BEVERIDGE ~

&DIAMOND~

Karen M. Hansen

1350 I Street. N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20005-3311

Direct: (202) 789-6056

Fax: (202) 789-6190

khansen@bdlaw.com

September 28, 2009

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Debra Edwards, Ph.D.

Director

Office of Pesticide Programs (7501P)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

One Potomac Yard

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Room S-12622

Arlington, Virginia 22202

Mr. Philip J. Ross

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of General Counsel

Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Office

Ariel Rios North

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W

Washington, D.C. 20460

Ms. Joan Harrigan Farrelly

Director, Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 7510P

Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Recent Communications by Nalco, Inc.'s Counsel

Dear Dr. Edwards, Ms. Harrigan-Farrelly, and Mr. Ross:

I write to share with you the enclosed communication, which Nalco's outside counsel,

Seth Goldberg, has been circulating to members of the broader regulated community. It is

entitled "Brief Summary: EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is considering whether separately

added production aids, which are not themselves pesticides, should require registration under

FIFRA," and requests that comments be submitted to the three of you. Although we cannot be

absolutely certain, the contents and source of the memorandum make it seem virtually

impossible that the memorandum is not referring directly to the process EPA established via its

May 27, 2009 letter to Ashland, Buckman and Nalco for review of a limited set of pulp and

paper mill biocides (e.g., page 3 of the memorandum references that "the current issue [is]

focused on pulp and paper. ...").

Washington, D.C. Maryland New York Massachusetts New Jersey Texas California

BEVERIDGE &

&DIAMOND~

Karen M. Hansen

1350 I Street. N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20005-3311

Direct: (202) 789-6056

Fax: (202) 789-6190

khansen@bdlaw.com

September 28, 2009

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Debra Edwards, Ph.D.

Director

Offce of Pesticide Programs (7501P)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

One Potomac Yard

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Room S-12622

Arlington, Virginia 22202

Mr. Philip 1. Ross

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Offce of General Counsel

Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Offce

Ariel Rios North

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W

Washington, D.C. 20460

Ms. Joan Harrigan Farrelly

Director, Antimicrobials Division

Offce of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 7510P

Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Recent Communications by Nalco, Inc.'s Counsel

Dear Dr. Edwards, Ms. Harrigan-Farrelly, and Mr. Ross:

I write to share with you the enclosed communication, which Nalco's outside counsel,

Seth Goldberg, has been circulating to members of the broader regulated community. It is

entitled "Brief Summary: EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is considering whether separately

added production aids, which are not themselves pesticides, should require registration under

FIFRA," and requests that comments be submitted to the three of you. Although we cannot be

absolutely certain, the contents and source of the memorandum make it seem virtually

impossible that the memorandum is not referring directly to the process EPA established via its

May 27,2009 letter to Ashland, Buckman and Nalco for review ofa limited set of pulp and

paper mill biocides (e.g., page 3 of the memorandum references that "the current issue (is)

focused on pulp and paper.... ").

Washington, D.C. Maryland New York Massachusetts New Jersey Texas California
BEVERIDGE &DlAMONDpc

September 28, 2009

Page 2

We believe that EPA will agree that the enclosed memorandum mischaracterizes the

decision pending before EPA as a wholesale reconsideration of EPA's longstanding position

regarding registration requirements for "separately added non-pesticidal products" such as

adjuvants. To our knowledge, EPA has not indicated any intent to use the present review process

for any such broad regulatory activity, which makes the enclosed communication to other

industries inherently misleading. In addition, as Ashland has pointed out in its submittals to

EPA, Nalco's products at issue are not non-pesticidal adjuvants, but rather in-situ biocides

produced by chemical reaction. The memorandum nevertheless creates an erroneous impression

that EPA is broadly rethinking the treatment of adjuvant or "stabilizer" products under FIFRA

"without a complete and transparent process," thereby apparently seeking to cause undue alarm

in an industry that has nothing to do with pulp and paper mill biocides.

We obtained a copy of the enclosed memorandum at a recent meeting of the Joint CLARISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) Law Committee at which a Beveridge &

Diamond attorney was in attendance. The memorandum was distributed at the meeting to the

membership of Crop Life America (CLA) with unequivocal attribution to Mr. Goldberg, who

serves as Nalco's outside counsel in the matter before EPA. In particular, it was stated that Mr.

Goldberg had provided the memorandum to CLA with a request for CLA members to write to

EPA based on the memorandum. Notably, the memorandum bears no explicit authorship or

attribution. This communication apparently seeks to create unwarranted alarm in the crop

protection industry by suggesting that unrelated adjuvant products used in that industry are

somehow under review at EPA without the industry's knowledge or input, and it invites CLA

members - who are producers of unrelated products - to flood EPA with comments based on this

misleading information. In short, the memorandum appears to be an attempt to add confusion to

what should be a straightforward application by EPA of FIFRA registration requirements to

industrial biocides. I

Not surprisingly, the memorandum also contains the same factual and legal errors that

Nalco has made in its arguments to EPA. For example, it cites to the Chlorine Gas RED to

erroneously claim that "EPA has addressed these intermediate forms [(chloramine)] in its

registration decisions for chlorine-based pesticides," despite EPA's clear rejection ofNalco's

prior contention that the Chlorine Gas RED suggests that the combination of ammonia with

1 EPA has already decided the critical issue here, namely that ammonium sulfate combined with hypochlorite creates

a biocide in which the ammonia sait, not the hypochlorite, is the active pesticidal ingredient and therefore subject to

FIFRA registration. EPA made this decision several years ago when it registered the ammonium sulfate biocide

products sold by Ashland and Buckman. Likewise, the other unregistered biocide that Nalco is marketing combines

urea with sodium hypochlorite to form a biocide in which the urea, not the hypochlorite, is the pesticidal active. All

that Ashland is seeking is the Agency's consistent application of its previous conclusions to Nalco's two products.

BEVERIDGE & DlAMONDl'c

September 28, 2009

Page 2

We believe that EPA wil agree that the enclosed memorandum mischaracterizes the

decision pending before EPA as a wholesale reconsideration of EPA's longstanding position

regarding registration requirements for "separately added non-pesticidal products" such as

adjuvants. To our knowledge, EPA has not indicated any intent to use the present review process

for any such broad regulatory activity, which makes the enclosed communication to other

industries inherently misleading. In addition, as Ashland has pointed out in its submittals to

EP A, Nalco' s products at issue are not non-pesticidal adjuvants, but rather in-situ biocides

produced by chemical reaction. The memorandum nevertheless creates an erroneous impression

that EPA is broadly rethinking the treatment of adjuvant or "stabilizer" products under FIFRA

"without a complete and transparent process," thereby apparently seeking to cause undue alarm

in an industry that has nothing to do with pulp and paper mill biocides.

We obtained a copy of the enclosed memorandum at a recent meeting of the Joint CLARISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) Law Committee at which a Beveridge &

Diamond attorney was in attendance. The memorandum was distributed at the meeting to the

membership of Crop Life America (CLA) with unequivocal attribution to Mr. Goldberg, who

serves as Nalco's outside counsel in the matter before EPA. In particular, it was stated that Mr.

Goldberg had provided the memorandum to CLA with a request for CLA members to write to

EPA based on the memorandum. Notably, the memorandum bears no explicit authorship or

attribution. This communication apparently seeks to create unwarranted alarm in the crop

protection industry by suggesting that unrelated adjuvant products used in that industry are

somehow under review at EPA without the industry's knowledge or input, and it invites CLA

members - who are producers of unrelated products - to flood EPA with comments based on this

misleading information. In short, the memorandum appears to be an attempt to add confusion to

what should be a straightforward application by EPA of FIFRA registration requirements to

industrial biocides. i

Not surprisingly, the memorandum also contains the same factual and legal errors that

Nalco has made in its arguments to EPA. For example, it cites to the Chlorine Gas RED to

erroneously claim that "EPA has addressed these intermediate forms ((chloramine)) in its

registration decisions for chlorine-based pesticides," despite EPA's clear rejection ofNalco's

prior contention that the Chlorine Gas RED suggests that the combination of ammonia with

i EPA has already decided the critical issue here, namely that ammonium sulfate combined with hypochlorite creates

a biocide in which the ammonia salt, not the hypochlorite, is the active pesticidal ingredient and therefore subject to

FIFRA registration. EPA made this decision several years ago when it registered the ammonium sulfate biocide

products sold by Ashland and Buckman. Likewise, the other unregistered biocide that Nalco is marketing combines

urea with sodium hypochlorite to form a biocide in which the urea, not the hypochlorite, is the pesticidal active. All

that Ashland is seeking is the Agency's consistent application of its previous conclusions to Nalco's two products.
BEVERIDGE &DIAMONDpc

September 28, 2009

Page 3

sodium hypochlorite presents a non-pesticidal use? Similarly, the memorandum maintains that

"[a]mmonia and similar nitrogen-based compounds ... can function as a food source for the

microorganisms." This statement flies in the face of the obvious and common sense truth that

pulp and paper mills add ammonia to their process waters to kill microoganisms - not to

facilitate their growth.

Assuming Nalco is aware that its counsel is distributing this memorandum, it appears that

Nalco is trying to create confusion and ultimately delay EPA's consideration of an otherwise

straightforward application of FIFRA to products that are used for clearly biocidal purposes in

the pulp and paper mill industry. Nalco is the sole party benefiting from EPA's inconsistent

regulatory actions with regard to a discrete group of industrial biocides, all of which are used for

the same purpose and sold to the same industry. Nalco continues to enjoy the competitive

advantage of selling its biocides without FIFRA registration in an otherwise highly regulated

marketplace, and the recent communication enclosed and described herein seems to be an effort

to prolong the status quo for Nalco's sole benefit.

We appreciate your consideration of the information provided herein.

Enclosure

cc: Seth Goldberg, Esq.

Michael Boucher, Esq.

Kristina Woods, Esq.

2 See Email from Wanda Henson (EPA) to Elizabeth Brown (Steptoe & Johnson) (Sept. 19, 2007) ("We believe that

the combination of these two chemicals used for the disinfection of water is a pesticidal claim. The Chlorine Gas

RED does not indicate that this would be considered a non-pesticidal use.").

BEVERIDGE & DlAMONDl'c

September 28, 2009

Page 3

sodium hypochlorite presents a non-pesticidal use? Similarly, the memorandum maintains that

"(a)mmonia and similar nitrogen-based compounds. . . can function as a food source for the

microorganisms." This statement flies in the face of the obvious and common sense truth that

pulp and paper mils add ammonia to their process waters to kil microoganisms - not to

facilitate their growth.

Assuming Nalco is aware that its counsel is distributing this memorandum, it appears that

Nalco is trying to create confusion and ultimately delay EPA's consideration of an otherwise

straightforward application of FIFRA to products that are used for clearly biocidal purposes in

the pulp and paper mil industry. Nalco is the sole party benefiting from EPA's inconsistent

regulatory actions with regard to a discrete group of industrial biocides, all of which are used for

the same purpose and sold to the same industry. Nalco continues to enjoy the competitive

advantage of selling its biocides without FIFRA registration in an otherwise highly regulated

marketplace, and the recent communication enclosed and described herein seems to be an effort

to prolong the status quo for Nalco's sole benefit.

We appreciate your consideration of the information provided herein.

B¡rSM

Karen M. Hansen

Enclosure

cc: Seth Goldberg, Esq.

Michael Boucher, Esq.

Kristina Woods; Esq.

2 See Email from Wanda Henson (EPA) to Elizabeth Brown (Steptoe & Johnson) (Sept. 19, 2007) ("We believe that

the combination of these two chemicals used for the disinfection of water is a pesticidal claim. The Chlorine Gas

RED does not indicate that this would be considered a non-pesticidal use.").
Brief Summary: EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is considering whether separately added

production aids, which are not themselves pesticides, should require registration under FIFRA

, September 10, 2009

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) currently is reconsidering its definition of what is a

pesticide requiring registration and may well conclude that separately added non-pesticidal

products that have long been used in association with registered pesticide products now will now

require registration. This could have far-reaching implications across all industries where

pesticides are used, including crop protection. This memorandum provides a brief overview of

the situation. If you have views or concerns regarding this issue, we encourage you to contact

OPP.

Background on the Reason for Reconsideration

Under FIFRA, EPA's OPP registers pesticide products, including all active and 'inert'

components of the pesticide product. However, separately added production aids (variously

termed adjuvants, stabilizers, buffering agents, activators, safeners, etc.) have never been

considered to be pesticide products requiring registration.

OPP has long recognized that separately added adjuvants used with pesticides are not subject to

regulation under FIFRA (see, for example, 70 FR 31401, June 1,2005; "EPA is aware that inert

ingredients are also contained in pesticide adjuvant products which are not subject to registration

under FIFRA. The Agency does not keep records of currently used adjuvants or their

ingredients."). However, EPA is currently reconsidering this long-standing position in

connection with stabilizers for chlorine and bromine used to ,treat the water in pulp and paper

mills.

Since the early 1900's, various nitrogen-based compounds have been used in conjunction with

chlorine compounds to stabilize the highly-reactive chlorine in intermediate forms (chloramines)

in water treatment systems. EPA has long been aware of this and has addressed these

intermediate forms in its registration decisions for chlorine-based pesticides. For example, as

identified in the RED for chlorine gas, chlorine is stabilized as monochloroamine when nitrogen

sources such as ammonia or ammonium sulfate are used in conjunction with the chlorine. EPA

confirmed that these intermediate stabilized forms of hypochlorite are addressed within total

chlorine. In that document, OPP recognized that multiple ammonia-based compounds are used

to create chloramines, including aqueous ammonia, anhydrous ammonia, and ammonium sulfate,

among others (see RED for Chlorine Gas at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdlIREDs/4022red.pdf;

also see EPA, OPP 2001, The incorporation of water treatment effects on pesticide removal and

transformations in Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Drinking Water Assessments, Office of

Pesticide Programs Science Policy, EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0790-0001 at

www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/trac/science/water_treatment.pdf.)

Brief Summar: EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is considering whether separately added

production aids, which are not themselves pesticides,. should require registration under FIFRA

. September 10, 2009

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) curently is reconsiderig its defintion of what is a

pesticide requirng registration and may well conclude that separately added non-pesticidal

products that have long been used in association with registered pesticide products now wil now

require registration. This could have far-reachig implications across all industres where

pesticides are used, incIuding crop protection. This memorandum provides a brief overview of

the situation. If you have views or concerns regarding ths issue, we encourage you to contact

OPP.

Background on the Reason for Reconsideration

Under FIFRA, EPA's OPP registers pesticide products, includig all active and 'inert'

components of the pesticide product. However, separately added production aids (varously

termed adjuvants, stabilizers, bufferig agents, activators, safeners, etc.) have never been

considered to be pesticide products requirng registration.

OPP has long recognized that separately added adjuvants used with pesticides are not subject to

regulation under FIFRA (see, for example, 70 FR 31401, June 1,2005; "EPA is aware that inert

ingredients are also contained in pesticide adjuvant products which are not subject to registration

under FIFRA. The Agency does not keep records of curently used adjuvants or their

ingredients."). However, EPA is curently reconsiderig ths long-standing position in mill. . connection with stabilzers for chlorie and bromine used to.treat the water in pulp and paper

Since the early 1900's, varous nitrogen-based compounds have been used in conjunction with

chlorine compounds to stabilze the highly-reactive chlorie in intermediate forms (chloramines)

in water treatment systems. EPA has long been aware of ths and has addressed these

intermediate form in its registration decisions for chlorine-based pesticides. For example, as

identified in the RED for chlorie gas, chlorie is stabilied as monochloroamine when nitrogen

sources such as ammonia or ammonium sulfate are used in conjw;ction with the chlorie. EPA

confired that these intermediate stabilzed forms of hypochlorite are addressed within total

chlorie. In that document, opp recognized that multiple amonia-based compounds are used

to create chloramines, including aqueous ammonia, anydrous amonia, and amonium sulfate,

among others (see RED for Chlorine Gas at htt://ww.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/RDs/4022red.pdf;

also see EPA, OPP 2001, The incorporation of water treatment effects on pesticide removal and

transformations in Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Driing Water Assessments, Offce of

Pesticide Programs Science Policy, EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0790-0001 at .

ww.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/water_treatment.pdf.)
Ammonia and similar nitrogen-based compounds have no pesticidal activity and, in fact, can

function as a food source for the microorganisms. The addition of ammonia is intended solely to

sequester or otherwise temper the activity of the pesticidally active chlorine compounds in the

water. The antimicrobial activity is provided by chlorine, which is registered and therefore

controlled by EPA. To the extent reaction products with ammonia or other substances retain

antimicrobial activity, it is due to the chlorine. Therefore, chloramines are neither pesticidal nor

an in situ active.

In a recent decision, EPA registered ammonia as an active ingredient when it is used to generate

chloramines in situ for pulp and paper mill slimicide uses. See EPA Reg. No: 1448-432 for

Buckman Laboratories, Inc., (March 6, 2007). EPA has been petitioned to withdraw its

registration of ammonia, on the grounds that it is a separately added, non-pesticidal compound

and therefore is outside the scope of FIFRA. EPA therefore is currently considering whether

separately added, non-pesticidal production aids such as ammonia must now be registered as

pesticides when used in conjunction with chlorine compounds for water treatment.

Implications

The implications ofa potential change in EPA's determination of what is a pesticide requiring

registration could be enormous and impact much more than chlorine and pulp and paper mill

uses. The situation could extend to a broad range of adjuvants, including, most importantly:

• adjuvants used in crop production, including for uses such as safeners,

stabilizers, chelating agents, activators, buffers and others. This would

include adjuvants such as ammonium sulfate and similar products commonly

used with post-emergence herbicides such as glyphosate to prevent

degradation and/or inactivation of the herbicide.

• human drinking water treatment, where the use of EPA registered chlorine

with an ammonia-based stabilizer has been common since the early 1900's

and which is essential to meeting the Disinfectant By-Product Rule, and other

water treatment uses, such as swimming pool additives.

There are many examples of compounds the Agency has determined to be inert components of

pesticide products when the purpose of the inert is to modify the activity of or interact with the

pesticidally active ingredient in the formulation. In all cases, the purpose of the inert formulant

indicates a modification of activity, either to improve the activity (synergist, intensifier, catalyst)

or modify (slow or increase) the rate of degradation or availability (buffer, sequestrant, chelation,

antioxidant, release rate regulator, neutralizer, antioxidant, pH control, reducer, safener,

stabilizer). In all cases, the description suggests a chemical reaction, but not one that is needed to

produce a pesticidally active ingredient. While these are considered inert components of a

pesticide formulation, none would require registration as a pesticide product if sold separately

from a pesticide product. If EPA changes its definition of what is a "pesticide" in connection

with water treatment, agricultural adjuvants used in all of these ways also could require

registration.

Amonia and similar nitrogen-based compounds have no pesticidal activity and, in fact, can

fuction as a food source for the microorganisms. The addition of amonia is intended solely to

sequester or otherwise temper the activity of the pesticidally active chlorie compounds in the

water. The antimicrobial activity is provided by chlorie, which is registered and therefore

controlled by EPA. To the extent reaction products with ammonia or other substances retain

antimicrobial activity, it is due to the chlorie. Therefore, chloramines are neither pesticidal nor

an in situ active.

. In a recent decision, EPA registered amonia as an active ingredient when it is used to generate

chloramines in situ for pulp and paper mil slimicide uses. See EPA Reg. No: 1448-432 for

Buckman Laboratories, Inc., (March 6, 2007). EPA has been petitioned to withdraw its

regitration of amonia, on the grounds that it is a separately added, non-pesticidal compound

and therefore is outside the scope of FIFRA. EPA therefore is curently considerig whether

separately added, non-pesticidal production aids such as amonia must now be registered as

pesticides when used in conjunction with chlorie compounds for water treatment.

Implications

The implications ofa potential change in EPA's determation of what is a pesticide requirg

registration could be enormous and impact much more than chlorine and pulp and paper mil

uses. The situation could extend to a broad range of adjuvants, includig, most importtly:

· adjuvants used in crop production, including for uses such as safeners,

stabiliers, chelating agents, activators, buffers and others. This would

include adjuvants such as amonium sulfate and similar products commonly

used with post-emergence herbicides such as glyphosate to prevent

degradation and/or inactivation of the herbicide.

· human drg water treatment, where the use õf EPA r'egistered chlorie

with an ammonia-based stabilizer has been common since the early 1900's

and which is essential to meeting the Disinfectant By-Product Rule, and other

water treatment uses, such as swimming pool additives.

There are many examples of compounds the Agency has determined to be inert components of

pesticide products when the purose of the inert is to modify the activity of or interact with the

pesticidally active ingredient in the formulation. In all cases, the purose of the inert formulant

indicates a modification of activity, either to improve the activity (synergist, intensifier, catalyst)

or modify (slow or increase) the rate of degradation or availabilty (buffer, sequestrant, chelation,

antioxidant, release rate regulator, neutralizer, antioxidant, pH control, reducer, safener,

stabilzer). In all cases, the description suggests a chemical reaction, but not one that is needed to

produce a pesticidally active ingredient. While these are considered inert components of a

pesticide formulation, none would require registration as a pesticide product if so ld separately

from a pesticide product. If EPA changes its defition ofwhat is a "pesticide" in connection

with water treatment, agrcultual adjuvants used in all of these ways also could require

registration.

- 2-
The impact of such a change would be dramatic, and would extend across the board for pesticide

users, regardless of the industry segment, including users of pesticide products for crop

protection. It could affect the availability and pricing of adjuvants, and, therefore, the

effectiveness of crop protection. For this reason, it would be prudent to contact EPA and express

your concern that the manner in which the Agency handles adjuvants not be altered, at least not

without a complete and transparent public process. The contact points for the current issue

focused on pulp and paper halogen stabilizers are:

Ms. Harrigan-Farrelly

Director, Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs (7504P)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

703-603-8914

harrigan-farrelly.joan@epa.gov

Mr. Philip J. Ross

U'S, Environmental Protection Agency

Office of General Counsel

Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Office

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

202-564-5637

Ross.philip@epa.gov

If you are concerned, it also might be worthwhile to contact OPP Director Debra Edwards:

Dr. Debra Edwards, Director

Office of Pesticide Programs (7504P)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

703-305-7090

edwards.debbie@epa.gov

- 3 -

The impact of such a change would be dramatic, and would extend across the board for pesticide

users, regardless of the industr segment, including users of pesticide products for crop

protection. It could affect the availabilty and pricing of adjuvants, and, therefore, the

effectiveness of crop protection. For ths reason, it would be prudènt to contact EPA and express

your concern that the maner in which the Agency handles adjuvants not be altered, at least not

without a complete and transparent public process. The contact points for the curent issue

focused on pulp and paper halogen stabilizers are:

Ms. Hargan-Farelly

Director, Antimicrobials Division

Offce of Pesticide Programs (7504P)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washigton, DC 20460

703-603-8914

hargan-farelly.joan@epa.gov

Mr. Philp J. Ross

U.s. Envionmental Protection Agency

Offce of General Counsel

Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Offce

1200 Pennsylvånia Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

202-564-5637

Ross.philip@epa.gov

If you are concerned, it also might be wortwhile to contact OPP Director Debra Edwards:

Dr. Debra Edwards, Director

Offce of Pesticide Programs (7504P)

U.S. Envionmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washigton, DC 20460

703-305-7090

edwards.debbie@epa.gov

- 3 -