapter 10 of the LRM is still under review. Comments have been received and a 

number of items in the chapter have been fixed. Black asked Giguere to keep her and Richard Pont, EPA, apprised of 

when the draft Chapter 10 of the LRM is released.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Create ad hoc committee to discuss label statements Giguere

2:15 – 3:00 P.M. METHOMYL ISSUE PAPER 

FINALIZATION CARY GIGUERE, VT; BRIAN ROWE, MI 

DISCUSSION Attachment 11 – Draft Methomyl Issue Paper with Edits 

A copy of the SFIREG Issue Paper “Classifying All Methomyl-Containing Pesticides as Restricted Use” was provided to the 

POM Committee. Rowe gave a brief update on methomyl poisoning incidents. The MI Diagnostics Laboratory now has the 

ability to confirm methomyl poisonings through detection of a methomyl metabolite and caffeine (from Coke use as a bait). 
8 

Scott reported IN has concluded their rule process for state restriction of all methomyl products and they are awaiting the 

Governor’s signature. MI may follow suite. Giguere asked Dwinell if the changes in the IP met the intent of the Full 

SFIREG for clarification. Dwinell suggested the addition of incident data (per EPA interest). Giguere noted the original IP 

had data included. Rowe referenced his survey of SLAs on methomyl poisonings and added the only thing not included in 

the original IP was the IN sales data. Rowe and Scott commented that use violation/incident data is not very accurate –

most cases go unreported because the uses are intentionally covert. SLAs typically only hear of incidents when pets or 

protected wildlife species are poisoned. Gettle suggested adding the ease of finding misuse recommendations on the web. 

Meredith Laws, EPA, noted the scarcity of comments when AAPCO petitioned EPA for restricting all uses of strychnine (36 

comments received, with 29 opposed to the petition). Law suggested presenting the IP as a petition to EPA. She asked 

for data to put in the docket to support the petition and asked SLAs to make sure state wildlife officials comment. 

Supporting data could include pictures, website recommendations, etc. Rowe agreed to summarize the data. Dwinell 

agreed to present the revised IP to the December SFIREG meeting, and will forward as an IP to Steve Bradbury. Rowe 

motioned to move the IP forward, Rabe seconded. No objections or abstentions. Rowe may also request AAPCO to adopt 

the IP and petition EPA. 

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Summarize data in support of the Issue Paper and add the term 

“petition” Rowe

Present revised IP to full SFIREG Dwinell

3:00 – 3:30 P.M. INSECT REPELLENCY MARK – 

25(B) DISCUSSION ROSE KYPRIANOU, OPP, EPA 

DISCUSSION Attachment 12 – Insect Repellency Mark presentation 

 

Kyprianou summarized what the Insect Repellency Mark is – basically a graphic presentation of insects repelled and the 

duration of repellency for skin applied insect repellents. The Mark is very similar to the SPF graphic used on sunscreens. 

The program will be voluntary. The graphic will be standardized. Companies will provide current, supporting data, and 

EPA expects the Mark to represent a high standard. EPA is currently drafting a guidance document which will be 

presented to the October/November PPDC meeting. EPA will also share the document with POM in Oct/Nov. The program 

launch is expected in 2013. Kyprianou described the process in more detail – how the companies would apply for and 

receive approval for use of the Mark. Educational and outreach information on the Mark will be provided to the public via 

the web. Kyprianou stated the Mark could also be applied for by companies marketing 25(b) products and they would 

need to meet the same standard of efficacy as FIFRA Section 3 products.

Quakenbush asked if EPA would charge any fee for the use of the Mark. Kyprianou replied no. Kyprianou asked POM the 

following questions:

1) What can EPA do to make this program work for the states? 

2) For states that regulate 25(b) products, how does review of labeling work and would they be able to verify 25(b) 

participation in the program? 

a. What would states do if a 25(b) product uses the mark or something similar to it, and it has not been 

approved by EPA? 

b. Would a website listing all participating products be helpful/sufficient? 

3) Is there anything else states could do to help make this program work for all interested parties? 

a. What type of coordination/information would states need from EPA? 

Giguere asked EPA to make sure the 25(b) products meet the exemption standards before considering their applications 

for the Mark. Quakenbush stated CO would not be able to disapprove 25(b)s unless they are in violation of FIFRA. Gettle 

predicted a huge number of non-compliant 25(b) products using the Mark – without EPA approval. This would result in the 

Regions being swamped with case files of a low priority infraction. Giguere noted most SLAs have stopped referring 25(b)s 

to the Regions. Giguere asked if the Mark would be per active ingredient or per product (would me-too registrations be 

accepted?) Kyprianou replied that approval would be per product but citing me-too data would be accepted under existing 

rules. Many comments were made by POM opposing EPA’s consideration of 25(b) products’ use of the Mark. 
9 

CONCLUSIONS

POM agrees with use of the Insect Repellency Mark on Section 3 products, but is strongly opposed to use 

on 25(b) products. 

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

3:45- 4:00 P.M. ENLIST DOU – STATE ISSUES JOHN PECKHAM, MN 

Discussion Attachment 13 – Questions Posed for POM Discussion 

Peckham posed several questions relating to SLA concerns with Enlist Duo and other PGR Resistant Crops. When could 

states expect to see product in the field? How many acres are anticipated for treatment? Will there be a price difference 

between the new actives and standard products? What will be the conditions of the grower agreements? Will there be 

time for education and stewardship activities? Kerry Hastings stated Dow Enlist approval is expected by the end of 2012 

for use on corn. Dicamba approval is expected about the 3rd week of February 2013. Hastings stated soybeans would be 

the second crop they seek approval for, followed by cotton. Giguere asked how Dow will ensure Enlist will be the product 

used and not generic 2,4-D. Hastings replied, by grower agreements. Giguere expressed concern that other formulations 

will be used and SLAs will be faced with drift complaints. He asked Hastings to take POM concerns back to the Dow 

management and cited past problems with grower agreements (such as refugia for corn plantings). Hastings volunteered 

to have Dow visit individually with SLAs on their concerns. Peckham asked if SLA labs can distinguish between 2,4 -D 

choline and generic 2,4-D formulations. Scott replied, once out of the spray tank the formulations are indistinguishable. 

IN is concerned with the use of generics and Scott suggested EPA put use prohibitions on the generic 2,4-D product labels 

(e.g., “Do not use on crops with genetics for Enlist”). Rowe suggested the Dow and BASF training/stewardship schedule 

start with grower meetings this coming winter.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

4:00 – 5:00 p.m. EPA STAMPING 

SUPPLEMENTAL LABELS ROSE KACHADOORIAN, OR 

Discussion Attachment 14 – Stamping Supplemental Labels presentation 

Kachadoorian defined the term supplemental labeling, as labeling which includes newly approved uses, use directions, or 

other instructions which have been added since the last accepted Master label. Supplemental labeling must be submitted

to EPA and must be stamped “accepted” by the Agency. Normally, supplemental labeling will be incorporated into the 

Master label at the next printing of the product label (final printed label) or within 18 months, whichever comes first. 

Kachadoorian then described what reportedly happens in practice at EPA:

1) Some PMs want the Master label and Supplemental to be submitted as a pair. 

– A portion of these PMs want to stamp both the Master label and the Supplemental label (with a 3 year 

expiration date from the PRIA decision*). 

– Other PMs will only stamp the Master (but want to see the Supplemental). 

2) Some PMs don’t want to see a Supplemental label because they have already approved the use on the Master 
10 

and don’t want to spend time to look at something they already have approved. 

– In these situations, registrants extract the use off the Master label and develop a supplemental label 

that EPA hasn’t seen. This label is submitted to the states & posted on websites. 

Steve Foss of Washington State expressed his concerns with the inconsistency of EPA review to Kachadoorian. 

Kachadoorian asked if there was a desire to have consistency in accordance with the Label Review Manual. Some states 

want proof EPA has received the supplemental labels (stamped). Some states want only supplemental labels with 

expiration dates, and some states don’t care. Quakenbush felt EPA should follow the LRM. 

Kachadoorian noted supplemental labeling is also used for state registration of special local needs (SLN) under section 

24(c) of FIFRA. Oregon has 240 active SLN labels. Oregon is now being asked by EPA to change recently submitted 

labels, from “FIFRA 24(c) Special Local Need Supplemental Label” to “FIFRA 24(c) Special Local Need Label.” OR considers 

these labels as supplemental and Kachadoorian asked EPA to accept the term on their SLNs.

Kachadoorian’s final issue presented to POM was the use of the term “supersedes” (e.g., “use directions in supplemental 

labeling may supersede this label”). Oregon developed a policy stating they would not accept supplemental labels that 

stated they superseded the container label. 

Dwinell noted previous POM discussions had resulted in an Issue Paper on supplemental labels and he asked what 

happened to the EPA document that was to provide clarification. Roelofs replied that nothing had been done yet, tha t 

someone in OGC has this in the “to-do” pile. Giguere stated he would follow-up. Roelofs suggested SLAs refer new 

supplemental labels to EPA if they do not currently have expiration dates. He suggested SLAs send any labels with the 

term “supersede” to SLITS. 

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

Follow-up EPA action regarding Supplemental Label guidance Giguere

 SPECIAL NOTES: 

 

Meeting adjourned 9/17/2012, at 4:47 p.m. 

Meeting reconvened 9/18/2012 at 8:05 a.m. 

9:00 – 12 NOON 

PYRETHROID LABEL 

CHANGES, INPACT ON 

STATES 

STEVE DWINELL, SFIREG CHAIR; RICK 

KEIGWIN, DIRECTOR, PRD, OPP, EPA 

DISCUSSION

Attachment 15 – Non-Ag Pyrethroid Issue Paper; Attachment 16 - ASPCRO/SFIREG/NPMA 

Draft Revised Language Outdoor Non-Agricultural Use; Attachment 17 – NPMA – ASPCRO 

Workshop Invite to EPA 

Dwinell referenced the June 2012, Issue Paper (Attachment 16) adopted by SFIREG and forwarded to EPA. The IP asked 

EPA to provide guidance on some of the revised label language and to add language for uses under specific circumstances. 

A field trip planned for the afternoon of September 18, was to illustrate some of the situations the revised language was to 

address (Attachment 18). 

Rabe summarized the environmental hazards language changes requested (Attachment 17): 

 “Do not apply directly to impervious horizontal surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, and patios except as a 

spot or crack and crevice. During application, do not allow pesticide to enter or run off into storm drains, 

drainage ditches, gutters or surface waters.” 

“All outdoor applications must be limited to spot or crack-and-crevice treatments only, except for the following 

permitted uses: 

1) Treatment to soil or vegetation around structures; 

2) Applications to lawns, turf, and other vegetation; 

3) Applications to the side of a building, up to a maximum height of 3 feet above grade; 

4) Applications to underside of eaves or soffits, and doors and windows protected from rainfall by a 
11 

covering, overhang, awning, or other structure; 

5) A pin stream application, defined as one inch wide, or less; and 

6) Applications to structural surfaces when abutted by soil, lawn, turf, mulch or other vegetation and not 

over an impervious surface in order to control occasional invaders and congregating pests including but 

not limited to brown marmorated stinkbugs, kudzu bugs, boxelder bugs, spiders, cluster flies, multicolored Asian lady beetles, western conifer seed bugs, clover mites, carpenter bees, scorpions, 

millipedes, earwigs, midges, and mayflies.” 

Explanation of Above Exceptions: 

Numbers 1 and 2 come directly from the EPA 2009 label tables. 

Numbers 3, 4 and 5 codify the clarifications contained in EPA’s October 2011 letter to the 

California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 

Number 6 contains language that allows treatment to surfaces above treatable sites for 

control of occasional invaders (including overwintering pests). 

Keigwin commented the early EPA concerns centered on items 4 and 5. Keigwin looked forward to the afternoon 

workshop/field trip and expected to move forward quickly on a decision. Julie Spagnoli suggested the need for registrants 

to be included in the adoption of label changes – and asked what the process of label changes would be. She also 

questioned the meaning of the “24 hour rain” advisory statement (does a 20% chance of rain qualify?)

Rabe stated there were a few questions about impervious surfaces and the placement of statements on the label – these 

are being worked on by ASPCRO and should be posted on their website. Dwinell asked Keigwin if there had been any EPA 

clarification on some of the issues brought forth. Keigwin replied EPA had responded to questions from CA PDR (during 

the development of their state regulations last fall) and to questions from NPMA in May.

Scott asked if there was a statement on the label “this product can only be used for the pests listed on this label.” From 

the perspective of enforcement, how does item 6 relate to Section 2(ee)? Keigwin replied EPA has the same question. 

Scott added these types of scenarios rarely give rise to an enforcement complaint. 

Debbie Stubbs, Syngenta, stated that although not required by FIFRA under 2(ee), oftentimes applicators want the 

registrant to put specific pests on the label. Also, from the registrants’ perspective, they want data indicating control of 

pests listed on the label.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

Meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m. 

Recorder: Grier Stayton, Exec. Sec. AAPCO.