AAPCO: SFIREG Full Committee Meeting

Present were: Tobi Jones, CA, Chair; Jim Leland, VT, Region I; Maureen Serafini, NY, Region II; Mary Ellen Setting, MD, Region III; Dale Dubberly, FL, Region IV; Ed White, IN, Region V; Bobby Simoneaux, LA, Region VI; Paul Andre, MO, Region VII; Clark Burgess, UT, Region VIII; Chuck Moses, NV, Region IX; and George Robinson, ID, Region X. Also present were: Bob Batteese, President, AAPCO; Hershel Morris, LA, representing state pesticide lab directors; SFIREG WC/PO&M Chair Paul Liemandt; SFIREG WC/WQ&PD Chair Paul Andre; Anne Lindsay, Kennan Garvey, Jim Roelofs, Elaine Lyon, and Arty Williams, Field & External Affairs Division (FEAD), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), EPA; Phyllis Flaherty, Office of Compliance (OC), EPA; Don Lott, Region III, representing the EPA Regional Offices (ROs); and visitors. The following topics were covered:

I. Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) on Mandatory vs. Advisory Labeling

Jeff Kempter, Registration Division (RD), reviewed the May 21 draft PRN (see ATTACHMENT B), noting that it went back to the 1996 SFIREG criticism of unclear label language. The main issue is: what are advisory statements? They are definitely non-obligatory, yet EPA has an enforcement obligation, and therefore there is a need to find middle ground. After much work, four EPA offices (Office of Compliance, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, RD, and FEAD) agreed to a position, and the PRN is the result. The heart of the policy is that mandatory statements need to be distinguishable from advisory statements, and should be as clear as possible.

There will be no immediate drastic action, such as a one-time label revision project. Rather the intent is to carry out the PRN’s intent over a long period of time, given the fact that there are some 20,000 labels in the field. Registrants will address the problem when they make label modifications.

Mary McDonnell, ORE, noted that a court case hinging on the word "should" had greatly influenced the PRN. A judge initially ruled that "should" was obligatory; however, the decision was appealed on the grounds that "should" is not a mandatory word. ORE was concerned because an applicator would be, in effect, adding a new use by saying that "should" was not obligatory. EPA finally won on appeal on the grounds that: 1. the applicator was certified and thus should have known better; and 2. the case involved a use pattern, rather than precautionary labeling.

Kempter noted that the draft PRN would have a 60 day comment period, which would be over at the beginning of August. Chuck Moses noted he had trouble with the fact that the word "avoid" did not appear in the PRN. Kempter urged him to flag this in his comments. Ed White praised the PRN as a "generally nice job", but raised the issue of aquatic use of herbicides, citing a label statement "Do not apply directly to water" when aquatic use had been indicated previously on the label. In response to a question as to how long it would take to change all the labels, Kempter cited examples of how labels can be amended via, e.g. reregistration. Don Lott, Region III, said the ROs were "thrilled" to see the PRN coming out. There had been many problems over the years, with little review by OECA. He asked if OECA were actively involved in label reviews. Kempter said RD and OECA were working together in this area. Maureen Serafini raised the issue of mandatory vs. advisory in connection with label statements of ground water leachers. Kempter said this required review on a chemical-by-chemical basis. Paul Liemandt noted that among the members of the National Coalition to Minimize Drift there was considerable difference of opinion regarding expansion of the label to include more advisory language. Is ORE aware of this? McDonnell said it was, and that ORE was not opposed to such additional language. Liemandt noted that he had sent the PRN to WC/PO&M members for comment, and that he would send an e-mail to the WC repeating this request.

II. Quality Management Plans (QMPs)

Jim Roelofs noted the desire of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) for all grantees to have QMPs in place by October 1. The QMP guidance has basically been finished. Four RO Quality Assurance Managers commented during a two week comment period, but only one had essentially substantive comments. The intent is to mail the guidance out by the July 4 weekend. Every lab director needs to see it. Most ROs have said they will not withhold grant funds if QMPs are not in place by Oct. 1. Roelofs urged each SLA to touch base with its RO regarding the latter’s policy on QMPs. He said QAPPs still exist, but are more focused on technical and specialized areas. An EPA work group will draft a new guidance document for the specialized version of the Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs). State officials were involved in the earlier work group, but they were heavy on the lab side, and there is a need now for more program people such as field inspectors.. Roelofs asked for volunteers, noting all work would be by conference call and e-mail. Donnie Dippel, TX, volunteered his staff. Hershel Morris, LA, representing the lab directors, asked that a Region VI representative be appointed to the work group, inasmuch as those states now have approved QAPPs and do not wish to have to revise them extensively.

III. Strategic Planning Process

Maria Sorrell, Resources Planning & Management Staff, OPP, noted that the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) required an updating of each federal agency’s plan every 3 years, thus the first updating would be due in FY2000. There is a need to involve state agencies more in the revised planning. Sorrell cited the importance of the ‘Goal Teams’; interaction with stakeholders is being left to these Teams. She said OPPTS intends to work with a variety of state agencies, including the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), using conference calls, workshops, etc. EPA is encouraging ECOS to reach out to more state agencies. EPA does not envision major changes to the architecture of the goal process, inasmuch as the first reporting cycle has not yet been completed. Also, after the 2000 elections, a new team may want to revise the program. The schedule is open, but EPA is looking for defining mission statements, goals, and objectives by the end of FY’99, with more detailed drafts due by the Spring of 2000. There are a total of 10 goals. Goal 3, which deals with a safe food supply, encompasses a majority of the pesticide regulatory programs. Goal 4, dealing with pollution prevention, contains mostly toxics programs, but there are some pesticide areas including endangered species and IPM. Tobi Jones noted the increasing involvement of AAPCO with ECOS. Mary Ellen Setting noted that states welcome the opportunity for input into EPA strategic objectives. Sorrell is the staff contact for Goal 3 matters; Tom Lafferty for Goal 4. The importance of linkages between the goals was noted, as well as the engagement of other state agencies. Jones noted that the GPRA requirements placed on federal agencies had not as yet filtered down to SLAs. There was further discussion of the interconnectedness of GPRA goals and RO/SLA activities.

IV. Status of Section 24(c) Guidance Issues

Luis Suguiyama, Chief, Fungicide Branch, RD, said he would like to revisit the Guidance since it came out in 1996. The process is working smoothly with few wrinkles. One issue is the maximum number of 24(c)s allowable for a given use. A number needs to be set (Suguiyama said 15 would be appropriate) because some registrants are abusing the process in order to circumvent Section 3 registration requirements. Another issue is that incomplete packages are coming in from SLAs with labels not included, or with, e..g. wrong Re-Entry Intervals (REIs). In some cases, Confidential Statements of Formula (CSFs) are not included. Some tolerance issues have arisen. For example, although import tolerances can be used to support 24(c)s, registrants should support such registrations with domestic data since much of the import tolerance data is from foreign studies. Suguiyama suggested that SLAs first contact the appropriate Product Manager (PM) and inquire if the proposed 24(c) parameters are acceptable to EPA. OPP can rapidly screen the issue and respond to the state. Full packages are essential, with all components included. The SLA must assess the risk and make unreasonable adverse effects determinations. Also, states must ensure that a Special Local Need exists. SLAs must not rely solely on the registrant for the meeting of 24(c) requirements; they must review the packages thoroughly themselves.

Suguiyama said OPP’s intent was to work on the Guidance, stressing the need for complete packages. The more complete they are, the more effective RD can be. George Robinson asked how long an SLA should expect to wait for a response to a question from OPP. Is e-mail or phone the best way to handle inquiries? Re the latter, Suguiyama recommended a phone call or e-mail for simple inquiries because responses to a letter take much longer. However, there is no set answer to the first question; it depends primarily on the seriousness of the issue being raised. For the import tolerance issue, it took 6-8 weeks for OPP to respond because consultation with other EPA offices was involved. However, label issues can generally be addressed quickly. Jim Tompkins, the resident RD expert on 24(c) matters, noted that if the issue were within RD’s control, states should receive an answer within 5 working days. It will take longer if OGC or OC need to be involved. Paul Andre urged some kind of a response to all state requests, if only an acknowledgment that a request has been received. He also noted the political factor, i.e. a state may be forced politically to submit a request for a 24(c) or a Section 18 exemption even though the SLA recognizes the unsuitability of the request. Suguiyama asked that RD be made aware of such a situation so that it can be a partner in the effort. Robinson stressed the need for some response by RD to state inquiries, so that SLAs can tell commodity groups the status of the request. Tompkins urged that any conversations with other OPP offices be referred to in SLA phone calls or e-mail messages.

Robinson raised the ‘risk cup’ issue, noting that SLAs could not be aware of all the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) implications in submitting 24(c)s. Suguiyama said RD did not expect a full FQPA assessment by a state, but rather only a determination if the risk were acceptable on a local basis per se. OPP needs to see if a risk profile has been developed. Kennan Garvey noted that phone calls or e-mail were more effective in the short run; he also said FEAD stood ready to help. In response to a question on the need for submitting a CSF, Suguiyama said this applied to a new product only.

V. Waiver of Liability

Jones summarized the background of this issue, noting it had been presented to the WC/PO&M. Roelofs referred to the 1 page document "24(c) Addendum" (see ATTACHMENT C), which clarifies EPA’s position on the use of language regarding waiver of liability on 24(c) labels. He said it must be absolutely clear on the label that claims to waive liability are claims by the registrant, not statements by EPA. The registrants’ claims are subject to limitations of state law. The Addendum is being added to the Guidance; also the Label Review Manual is being revised accordingly. The revised Manual should be up on the OPP WebSite within a couple of months.

VI. Section 19 Rule Dealing with Container Design and Disposal

Nancy Fitz, FEAD, noted that the Rule, containing standards for non-refillable containers, refillable containers, labeling, and containment facilities, had originally been proposed in 1994. There was nothing new and exciting to report. SLAs have already been informed that a Supplemental Notice (SN) is being issued, reopening the public comment period for 4 specific issues: 1. scope of container standards; 2. an exemption for certain anti-microbial pesticides; 3. adopting some of the Department of Transportation (DOT) packaging standards; and 4. soliciting comments on EPA’s definition of ‘small business’.

Re #1, in the 1994 proposal, standards would apply to all pesticides and all containers; the SN says that container standards would apply if one of the following is satisfied: Toxicity criteria in conjunction with 1.either container capacity; or 2.outdoor products with an environmental hazard statement. Re #2, in the 1994 proposal, standards would apply to all antimicrobial pesticides; the SN the FQPA amendment to FIFRA Section 19. Re #3, the 1994 proposal included a few references to DOT regs. in the refillable container standards, and adopted the ‘drop test’ from the United Nations packaging standards; the SN adopts and refers to the DOT packing group III criteria. Re #4, the 1994 proposal, in its economic analysis, used definitions different from those of the Small Business Administration (SBA); the SN solicits comments on these definitions (EPA essentially has taken the Small Business Administration’s definition of ‘small business’ and broken it down into small-small, medium-small, and large-small).

OPP anticipates publication of the SN during Summer/Fall 1999 with a 60 day comment period. There should be less than 15 Federal Register (FR) pages. The Final Rule will be issued about one year later. Originally the Rule had been broken down into three phases; this Final Rule will complete Phase II. Phase III issues have been dealt with on a non-regulatory basis. In the absence of federal regulations, EPA has collected state and industry containment standards, and has distributed them to interested parties.

Fitz reported that FEAD is preparing a report for EPA, states, and the general public on the Clean Sweep program which will consolidate all the available state information. EPA also issued a call a month ago for RFPs, due in August, for pilot projects to track quantities of specific pesticides collected as a result of state programs. This should be an incremental incentive to collect a little more data. Fitz’ phone number is 703-305-7385.

Phyllis Flaherty gave the background of the Section 19(f)(2) Rule, noting the interim stopgap certification program concerning adequate state enforcement programs. It will probably take a couple of years to develop the final criteria for what will constitute an adequate program, and a work group will be set up with state participation in this effort. There is no hurry, however. Jones here suggested that the November joint meeting of the two SFIREG Working Committees address the development of criteria.

Flaherty reported on the Section 19 Procedural Rule, originally proposed in 1993, which deals with recalls, etc. The work group has almost finished its labors; David Stangel is the responsible official. The changes to the proposed Rule are probably in the ‘black box’, but Flaherty said she could distribute the Rule as originally proposed.

Paul Liemandt noted that MN had been discussing with Fitz’ office possible language to be included on product labels allowing the management of contaminated soils (and other media) via land spreading, as long as this were to be approved as environmentally appropriate. MN believes there is a real opportunity here for problem solving, and Liemandt praised Fitz for her help. Fitz noted that things could be done along the lines suggested by MN to reduce problems originally raised by A.G.Taylor concerning the need for land spreading regulations. Liemandt noted that the issue had been discussed with the registrant community, which agrees with MN’s effort.

VII. PR Notice on Voluntary Resistance Management Labeling; Bt Plant Resistance Management Plans

Sharlene Matten, Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) summarized the draft Jan. 7 PR Notice entitled "Voluntary Pesticide Resistance Management Labeling Proposal Based on Target Site/Mode of Action" (see ATTACHMENT D). This is a joint US/Canada/Mexico project via NAFTA. Matten stressed the need for state and industry input. BPPD is now awaiting industry comments on the draft PR Notice. Some confusion was noted in the mandatory vs. advisory labeling portion of one of the overheads shown by Matten, and she said state concerns over this issue would be included in the final version.

Matten noted that EPA was reevaluating resistance management plans for genetically engineered Bt corn and cotton plant pesticides. The Agency held a workshop on resistance management issues in Chicago on June 18, and is planning another for Memphis in July. EPA has also prepared a position paper (see ATTACHMENT E for a set of materials on this topic). BPPD has set up a new website which Matten encouraged SLAs to use. The Agency’s stress now is on science-based Insect Resistance Management (IRM), and consistency in the approach to resistance management given the large number of registrants to be dealt with. Matten said this issue had been raised at the National Corn Growers’ Association meeting in April (the Cry1A toxin is a big problem on corn). EPA wants to involve as many stakeholders as possible in the effort. Matten noted that compliance was a confusing area; purely voluntary or purely mandatory approaches won’t work. Clarity is needed at the state level, and Matten asked for AAPCO/SFIREG input. She also said people need to understand the terms and conditions of the Section 3 registration process. Jones noted that there was no definition from OGC and OC as yet as to whether grower guides were technically a part of labeling. Matten said grower guides were not just for educational purposes, but were a marketing tool as well. Jones noted that SFIREG would be providing a state person for the Bt cotton workshop scheduled for Memphis in July.

VIII. Internet Distribution of EPA Registered and non-Registered Pesticides

Phyllis Flaherty showed a series of overheads summarizing the situation (see ATTACHMENT F). She stressed that Internet sales were bound to increase as time went by, thus the need for regulatory oversight. Mary McDonnell said ORE was greatly concerned over the new medium. This is a significant national issue upon which EPA/HQ needs to focus. There have been no civil cases brought by EPA as yet dealing with Internet sales of pesticides, but there will be, and ORE is looking for them. McDonnell cited NY action taken against Internet sellers of pesticides, but when she asked if other states had taken action, the response was negative. Ed White suggested building up rapport with postal inspectors in order to obtain "real" addresses of Internet sellers in order to shut down illicit sales. Jones said the time was ripe for EPA to send out an enforcement letter to all stakeholders on Internet sales. Flaherty noted that OECA would repeat on its web site that the Internet is the same as any other medium; the law must be obeyed. She receives many referrals (read: complaints) on Internet sales which she refers either to ORE for action or to SLAs for investigation. She would like states to submit copies of their case law dealing with such sales. Liemandt said an OGC opinion on Internet violations of FIFRA is necessary before most SLAs take legal action; the states are definitely looking to EPA for guidance on this issue. He asked that Flaherty serve as a "clearing house" for Internet sales violations, and she urged that all violations be sent in to her. She noted a distinction here between purely state violations vs. federal law violations; OC is concerned with the latter. OC will explore with FDA how they are dealing with the issue, which is an across-the-board problem for all federal agencies, not just EPA.

IX. Fee-for-Service (FFS)

Peter Caulkins, Associate Director, RD, discussed EPA’s legislative proposal to amend FIFRA in order to establish the FFS concept to expedite RD registration actions. He noted that the current 3.2% rejection rate for data submissions is much better than it has been. Also, the number of cycles (registrant communication followed by EPA response) is down to nine per new chemical. FFS is an effort to bring more resources to the table. The result will be up to 140 more toxicologists available to review studies and more dollars available to hire contractors to deal with variations in submissions. Thus less time will be necessary for approval of registration actions. New import tolerances and new experimental use permits will be included in the FFS scheme. However, anti-microbials will not be included, since the backlog here is very low. A new active ingredient currently requires 3-5 years for EPA to make a decision on registration. With FFS, this should go down to 22 months, according to Caulkins. There will be a significant improvement in services. The price for a new a.i. for a food use will be $790,000. IR-4 petitions will be exempt from fees. Minor uses can be granted a complete or partial fee waiver. If Congress passes the bill, hopefully in 1999, the law will not go into effect immediately; rather there will be a graduated implementation schedule. FFS will ‘sunset’ after 5 years unless it is renewed. EPA has negotiated with the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA) on the issue, and is in the process of negotiating with the Chemical Specialties Manufacturing Association (CSMA).Caulkins noted that companies were already paying for the granting of tolerance petitions; thus there would be little danger of the public perception that registrations were being ‘bought’ (the Bill is designed to avoid this). Companies will be buying registration decisions, not registration; thus there will be no refunds. With some products, e.g. termiticides (but not new uses on food crops), there will be a choice for the registrant to "pay and play" or not. Obviously if he pays, he will get speedier action on his registration. Caulkins said that if registrants were able to obtain 2 additional growing seasons for their products, their costs would be canceled out. Currently in RD there are 500 uses in the backlog; no registration fees will have to be paid for these. Caulkins admitted there might be a problem in the long run of Congress reducing the EPA appropriation to balance out FFS; There might possibly be an across-the-board cut affecting all parts of the program. Caulkins said the major hindrance to faster EPA action on registrations was a lack of adequate resources.

X. Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Update

Jonathan Binder, OC, reviewed the draft policy document "Inspector Credentials Authorization Procedures" (ICAP) (see ATTACHMENT G for a set of these materials). Since this policy will impact current inspectors with federal credentials, OC is seeking comment from as wide a spectrum of interested parties as possible. The document has been sent to all state environmental depts., as well as to depts. of agriculture. It will also be sent to the 564 recognized tribes in the U.S. Deadline for comment is August 20. New national standards are being established, so everyone will have to meet the same training standard in the future. Those with current credentials will be grandfathered in. However, new credentials will have an expiration date for the first time. Binder noted that the core document deals with authorization itself; the 4 attachments deal with post-authorization actions. He then reviewed the issues on which he would like to see comments.

Chuck Moses noted the difficulty for tribes in meeting requirements for training. Could any additional funds could be made available in the enforcement grants for such training? Binder said no additional training funds were currently available. Flaherty suggested SLAs should think about how the document fits what they are doing now, and comment accordingly. It was noted that the requirement for an annual refresher course on health/safety for all inspectors was too expensive and difficult to arrange. Setting said that sending one inspector to a PIRT course each year was all MD could afford. Don Lott noted RO flexibility in providing resources for training; ROs would be looking for an opportunity to relieve the SLAs of some of the burden. Dale Dubberly said that each state in Region IV had agreed to take $50K off its enforcement grant for training, but that the new federal requirements, if implemented, would be very expensive. Flaherty urged the SLAs to comment on the documents, and Jones emphasized the importance of state comments.

In reviewing other inspector related issues, Flaherty noted that a work group would be set up within a month to revise the Inspector Manual, which was last amended in 1991. Mickey Post will be responsible for this effort. New chapters will be added on tribes and other areas. OC will ask for SLA representation on the work group, including both managers and younger inspectors. Flaherty said OC needed to get a handle on what inspector training was being offered by SLAs. Liemandt suggested OC tap into regional training as models for its PIRT courses.

Concerning the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), Flaherty said ORE would be undertaking a labeling initiative whereby it would enforce key labels to be sure WPS statements were in place. She noted Congressional interest in protection of farm worker children. A General Accounting Office (GAO) study is to be completed in October on the WPS; the GAO will be contacting states. It appears that pregnant laborers will be an important area of the study. Liemandt noted that at the national OPPTS meeting, a limit had been agreed to on areas to be covered by the WPS. For example, coverage of pregnancy/fetal issues and of all children would be stretching the Rule’s intent. A new regulation is needed if EPA decides these areas are important. Flaherty noted that what OC was giving to the GAO was its implementation strategy. However, Don Lott said the GAO strategy went beyond the Rule itself. Apparently the intent was to stir up new regulations/legislation if there were sufficient interest. Flaherty noted that a new work group would be established to review questions raised dealing with the WPS. No travel will be involved, only conference calls. Some reviews of state programs will be required.

XI. State and Regional Reports (for copies of all written reports, see ATTACHMENT H)

Region I - see Jim Leland’s report No Issue Papers (IPs)

Region II - see Maureen Serafini’s report "

Region III - see Mary Ellen Setting’s report "

Region IV - see Dale Dubberly’s report One IP

Dubberly stressed the need for guidance on some key label terms, e.g."favorable weather conditions". What does this mean? Arty Williams noted Jim Jones’ commitment to start dealing with such label statements, and Jim Roelofs mentioned that the need for a process to attack this issue was on the RD/FEAD radar screen.

Region V - see Ed White’s report No IPs

Region VI - see Bobby Simoneaux’ report No IPs

Region VII - see Paul Andre’s report No IPs

Region VIII - see Clark Burgess’ report No IPs

Region IX - see Chuck Moses’ report One IP

Region X - see George Robinson’s report No Ips

XII. North American Free Trade Agreement Update; Harmonization Opportunities

Anne Lindsay reported on a meeting in May of USDA and Agrifood Canada officials which dealt to a limited extent with harmonization of pesticide issues. Many of these have been referred to the NAFTA Technical Working Group on Pesticides (see below), including harmonization of data requirements and risk assessment procedures and coordination of priority setting. A joint review of three new a.i.s is being conducted. Canola has been an example of a binational approach/joint planning effort, with identification of critical grower needs. The roles of USDA and Agrifood Canada in helping commodity groups identify priorities and their regulatory implications have been reviewed. A joint study, due in August, is being done on pricing differentials. The focus of the joint effort has been on pesticide issues causing trade irritation. Another "summit" meeting is likely to be held. Meanwhile, there is a joint commitment to do business differently in the future.

Lindsay also noted a public meeting in San Antonio of the NAFTA Technical Working Group, which meets 2x per year. The meetings focus on risk reduction and joint reviews, with 4 different sub-committees working toward harmonization. The joint review process has been rewarding; registrants feel their access to regulatory agencies is now easier. A study is to be done of the implications for other countries of the Section 18 program, which is unique to the U.S. A NAFTA Industry Working Group has been reviewing labels, and its recommendations have been presented. The Group did not recommend harmonization of product labels, which would be easier for homeowner products than for agricultural pesticides, but it did recommend exploring the idea of a North American container label. There is no immediate need for SFIREG’s attention, but there may be a future role for the SLAs to determine if label harmonization is practical from an enforcement standpoint. Lindsay noted that EPA and the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) have already harmonized their views on seed treatment.

Murray Walton, TX Structural Pest Control Board, noted a series of meetings of border states in Regions VI and IX with Mexican officials to explore a wide range of issues. The Mexicans are concerned about preserving their exports of fruits and vegetables to the U.S., and are also interested in the WPS. The U.S. can learn from Mexico in some areas, such as training exchanges and dealer inspections. Mexico needs training in alternatives to chlordane for termite control.

Lindsay said she had attended the Region IV Pre-SFIREG meeting, and noted the need for a nationwide system for looking at state compliance activities, similar to the Compliance Action Tracking System (CATS) now used by Regions III and IV. A national automated and harmonized approach which is manipulable is necessary. The ROs need this as an oversight and mutual accountability tool. EPA should be producing reports itself on compliance activities, rather than letting environmental groups do this, and Lindsay asked SLAs to talk to their ROs regarding the use of a tracking system tool. Kennan Garvey noted that CATS was now on the Internet and downloadable. Liemandt said some ROs were ignoring the issue and not showing leadership. Lindsay said she would like to take up the issue personally and show leadership, but she can’t do it herself and needs SLA help. Lott noted the need for HQ leadership; the ROs are afraid that once they commit themselves to a tracking system, HQ will announce a different system to be used nationally. Jones asked Liemandt to put CATS on the agenda for the WC meetings in Nov.

Later in the meeting, Garvey stressed the usefulness of this type of data base, and urged it be used as a building block. However, Arty Williams noted the need to look at other systems as well as CATS, and Jones suggested that at the next SFIREG meeting various systems be displayed on a television monitor for SLA review.

XIII. Discussion of Issue Papers (see ATTACHMENT A for all Issue Papers)

Chuck Moses reviewed the Region IX IP entitled "Reduction in State Laboratory Resources". Flaherty quoted OC official Jack Neylan as saying that the cycle for EPA funding of state lab equipment has been changed from a 3 year cycle to one of 4 years. Thus lab funding will be increased for each SLA on a 4 year basis. Liemandt noted that a draft IP prepared by a committee of state lab directors went beyond the Region IX IP. Hershel Morris, LA state lab director, said that $40K every 4 years "wouldn’t buy the cables" to hook up a new machine. Machines in the price range of $150K - $200K were needed; they could do 90% of the work, and thus higher priced equipment was not necessary. Liemandt and Morris urged that the two IPs be joined, with the stress on why more funding is needed. Morris mentioned expensive service contracts as being necessary; also, new equipment will not only require considerable training, but will need 6 months for calibration before a single sample can be run. Jones suggested referral of the Region IX IP to the WC/PO&M. Moses and the other SFIREG members agreed.

Dale Dubberly reviewed the Region IV IP entitled "Precautionary Labeling Statement - "Keep Out of Reach of Children". Re Item #1 dealing with "Child Hazard Warning", Flaherty noted that general policy in this area would have to be set by an EPA working group with OGC participation, and this was not a simple matter. Re Item #2 dealing with the definition of a "child" or "children", Flaherty noted that OC was leaning toward the Consumer Product Commission (CPC) definition. Re Item #3 dealing with "Child Resistant Packaging" regulations, Dubberly urged a reasonable approach. The current policy is unclear and needs updating. He then suggested referral of the IP to the WC/PO&M. Liemandt asked for clear direction as to what the WC/POM should do with the IP. Dubberly moved that Items #2 and 3 be given High Priority status. The motion was 2nded. Jones asked Flaherty to report back at the next SFIREG meeting on consistency shown by federal agencies in their definitions of "children", and asked for a definition of "Out of the Reach of Children". The motion then passed unanimously. Flaherty will work with Dubberly on the issue and use the POM as a sounding board.

XIV. Pesticides in Groundwater and Surface Water Databases

Estella Waldman, Environmental Fate & Effects Division (EFED), reported on EPA’s efforts to improve its water databases. The initial compilation had been done in 1988, with an improved database created in 1992. Waldman asked for SLA help in providing data. She is the contact for the Pesticide Ground and Surface Water Data Base (PGSWDB); her phone no. is: 703-305-6893; e-mail address is: waldman.estella@epamail.epa.gov Paul Andre asked Waldman to brief the WC/WQ&PD at its Fall meeting. Jones asked that validated data be included as a field in the data base; Waldman noted that the data base format was still being developed, but that there would be different data fields. EFED hopes to start collecting data this Summer. There is no need for SLAs to reformat their data; it can just be submitted as is.

XV. Food Safety Initiative (FSI)

Bill Jordan, Special Assistant, OPP summarized the history of the FSI. The latest development is a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 1998 report noting the approaches necessary to integrate the food safety system. Among the report’s main points: 1. The food safety system should be based on scientific principles; 2. Federal laws should be phrased in such a way to support this concept, and 2b. There should be a comprehensive food safety plan; 3. Uniform standards for food safety should be established by statute (here Jordan noted that the Clinton Administration does not support a single food safety agency; this is a controversial issue, and up for debate); and 3b. state and local governments play a critical role in this effort. Jordan noted an Executive Order establishing a Council on Food Safety, with USDA and FDA as the leading entities, but EPA, OMB, and Commerce also playing roles. The Council has held a series of public meetings in response to a May 1997 USDA/HHS report stating that a long range strategic planning effort was necessary. The Council is now starting work on a strategic plan, which is due in mid-2000; a "Vision Statement" has been developed. There are plans for stakeholder participation. A Foodborne Outbreak Response & Coordination Group (FORCG) has been started up; its experience will feed into the strategic plan effort. A National Food Safety System has also been set up and will include all the states. All FSI activities are governed by the GPRA, and the construct of goals, objectives, etc. will be translated back into individual agency goals, objectives, etc. The project is still in its early stages. There is a need to examine from a science standpoint where we need to go, and also to look at training programs and the role of state and local governments. What is needed is a comprehensive system from farm to table. A meeting will be held July 15 in Washington for stakeholders to comment on the draft goals and objectives. The web site for the FSI is: www.foodsafety.gov The initial EPA role focused on microbial contamination, but has been expanded to include chemical contamination. EPA is playing a low profile, but involved, role. SFIREG would be helpful in recommending state participants in the FSI and providing views. Jordan said there would probably be a tie-in of FSI with EPA Goal #3 dealing with food safety. However, so far everything is very generic. Jones noted that the crossover with ECOS would be important.

XVI. OPP Update; SFIREG Issues Status Report

Jim Roelofs reported the following: 1. the comment period for the FR Notice on isomeric chemicals has been extended to July 28; 2. a new web site, www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety will go up soon with information on WPS, Certification & Training, etc.; 3. Consumer Reports is expected to release a report on Bt residues in foods in mid-July; 4. A revised set of risk assessments for phosphene stakeholders will be ready in August; 5. As regards the issue of font size on labels, the Consumer Labeling Initiative responsible official will incorporate this issue into the PR Notice this Fall; 6. The Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) needs members on a work group to review issues related to release of information on inerts; July 21 is the deadline (see ATTACHMENT I for a one-page summary). Lindsay urged SLAs to nominate a person for membership on the work group. The issues reviewed will include CSF matters; and 7. The bee labeling meeting is set to take place in Omaha at the AAPCO Annual Meeting August 5.

Roelofs then summarized the SFIREG Issues Status Report (see ATTACHMENT J) Among the more significant issues covered are: 1. Custom Blending: Phyllis Flaherty noted that David Stangel would return to OC from detail in August, and would work on this issue. An OGC opinion is needed as to whether a new rule is necessary. OC will follow up; 2. Lab Support: Liemandt noted the need for consolidation of the four issues listed under this heading; 3. Termiticide Labeling: Roelofs said the planned PR Notice was not intended at this point to address issues beyond baits. However, perhaps the work group could address such issues as less-than-maximum dosage. Liemandt asked that a work group repr. provide an update for the next SFIREG meeting; 4. Availability of Funds for Pesticide Related Emergencies: Roelofs reported the bad news that no contingency funding was possible here beyond that provided by the Urban Initiative. After discussion it was agreed to leave the issue on EPA’s plate for now ( partly because of an incident involving expenditure of Superfund monies to address a case of pesticide contamination that recently took place in MD), but to reduce the priority to LOW; 5. Monitoring of Surface Water: There is need for the Chair of the WC/WQ&PD to select a person to represent the SLAs on a panel; 6. Section 18: The Procedural Rule has now been published, and it includes a request for comments on the AAPCO/NASDA recommendations for additional changes to Section 18 regulations. OPP will decide by Fall whether additional rulemaking will be undertaken; 7. Pass Through Funding for Land Grant Universities (LGUs): This has been dropped as an issue because it is not possible to transfer cooperative agreement grant monies in the manner suggested. However, it was noted that ROs can use discretionary funds to support the types of pesticide education programs conducted at LGUs; and 8. Plant Back Restrictions: the Labeling Team is working on a PR Notice that should be ready for comment in about 9 months.

The meeting adjourned at 12 p.m.