Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0252-0020
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-10-24T04:00Z

Final
October
22,
2003
Page
1
of
2
Minutes
Registration
Review
Workgroup
Pesticide
Program
Dialogue
Committee
September
24
Teleconference
Participants
EPA:
Jay
Ellenberger,
Richard
Dumas,
Michael
Nieves,
and
Teresa
Downs,
and
Vivian
Prunier
Workgroup
Members:
Carolyn
Brickey,
Sue
Crescenzi,
Larry
Elworth,
Wally
Ewart,
Ted
Head,
Therese
Murtagh,
Steve
Rutz,
Troy
Seidel,
Julie
Spagnoli,
Roberta
Spitko,
Janine
Rynczak
(
substituting
for
Warren
Stickle),
Ray
McAllister,
and
Aaron
Colangelo
(
substituting
for
Erik
Olson)

Public
attendees:
?
Myer
(
substituting
for
Adrian
Blansky
(
sp?)),
Beth
Carroll
(
Syngenta)

Minutes
of
August
11
Teleconference.
The
draft
minutes
were
amended
to
add
Roberta
Spitko
to
the
list
of
participants.

Registration
Review
Process
Flow
Chart.
Workgroup
members
discussed
a
flowchart
prepared
by
Cindy
Baker
and
distributed
to
workgroup
members.
Questions
raised
by
workgroup
members
included:
1)
what
action
initiates
the
process?
2)
when
do
stakeholders
provide
use
and
usage
information?
and
3)
the
"
yes"
arrow
is
missing
from
the
"
is
the
revised
assessment
acceptable?"
decision
box
 
where
should
this
arrow
go?

The
participants
agreed
that
the
Agency
should
receive
use
and
usage
information
from
stakeholders
at
the
start
of
the
process.
However,
stakeholders,
particularly
USDA,
needed
lead
time
to
assemble
and
prepare
this
information.
Therese
Murtagh,
Larry
Elworth,
Ray
McAllister,
and
Roberta
Spitko
agreed
to
draft
a
strategy
for
gathering
and
submitting
stakeholder
data
at
the
beginning
of
the
registration
review
process.
This
strategy
would
consider
when
schedules
should
be
announced
and
how
much
lead
time
should
be
provided.

Stakeholder
Involvement.
The
participants
agreed
that
all
stakeholders
 
including
public
interest
groups
 
should
have
the
opportunity
to
submit
information
at
the
beginning
of
the
registration
review
process.
Stakeholders
should
be
able
to
comment
on
an
Agency
decision
whether
an
existing
risk
assessment
is
still
current
and
on
proposed
risk
mitigation
measures.
The
participants
suggested
adopting
a
public
participation
process
similar
to
the
one
used
currently
in
the
reregistration
and
tolerance
reassessment
programs.

Managing
the
Registration
Review
of
Inert
Ingredients.
The
participants
agreed
that
since
a
Final
October
22,
2003
Page
2
of
2
pesticide's
registration
included
inert
as
well
as
active
ingredients,
a
consideration
of
the
risk
posed
by
inert
ingredients
must
be
included
in
the
review
of
a
pesticide's
registration.
At
issue
is
how
to
design
and
manage
this
review.
It
was
generally
agreed
that
looking
at
inert
ingredients
on
a
product
by
product
basis
was
inefficient.
Several
possible
approaches
were
suggested,
but
none
were
discussed
in
depth.
Jay
asked
the
Workgroup
to
consider
whether
they
wanted
to
consider
recommending
to
the
PPDC
that
the
Agency
develop
a
process
for
the
review
of
inert
ingredients
during
registration
review
and
asked
members
to
send
their
recommendations
for
an
approach
to
inert
ingredients
to
him
and
Betty
and
the
other
members
of
the
Workgroup.

Presenting
the
Workgroup's
Recommendations
at
the
October
29
PPDC
Meeting.
Jay
announced
that
the
Workgroup's
presentation
on
Registration
Review
was
the
first
item
on
the
agenda
of
the
PPDC
meeting
on
October
29
and
30
and
that
1.5
hours
was
scheduled
for
it.
Jim
Jones
and
Anne
Lindsay
expect
the
Workgroup
to
select
a
panel
of
three
or
four
people
to
present
the
workgroup's
findings.
The
presentation
should
include:
the
Workgroup's
charter
and
membership,
the
issues
that
the
Workgroup
identified
and
the
recommendations
on
each,
and
any
other
issues
that
the
Workgroup
wants
to
present
to
the
PPDC.

To
prepare
this
presentation,
Jay
suggested
a
face­
to­
face
meeting
in
mid­
October.
Teleconferencing
would
be
available
for
those
unable
to
attend
in
person.
October
16
had
been
the
date
originally
selected
for
this
meeting.
After
the
September
24
teleconference,
Jay
and
Betty
learned
that
neither
of
them
will
be
available
on
October
16.
A
new
date
and
place
for
this
meeting
will
be
set.

A
final
meeting
of
the
Workgroup
is
scheduled
for
October
28.
It
may
be
used
to
complete
preparation
of
the
Workgroup's
panel
presentation
to
the
PPDC
on
October
29.
A
FR
notice,
in
addition
to
e­
mail
notification
from
Betty's
or
Jay's
staff,
will
announce
the
dates
and
locations
of
the
October
Workgroup
meetings
which
will
be
open
to
the
public.