Please Respond to: Steven E. Dwinell, Assistant Director 

Division of Agricultural Environmental Services 

3125 Conner Boulevard, Room 126 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 

E-mail: dwinels@doacs.state.fl.us

Phone 850-617-7900; Fax 850-617-7939 

December 23, 2010 

Steven Bradbury, Director 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (7501P) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Rick Keigwin, Director 

Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (7501P) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Sirs: 

As we discussed at the Full SFIREG meeting on December 6, 2010, and again during the 

meeting with Assistant Administrators Steve Owens and Cynthia Giles on December 7, 2010, 

state lead agencies (SLAs) are facing increasing demands on programs at a time when resources 

are declining. One of the major demands on SLA resources, especially for states in high use 

areas, is the need to implement the risk mitigation measures adopted by the Agency for soil 

fumigants. 

A big part of the work associated with this implementation is the review of label changes 

that are required to implement the soil fumigation mitigation measures. Key SLAs have already 

devoted significant resources to reviewing and commenting on the extensive changes to labels of 

registered soil fumigants required to implement the first round(2010) risk mitigation measures 

adopted by the EPA. 

We are now beginning the process of providing comments to the changes for 

incorporation into the second round of risk mitigation implementation. This round will involve 

not only reviewing label revisions, but also determining whether training programs are adequate 

to prepare applicators for the new requirements. Thus, for states in which soil fumigation is 

prevalent, program managers expect to once again divert a substantial portion of their 

registration and compliance review staff time to this effort. 
Bradbury/Keigwin 

December 23, 2010 

Page 2 

In light of this, the Full SFIREG committee adopted a recommendation that the process 

for developing, reviewing, and accepting label revisions for the second round be changed from 

the process used for the first round. The recommendation calls for a more flexible, iterative 

process of review and comment between EPA and the SLAs before the Agency stamps as 

accepted master labels. 

In addition, instead of a “firm” deadline for implementation, the recommendation is for 

the establishment of a set of time intervals for milestones to be met by EPA, SLAs and/or 

registrants. If, despite best efforts, a milestone is not reached after the nominal time interval, the 

due date for the next milestone would be extended. This approach would avoid the unnecessary 

and disruptive compression of work that must be done when tasks need to be completed by an 

arbitrary deadline. 

Attached is a table that illustrates the proposed milestones and proposed intervals 

between milestones. If the proposed timelines are realistic and each milestone is reached on 

schedule, the entire process could be completed within 300 days. Thus, if the process was 

started January 15, 2011, label changes could be implemented and training conducted by 

November 11, 2011. The process allows, however, that if a milestone is not reached, then the 

subsequent milestone is delayed and the time interval to reach that next milestone is not 

shortened. If for example, the date that USEPA issues the stamped accepted labels is delayed 

(Milestone #5 in the proposed process), then the final date for adoption of the labels is also 

delayed. The time intervals by which the subsequent milestones are to be reached would not be 

compressed by failure to meet an earlier milestone. 

The Agency has the authority to set timelines for label revisions and for training program 

development and deployment that will prepare applicators to understand and comply with the 

new measures. We request that you consider the proposed milestones and time intervals in the 

context of what can reasonably be achieved by EPA, SLA’s, registrants, and by others who may 

be conducting training of applicators. We think that the schedule should be practicable and also 

flexible enough to accommodate unforeseen delays, should they arise. The proposed process 

should allow all the parties to accomplish the review, comment, adoption and training on the 

second round of label changes in an orderly manner. 

I hope this proposal is acceptable. SFIREG is ready to discuss this proposal in detail and 

respond to any questions and concerns that the Agency may have. Please contact me at your 

earliest convenience regarding this proposal. 

 Sincerely, 

 CHARLES H. BRONSON 

 COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE 

 Steven Dwinell, Chair 

 State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group 

Attachment 

cc: James Burnette 

 Jim Gray 

 Dennis Howard 

 Grier Stayton