1


# State FIFRA Issues, Research & Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Pesticides Operations & Management (POM) Working

Committee

MINUTES April 22 -23, 2013 

## EPA POTOMAC YARDS
BLDG., ARLINGTON, VA

MEETING CALLED

BY Cary Giguere , Chair, SFIREG, POM WC

TYPE OF MEETING Issues, Research & Evaluation

NOTE TAKE R 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; Charlie Clark, Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Shannon Joyner, North Carolina Dept. of Agricult ure and Consumer Services; George Farnsworth, California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation; Laura Quakenbush, Colorado Dept. of Agriculture; and Bonnie Rabe, New Mexico Dept. of Agriculture. Jamie Green, EPA Region 7 joined by conference phone. Dea
Zimmerman, EPA, OPP, also joined portions of the meeting by conference phone. SFIREG associates who were present included: Jeff Comstock, Vermont Agency of Agriculture and AAPCO President; Steve Dwinell, Florida Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services, and Chair, SFIREG; Dan Helfgott, EPA, FEAD; David Stangel, EPA, OECA; Jim Roelofs, EPA, OPP, FEAD; and Grier Stayton, AAPCO/SFIREG Secretary. Also in at tendance were registrants, trade association representatives and EPA staff.

Attachment 1 Agenda, and Attachment 2 Meeting Attendees



## Meeting Convened at 8: 12 a.m., April 22, 2013

8: 12 – 9:15 A.M. 

## OECA AND OPP UPDATE DAVID STANGEL, OECA;
AND JIM ROELOFS, OPP

DISCUSSION

Jim Roelofs reported on the Crop Life America and RISE annual meeting held last week. The meeting included two subgroup sessions on labeling. One subgroup included a panel of OPP Registration Division (“RD”) staff. Roelofs and RD presented recurring labe l problems to CLA/RISE. Problems included amendments with massive amounts of options and use sites and crops poorly defined. Overall there was a very positive response to the panel discussion. Another subgroup discussed the future of labeling and was led by presentations fr om Agrarian, Global Vision and others who provide services to registrants. Roelofs also provided an update on label issues training - EPA’s Label Consistency Committee had requested training and Roelofs provided them a 90 minute overview. HED, EFED, BPPD, and AD also attended - there were approximately 100 people. Dea Zimmerman asked for a one -hour version of this training for the PREP Course next week.

Roelofs also provided an update on the two current SFIREG Issue Papers. These issue papers are related to methomyl and compost restrictions. Nothing definitive has taken plac e yet but Steve Bradbury, Director, OPP, has committed to a response. Roelofs stated a response will take time. Methomyl evidence provided by the SLAs has been presented. This is a very specific request for classifying fly baits as restricted use pesticides. Roelofs must brief senior management. Dwinell asked if this request was given to RD or to the Office of General Counsel. Roelofs replied it is currently with OGC

but RD is also aware.

On the subject of the compost IP, Roelofs stated this is the most complicated IP seen in years - with five recommendations. Recommendations #1 and #2 fall within the purview of RD and are basically asking to make the label

more forcible. Recommendations #3 and #4 fall more within th e purview of EFED in terms of revising review guidelines. EFED is receptive and will continue to work on their review processes. In addition BEAD (responsible for analytical methods) has assigned a person to review lab methods.

Dwinell stated the main issue identified by the compost IP is the reliance of inserting risk mitigation measures through labeling. Giguere commented on the problem of finding a lab to run low levels of aminoclopyralid herbici des. DOW Agrochemical is doing a survey of SLA’s on the issue and DOW and DuPont have pledged to develop a method and share with AAPCO through Audra Gile, Chair, AAPCO Lab Committee

.2

Brian Rowe asked Roelofs for a timeline on the EPA response to the POM IP on methomyl’s restricted use classification. MI is considering going the path of IN by classifying all methom yl as state restricted use. Roelofs replied that rulemaking takes time and he would have an indication on the timeline by the June SFIREG meet ing.

David Stangel reported the FIFRA Inspector’s Manual will be released very soon - minor formatting is being completed. Stangel reported there will be two PIRT courses held in October if funding is available. The courses will be in GA and WA. He also announced Amar Singh is retiring the end of April (Singh headed the PIRT training courses). Someone new will be assigned in the next month. Stangel also announced that “next generation compliance” is being explored (a new means of getting compliance aside from typical inspections). Giguere offered suggestions from SLAs since many are actively using new compliance techniques. Giguere stated that PI RT is a burden for states that host the courses -often requiring the state to amend their grant. He asked if this could be streamlined similar to PREP where all funds are handled by someone else. Rabe confirmed that paperwork is cumbersome but the second time New Mexico hosted PIRT things went much smoother. Rowe stated that with PIRT the state lead agency used to get a stipend so the SLA would receive extra dollars. Scott stated that Indiana hosted PIRT as a separate project. He felt Indiana’s staff benefited from hosting PIRT. The Chair asked Scott and Rabe to put recommendations together for Stangel. Farnsworth also volunteered. CDPR has contracted PIRT logistics through UC Davis and San Diego State. Rowe commented that incorporating a PIRT course with a “How to Manual” for bee inspections would be a good idea and volunteered MI as a host.

Scott asked Stangel if the Inspectors Manual is intended as guidance or will it be used as a measure by which the regions review SLA activities. Stangel replied the manual is definitely for the federal inspector but EPA also would like SLA’s to us e
it. However, if the SLA has another approach, that is okay as long as it meets certain parameters. Short answer, no,

SLA’s can use their procedures. Scott asked who the final authority is. Does the region have authority or headquarters? Stangel replied this is largely a Region decision but they will talk to headquarters as well. Peckham asked if the Regions meet periodically with each other to discuss these matters and would they benefit from having state inspectors present to discuss details. Stangel replied SLAs participated during the development of the inspectors’ manual. Scott stated this may be more of an Indiana issue but the larger issue is one of accountability. It seems to be a one -way process where the Region is saying do it our way or it doesn’t count. Giguere rep lied this is not limited to one Region. Dwinell suggested further discussion at the next NPM meeting. Helfgott aske d for an example of poor Regional accountability. Scott

referenced enforcement case referrals - they seem to go into a black hole. SLA’s are put in a position of waiting for Regional enforcement action while the non

- compliant activity continues. Scott added he understands there are resource limitations at the Region. Rowe gave an example of a producer establishment that was out of complian ce. The case was referred to Region in 2009 and was just recently assigned. The firm has been repackaging since 2009 without a producer establishment number. Stangel recognize d this is more than a one region issue and it needs to be addressed. Green

stat ed some cases take a twist complicated by policy or labeling. There needs to be improved efficiencies and Regions

need to share more information on case status with the SLAs . Dwinell stated he will add the specific topics of SLA “adherence” to inspection guidance and improvements to Regional communications of case status with SLA’s. The issue was brought up at the last NPM meeting. Helfgott stated this has been a long running issue of Regional added value to the SLA’s and communication has to improve. If improvement is not seen he asked the states to communicate directly with

their Region. Scott commented the Regions are more interested in collecting paper rather than taking on priority case

referrals from SLAs. Dwinell stated he would work with Scott an d Rowe to put suggestions together for the June NPM meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Recommendations for streamlining process for hosting PIRT to Stangel Scott , Farnsworth, and Rabe

Suggestions on improving Region/States communication and Region accountability Dwinell, Scott, Rowe June NPM mtg.

9:15 - 10:00 A.M. 

## “BEE INSPECTION
GUIDANCE” BRIAN ROWE, MI

DISCUSSION Attachment 3 – Bee Inspection Guidance Presentation3

Rowe stated the purpose of the Bee Inspection guidance is to help establish standard procedures for state or regional bee inspections/investigations. SLAs can adopt the guidance as needed – in whole or in part. It will be made available shortly. It recognizes the uniqueness of bee incident inve stigations. It may become a part of the FIFRA Inspection Manual. The guidance has been kept clear and concise. Rowe is hopeful EPA an d industry will support the guidance. Rowe presented an MS Powerpoint slides showing the evolution of the guidance. The final draft was sent to OECA on April

15 th . Rowe suggested using the AAPCO list-serve to distribute the guidance. Rowe reviewed the g eneral contents of the guidance through his slides – covering the elements of the inspection (pre-inspection planning, on-site inspection, potential pesticide sources, sampling and analysis, etc.). He also discussed the guidance’s coverage of “bee basics” and the availability of an inspection checklist and reporting form. Rowe used the EPA EFED report to set

- up the checklist. He is hopeful data collected on alleged adverse effects will improve and will be helpful to EFED. Rowe did not expect many significant changes to the document. The final guidance will go through a beta test and there may be a need for changes periodically.

Peckham asked what involvement PPDC had in the guidan ce development. Rowe replied PPDC members sat in on a couple of confer ence calls but n ot much input has been received from the PPDC “Inspection Procedures” subgroup. Rowe emphasized the guidance is intended for regulatory use, and they did not specifically ask for PPDC input. The only official comments will be from SLAs. Dwinell asked if the guidance evaluated dead bees. Rowe replied it does make an attempt at assessing bee health. It was agreed by all that involveme nt by the state apiarist early in the inspection process is important. Peckham noted another resource on bees titled “Bee Informed Partnership.” Rowe also noted a good resource

at the North Carolina Extension Service. Scott commended Rowe for his work in developing the guidance. He asked if the PPDC inspection procedures subgroup was going a separate path. Rowe replied there was no evidence of this from recent conference calls and he felt the subgroup had gone by the wayside. Farnsworth also thanked Rowe for his work and asked if the content of the Bee 101 section had any discussion of pollen shedding and blooming plants. Rowe replied they could not get into much detail but it does broadly discuss bee forag ing in crops and weeds. Beekeepers are an excellent source of knowing what plants are in bloom. Giguere asked what the end points for enforcement were in the guidance. Rowe replied the findings are often inconclusive – but it attempts to explain potential sources of contamination (e.g., gardens, tree plantations, etc.) Information will be shared with beekeepers.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

10:15 – 10:45 A.M. 

## INSECT REPELLENCY MARK

UPDATE ROSE KYPRIANOU, OPP, FEAD CARY GIGUERE, POM CH AIR

DISCUSSION

Rose Kyprianou, FEAD, EPA, provided an update on the deve lopment of a standardized graphic on the labels of skin applied insect repellants. The program is voluntary and mosquito and tick products would be eligible for use of the “mark” to improve consumer information. The current guidance has been shared with SFIREG POM and with other stakeholder groups. T here was an SAP held in March 2013 on “Product Performance Data Needs Assessment for Products Claiming Efficacy Against Invertebrate Pests” and part of the SAP discussion focused on the Insect Repellency Mark program. EPA is currently considering comments received on the draft program. They expect a summer launch and announcement in the Federal Register Notice along with the accompanying guidance document. EPA will have a website posting the program, with links to the guidance. EPA has received general SFIREG POM support with the exception of use on 25(b) product labeling. Kyprianou stated scrutiny of 25(b) product use will occur. Rowe asked how a state would know if a product has been reviewed and approved for the mark and if there was a simple way of making a referral. Kyprianou replied there would be a list posted of approved products on the EPA web site. Stangel stated he was unsure of how SLAs would refer 25(b) products, but if it is an EPA registered product, the SLA should follow standard refer ral procedures. Kyprianou added that an SLA which registers 25(b) products could deny state registration if they are not approved for the mark. Scott asked if the mark was another qualifier for a 25(b) exemption. Kyprianou replied no. Stangel stated OECA will need to further discuss the 25(b) use of the mark. Kyprianou stated that ideally a 25(b) product requesting use of the mark would come in with a full registration request also. Scott stated that if a product does not qualify for an exemption unde r 25(b) it is a FIFRA violation and IN is taking action. Giguere commented that SLAs have referred hundreds of 25(b) products to the Regions and asked again that the repellency marks be kept off 25(b)s. Dwinell stated the graphics will4

show up on 25(b) products whether EPA approves the use or not. He asked if SLAs could get a statement from OECA that “if the repellency mark is used on a 25(b) and it has not been reviewed, it is in violation of FIFRA.” Stangel believed this statement could be made available once the program is finalized. Dwinell formally asked for the OECA statement as soon as possible. Kyprianou stated the graphics will not appear on product labels until 2014
– earliest. She agreed to return to

POM after the initial launch and work wi th POM to resolve any issues.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

10:45 – 11:00 A.M. 

## POM COMMENTS ON PROPOSED 25(B) RULE CARY GIGUERE, POM CH AIR

DISCUSSION

Giguere noted the comment period for revisions to the 25(b) rule just closed. Individual states submitted comments, SFIREG did not. Ryne Yarger, FEAD, EPA, reported about 26 comments had been received (13 from industry) on the proposed rule change. The comments are under review and FEAD’s next step is to discuss them with EPA senior management. No timeline has been set, but Yarger predicted a decision within two years. The section of the Rule under

consideration is 40 CFR 152.25(f), with proposals to provide more specifics on the a.i. identification list (such as CAS Nos.); to codify the inerts list; and to update general requirements (such as how to list ingredients on the label).

Giguere noted POM has consistently requested elimination of 25(b) exemp tions.

Clark stated FL reviewed the number of acceptable inerts and asked that their CAS Nos. and common names be published every year. Kathryn Boyle stated the list is static and is published on the EPA web site. Giguere asked if GRAS (Generally Recogn ized as Safe) inerts are also approved inerts. Boyle replied no, they must be on the published pdf file, 4A list. Boyle further clarified that in addition to the approved iner ts list, commonly consumed food commodities, animal feed
items, etc., described in 40 CFR 180.950 may be used as inert ingredients. GRAS substances are not necessarily “commonly consumed food.” Clark asked that there be one li st for SLA staff reference. Boyle stated that would be difficult because every food would need to be listed. There will be a revision to the EPA website with “logic” on what is a commonly consumed food. Giguere asked if POM wished to make additional comments. Giguere suggested limiting the percent active ingredient and again, asked that the rule be eliminat ed. Quakenbush and Kachadoorian recommended adding to the rule that any use on a food crop must have a tolerance exemption. Clark asked if there was a 25(b)

ombudsman at EPA.

It was agreed that Kachadoorian and Giguere will draft comments.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DUE DATE

Draft comments on limiting a.i. percentage of 25b products; adding an established food crop tolerance for crop uses; and requesting

elimination of the rule Kachadoorian and Giguere5

11:00 – 11:45

A.M. 

## PESTICIDE USE IN “LEGAL” MARIJUANA

PRODUCTION LAURA QUAKENBUSH, CO

DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

DISCUSSION Attachment 4 – MJ and Pesticide Use presentation

Quakenbush discussed the conundrum with pesticide use for insect and disease control for states with legal marijuana production. There is a need to clarify the legal status. She presented background on the regulation of marijuana in CO and other states. CO has 109,000 medical marijuana patients registered and there are 207 dispensaries in Denver. As a result of the 2012 voter referendum, sales of recreational use marijuana will be permitted beginning in January 2014. The marijuana will be taxed and regulated by the CO Department of Revenue. Regulations are to be adopted by July 1, 2013. A Legislative Task Force is recommending the State should develo p a list of substances banned from use in cultivation or processing and, the labeling of marijuana and marijuana products should include a list of all pesticides and solvents used - unless the substances are “appropriate or legal under agricultural laws/regulations.”

Quakenbush described the grow operations for existing medical marijuana facilities. While interactions with these operations has been limi ted, the CO Dept. of Agriculture has responded to pesticide complaints and fielded questions on what pesticides can be used. There are no products registered for marijuana but some EPA labels are broadly worded (e.g., “miscellaneous crops”). Quakenbush s tated products sold with no claim can be used (neem oil leaf polish, soaps, and detergents), and 25(b) exempt products (although she is unaware of any specifying use on medical marijuana). Quakenbush then illustrated labels of products that are being used (neem oil leaf polish, “bleech,” elemental sulfur, total release foggers, and imidacloprid (in $5 bags).

Quakenbush asked the following questions:

1. Is Marijuana an “Agricultural Commodity”? Does WPS apply?

2. Is Marijuana a “Food Crop”?

3. How to interpret label language on a tetramethrin/cypermethrin fogger: “Do not use in greenhouses where plants are grown for food.”

4. How to prevent pesticide residues in marijuana products regulated by a state with potential of human

health risk?

5. Is there a need for “tolerances”, and/or a system such as that used for tobacco?

Farnsworth added a CA concern with the destruction and ecological damage to areas where grow operations are taking place. CA has received questions from patients on the safety of products used in cultivation – and the CDPR is unable to

answer. Kachadoorian state d her agency has been contacted by the OR State Police and presented with photos of products shipped in from Mexico. Rowe stated MI Dept. of Ag has referred unregistered products to the Region. Claims have been removed on products with an active ingredient regi stered for mites. Clark asked Quakenbush if plant regulators were used to keep the plants short. Quakenbush was not sure of their purpose. Kachadoorian noted hemp meal importation as a source of protein in cereal. Quakenbush thought uses under 24(c) labeling may be considered as a way

to reduce misuse . There has been no positive response on the subject from EPA. Giguere asked if POM members had suggestions or ideas. Farnsworth stated CDPR considers some uses legal – based upon the way the labels are worded. They have received no feedback from Region 9. Dwinell commented EPA may be unable or unwilling to do anything, and suggested this may be a state and AAPCO issue. Comstock agreed to contact Canada regulatory officials and request more information on their minor use program.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE6

1:00 – 1:45 P.M. 

## EPA’S DRIFT REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

PROGRAM JAY ELLENBERGER, DEPUTY DIV. DIRECTOR, EPA, FEAD

CARY GIGUERE, VT , POM

CHAIR

DISCUSSION

Ellenberger referenced an AAPCO survey indicating about 2,500 spray drift investigations by SLAs per year. The purpose of the Drift Reduction Technology (“DRT”) program is to promote the identification and use of application technologies that can significantly reduce spray drift. The program is voluntary and is currently focused on aerial and ground boom applications on row and field crops. The basic premise is to move manufa cturers away from equipment that produces fines. Ellenberger stated the program will be rolled out later this year. Benefits of the program were summarized:

• Standard method for validation, comparing technologies

• Keep more product on the crop – better efficacy

• Reduce application rates

• More options for applicators to make applications and manage drift

• Reduced off-target drift, costs, liability

There are six key points to the program: manufacturers volunteer to test their technology (using standard test p rotocol); EPA reviews the test data and characterizes the degree of drift control using a one to three star rating; EPA posts the DRT rating on the EPA DRT website; pesticide registrants apply to EPA to include directions for use with DRT rated technology
on the label; EPA can credit the DRT label with reduced application restrictions (e.g., smaller buffer zones, or higher wind speeds); and applicators refer to the EPA DRT web site and purchase products with DRT ratings.

Ellenberger discussed the wind tunnel test results and the variation based upon nozzle types. ASABE S572 is the reference nozzle test standard. The tests can also be done using adjuvants and different nozzle types.

Ellenberger discussed comments received on the DRT program. Comments were generally positive. Some questioned of the cost of the testing; testing combinations (nozzles, pressures, adjuvants); expansion of the ratings from 3 to 5 stars; whether DRTs can have an additive effect, and is EPA endorsing DRTs. Ellenberger stated EPA does not give any

endorsement to the DRT used.

EPA’s next steps are to publish a response to the comments, revise protocols as necessary, make adjustments based upon OMB comments, and initiate the program in 2013. There will be a need for outreach an d education about the program.

Peckham stated most of the drift complaints in MN have involved high wind speeds of 20

- 30 mph and asked will the DRT resolve these problems? Ellenberger replied that if all else is kept equal, DRT nozzles and use of an adjuvant should result in fewer drift problems. Dwinell asked about the reference nozzle. Ellenberger stated the nozzle is a flat fan 110°.

Dwinell asked if micro -air nozzles are rated against the same standard. Ellenberger was not sure. For electrostatic technology, a separate study would be necessary. Dwinell asked if the DRT labels would have enforceable language. Ellenberger stated that if the DRT rating is added, the applicator would be obligated to use the equipment as instructed.

Kachadoorian made a comparison with the fumigation calculator and the cumulative activities that translate into buffer zone reductions. Ellenberger cited the similarity with the combination of a DRT rated nozzle and an adjuvant that when combined would significantly reduce buffers. Scott asked if DRT would be included in the 2014-2016 grant guidance. Helfgott replied drift reduction was included in the NPM Guid ance. Ellenberger would like to see another AAPCO survey on drift after the DRT program is instituted – to see if there is a reduction in drift investigations. Scott emphasized that any drift survey should be holistic and should be done quickly. Giguere noted that currently applicators do not include nozzle type in their application records. Giguere also felt drift li ability would not change – it strictly falls on the applicator.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE7

1:45 – 2:15 P.M. 

## NPIC REPORTING EMILY SELIA, EPA, FE AD, CARY GIGUERE, POM CHAIR

DISCUSSION Attachment 5 – Marty Monell letter

Emily Selia noted that OPP is revitalizing the NPIC (National Pesticide Information Center) program and expanding partnerships. EPA continues to have a cooperative agreement with O regon State University, and since 2007, they have trained new staff, added new technologies, and improved the quality of referrals. Casey Buell, Project Coordinator, and Dave Stone, Principal Investigator, NPIC, recently provide d details on the program at the UC Davis PREP. Buell and Stone are available to do a webinar with any stat e that is interested in learning more.

Selia gave an overview on NPIC. The primary goal is to provide pesticide information and resources in English and other languages to the public. The primary activities are helping the public with questions relating to health, regulations, and label information. NPIC does not make any use recommendations and gives no medical advice. Resource information is provided in “plain English.” NPIC also provides reports on the data they collect. 85% of calls are informational and 15% are incident based. Standard operating procedure is to refer in cident calls to the SLA if a misuse or violation is involved. Moth balls are the biggest source of calls. NPIC policy is not to collect personal identifiable information – anonymity is provided. Dwinell commented on the SFIREG concern that incidents of a regulatory nature are not always forwarded to SLAs. An SLA may have 4 incidents of poisoning w hile NPIC may have hundreds. The larger issue is the use of unvalidated NPIC data for risk assessments at EPA. Dw inell noted that recently NPIC has been reporting eco

- incidents with no verification. Giguere asked what is meant by the term “incident” in connection with the NPIC website tab “Incident Reporting.” He also described the difference in data collected by NPIC and the SLAs and the sharing of NPI C incident reports with SLAs. Selia offered to meet with a smaller group of SFIREG and NPIC staff to discuss the matter in more detail. In terms of data quality, FEAD and HED have strong confidence in NPIC categorization of incidents and she offered to also include them in further discussions with SFIREG. Selia stated the Marty Monell letter of March 1 1 th , (Attachment 5)

which references EPA use of the NPIC website eco- and veterina ry portals. The eco-portal will be opened up and revamped, and will include a new means of classification in the EFED data system. Dwinell suggested this issue as a topic

a t the June SFIREG meeting. He also suggested POM identify concerns and make specific recommendations for the way NPIC and EPA conduct the program and use the data. Scott felt the eco

- portal was a good idea and asked Monell’s staff if they were interested in their Imprelis incident data. He also mentioned SLA drift incidents. Monell’s staff person expressed interest in these incidents and asked for a couple of examples to determine if they wanted more complete data.

Dwinell stated FL has no intention of reporting their incident data into the eco-portal until their concerns are resolved.

Selia stated the eco -portal needs a more prominent link on the website so incident reporters can contact their SLA if they

desire a regulatory investigation. She also commented that SLAs can request state- specific reports of incidents from NPIC. The data can be used to get a better overall picture of what’s happening. She suggested that perhaps real -time or quarterly reports to SLAs be included in discussions. Rowe noted that SLAs are not getting bee incidents calls reported to NPIC. Selia replied the portal is not intended to be used as a regulatory tool and incident reporters may be reluctant to make the extra call to the SLA. Rowe stated there may instances where a 3-way conference call would be feasible. He

offered his assistance on any pollinator protection discussions for improving the program. Giguere thought perhaps NPIC could ask the caller’s permission to patch in the SLA – especially when human health or exposure is in question. Selia noted NPIC is working through HED to link with Poison Control Centers. She noted the existence of strong local resources

links that would include SLAs, Extension Service, etc. Rowe correlated their indirect relationship with CDC. CDC shares occupational and non -occupational exposure incidents with the MI Health Department, and perhaps 3- 4/year are referred from the Health Dept. to the MI Dept. of Ag. Rabe commented on the PREP presentation and how she has a new appreciati on for what NPIC does. She agreed that more conversations would be helpful.

Giguere will set up a meeting with Selia and NPIC. He foresees two workgroups: one to consider the eco -portal data quality and use, and one to consider how enforceable incident s are captured.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

NPIC workgroup(s) to discuss enforcement and issues relating to EPA

use of data Giguere and Selia8

2:15 – 3:00 P.M. 

## STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

GLOBALLY HARMONIZED SYSTEM (GHS)

FOR THE OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD (HCS) AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

ON FIFRA LABELING KRISTEN HENDRICKS, EPA,

OPP

CARY GIGUERE, VT; BRIAN
ROWE, MI

DISCUSSION Attachment 6 – GHS Presentation

Kristen Hendricks provided an update on the voluntary, global agreement and how FIFRA fits into the new GHS principles. Hendricks referenced the web site link for the “Purple Book,” – the GHS adopted by the U.N. OSHA adopted their final HazCom rules March 2012, which revised Sections covering: D efinitions; Hazard Classification; Labels and Other Forms of Warning; Safety Data Sheets (SDS ’s); Employee Information and Training; and Effective dates. Several appendices were also added . R egistrants were concerned about conflicts between EPA label requirements and the OSHA SDS, and so EPA published PR Notice 2012 -1 in April 2012. This notice clarifies how to characterize FIFRA hazard information on OSHA SDSs for pesticide products to avoid potential misbranding. The SDS is regulated by OSHA. There can be conflicts between the SDS and the FIFRA label (e.g. SDS has 2 signal words and FIFRA has 3 signal words).

In general, FIFRA pesticide product labels are not currently subject to the GHS – the FIFRA regulations preempt OSHA label regulations. Hendricks referenced SDS Section 15 which covers certain FIFRA label elements. OSHA does not

enforce Section 15 and Hendricks referred POM to PR Notice 2012-1 for relevant guidance. If there is any difference between the required FIFRA language and the new GHS required language for the SDS, then in Section 15, the differences

ar e duly noted.

Hendricks shared the OSHA HazCom website link: http://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index.html

. Hendricks emphasized, registrants do not have to update their labels to GHS. She described general provisions of PR

Notice 2012 -1, and listed a number of links to access additional information. Hendricks closed with examples of

differences between FIFRA labe l warnings and GHS, and explained resolution through use of the PR Notice statement: “This chemical is a pesticide product registered by the Enviro nmental Protection Agency and is subject to certain labeling requirements under federal pesticide law. These requirements differ from the classification criteria and hazard information required for safety data sheets, and for workplace labels of non

- pesticide chemicals. Following is the hazard information as required on the pesticide label: . . .” Hendricks offere d to provide answers via email if there were any questions.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

3: 00 – 3:45 P.M. 

## LABELING BIOCIDE FRACKING FLUID JEFF COMSTOCK, VT
JENNIFER MCLAIN, EPA , AD

DISCUSSION Attachment 7 – McLain AAPCO Presentation; Attachment 8 – Purdy AAPCO Presentation

Jeff Comstock, VT, stated the purpose of the discussion was to follow- up on the presentations at the March 2013, AAPCO Spring meeting. A regulatory overview by GAO and EPA’s Office of ORD was presented at the Spring meeting (Attachment 7) . The use of biocides in fracking (Attachment 8), active ingredient registration, and the i ssue of applicator certification were also discussed at AAPCO. Comstock felt labeling of biocides and the development of an applicator certification strategy were the pertinent issues for POM consideration.

Comstock presented a list of active ingredients used as biocides and registered by EPA. Most of these products are labeled for oil and gas production and not specific to hydraulic fracturing. McLain added that 75% are generic for oil and gas use.

Kachadoorian asked how many of the products were classified RUP. McLain replied only one – acrolein. Comstock noted that the fracing operations were not aware of SLA certificatio n and training authority. Peckham noted formaldehyde use in industrial settings – most are not registered as pesticides. Quakenbush stated acrolein has a us er manual with directions

as a sulfate scavenger in one section and with the EPA regi stration number and use directions in another section . Giguere asked the WC to focus on an applicator certi fication strategy, with the registration issues a concern for later.9

Comstock discussed the storage of chemical s at fracing operations and the blending of chemicals for injection into the well

bore. The entire application is mechanized. Comstock quest ioned the level of OSHA training for employees at fracing sites - perhaps SLAs could piggyback on OSHA training. Typical PPE used at these sites was illustrated. Comstock commented that the current regulatory authorities for fracing operations are unfamiliar with SLA certification requirements and bridge building will be necessary. Another challenge will be determining who provides the specific chemical mixing and application service s.

Giguere asked for next steps – SFIREG has identified a set of appl icators in some states who need to be certified. Dwinell asked if AAPSE had been contacted. Comstock noted AAPSE had done a survey of states before the AAPCO meeting. McLain stated EPA was not taking any action under FIFRA other than registration of products. Giguere commented some states were seeking 24(c) labels for some biocides and there would be SLA interaction with EPA in this regard. McLain stated the biocide active ingredients were cycling through regi stration review and a full ecological and health assessment will be done. Many have not been looked at for years.

Comstock will coordinate with AAPSE and Weaver will report a draft C & T strategy to the full SFIREG.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Coordination of AAPCO and AAPSE to develop C & T strategy report Comstock and Weaver

4:00 – 4:30 P.M. 

## MISUSE OF MOLTEN SULFUR IN
GREENHOUSE PRODUCTIO N ROSE KACHADOORIAN, OR

Discussion Attachment 9 - Sulfur Presentation

Kachadoorian questioned the use of non-registered products as pesticides when registered pesticides are available. Her primary example was the use of molten sulfur in greenhouse production. The internet has ma ny references to methods of

use - burners, etc. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) became aware of this sulfur use from calls to their office. ODA contacted EPA and was told there is no way of preventing use under 2(ee) of FIFRA. Kachadoorian noted UC Davis has information on sulfur use in greenhouses, and Vermont has contacted EPA through SLITS (State Labeling Issues Tracking System) regarding 2(ee) use in heating pots.

VT ha s issued a Cease and Desist Order on a sulfur use. EPA informed VT the sulfur shou ld not be used in heating pots, the use had not gone through health risk assessment, and the company should come in for revised registration.

Kachadoorian asked the following questions:

1. Is it ok to use sulfur fertilizer in this manner?

2. Is it ok to use an EPA registered pesticide this way because there is no legal way to prevent a 2ee?

3. Should EPA develop a PR notice similar to the one they developed for chemigation? And if so, how can sulfur fertilizer be covered by a PR notice?

Kachadoorian then provide d the example of sulfur dioxide use as both a pesticide and non-pesticide. Non-pesticide use includes addition to wine, but it is also used to sanitize wine barrels and corks. California’s sulfur dioxide product is classified by CA as a Restricted Use Pe sticide. Kachadoorian noted that Oregon’s OSHA has reported SO 2 concentrations as high as 100 ppm when anything above 2 ppm requires use of a NIOSH respirator. WA and OR do not regulate SO 2 at the

same level as CA. OR faces the challenge – is it ok to add the SO 2 to wine but not disinfect the wine barrels. OR wine producers are using the product without certification, and they do not consider it a pesticide use.

Farnsworth went to the wine industry based upon a reported illness and the issue of uncertified applicators. Applicators

have since been certified but the label of the one RUP product is problematic. The label states in one place use of SCBA

and another place use of a NIOSH respirator. Kachadoorian asked what happens when a non- registered product is used in CA. Farnsworth replied CA would issue a citation. Farnsworth added that EPA can take action on the distribution of a non-10

registered product if the intended use is pesticidal. Giguere commented that sulfur pots are commonly used – and the problem is exacerbated when the Extension Service provides advice. Jamie Green noted Region 7 has pursued action on these matters in the past – and noted that intent can be documented through recommendations made on the internet. Giguere commented that all registered sulfur products state “do not expose to heat.” Kachadoorian concluded that ODA should encourage some registrant to add the use to their label. Giguere commented the registrants see no advantage to product registration – since it is already in use.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

4: 30 – 5:00 p.m. 

## WEB DISTRIBUTED LABELING –
ENFORCEMENT ISSUES JIM GRAY, ND

CARY GIGUERE, POM CHAIR



### Discussion Attachment 1 0 – WDL presentation

Jim Gray, ND, joined the meeting via conference call. He noted the WDL workgroup is still meeting by phone and is discussing final steps as EPA concludes their PR Notice process. Gray illustrated the distribution and use pathway differences between the “Hard Copy Label World” vs. the “Web Distributed Label World.” The WDL adds another layer of regulatory oversight
– there must be verification that the user went to the proper URL indicated on the label, and that the

label is an accurate match with the Fed eral and State label. The user must have a copy of the WDL (either electronic or hard copy, depending on the State requirements), and must co mply with the label. Registrants must confirm the URL on the container takes the user to the proper internet site and the WDL is an accurate representation or sub-set of the EPAapproved labeling. Registrants will also need to comply with any state specific registration requirements.

Stangel asked if SLAs would be ca pable of enforcing WDLs when implemente d. Scott commented nothing in FIFRA requires the user to have a copy of the label in hand at the site of application – while some states do. Gray replied there would be a reference on the WDL that a copy of the WDL would be required in the field. Gray asked what enforcement mechanisms SLAs would use to report and track violations of WDLs. Would SLAs go to the Region, or to the registrant, or to SLITS? Giguere felt the option used would depend on the state. Giguere felt he would go to the EPA Product Manager (through SLITS). Quakenbush would use SLITS to determine if the WDL is consistent with what EPA has approved. Gray asked if the product is misbranded, at what point will OECA become involved. Stangel replied it would depend on where

the breakdown occurred – at the user, the registrant or the web interface. Peckham asked if registrants would have a statement that the user must update the WDL periodically. Gray commented there are some logistical concerns with WDLs and once they have been implemented for a period of time, there should be a report on data collected to identify errors.

First t here needs to be a consistent means of tracking. Giguere asked if OPP or OECA should be charged with tracking. Rowe relayed the MI experiences with Distributor Label and Marketplace Initiatives. A lesson learned was the importance of identifying the date the product and label were produced. Changes on the EPA label have a 90 grace period. Rowe

asked how WDLs will play into this scenario and will WDL actions take place under Federal or State authority. Stangel responded the WDL will have an approval date and that nothing will change in the state registration process – SLAs will still approve labels. Stangel also noted enforcement would be a St ate action. Rowe felt that if it is a state action, he will notify the Product Manager and the registrant of misbranding. Green asked for clarification on state action – would the inspections be performed under state or Federal cred entials. Stangel replied, state credentials. Clark asked how “brand

name” labels would be handled. Quakenbush took issue with enforcing labels offered on the web. Giguere responded that a product distributed in the state and offered for sale on the web could be linked for enforcement purposes.

Giguere framed Gray’s question as, “how do SLAs want to deal with reporting a WDL issue found in the field?” Gray asked

if POM wished for OPP or OECA to track violations. Giguere felt the preference was for OPP tracking through the Product Managers.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline11



## Meeting adjourned 4/22/2013, at 4:56 p.m.

Meeting reconvened 4/23/2013 at 8:05 a.m.

8:00 – 8:30 a.m. 

## UPDATE ON COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENT GRANT

GUIDANCE DAN HELFGOTT, EPA, FEAD CARY GIGUERE, POM CHAIR



### DISCUSSION Attachment 1 1 – Grant Guidance Presentation

Helfgott gave an update on the development of the FY15 -17 FIFRA Grant Guidance. The FY11-13 guidance has been extended through FY14. The Guidance is used to direct EPA Regions on how cooperative agreements and workplans should be structured to support the goals and priorities of the National Pesticide Program (OPP and OECA) and meet EPA and Federal grant requirements. A workgr oup (which included SLA representatives) was formed to assist in development of the Guidance. The goals of the workgroup were to streamline the document and add more flexibility. The proposed new framework is streamlined and clearly identifies areas of required work and elective work. As a result, grantees may focus on local pesticide concerns while also contributing to meeting t he national goals and priorities. Helfgott described the Excel spreadsheet pilot that will eventually be used as a standard for developing workplans and for reporting. Examples of required program areas were given (e.g., Worker Safety) - and elective are as (e.g., Endangered Species, bed bugs). The level and areas of commitment would be negotiat ed between the Regions and States. Helfgott reported the

draft Guidance will be shared with the Regions in the next few weeks and shared with the States early sum mer. Helfgott asked for SFIREG support of the Guidance.

Dwinell asked if SLAs could use the Guidance in the next round of grant negotiations. Helfgott replied no, but the Regions may decide to use the Guidance to shift resources. Helfgott added that a conference call will be scheduled with SLAs after its release to the states. Green commented his Region is looking forward to release of the Guidance and acknowledged it may need fine tuning after a couple of years. Rowe asked if there is any flexibility for the “required” areas. For example, after a few years of work on the “soil fumigants” requirement, MI may have fulfilled compliance needs, while the Guidance would still list it as a mandatory requirement. Helfgott replied that the basic approach is to talk to the Regions and agree that the requirement has been filled. Green suggested the Guidance clearly reflect that Regions have flexibility on “required” areas if the SLA has exhausted their efforts.

Dwinell commented that negotiations between some Regions and SLAs are not working well. He asked if the negotiation process could be documented in the Guidance. Helfgott replied that EPA has agreed to do Project Officer training
– especially relative to working with SLAs. Dwinell asked if SLAs could participate in this training process. Helfgott replied yes, and SLAs would be part of the training development. Shannon Joyner thanked Helfgott for the opportunity to meet face to face as part of the Guidance Workgroup. Joyner is in the process of writing into her current grant agreement broad SLA expectations of the Region Office. Rabe and Green strongly supported this effort. Scott asked Joyner if she included this language in the workplan and Joyner replied yes. Scott asked if this could be include d in the grant template since

c urrently evaluations are one- way. He suggested itemizing the expectations of Regions into the template. Rowe asked if the template would accommodate state -specific activities and narratives as part of the workplan. Scott stated IN has added these to the bottom of the workplan template. Dea Zimmerman commented that Region -specific guidance can be inserted into the template. Peckham asked if enforcement timelines could be imposed on the Regions in Regional

Guidance. There should be a timeline to stop the violative action and a timeline to take enforcement action. He added,

the FIFRA enforcement effort should be on the same level as asbestos, lead, CERCLA, etc. Helfgott replied the proposed FY14 NPM guidance is posted on t he OCFO website for public comment. The comment period closes the middle of May

and the draft is available at: http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2014

Helfgott stated training proposed for Project Officers is in the early planning stage. Giguere asked for POM volunteers – Joyner and Peckham volunteered. Green suggested capturing/recording the Project Officer training so it can be provided to new people. Dwinell added that SLAs would be intereste d in participating in the Project Officer training. Joyner suggested the training take place at pre -SFIREG meetings.

CONCLUSIONS12

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

POM assistance in development and review of Project Officer training Joyner and Peckham

8:30 – 9:15 a.m. 

## FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSIONS

ON STATE AND TRIBAL COREGULATOR COOPERATION DAN HELFGOTT, EPA, FEAD
STEVE DWINELL, SFIREG CHAIR

DISCUSSION

Helfgott outlined the genesis of the SLA-Tribal cooperation efforts. The Tribal Pesticide Program Council (“TPPC”) is receptive to building the capacity of their programs with an y available technical and laboratory support from the states. Some states (e .g. Idaho) are considering training and co-inspections with tribes and vice versa. Other areas of cooperation may include sharing of tips and complaints, and provision of dealer records when requested by a tribe. Helfgott felt better communication betwee n states and tribes will benefit both parties. Dwinell stated a committee was formed at the last SFIREG meeting and a conference call was held March 11 th . Fred Corey, TPPC, Bonnie Rabe, NM, Tom Matsuda, HI, Amy Bamber, MT, Dan Helfgott, EPA, and Steve Dw inell, FL, comprise the committee. Corey gave a very informative webinar on the call. Communications and contact points between the states and tribes were recognized as important. The committee will refine a proposal for consideration which will likely address Section 18s, ride-alongs with tribal and state inspectors; and information on tribal boundarie s. Dwinell may ask Corey to make the same presentation at

the June SFIREG.

Giguere asked if the Section 18 and 24(c) issue with tribal lands was resolved. Helfgott expects the EPA Administrator to sign

- off on an Administrative Finding to allow use of Section 18s and 24(c)s on tribal lands very soon. Currently their use is prohibited. Kachadoorian asked if the SLA can request a 24(c) to include tribal lands. Helfgott replied that if the SLA does not exclude the tribal lands, they would be automatically included. He recommended communication with the tribes to determine if they want their lands excluded. Under FIFRA , tribes cannot request a Section 18 or 24(c). Wendy Bair Johnson, BASF, asked if existing Section 18s and 24( c)s will be grandfathered and Helfgott replied yes.

Helfgott also noted the National Certification Plan for certif ication and training of applicators on tribal lands. State certification is not currently valid. This plan would allow comm ercial applicators to submit a copy of their state certificati on to a Regional Office and a Federal certification would be issu ed. The same would apply to private applicators, but they

would also have the option of taking an on-line exam. States are not being asked to make any changes to their certification regulations. Zimmerman stated a panel discussion was added to the next PREP course to discuss working with

tribes. Farnsworth asked for cla rification on tribal land certification options. Helfgott stated an applicator certified in CA would submit the CA certificate to Region 9, and receive a Fe deral certificate (except in the case of a Private Applicator taking the on -line certification exam ). Farnsworth needed further clarification for RUP dealer sales. Helfgott replied that if the state regulations require a state certification card to make an RUP purchase, then the applicator will need both the

state and Federal credentials. The Nationa l Certification Plan may be final by the end of the summer. Rabe commented that under the Federal Certification program, EPA cannot rele ase who is certified through their process. Helfgott stated that is specific to the Navajo certification plan. For the National Plan, EPA will provide the name of those certified. Dwine ll asked if tribes have the option of requiring a state certification. Helfgott replied the tribes can set -up their own certification plan and not adopt the Federal.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline13

9:15 -9:45 a.m. 

## 24(c) WORKGROUP DRAFT

GUIDANCE DISCUSSION ROSE KACHADOORIAN, OR

DISCUSSION Attachment 12 – draft revisions to 24(c) guidance; Attachment 13 – Outline of guidance areas to be addressed; Attachment 14 – 24(c) Presentation
Kachadoorian reported the Workgroup has held a couple of conference calls and there was a temporary postponement at EPA’s request. Several people were not pleased with the format of the 11 page draft guidance document (Attachment 12). Laura Quakenbush developed an outline to express the primary purpose of the guidance. The purpose of the guidance will be for both EPA and the states. The workgroup developed a list of what to include in the guidance. Kachadoorian outlined the topics or areas for further development (Attachment 13):

x Add biofuels discussion (assigned to Charlie Clark).

x Treated seed (assigned to Washington State).

x WA and CA will review warranty statements.

x Non-feed, non-food uses (assigned to OR and WA).

x Residue data will need more discussion (e.g. in-furrow use vs. residue data from foliar application).

x Treated articles need to be addressed.

x New uses – what constitutes a new use pattern (Charlie Clark).

x State responsibilities vs. EPA responsibilities to be clarified.

x Common errors found by EPA.

x Exposure route changes (e.g., sulfur from dermal to inhalation).

x How to conduct an environmental assessment will be drafted by WA and OR.

x The guidance will need to address the question of why EPA does not consider a 24(c) supplemental labeling.

x Various terms will be defined (revocation, disallowed, etc.)

x How to address initial issues/disagreements between EPA and the states.

x If the product is not federally registered, what are the additional requirements beyond a Confidential Statement

of Formula.

x What if a company name change occurs to the 24(c)?

x Is there a need for expiration dates?

x Bair Johnson asked that the workgroup include a discussion of distributor products sold under 24(c) labels (states have different policies). Rowe asked for a copy of t he list. Roelofs asked why treating an SLN as a supplemental label is significant. Kachadoorian replied that the 24(c) label is only a sub -set of the primary label and all of the information a grower needs is not on the SLN. If called supplemental, there would perhaps be a better understanding by growers of the need for the full label. Helfgott asked for a timeline on the Guidance. Kachadoorian replied she would like a final within one month. Helfgott commented that a PREP course will include 24(c) tr aining and the availability of the document would be helpful . Kachadoorian said the final Guidance will be posted as an EPA document. Helfgott reported the on- line Section 18 draft guidance is available and should be ready for SLA us e soon. Clark cautioned that the revised 24(c) Guidance must be accompanied by a revised 24(c) application form. Kachadoo rian stated Tawanda Maignan is exploring a new application form, but she advised it would take a long time.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

9:45 – 10:15 a.m. 

## REPORT FROM OCE ON
EVIDENCE COLLECTION

PILOT AND REVISIONS TO

GUIDELINES DON LOTT, EPA, OCE, OECA

DISCUSSION

Don Lott reported OCE has received a lot of feedback from the pilot and after 1 year of data, determined that collecting one year of invoices is not where they need to go. OCE is considering a minimal number of invoices ( to be determined) and will rely on the inspector’s assessme nt of whether additional invoices are needed. Lott does not foresee any case developments with one invoice, one violation since OCE is looking for deterrent value with their cases. If more transactional data is needed, they may ask for it as part of the case development – through information request letters. The pilot is finished and more guidance is forthcoming and will be linked to the Inspectors Manual. Quakenbush asked if these are Producer Establishment Inspections done under Federal credentials. Lott replied that the evidence collection is14

for Regional staff use and the FIFRA inspection guidance should be used if the inspection is done on behalf of the Region.

Instead of specifying a number of invoices to collect, Scott suggested the EPA indicate the intent of the inspection. An inspector can base the number of records he collects on the significance of the problem. Additional records can always be

collected at a later date. Scott felt SLA s are open to criticism from the Region if inspectors do not collect enough records. Scott asked the concept be included in the guidance.

Giguere asked if the pilot states know the pilot is over. Dwinell stated the pilot states were not aware. Lott will follow

- up with an announcement through the Regions.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

10:15 – 11 a.m. 

## REPORT FROM OCE ON

DISTRIBUTOR LABEL

ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS DON LOTT, EPA, OCE, OECA

DISCUSSION

Lott reported not many distributor labels have been submitted to the Regions or OCE to date. There are some cases under review and development. Going forward Regional Offices will be collecting physical samples. There are a number of distributor labels that are being reported under Section 7 that ha ve specific uses or entire registrations cancelled. Regional Offices may request SLAs to inspect these producer establishments. Scott commented that if SLAs know of these cancelled products they can provide EPA assistance. Quakenbush noted NPIRS has a list of cancelled products. Lott stated there

would be an aggressive follow- up on these products. Rowe relayed some issues MI encountered during the pilot project.

Scott asked if the Form 8570 -5 is not filed with EPA and the product is distributed, is the product un-registered. Lott replied that depending on the circumstances it is most likely unregistered. Scott asked if the form has been submitted, is there a lag time getting that information into the sys tem. Dwinell suggested a conference call for all SLAs to discuss the distributor label issue with OPP and OECA. Lott agreed. Gigu ere asked if the two options for SLAs to submit distributor labels for case review had been resolved at EPA. One means was through the Region and the other was directly to OCE. Lott replied one source of distributor label discovery would be through an inspection and these cases should be referred to the Region (who would notify OCE). The other source of discovery would be th rough the process of state label review.

These cases should also be forwarded to the Region and shared with OCE. Quakenbush stated her Region is not participating and asked who in OCE she could send cases to. Lott provided the name of Brian Joffe. Gree n asked if this

information will make it into the NPM Guidance. Lott stated the NPM will not include this focus area. Green asked that the

NPM reference it.

Giguere asked Lott to draft a message to be sent to SLAs through the AAPCO email list, and to the Regions, codifying how

this information is to be referred. Dwinell recommended a conference call instead. Dwinell and Clark will follow

- up on the conference call and an email message.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

Message to be sent to SLAs through the AAPCO email list, and to the Regions, codifying how this information is to be referred Lott

Conference call with SLAs Dwinell and Lott15

11 – 11:45 a.m. 

## 25b WORKGROUP UPDATE ROBERT MCNALLY, DIVISION DIRECTOR,
OPP, FEAD
CARY GIGUERE, POM CHAIR

LINDA HOLLIS, EPA, BPPD

DISCUSSION Attachment 15 – List of 25b FAQs

Giguere framed the question – SLAs find 25b products that don’t meet the exemption requirements, or don’t meet a food tolerance and they need compliance assistance from EPA. Th ere is duplication of effort by the states when multiple enforcement letters are sent for the same product.

McNally provided a list of 25b frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) and asked POM to add to the questions posed. Once the
25b rule becomes final, the new FAQs can be posted to the web. Giguere suggested using SLITS as a way to post questions on specific products (currently a registration number is needed to post). McNally replied that on individual questions, BPPD could help with answers. Dwinell emphasized that SLAs need more than just a finding on the status of a product
– they need action which only EPA can take. SLAs actions have only a limited impact on the national distribution

of man y of these products. A mechanism for having Federal action taken for violative 25b products is needed. McNally asked how these products are handled now by EPA. Rowe stated over the past 5 years MI has referred over 160 products to the Region and nothing has happen. Some were misbranded, some had the wrong active or inert, etc. The products were not registered in MI, but the product could still be sold in OH. Clark stated he worked closely with Ed White, IN, on 25b’s. Internet sales pose a big problem . FL has 600 25b products registered.

McNally relayed that Keith Matthews has recommended the ECR referral process be followed. Giguere and others on the WC replied the ECR process does not work. Clark explained he has gone through 3 EPA 25b ombudsmans and the Region does not have the expertise on 25b’s.

Dwinell suggested an Issue Paper with specific recommendations to OPP and OECA. Stangel asked if POM was asking for a fix or fines. Giguere replied, definitely a fix, but also some enforcement of non

- registered products. Stangel noted EPA’s limited resources and higher priorities. Giguere countered with the resource intensive efforts of the states and cited individual efforts of NY, CT and NH on one product with no food tolerance. Scott asked why E PA enforcement was not a

viable course of action – even if the states had to write the form letter. Stangel thought another solution was needed – the Regions would not expend their resources. Giguere commented, “a Stop Sale from EPA means STOP, a Stop Sale from

Indiana means slow down.” Scott clarified, it means “don’t get caught” in Indiana.

McNally summarized that OPP and OECA are looking for EPA options that are not resource intensive. Clark expressed his concern that eventually one of the 25b products will result in serious, widespread health consequences. Green stated that Region 7 would consider action on something with a high risk , and asked if “bad actors” could be targeted. Also, perhaps a broader communication strategy is needed. Roelofs sug gested using the Federal Trade Commission – they took action

on Cedar -Cide. He added, FTC does not go after small firms. Roelofs also mentioned that McNally’s FAQ should add a question/answer that GRAS substances are not necessarily exempt.

McNally agre ed to be open to POM suggestions. He asked that POM respond to the draft FAQs within the next month. They hope to have the new FAQs posted by the end of the year.

Kachadoorian asked if there could be a system like SLITS where general questions – not product specific- could be asked. Quakenbush and Clark agreed to collect POM comments on the FAQs and submit them to Nicole Burkis. McNally asked if there could be gradations of responses from EPA. He also supported the Green suggestion for a broader commu nication effort and asked for ideas. Stangel asked if an Issue Pa per would be developed. Giguere did not rule out an IP, dependent upon POM sentiment. Rowe recommended review of SFIREG archives if the IP route is followed.

Linda Hollis, BPPD, stated it was news to her that the ECR process was not working. She added that she and Nicole Burkis are the only EPA staff doing 25b responses. They get many, many requests. She asked that the POM responses to the

FAQ be sent to Nicole Burkis. Hollis stressed there will be a lot of effort in composing responses to the FAQs.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

POM response to EPA FAQs on 25b products POM Committee, Clark and

Quakenbush16

11 :45 a.m. – 12 noon 

## WRAP-UP, ACTION ITEMS CARY GIGUERE, POM CHAIR

x Dwinell will follow-up on the methomyl IP at the June SFIREG meeting.

x Scott, Rabe, and Farnsworth will make streamlining recommendations for PIRT courses.

x Dwinell will attend the NPM meeting and share information on case referrals, Inspector Manual guidance

x POM will formally request that EPA consider it a violation of FIFRA if a product uses the insect repellency mark without EPA approval.

x POM will send comment to Kathy Boyle asking EPA to limit the percent active ingredient allowed in a 25b, and that the rule be eliminated. The letter will also recommend adding to the rule that any use on a food crop must have a tolerance exemption.

x Giguere will set up a meeting with Emily Selia and NPIC. Fo cus will be on the eco-portal data quality and use, and consideration of how enforceable incidents are captured. Also, NPIC will be asked to offer a webinar on their program. Dwinell will also include this topic on the June SFIREG agenda.

x CTAG will be contacted in regard to the biocide and fracing issues.

x Joyner and Peckham will work with Helfgott in the planning of EPA Project Officers training related to grant guidance and SLA relations.

x Clark and Quakenbush will compile comments on the 25b FAQs and send them to Nicole Birkus.



## Meeting adjourned 4/23/2013, at 12:02 p.m.