1 

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

MINUTES May 30 -31, 2012 

## EPA REGION 5 OFFICE,
CHICAGO, IL

MEETING CALLED

BY Cary Giguere , Chair, SFIREG, POM WC

TYPE OF MEETING Issues, Research & Evaluation

NOTE TAKE R Grier Stayton, Exec. Sec., AAPCO

ATTENDEES Members of the Committee: Cary Giguere, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets; Doug Edwards, Virginia Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Affairs; Brian Rowe, Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development; Dave Scott, Office of Indiana State Chemist; Rose Kachadoorian, Oregon Dept. of Agriculture; Patr ick Jones, North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services; John Peckham, Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture; Jeanine Broughel, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (via conference call-in) ; George Farnsworth, California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation; Laura Quakenbush, Colorado Dept. of Agriculture; and Bonnie Rabe, New Mexico Dept. of Agriculture. SFIREG associates who were present included: Steve Dwinell, Florida Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services , and Chair, SFIREG; Richard Beard, Utah State University, representing AAPSE; Jeaneanne Gettle, EPA Region 4 (Regional Liaison); David Stangel, EP A, OECA; Jim Roelofs, EPA, OPP, FEAD; Dea Zimmerman, EPA, OPP; and Grier Stayton, AAPCO/SFIREG Secretary. Also in attendance were registrants, trade association representatives and EPA Region 5 staff.

Attachment 1 Agenda, and Attachment 2 Meeting Attendees

WELCOME Margaret Guerriero, Director, Region 5, Land and Chemicals Division, welcomed the SFIREG POM Working Committee and guests to Chicago. She noted the replacement of Steve Owens with Jim Jones as the Assistant Administrator of OCSPP, and Jones’ top prioritie s, which include the adoption of IPM in schools and the management of state/tribal grants. The initial goal of the IPM in schools will be for public schools, K -12, effecting 50 million children. Guerriero stated OPP has published a School IPM strategic plan recently and that State Lead Agencies (“SLAs”) may submit grant proposals ( although there are no new EPA expectations for SLA involvement in school IPM ). On the subject of grant management, Guerriero closed by emphasizing the importance of improving communications and oversight.



## Meeting Convened at 8:0 7 a.m., May 30, 2012

8: 30 – 9:15 A.M. 

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

DISCUSSION

Roelofs began with an update of the revisions to the Label Review Manual. The LRM consists of 18 Chapters and there have been hundreds of comments received during the revision process. The process has included review by the OPP Label Consistency Committee. Seve n (7) chapters have been updated and posted. Thirteen (13) chapters have been completed. It will take most of the summer to complete the remaining chapters (Chapter 13 is huge). Roelofs reported the Label Consistency Committee has posted two (2) new questions on the OPP Pesticide Labeling Q & A webpage: 1) Distributor product labeling questions 2) Import/Export labeling questions The OPP Pesticide labeling Q & A page has 249 questions posted and covers 38 labeling topics.

Roelofs called attention to the OPP homepage “Highlights” and the recent posting of a proposed registration decision for

the first residential use of fluazinam. Comments to the docket will be received for 30 days. Roelofs noted that any first

residential use or first food use of a pesticide will have the proposed label available on the site and open to comment. Giguere stated POM should work out a means to formalize review of these labels during the comment period.

Roelofs also reported there have been two (2) new products registered for bed bug control – the first new bed bug products in a long time. The active ingredients are cold pressed neem oil with a claim of two weeks residual effect.

The April Label Quality Workshop with RISE was attended by 50 industry representatives. OPP sent 25 staff. Five (5)2

state representatives attended. Before the training, 5% of the industry reps felt there were significant problems with labels. After the training, 85% of the industry reps felt there was a problem. 84% of the industry reps also expressed interest in training for state regulatory issues. Scott asked if OPP has discussed a process – other than a workshop – to target problem labels. Dwinell replied there is the Label Consistency Committee, Jim Gray, ND, is an “in-residence” participant at OPP, and POM is involved. Giguere felt that “next steps” need to be identified. Dwinell suggested that POM pick specific problematic label statements and ask EPA to address them (e.g., 3 rd party liability statements). Giguere stated there are also many boiler plate st atements that continue to cause problems (e.g., “Professional Use Only”). Scott noted registrants are in the habit of using label language permitted in the past, and added that industry is not very aware of the problems posed by label s. Dwinell and Rabe discussed the ASPCRO – EPA MOU for review of termiticide labels.

Scott asked Roelofs if EPA had taken any official position on the Drift PRN. Roelofs replied no.

Stangel provided an OECA update: 1) Pesticide Drift, PIRT Training, September 10-13, 2012, West Lafayette, IN. Kachadoorian asked that the PIRT Drift training include information to include how EPA drift models do not adequately include topography (mountains). Scott will ask the meeting planners if this can be included. 2) Basic Pesticide Use Enforcement, PIRT Training, September 17-20, 2012, Asheville, NC 3) Pesticide Inspector’s Manual, completion due in late June, July. 4) Budget for FY 13 – the President’s Budget is requesting $18,644,000 for Sta te Tribal Assistance Grants (“STAG”) Pesticide funding. $500,000 has been reserved for PIRT & PREP and $60,000 for new Tribal programs. 5) Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) requirements for Soil Fumigants – the OECA letter has not been signed yet, but it recommends SLAs enforce the current label and take action where appropriate – prior to Phase 2 label changes taking place. 6) Performance Measures Workgroup – a webinar is scheduled for June 7 th . The workgroup is still very active and is open to ideas from all concerned. 7) Response to NV request on Inspector Credentialing – OECA will allow SLAs to use the same documentation solutions provided to Regions. Two orders cover credentials, and OECA is looking at these. OECA is considering allowing state health and safety training for annual “refresher” training. The current NETI on-line training is closing and will be moved to a WIKI site. The focus will be on e- learning. Gettle commented that Regions will be auditing credentials and this will include an emph asis on ensuring the credentials are in the possession of the inspector. Dwinell asked Stangel to send him a copy of the inspector credential guidance. Scott asked if there had been a legal interpretation of inspectors presenting “appropriate credentials.” Does this mean EPA credentials only? Stangel did not have an answer. Scott asked for clarity.

CONCLUSIONS

POM review of specific new labels needs a more formal process for identifying when and how to participate in the comment period.

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Conference call to discuss process for POM review of labels Giguere and Roelofs

Inspector credential “guidance” provided to Dwinell. Do SLA credentials qualify as “appropriate” for FIFRA inspections? Stangel

9:15 - 10:00 A.M. 

## “INSECT REPELLENCY MARK” ROSE KYPRIANOU, OPP, FEAD, AND JAY ELLENBERGER, FEAD

DISCUSSION Attachment 3 – Insect Repellency Mark Presentation

Rose Kyprianou, FEAD, gave a brief presentation on EPA’s proposal for the voluntary use of an efficacy mark for skinapplied insect repellents. The standardized mark would identify the insects repelled and the duration of repellency. It will

be modeled a fter the SPF standard used for sunscreen products. OPP will develop a guidance document to provide companies with the science -based criteria for use of the mark. The guidance should be completed by 2013. Dwinell expressed strong support of the effort. Quakenbush expressed concern with use on 25(b) products. Will 25(b) products be including the mark? Kachadoorian asked what SLAs would need to enforce against the mark. Ellenberger commented there is an implication to some that if a 25(b) uses the mark, it will need to be registered by EPA. An attorney on the project is aware of the 25(b) issue and they will proceed with caution on this matter. There may be 25(b) products with efficacy data which meet the EPA criteria. Giguere asked if there was any EPA liability on the use of the mark and their criteria. Ellenberger replied EPA is starting conversations with FDA on their SPF program to gather technical, regulatory, legal , and enforcement information in hopes of applying their ex perience to this project. Kachadoorian asked if the guidance document and test criteria would be available on the web and if EPA would use existing guidance on mosquito3

repellants. Kyprianou stated the guidance would be available an d efficacy criteria will be updated. Ellenberger stated the current mosquito, tick repellency criteria is being reviewed. Broughel asked if the 25(b) products could use the mark with efficacy data. Kyprianou replied yes. Broughel asked what the SLA options would be if the 25(b) products used the mark without the efficacy data. Withou t clear recourse, the SLAs would be wasting a lot of time trying to enforce them. Very few 25(b) products are currently in compliance. Ellenberger replied EPA is sensitive to this and they do not have all the answers yet – but it has been suggested that the approved 25(b)s using the mark be listed on the EPA website. Broughel stated an EPA identifier number would be necessary. Quak enbush asked that all 25(b) products using the mark become registered with EPA. Scott asked if this was one of the options, and Ellenberger replied yes. Giguere asked Kyprianou and Ellenberger if they needed written comments from POM asking for prohibition of the mark on 25(b) products. He also

offered POM review of the guidance document and asked EPA to proceed with caution on the subject of 25(b) products.

Dwinell stated he had conversed with Yvette Hellyer, OECA, about the issue of 25(b) product enforcement. Gettle stated Region 4 has taken action on 25(b) products. Quakenbush suggested EPA post completed 25(b) enforcement cases on the EPA 25(b) web page. Gettle stated there is a 125 case backlog in Region 4. Rowe noted MI has referred 160 misbranding cases to the Region and only 2 have resulted in action. Zimmerman commented that the PREP Registration course in July will pull together Regional 25(b) cases. Stangel commented that under “risk -based” enforcement, 25(b)s fall to the

bottom of the pile.

Giguere stated EPA and SLAs need to promote a culture of compliance and he agreed to summarize POM comments.

Dwinell no ted this is a big topic and will be discussed further.

CONCLUSIONS

POM supported the “Insect Repellency Mark” project, but expressed serious reservations of the use of the mark on 25(b) labels.

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

POM remarks on use of the mark for 25(b) products to be summarized and shared with Kyprianou. Giguere and Quakenbush

10:15 – 11:15 A.M. 

## PHASE 2 FUMIGANT LAB EL
CHANGES DOUG EDWARDS, VA; PAT JONES, NC; JOHN PECKHAM, MN; JOHN LEAHY, OPP;
SARA BETH WATSON,

DISCUSSION Attachment 4 , Soil Fumigation presentation

Edwards reviewed the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Soil Fumigant requirements. Phase 2 labels will be in the marketplace by
December 1, 2012, but Edwards thought Phase 1 labels would still be in circulation. Phase 2 requirements include registrant provided certification training and the implementation of first responder and community outreach activities. Jones stated private applic ators in NC were doing w ell with Phase 1 compliance, but they were finding commercial applicator compliance issues. Some of these commercial applicators travel between states. Dwinell stated FL is in a compliance assistance mode; Rowe stated MI has encountered a couple of PPE co mpliance issues; and Peckham stated commercial applicator compliance in MN has not been a problem. Edwards noted that private applicator compliance in VA is good, but there have been problems with respirator fit tests and training. VA has found some applicators have stopped fumigating. Jones found OSHA respirator fit test information difficult to find . Kachadoorian noted that Oregon Dept. of Agriculture staff ing was insufficient to provide Phase 1 training. Jones recognized the NC AgroMedicine program as an excellent source of training for private applicators in NC.

John Leahy, OPP, joined the meeting via conference phone. Leahy presented an update on the 1 st Responder outreach; the SCBA requirements; and EPA’s review of the Registrant Training Progra m for Phase 2 labeling. In regards to 1 st Responders
– Leahy stated the Task Forces have provided EPA with information fact sheets for review. EPA has accepted

the materials and the Task Forces plans to distribute them. These materials will be distribut ed to high fumigant use areas and to the SLAs by the end of the month. Final copies will be posted in the fumigant web page “tool box.” Leahy stated there is not much to report on SCBA since last fall. Labels have been updated and SCBA is not required t o be on- site. On the subject of Registrant

- provided applicator training, the Task Forces provided materials to EPA for review beginning the first of the year. AAPSE and CTAG also reviewed these materials. The goal of the Task Forces is to have all of the training modules ready for release the third week of June.4

Leahy introduced Sara Beth Watson, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, (representing the Chloropicrin Manufacturer’s Task Force); Lisa Campbell of Bergeson and Campbell (representing the Metam Task Force) and Roger Miksad of Wiley Rein (representing the Methyl Bromide Industry Panel ). Watson thanked all of the reviewers of the training modules. There are two parts to the training (modules on general fumigant training and modules on individual/specific active ingredient training). Applicators must complete the general fumigant training and at least one of the specific a.i. modules. Watson proceeded to demonstrate Module 1, Chapter 1, of the web

- based training. Watson noted that at the end of each module there is a quiz. If the wrong answer is given, the module loops back to the slide with the correct information. Watson discussed the log -in requirements to the website. Applicators must provide their state certified applicator number and agree to a statement verifying the person is who they say they are. Modules can be completed at the pace desired by the applicator. Verification of completion is emailed and the applicator can print a copy. In- person training will also be made

available.

Edwards ask ed how they will track people who have successfully completed training and how that will dovetail into state provided training. Watson replied they plan to provide CEU credits for the on

- line training. There will be a number where

an SLA can call -in and enter the applicator number to confirm they have taken the training. Rowe asked how the Task Forces will provide information to the fumigant distributors. Watson replie d the applicator can show a printed certificate of completion to the distributor. Leahy commented the training is for “use” of fumigants, not “sale” of fumigants. Applicators will still be required to complete SLA certification under the SLA category for soil fumigants. Jones asked how long it takes to complete the on -line modules – W atson replied, about 5 hours. Watson also noted there will be a help line if there are problems accessing the website.

Edwards asked about an approval process for SLA developed training. Leahy replied there are a few states interested and

OPP is working on this. Requests can be forwarded to Leahy. Edwards asked if there were currently any SLA private applicator Soil Fumigant categories. Leahy replied no.

Watson noted two questions of their on-line training:

1. SLA’s ability to check on applicators completing the regist rant training. (A code for SLAs is being considered)

. 2. Can SLA’s take the on-line training? (As a courtesy, the on-line training and testing will be made available to SLAs – even though they are not certified. Tribes will also have this ability).

Leahy asked how the codes will work. Will each SLA get a “state code?” Rowe asked if there could be multiple codes for multiple individuals in the SLA. Watson re plied each SLA would be asked how many codes they might need – with hopes

th e number would be limited. Edwards asked if the names of trainees would be listed and provided to SLAs. Watson replied no. There followed a discussion on the advantages and drawbacks of having a list of names provided to the SLAs.

POM members were conf used why a list of names could not be provided – why the added level of security? Watson noted growers’ concern there may be some problems with the public knowing they were fumigant users. Scott commented SLAs already have public lists of restricted use pesticide applicators. Peckham asked if the SLAs could receive a list periodically

. Kachadoorian felt there was a problem with public posting of names in OR. Jones noted that if the CEUs are recorded with the SLA, there will be a public record. Watson stated the Task Forces do not have permission to release names. Leahy stated the goal is to verify in the field that the applicator has completed label required training. Giguere asked the next conference call of the POM Soil Fumigant Work Group to address confirmation of training.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Discussion of training confirmation POM Soil Fumigant Workgroup

11:15 - NOON 

## REVISED RODENTICIDE
RISK MITIGATION DECISION
FOR PROFESSIONAL USE
RODENTICIDES LAURA QUAKENBUSH, CO

DISCUSSION Attachment 5 – Rodenticide RMD presentation ; Attachment 6 – Keigwin letter to Rossi 3.14.12; Attachment 7 - Keigwin letter to Bell Labs

Quakenbush gave a slide presentation on rodenticide labeling issues and distributed two handouts (Attachments 5-7). The

2008 EPA Risk Mitigation Decision (“RMD”) specified that second generation outdoor commensal rodenticides be placed only within 50 feet of buildings . EPA worked closely with stakeholders to understand issues and in March 2012, the revised label language was posted. The key difference - restriction for use within 50’ of a building was changed to within 100’ of a building for professional use ag and commercial rodenticides. The use restriction within 50’ of buildings remains for5

consumer use products. Specifics of the revised labeling were described in the presentation.

Quakenbush raised an issue with rodenticide labeling for aluminum phosphide fumigants – prohibiting use on “residential properties” for all uses, including structural and stored commodities . On another rodenticide issue, ASPCRO is seeking a revision to the labeling for burrowing rodent applications to read, “prohibiting use within 100 feet of any building where humans and/or domestic animals do or may reside .” ASPCRO is also reviewing zinc phosphide label restrictions for field

rodents.

Quakenbush noted the EPA docket contains a great deal of information on cancellation procedures for the registrants who have objected to having to comply with the consumer product restrictions. Jay Bruesch, MN Pest Control operator,

commented on the urban problems with deer mice. Rabe stated NM has recorded their first Hanta virus death this year, which is vectored by deer mice. NM is asking EPA to consider the addition of deer mice. EPA is open to reviewing new

data to support this addition. Kachadoorian asked if the provision of baiting active burrows of Norway rats, and roof rats within or beyond 100 feet , included 1 st and 2 nd generation rodenticides. Rabe was not sure and agreed to provide

Kachadoorian with the information later.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DUE DATE

1:00 – 2:00 P.M. 

## PYRETHROID LABEL

CHANGES JOHN PECKHAM, MN; AND JAY BRUESCH,

PLUNKETT’S PEST CONT ROL

DISCUSSION Attachment 8, Pyrethroid Label IP ; Attachment 9, NPMA Letter ; Attachment 10, EPA Response to NPMA ; Attachment 11, NY DEP Inspector Questions ; Attachment 12, MN Pest
Control Assoc note ; Attachment 13, Pyrethroid non-ag label table
John Peckham introduced the issue of new non-ag pyrethroid labels which have additional restrictions for residential outdoor surface and space sprays. In particular, Peckham noted the provision allowing for spot and crack and crevice

treatments to outdoor residential surfaces, but prohibiting surface sprays above 3 feet of the foundation. Peckham explained t here are a number of pests to residential outdoor surfaces where full surface sprays are needed (box elder bugs, carpenter bees, cluster flies, stink bugs, Asian lady beetles, etc.) Rowe narrowed the focus of the issue to two questions:

1. Is surface treatment of the eaves or soffit areas permitted (EPA response to CA letter, implied yes).

2. Is complete surface treatment allowed?

Rowe noted t he entire surface of a log home could be considered crack and crevice and asked if there are there other mitigating circumstances that would allow for broad surface treatments. Peckham referenced page 3 of the May 21, 2012,

EPA letter to NPMA. The second paragraph raised SLA concerns about homeowners making too many applications and PCO retreatments (which are not limited). Broughel presented questions from NY DEP inspectors (see Attachment 11). Rabe stated ASPCRO’s Label Stewardship Committee is reviewing similar questions. Jay Bruesch, Plunkett’s Pest Control, presented the dilemma the label restrictions pose to pest control applicators in MN . Plunkett summarized the damage caused by poor control of some of these pests (allergies, cluster flies in ho spitals, odor problems from insects, etc.) Bruesch suggested amending the labels to allow a limited time period of use , for selected pests. Bob Rosenberg, NPMA, reported there was a meeting between EPA and NPMA on May 29 th , and EPA is making a good faith effort to address this

issue.

Peckham referenced the recommendations in the draft SFIREG Issue Paper (Attachment 8). Peckham stated the recommendation asking EPA to provide scientific rationale for the label limitations of surface applications to “spot” and

“crack & crevice” has been fulfilled. Peckham also noted there was consensus to not survey SLAs on the extent of their concerns (as recommended in the IP). Giguere asked that the 2 nd and 3 rd recommendations be fleshed out. Dwinell asked Rabe to have the ASPCRO committee provide POM with specific changes they would like to see. Dwinell would also like to see the inconsistencies in the Environmental Hazards statements addressed. Rosenberg stated EPA is weighing a presentation of questions for the full SFIREG in June. Rosenberg asked if NPMA could cooperate with the POM work group in revising the IP and Giguere replied he should work through the Chair, Peckham.

CONCLUSIONS6

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Revision of SFIREG POM draft IP. Peckham, Rowe, Broughel,

Rabe June SFIREG

2:00 -2:30 P.M. 

## REGULATORY ISSUES WITH

SUPPLEMENTAL LABELS ROSE KACHADOORIAN, O R

DISCUSSION

Kachadoorian discussed Oregons experience with supplemental labels having language that states they “supersede” all

other labels . The issue was brought to her attention when the use directions for blueberries on the Pristine label were removed. Subsequently, OR received a supplemental label for Pristine use on blueberries with a tank mix prohibition a nd with the statement it superseded all other Pristine labels. Palisade also had a supplemental label which made the same

statement and also included an increase d REI (among other things). These st atements on supplemental labels are creating problems for growers and regulators. Kachadoorian noted that Washington State did not accept the supplemental label for Pristine. OR will no longer accept this language. Roelofs has discussed this with the Label Committee and it was agreed the language should not b e used. Giguere asked if an IP would ensure these label statements are no longer approved by EPA staff. Roelofs suggested a letter.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Letter to Roelofs expressing need to omit the term “supersedes” and any other conflicting terms from supplemental labels Kachadoorian and Giguere

2:15 -3:00 P.M. 

## PPE GARMENT WHITE PAPER
MARCH 2012 CAROL RAMSAY, NASDA RESEARCH

FOUNDATION

DISCUSSION Attachment 14, PPE Garment White Paper

Ramsay discussed the ongoing dialogue regarding Personal Pr otective Equipment (“PPE”) and labeling statements referring

to PPE . She listed a number of entities involved in the dialogue:

1. EPA’s Risk Assessment group

2. Dr. Anugrah Shaw

3. NIOSH PPTL (Personal Protective Equipment Technology Lab)

4. Pesticide Safety Educators (Ramsay, Brown, Hastings)

5. NACAA (National Assoc. of County Agricultural Agents) and Syngenta – a trifold brochure is being put together

Ramsay asked if, how, and when SFIREG would like to be involved in the dialog.

Ramsay discussed e xamples of PPE terminology used on labels and the challenges they present. She stated there is good data resulting from the Worker Protection Standards risk assessments for handlers, workers, etc. She also referenced glove permeation data from the 1980’s (based on solvents). Ramsay then discussed the work done by Dr. Kim Faulkner,
NIOSH, over the past 18 months in developing a “ Safety Roadmap for Agricultural Pesticide Handlers: Overcoming Barriers to Optimal Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use .” Faulkner has been holding stakeholder meetings and seminars to assess current knowledge . Ramsay stated she has some concerns with the direction of the Faulkner project but did not

elaborate. She summarized PPE literature
– much of which is dated. The past and current research of Dr. Anugrah Shaw, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, was summarized and the National Agricultural Health Study by the National Ins titute7

of Health was referenced. Ramsay also noted the NACAA/ Syngenta effort to complete a PPE brochure. Ramsay has reviewed the brochure along with the NIOSH PPTL.

Ramsay suggested now is the time for dialog and outlined the following goals:

1. Clear, consistent, up-to-date PPE language.

2. PPE referenced on labels is easy to find in the marketplace.

3. Standards and limitations are understood.

4. Small changes having big impacts (e.g., just removing conflicting statements).

Peckham stated POM had reviewed the L abel Review Manual a number of years ago and made comments on PPE. Roelofs commented the new version of the LRM chapter on PPE has not been completed or posted. Peckham asked if POM needed

to re -comment. Ramsay stated the base information is in the LRM, but maybe some of the wording could be finessed (e.g. remove “such as” and reference nitrile gloves at the top of the list.) Stangel noted that EPA requirements must be changed before changes can be made to the LRM.

Dwinell asked for recommendations fro m the experts. Ramsay recommended revisiting the topic after the Brazil Symposium in August. Giguere thought AAPCO may be a more appropriate venue to address this topic – industrial hygienists are not represented on the SFIREG Working Committees. Giguer e mentioned Steve King, MA, and Lebelle Hickes, ME, as having good backgrounds in the subject.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Contact AAPCO Board for Assessment of their Role Giguere

3:15 – 3:45 P.M. 

## NON CROPLAND DEFINITION – POM POSITION/REMEDIES CARY GIGUERE, VT; ROSE KACHADOORIAN, OR; AND JIM ROELOFS,

OPP

DISCUSSION Attachment 15 - Non Cropland Presentation

Kachadoorian referenced the “Enable the Label” on-line discussion forum which requested comments on a “Non cropland” Issue Paper in October– December 2011. The IP asked:

1. Should EPA allow the use of non crop or require the use of specific use sites.

2. What should EPA do to prevent misinformation of the terminology.

3. What should be the focus of the risk assessment on products using the term “non cropland.”

OR provided five pages of comments. In general, use of the term lacks consistency, clarity, etc. on man y levels. The term was defined in the 1976, as any land on which agricultural crops have not been planted and will not be planted in the current year and, to which the pesticide applied will not result in injury to or illegal residues to crops planted in the following years. 40 CFR 161 , Appendix A, lists pesticide use site groups. Non Crop use sites include: uncultivated ag
areas, fallow land, recreational areas, industrial sites, and uncultivated non- ag areas,. Appendix A also has use site groups

for aquatic sites which include ag irrigation and drainage ditches, ponds, lakes, canal, marshes, etc. Kachadoorian provided examples of inconsistent interpretations of “non cropland” and “ditches” through SLITS. Various examples were provided of “Is this no n-cropland?” If it is a use covered by WPS does that automatically mean it is not “non crop?” Is rangeland a crop? Kachadoorian illustrated an onion field with an irrigation ditch passing through it . The photo was tagged with questions on the onion field end rows, the ditch, etc., and how they could be interpreted as different “sites.”

She questioned whether fallow land, as defined, is non cropland. Pesticides used on fallow land require data of pesticide residue persistence and uptake by crops . Kachadoorian suggested that if EPA decides to continue use of the term “noncrop ,” they should:

1. Develop various non-crop groups (with different data requirements) similar to the Crop Groups that have been developed.

2. Clearly indicate specific use sites on the label (under the broad heading of non-crop).8

3. Educate EPA staff, registrants and State Lead Agencies on the definition of non-crop, and urge reviewers not to allow inappropriate sites under non-crop (aquatic, Christmas trees etc.)

Roelofs was asked what sh ould happen next. He asked for a copy of the presentation and noted the need for a “better” Appendix A. He will at some point go to OPP management to request moving forward with this as a project – no use of “non cropland” without a qualifier. Roelofs s tated it is very helpful to the registrants when they list specific use sites – especially when doing risk assessments. Guidance will be needed for EPA staff, registrants, and SLAs. A PR Notice was suggested as a means of providing guidance. Dwinell asked Roelofs if he needed anything from POM and Roelofs replied

no.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

3:45 -4:15 P.M. 

## METHOMYL POISON BAIT
MISUSE ISSUE PAPER BRIAN ROWE, MI

DISCUSSION Attachment 16 - Methomyl Presentation
, Attachment 17 – Methomyl Issue Paper

Rowe stated the product Golden Malrin, containing methomyl, has essentially been used for years for varmint control (primarily nuance mammals). There has been widespread misuse and the biggest issue is homeowner misuse. Rowe cited twelve of twenty one states responding to a MI survey, that had one or more misuses of the product. SLAs need to know who is buying, who is selling, and where the product is being used . Without Restricted Use classification, they have limited regulatory authority to addr ess the problem. Scott stated Indiana is considering classifying the product an RUP. A hearing has already taken place in IN and no one showed. Registrants were contacted and there was no push back on the RUP classification. Giguere recommended the state specific data be removed from the IP and have it forwarded to the full SFIREG for consideration. Rowe motioned for adoption of the IP and Peckham seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

Issue Paper to be revised and forwarded to full SFIREG. Rowe and Scott

4:15 - 5:00 P.M. 

## DISTRIBUTOR LABELS
ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE CARY GIGUERE, VT; DON LOTT, OEC A,

EPA

Discussion Attachment 18 – EPA – State Label Sharing Coordination – “Enforcement Confidential” (SLAs may call for copy)
Prior to discussion of the distributor label initiative there was a brief conversation regarding the product Goal which has a 1⁄2 mile aerial application buffer zone from sensitive crops. The issue was raised by Farnsworth. Kerry Hastings, DOWAgro was unaware of any recent changes to the label. Farnsworth has received complaints from aerial applicators regarding this buffer language. There also was a brief discussion regarding the use of generics on t he new 2,4-D and dicamba resistant crops. Hastings stated Grower Agreements would prevent this from occurring. Scott asked how SLAs will respond if generics are used.

Don Lott joined the meeting via telephone. Giguere asked for POM comments on an OECA draft summary of coordinating9

label sharing between EPA and SLAs. Scott felt the issue was larger than distributor products – priorities should be clearly established on what products and labels should be collected and referred to EPA. Gettle stated the National Program Managers Guidance has Distributor Labels as a priority. Dwine ll felt there should be a feedback loop from EPA to the SLAs

on the status of referred labels. Rowe stated there is no structure or guidance to SLAs to prevent multiple SLA ins pection overlap. Lott commented there is a plan to target inspections, but added there is no problem with multiple violations on the same label from multiple states.

Giguere emphasized an EPA feedback loop to SLAs is needed – based on reports that Regio ns have 100+ case backlogs on

referrals . Lott agreed that a feedback loop would be added. The Regions are being asked to enter referrals into a database so all in Headquarters and the Regions can see. Th ere was disagreement on the current status and protocol for

case referrals – Gettle stated Regions differ and SLAs have different expectations. POM asked that the status on case referrals be provided by the Regions to the States on a quarte rly basis. Lott stated the mechanism is in place for routine upd ates. Gettle asked Lott to survey the Regions on what th ey are doing now and find where the gaps are. Dwinell thanked Lott for setting up this process and added, SLAs need to be advised they can begin sending these distributor labels to the Regions. Lot t noted the lack of accountability and oversight of distributor labels.

Giguere asked what labels will have priority. Lott replied priorities should include labels that may put people at risk.

Kachadoorian noted that most distributor label violations a re due to them not being updated. She asked Lott if these should be referred to EPA. Lott replied yes.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

Draft an Email to be addressed to SLAs, advising them of OECA guidance for referring distributor labels to the Regions. Lott will

review. Lott will add a “feedback mechanism.” Steve Dwinell , Cary Giguere

SPECIAL NOTES 

## Meeting adjourned 5/30/2012, at 5:10 p.m. Meeting reconvened 5/31/2012 at 8:08 a.m.

8:00 - 8:30 A.M. 

## PARTING WAYS WITH PART DAVID STANGEL, OECA; CARY GIGUERE,

VT



### Discussion

Stangel reported the most recent buzz word from OMB for performance measures is “Evidence Based Budgeting”
– basically proving what you do is worthwhile. The recent PREP Course focused on performance measures and Anne Pontius stated a lot of good work was done there. The three strategic goals are:

1. Protection of Human Health

2. Protection of Environmental Media

3. Ensuring the Availability of Effective Pesticides

Under these goals, there are a number of sub -goals, outputs and outcomes. The Performance Measures Workgroup has a webinar scheduled next week and following its conclusion a summary will be sent out for SLA review. Stangel stressed there will be no new reporting burdens placed on SLAs resulting from the new measures. Gettle stated a database system will capture the information needed. Scott was present at the PREP, and expressed appreciation for the steps EPA has

taken. PREP discuss ed objectives and whether the right information was being collected. Zimmerman noted that all of the states present at the PREP agreed a revised 5700 form was needed. Stangel stated the 5700 form will be revamped after the measures have been developed. D winell felt the new measures would help identify what the Pesticide Program actually does. Peckham asked for the timeline for implementing the new measures. Stangel replied the ideal is for an adoption by the end of the grant year; Gettle expected a 1 -2 year timeframe. Peckham asked if the new measures would be betatested in a few states, and Stangel replied yes. Stangel felt the process would be an evolution, and not set in stone.

CONCLUSIONS

Everyone recognized the difficulty of the task ahead.

ACTION ITEMS10

Person responsible Deadline

8:30 -9:00 A.M. 

## FY 2014-16 GRANT
GUIDANCE DAN HELFGOTT, OPP; CARY GIGUERE, VT



### DISCUSSION Attachment 19 –Grant Guidance presentation

Helfgott reported the FY 2014

- 16 Grant Guidance is being developed with the completion date set for March 2013. OPP is looking for input from the states and tribes and encouraged SFIREG participation. The guidance will be a joint OPP- OECA document. Helfgott summarized the guidance: there are core activities and supplemental activities (which are not mandatory). There is an opportunity to negotiate an adjustment to activities with the Regions. In develo ping the guidance EPA must recognize: the expectations of the public ; there are reduced resources available; the fact that program needs are not static, and the program s must demonstrate success. Helfgott cited court decisions, regulatory actions (e.g., Soil Fumigants), and unexpected program demands (e.g., Imprelis) as issues the guidance must accommodate. Helfgott

noted the development of an Excel template that can serve as the primary delivery mechanism for grant guidance, workplan and end -of-year report. EPA is beginning to pilot the template in 7 states. Helfgott posed the following questions to SLAs:

1. Do we have the right priorities, activities and measures?

2. Can we better adjust to the wide range of pesticide issues in the field?

3. Are we properly considering the lifecycle of our priorities and issues? (e.g., transitioning from outreach to enforcement to deterrence). When should investment and focus be reduced?

4. Should we focus more on the roles of the grantee and less on the program areas or activities?

a. Currently, we focus on program areas (e.g., water quality, endangered species, worker safety...).

b. Should we focus more on roles (e.g., education, outreach, technical assistance, field feedback, inspections, and enforcement response). If we take this approach, how do we adjust measures to demonstrate program value and success?

5. Are there efficiencies that can be gained by working across states and regions (e.g., centers of excellence and expertise)?

6. Can we provide more flexibility and still achieve national goals?

Giguere asked for an explanation of the difference between a gr ant, performance partnership, and cooperative agreement. Gettle replied that a cooperative agreement is basically a grant. The performance partnership is a consolidation of the programs (multiple environmental programs) and effects how the funding is moved

– but does not impact the workplan. Zimmerman stated “assistance agreements” are the umbrella term. Under this term there are cooperative agreements,

which have consid erable Federal involvement. Grants do not have substantial Federal involvement. Scott understands that philosophically SLAs operate under cooperative ag reements versus grants but the terms are often used interchangeably. Gettle stated that STAG funds ar e all under cooperative agreements or PPGs.

Dwinell felt more focus should be given to the “roles.” The strength of the SLAs is their experience doing the work, and EPA should recognize the importance of the ir experienced staff. Also, more frequent disc ussions are needed between EPA and the SLAs. Giguere noted the Pesticide Program does not mesh as well as in the overall goals as other EPA media programs. Often the attempt to mesh into these goals results in an emphasis in the wrong areas. Gettle stat ed the Pesticide Program needs to function under the Administrator’s pr iorities. The grant guidance allows flexibility to reduce activities in certain areas based upon discussions with the Regions and they can have their own priorities. Scott commented the SLAs react to EPA initiatives and guidance to get the funding (e.g., “Environmental Justice” may force an activity in a place where it is difficult to find an underserved community). Helfgott responded ther e is an expectation of core work being done – even if it is a low level. Dwinell stated EPA must understand that the SLAs are operating on reduced resources and there are some activities which will not get done. Helfgott stated EPA Headquarters, Regions and SLA activities should be consistent with focused goals and me asures. There was a discussion on roles and Dwinell agreed

to recruit SLA volunteers to work with EPA on this topic.

Kachadoorian asked for clarification – would there be consideration of f unding for a certain role (e.g., education) versus a “program activity” (e.g., Water Quality, WPS) ? (T he education funding would then be used for educational roles in agreed to programs such as, Water Quality, WPS, etc. ) Helfgott replied that would be a possibility. Gettle noted the educational activities must conform to some sort of performance measure outcome.

Relative to performance measures, Edwards stated he can control the process but not the outcome – he can lead the horse to water but can’t guar antee the horse will drink. Also, priorities change frequently – one phone call away. How you deal with these priorities and changes over a 3 year period is difficult – but you can control the process. Helfgott was sympathetic with this view, but on a n ational basis he felt the need to justify what inspections and other activities accomplish. Edwards replied SLAs could always ask the people served if their needs are being met. Helfgott noted this is an opening to the discussion and asked for further in put on the guidance. Giguere thanked Helfgott for the effort in redefining, streamlining, and changing the way business is done.11

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

SLAs will be asked to volunteer to work with EPA on the FY2014-16

Grant Guidance Dwinell

9:00 -10:00 A.M. 

## COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

TEMPLATE DEA ZIMMERMAN, OPP; BONNIE RABE



### DISCUSSION Attachment 20 – Draft Grant Template

Zimmerman demonstrated an on -line Microsoft Excel template. She began by recognizing Eliza Farrell, FEAD, and Allen

Dem orest, Region 9, for their effort in developing the template. Zimmerman noted AAPCO’s request to EPA to streamline the grant application, workplan, and reporting processes. A workgroup was formed with OPP, OECA, and Regions to develop a template. Bonnie Rabe later joined the workgroup. Tribes are not currently represented. At this time 7 states

h ave volunteered to beta-test: AZ, IN, ND, NM, VA, WI, and CA. After the spreadsheet demonstration, Zimmerman asked

for additional feedback. She noted the only report currently incorporated is the 5700-33H. Dwinell asked if the spreadsheet is web based , and Zimmerman replied, not yet, but maybe in the future. Dwinell if the grant guidance activities verbiage was negotiable. Zimmerman replied the time to negotiate those activities is during the development of the national grant guidance . Giguere asked if the template captures the workplan activities of what the SLA agrees to. Zimmerman replied yes , and numbers of completed activities will be reported on the template. Scott agreed with the concept - collecting state–to–state, data can be difficult to handle and this should make management quicker and more straight forward.

EPA is actively seeking feedback on glitches to the system. Farrell noted there is an instruction sheet that will go with the Excel spreadsheet. Kachadoorian asked for a copy of t he Endangered Species inspection form. Zimmerman stated it exists as Appendix 11 in the 2011 -2013 grant guidance. Scott stated one of the longer term goals is to eliminate some of the separate reporting forms. Giguere thanked the workgroup for their efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

10:15 -11:00 A.M. 

## EPA HEADQUARTER
EXPECTATIONS OF REGIONS
AND SLA – ROLES, GRANT
NEGOTIATIONS DAVE SCOTT, IN; DANIEL HELFGOTT, OPP; JEANEANNE GETTLE, REGION 4



### DISCUSSION

A general discussion of EPA HQ expectations of SLAs and Regions was opened by Scott. He commented there is an accountability element in the grants, and therefore a need to periodically review our roles. SLA perceptions of the roles of the Regional Office s also need to be included in the discussion. Scott noted from conversations with other SLAs there is an expectation of consistency in how Regions interact with SLAs and an expectation of accountability on both sides of the Cooperative Agreements. While SLAs do not expect a workplan from the Regions as part of the Cooperative Agreement, there is some expectation of “reverse accountability.” The pr ior discussion on feedback to SLAs on Distributor Label Referrals was cited as an example of “reverse account ability.” Scott found unreasonable expectations or lack of clarity on the part of SLA perceptions of the Regional offices was a source of frustration.

Helfgott noted the Regional Offices played more than just a fiduciary role in the grants management – and these support roles are outlined in the National Program Management Guidance. Regions also have a role in their contributions to OPP12

policies, regulations, guidance, and identification of issues an d implementation of risk management. He felt they were an integral part of the “One EPA” approach. He also recognized there is always room for improvement. He thanked Scott for framing the discussion in a constructive manner. The ideal SLA – Regional relationship should be the goal.

Gettle provided her pe rspective of the Regional role. Guidance from HQ is viewed as guidance, not dictation. Regions

have a uniqueness and their own culture, style, and political le adership. EPA Regional and HQ structure was discussed. Gettle spoke with her Regional peers a nd they were all interested in knowing the source of SLA frustrations. She asked for specific feedback. Gettle felt specifics would help change processes. She cautioned that SLAs should not expect each Regional process to look the same – based on different needs.

Giguere identified (from yesterday’s conversations) the lack of a feedback loop as an example of SLA frustrations. He suggested there may need to be a “renewal of vows.” He also cited the ease and closeness of SLA contacts with HQ experts on technical and policy issues – often found lacking in the Regional offices.

Gettle gave the Drift PRN as an example of the importance Regions play in policy development. At a certain point in the process, HQ cannot have a conversation with the SLAs – b ut they can continue to consult the Regions. If the Regions are not in tune with the SLA position on issues, they cannot adequately represent those positions. Giguere asked Helfgott whose responsibility it was to make sure the Regional staff was informed on this matter – was it the SLAs’ mis- step or the Regions. He felt there was clear misrepresentation on the part of the Regions on what the states’ position.

Dwinell noted SLAs have increasingly gone to HQ for technical expertise –due to the maturity of the Pesticide program. Dwinell felt this should be recognized in the grant guidance and the NPM. HQ should not expect the Regions to know everything that is going on in the states. The Regions are often unaware of SLA issues, and Dwinell did not see th is changing. Stangel confirmed that HQ often goes directly to the SLAs – bypassing the Regions. Gettle commented the Project Officers need to be trained again to know what questions to ask in the field. Giguere responded this is one of the specific frus trations – the Project Officer comments in the End-of-Year reports are often very generic and really have no effect on the program. Dwinell added the Regions need to know the SLA positions on policy (e.g., drift). Dwinell asked Gettle how often the Regio ns meet with HQ. Gettle replied the Regional Managers meet with Jim Jones twice each year,

there is a national managers’ meeting twice per year, and there are monthly conference calls with HQ. There also are a series of workgroup meetings. Giguere sugge sted the Regional Managers attend the mid- year SFIREG meeting and sit at the table with their SLA regional representative. Dwinell suggested the possibility of a PREP for Regional Managers and SLAs (to include training on the Grant Template). Scott asked if there was any means of SLAs influencing Regional travel budgets so Project Officers could visit the states more often. Gettle agreed on the need for more visits. Peckham noted the high turnover rate of Project Officers in his Region. He recommended Project Officers time their visits to coincide with events such as Imprelis, bee kills, etc. A discussion of Regional travel budgets and travel limitations followed. Kachadoorian noted most SLA staff have an Ag ricultural or Biological background while EP A staff is often far different.

Helfgott summarized: the technical expertise of Regions needs to improve; communications between HQ and the states, need to include the Regions; and, there should be more frequent travel by Regional staff to the states to improve knowledge of their programs. Dwinell will have this subject on the June SFIREG agenda. Giguere asked how POM could advance the issue, and Helfgott replied , outlining of specific problems and solutions. Scott asked the follow- up discussion

to incl ude:

1. Regional travel funding for visits to the states.

2. Coordination of SLAs and NPMs on issues.

3. Feedback on referrals to Regions for enforcement cases (Rowe asked for Regions to explain to SLAs how cases are ranked, and to report on the size of their case backlog).

4. Cooperative agreement negotiations.

Stayton noted a similar exercise in accountability 10

- 15 years ago under Marcia Mulkey, former Director at OPP. He asked if there were reports completed and if so, their relevance to the current discussion. Rowe stated Kevin Keaney also did a similar review of the Certification & Training program. Giguere did not ask for any formal review, only what to expect from the Regions. Scott added the SLA and Region goals are the same. John Ward, EPA retired, recommended keeping good notes on the subject and record ing them. There were suggestions at one time for HQ handling the grants and cutting the Regions out. The questions were similar and basically asked for the value-added contributions of Regions.

CONCLUSI ONS

SLAs are going directly to EPA HQ staff for expertis e. The Regional management role is part of the NPM and goes beyond fiduciary. Project Officer training needs to be addressed. Project Officers need to know State programs to effectively comment on end-of- year reports. Travel budgets limit Regional access and knowledge of SLA activities and issues, however, EPA Regional staff need to increase their

visits to states.

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

Topic will be added to the June SFIREG agenda Dwinell13

Encourage Attendance of Regional Managers at Full SFIREG Gettle

POM letter to Helfgott and Simpson giving specifics of Regional – SLA role and responsibility issues. Regions will be copied. Scott, Dwinell, Giguere

Report back at next POM on any action items Giguere

11:30 - Noon 

## HOT COMPOST ISSUE PAPER
& POLLINATOR PROTECTION
STATEMENTS CARY GIGUERE, VT



### DISCUSSION Attachment 21- WSDA Recommendations – Bee Protection
, Attachment 22 – PPDC
Recommendations

Giguere will circulate the Hot Compost Issue Paper to the POM WC. The IP is focused on label directions that go beyond the applicator’s responsibility. Roelofs is discussing this with the Label Accountability Workgroup. Giguere will send the IP

to Roelofs.

Kachadoorian referred to the Erik Johansen, WSDA, comments on bee protection label statements (Attachment 20). Johansen added a number of protective statements. His recommendations combine the acute toxicity of pesticides with

the ir residual toxicity (as indicated by RT 25 ). An RT 25 greater than 8 hours = a fairly long residual activity. Dw inell asked if the comments had been submitted to EPA. Kachadoorian replied they were submitted in March of 2012 to EPA’s Label

Review Manual team. She also understands the comments were submitted to the PPDC Task Force. Dwinell and Roelofs

noted the re commendations constituted new policy and would need to go through a regulatory review process.

Dwinell asked how imminent an EPA adoption of the PPDC recommendations were. OPP staff did not have an answer.

Rowe found two or three sub -workgroups of the Task Force he would like to be engaged in. He felt SLAs are not well represented in the workgroups. David Flakne mentioned a “Field Watch” model for bee hive protection.

Dwinell will survey SLAs on their bee registries, bee kill investigations, etc. M ardi Klevs, Region 5, asked Dwinell to coordinate the survey with Tom Steeger, Senior Scientist, EFED. Dwinell will try to keep the survey limited to 10 or fewer questions. Giguere asked how to engage with the PPDC sub-workgroups. Helfgott suggested contacting Margie Fehrenbach, EPA, for more information. Rowe asked the SLA survey include a question on which SLAs have bee kill investigation procedures (SOPs) in place. Flakne noted that CropLife America also has a task force on bees and asked Giguere to invite them to the full SFIREG meeting if this is to be discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

ACTION ITEMS

Person responsible Deadline

POM and/or EQI WCs review PPDC recommendations and provide feedback on impact to SLA programs POM & EQI Ongoing

Discuss with AAPCO Board the need for proposed label changes to follow existing processes. Dwinell, Giguere

Draft SLA survey of bee issues. Draft to be reviewed by Tom Steeger, EPA Senior Scientist. Survey sent to states and results compiled. Dwinell



## Meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.