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 TAKER 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; Patrick 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, EPA, 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 priorities, 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 8:07 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. Seven (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., 3rd party liability statements). Giguere 

stated there are also many boiler plate statements 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 labels. 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 State 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 7th. 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 emphasis 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 after 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 experience 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 mosquito 
3 

repellants. Kyprianou stated the guidance would be available and 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. Without 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. Quakenbush 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 noted 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 LABEL 

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 applicators in NC were doing well 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 compliance 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 staffing 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 1st Responder outreach; 

the SCBA requirements; and EPA’s review of the Registrant Training Program for Phase 2 labeling. In regards to 1st

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 distributed 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 to 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 asked 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 replied 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 – Watson 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 registrant 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 replied each SLA would be asked how many codes they might need – with hopes 

the 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 confused 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 for 
5 

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 1st and 2nd 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 CONTROL 

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 there 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 the 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 hospitals, 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 29th, 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 2nd and 3rd 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. 

CONCLUSIONS
6 

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, OR 

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 and 

with the statement it superseded all other Pristine labels. Palisade also had a supplemental label which made the same 

statement and also included an increased REI (among other things). These statements 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 be 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 Protective 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 examples 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 titute 
7 

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 Label 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 from 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. Giguere 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 non-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 should 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 stated 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 address 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, OECA, 

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 the 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 coordinating 
9 

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. Dwinell 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 inspection 

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 Regions 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. There 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 quarterly basis. Lott stated the mechanism is in place for routine 

updates. Gettle asked Lott to survey the Regions on what they 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. Lott 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 are 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 discussed 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. Dwinell 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 ITEMS
10 

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 developing 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 programs 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 grant, 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 considerable Federal involvement. Grants do not have substantial Federal involvement. Scott understands 

that philosophically SLAs operate under cooperative agreements versus grants but the terms are often used 

interchangeably. Gettle stated that STAG funds are 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 their experienced staff. Also, more frequent discussions 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 priorities. 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 there 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 measures. 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 funding for a certain role (e.g., education) versus a 

“program activity” (e.g., Water Quality, WPS)? (The 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 guarantee 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 national 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 input 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 

Demorest, 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 

have 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 the 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 Offices 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 prior discussion on feedback to SLAs on Distributor Label 

Referrals was cited as an example of “reverse accountability.” 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 OPP 
12 

policies, regulations, guidance, and identification of issues and 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 perspective of the Regional role. Guidance from HQ is viewed as guidance, not dictation. Regions 

have a uniqueness and their own culture, style, and political leadership. EPA Regional and HQ structure was discussed. 

Gettle spoke with her Regional peers and 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 – but 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 frustrations – 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 Regions 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 suggested 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 Agricultural or Biological background while EPA 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 include: 

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 recording 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. 

CONCLUSIONS

SLAs are going directly to EPA HQ staff for expertise. 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 Dwinell
13 

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 

their residual toxicity (as indicated by RT25). An RT25 greater than 8 hours = a fairly long residual activity. Dwinell 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 recommendations 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. Mardi 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.