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 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; Charlie Clark, Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Shannon Joyner, 

North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture 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 attendance 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 label 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 from 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 place 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 the 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 herbicides. 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 methomyl as state restricted use. Roelofs replied that rulemaking 

takes time and he would have an indication on the timeline by the June SFIREG meeting. 

 

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 PIRT 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 replied this is not limited to one Region. Dwinell suggested 

further discussion at the next NPM meeting. Helfgott asked 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 compliance. 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 recognized this is more than a one region issue and it needs to be addressed. Green 

stated 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 and 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 Presentation 
3 

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 investigations. It may become a part of the FIFRA Inspection 

Manual. The guidance has been kept clear and concise. Rowe is hopeful EPA and 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 

15th. Rowe suggested using the AAPCO list-serve to distribute the guidance. Rowe reviewed the general 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 guidance development. Rowe replied PPDC members sat in on a 

couple of conference calls but not 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 involvement 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 foraging 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 CHAIR 

DISCUSSION 

Rose Kyprianou, FEAD, EPA, provided an update on the development 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. There 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 referral 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 will 
4 

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 with 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 CHAIR 

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) exemptions. 

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 

Recognized 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 inerts 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 list 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 eliminated. 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 Giguere
5 

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 develop 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 limited, 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 stated 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 stated 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 registered 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 DEADLINE
6 

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 manufacturers 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 and 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 Guidance. 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 liability would not change – it strictly falls on the applicator. 

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE
7 

1:45 – 2:15 P.M. NPIC REPORTING EMILY SELIA, EPA, FEAD, 

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 Oregon 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 provided details on the program at the UC Davis PREP. Buell and Stone 

are available to do a webinar with any state 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 incident 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 while NPIC may have hundreds. The larger issue is the use of unvalidated NPIC data for risk assessments at EPA. Dwinell 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 NPIC 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 11th, (Attachment 5) 

which references EPA use of the NPIC website eco- and veterinary 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 

at 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 

appreciation 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 incidents are captured. 

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

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

use of data Giguere and Selia
8 

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: Definitions; 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. Registrants 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 

are 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 label warnings and GHS, and explained resolution through use of the PR Notice statement: 

“This chemical is a pesticide product registered by the Environmental 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 offered 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 issue 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 certification and training authority. Peckham noted formaldehyde use in 

industrial settings – most are not registered as pesticides. Quakenbush stated acrolein has a user manual with directions 

as a sulfate scavenger in one section and with the EPA registration number and use directions in another section. Giguere 

asked the WC to focus on an applicator certification strategy, with the registration issues a concern for later. 

 
9 

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

bore. The entire application is mechanized. Comstock questioned 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 services. 

 

Giguere asked for next steps – SFIREG has identified a set of applicators 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 registration 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 PRODUCTION 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 many 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 has issued a Cease and Desist Order on a sulfur use. EPA informed VT the sulfur should 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 provided 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 Pesticide. Kachadoorian noted that Oregon’s OSHA has reported SO2 concentrations as 

high as 100 ppm when anything above 2 ppm requires use of a NIOSH respirator. WA and OR do not regulate SO2 at the 

same level as CA. OR faces the challenge – is it ok to add the SO2 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 10 – 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 Federal and State label. The user must have a copy of the WDL (either electronic or 

hard copy, depending on the State requirements), and must comply 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 capable of enforcing WDLs when implemented. 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 there 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 State 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 credentials. 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 Deadline
11 

 

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 11 – 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 workgroup (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 the 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 areas (e.g., Endangered Species, bed 

bugs). The level and areas of commitment would be negotiated 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 summer. 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 included in the grant template since 

currently 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 the 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 interested in participating in the Project Officer training. Joyner 

suggested the training take place at pre-SFIREG meetings. 

CONCLUSIONS
12 

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 any 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 between 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 11th. Fred Corey, TPPC, Bonnie Rabe, NM, Tom 

Matsuda, HI, Amy Bamber, MT, Dan Helfgott, EPA, and Steve Dwinell, 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 boundaries. 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 certification and training of applicators on tribal lands. State 

certification is not currently valid. This plan would allow commercial applicators to submit a copy of their state certification 

to a Regional Office and a Federal certification would be issued. 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 clarification on tribal land certification options. Helfgott stated an applicator certified in CA 

would submit the CA certificate to Region 9, and receive a Federal 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 National Certification Plan may be final by the end of the summer. Rabe commented 

that under the Federal Certification program, EPA cannot release 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. Dwinell 

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 Deadline
13 

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 the 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) training 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 use soon. Clark cautioned that the revised 24(c) Guidance must 

be accompanied by a revised 24(c) application form. Kachadoorian 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 assessment 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 is 
14 

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 SLAs 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 have 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 system. Dwinell suggested a conference call for all SLAs to discuss the 

distributor label issue with OPP and OECA. Lott agreed. Giguere 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 through 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. Green 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 Lott
15 

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. There 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 many 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 suggested 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 agreed 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 communication 

effort and asked for ideas. Stangel asked if an Issue Paper 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 

Quakenbush
16 

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. Focus 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.