TO: AAPCO Members

FROM:  AAPCO Secretary

SUBJECT: Results of August 6-8, 2000, Annual Meeting in Charleston, WV

Enclosed are the following materials: 1. The Minutes of the Board of Directors’ Meeting held Sunday August 6; 2. A report on the Annual Meeting itself; 3. A report on the States-Industry Forum; 4. A report on the Business Session ; and 5. A set of attachments consisting of summaries of presentations and reports, as well as other materials distributed at the Annual Meeting (see Table of Contents for a complete listing). As you know, we are now posting all reports on AAPCO meetings, including the attachments, on the AAPCO WebSite, and no longer sending out hard copy of any of the materials. Whereas the above listed reports, as well as many of the attachments, will be shortly available on the Website, posting of some of the attachments requires that they be scanned onto the Site, and this procedure will take additional time. Thus, please be patient if the attachment you are looking for does not immediately appear.

Please notify the following persons that the above materials are available on the AAPCO WebSite: 1. your State Pesticide Coordinator or his/her equivalent; 2. the appropriate state pest control regulatory official; and 3. your state pesticide lab director.

For future planning purposes, the 2001 Spring Meeting of AAPCO will be held Sunday March 11 through Wednesday March 14 at the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, VA. More information on this meeting will be provided in January 2001. The next Annual Meeting of AACO will be in Scottsdale AZ the week of August 5-10, with the AAPCO portion of the meeting coming on Wednesday August 8 through Friday August 10.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please call me at 802-472-6956, or e-mail me at aapco@plainfield.bypass.com

REPORT ON ANNUAL AAPCO MEETING-
CHARLESTON WV - AUGUST 6-8, 2000
Table of Contents

I. Minutes of August 6, 2000, AAPCO Board Meeting 

II. Report on August 7-8 Annual Meeting General Session 

III. Report on States-Industry Forum 

IV. Report on August 8 Business Session 

Attachments

A. Proposed Revision to AAPCO By-Laws

B. Letter from EPA Officials Marcia Mulkey and Mike Stahl to AAPCO President Ned Zuelsdorff

C. ACPA Draft Legislative Proposal "School Health & Safety Act of 2000"

D. Association of Southern Feed, Fertilizer, and Pesticide Control Officials Resolution on E-Commerce

E. Chemical Producers and Distributors Association Document "The Impact of E-Commerce on the Pesticide Industry"

F. EPA Document "Pesticide Field Data Workgroup"

G. AAPCO President Ned Zuelsdorff’s Address

H. Summary of Presentation by Army Corps of Engineers Official Kurt Getsinger

I. Set of Materials on Aquatic Herbicides Distributed by OPP Official Don Stubbs

J. Summary of Power Point Presentation by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc.

K. Summary of Presentation by Dr. James Brady, Novartis, on the Isomer Concept

L. Brochure on West Virginia Agromedicine Program

M. Brochure on Pennsylvania Agromedicine Program

N. A Summary of Tim Creger's Presentation at the States-Industry Forum on Internet Availability of Regulatory Databases

O. Health & Safety Information Service Presentation

P. AAPCO Committee Reports

Q. Updated List of AAPCO Committees with Membership

R. OPP Document "Request for Publications and Fact Sheets"  

MINUTES OF AAPCO BOARD MEETING
Charleston, WV - August 6, 2000

Present: President Ned Zuelsdorff, Past President Bob Batteese, President-elect Grier Stayton, Donnie Dippel, Marvin Lawson, Tobi Jones, Paul Liemandt, Treasurer Mike Fresvik, and Secretary Phil Gray. Also present were: Charley Ingram, NASDA; Jim Roelofs, EPA/OPP/FEAD; and Jack Neylan, EPA/OECA/OC; and several State Lead Agency reprs. The following topics were covered:

Dippel moved, Batteese 2nded approval of the Minutes of the March 5 Board Meeting. The motion was approved unanimously.

Treasurer Mike Fresvik reviewed the pages of his report. He noted that income and expenditures were comparable to the previous year’s report. Stayton moved, Liemandt 2nded approval of the report. The motion passed unanimously.

III. Proposed Revisions to AAPCO By-Laws (see ATTACHMENT A for the amended draft revision)

Liemandt reviewed his draft of the revised Article II, Members, Section 4. Members Not in Good Standing. The Board agreed to deletion of the phrase in the 4^th line ..".attend official AAPCO meetings, or participate in Full SFIREG or SFIREG Working Committees", substitute instead the phrase " ... participate as a Board member, or serve on any AAPCO Committee." Section 4 now reads: "Active members shall be considered to be not in good standing for a failure to pay dues in a timely manner, as prescribed in Article VI of these By-Laws. Members not in good standing will not be permitted to vote on matters before the AAPCO, participate as a Board member, or serve on any AAPCO committtee." Fresvik moved, Batteese 2nded forwarding the revised By-Law to the Spring 2001 AAPCO meeting for consideration by the full membership. The motion passed unanimously.

President Zuelsdorff passed out copies of the EPA August 1 letter signed by Marcia Mulkey and Mike Stahl (see ATTACHMENT B), which responded to AAPCO’s letter of May 10. It was noted that there would be an EPA budget meeting Aug. 29-30 in Atlanta, to which the SLAs might be able to provide input (Carol Kemker, Region IV, said she would check on this). Although Zuelsdorff noted that, because of the impending Presidential election, this was a bad year to go for a big addition to the budget for state programs, the Board nonetheless agreed that Zuelsdorff should draft another letter for President-elect Stayton’s signature to be sent to the next highest level in EPA, i.e. Ass’t Administrators Susan Wayland and Steve Herman (with copies to Lisa Lund, EPA’s Congressional Inter-governmental Relations contact, and to Mike McCabe), reiterating the states’ need for additional federal funding. It was agreed that the supporting documentation for the states’ request should be sent to Regions V and IX, which now have primary responsibility for liaison with EPA/HQ on pesticide program and enforcement matters respectively. Charley Ingram offered his help in the form of a letter from NASDA to EPA supporting the states’ request. He also suggested that individual state reprs. might want to contact members of their own Congressional delegations.

Liemandt noted that the EPA draft document’s title had been changed to "Authorization Criteria for State and Tribal Governments". He said Jonathan Binder, author of the document, was open to its modification, and that it was now in much better shape than it had been in April when the WC/PO&M reviewed it. There were still some issues involving time frames, financial resources, and human resources, particularly with a few states, eg. CA, AZ and NE. However, Liemandt noted that there was now a consistent way of handling credentials, and that the WC was pleased with the modifications made to date. Jack Neylan said the document would be published in the Federal Register, hopefully within a month, with a 60 day comment period. A discussion followed of the training requirements in the document. It was noted that the proposed centralized training centers would not be of help to some states due to the necessity for out of state travel. Liemandt then suggested the Board monitor the publication and ensuing comments, and stressed that the ROs need to kept fully informed. There was agreement on the need to identify specific contacts in the ROs for submission of comments, rather than the WC members who had worked on reviewing the new procedures. The issue was raised of who would pay for medical monitoring, training, and other included components of the initiative.

Charley Ingram noted an amendment submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer to all bills submitted in the Senate dealing with protection of school children. As a result, the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA), acting as part of a coalition of stakeholders, had developed a bill of its own (see ATTACHMENT C for a summary). Zuelsdorff noted that the bill did not cover private schools or day care centers. It was noted that several states had already passed legislation on the subject. Ingram said ACPA had sought NASDA’s input, with the idea of NASDA developing a position on the issue at its Sept. meeting. Thus, NASDA was seeking AAPCO’s input. Dave Scott noted that a meeting was scheduled to be held within 2 weeks of reprs. of the Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO) to discuss the issue. The Board agreed to wait for the results of this meeting. However, if nothing comes out of it, the Board also agreed it would have to decide whether or not to provide input, and, if so, how.

Ingram discussed the issue (which concerns the relabeling and importation from Canada by ND growers of a Zeneca Co. product, to which Zeneca is objecting) noting that the harmonization effort was being increased. It was noted that EPA was not taking any action at present. Zuelsdorff asked if the Board should do anything. Tobi Jones suggested that if the language of a possible amendment to FIFRA dealing with the issue were available, AAPCO should review it. Roelofs noted that the amendment was not in the hopper as yet. The Board agreed that the most that it could do for now was to try to obtain any legislative language being proposed, and then decide whether to make a recommendation.

VIII. Association of Southern Feed, Fertilizer, and Pesticide Control Officials (ASFFPCO)

Resolution on E-Commerce (see ATTACHMENT D)

Ingram noted that the Chemical Producers and Distributors Association (CPDA) had distributed a document entitled "The Impact of e-Commerce on the Pesticide Industry" (see ATTACHMENT E), and asked for AAPCO input on the issue to the stakeholder group set up by CPDA. A meeting of the group is scheduled for Sept. in Washington; is AAPCO willing to participate? Jones suggested SFIREG be the principal contact. Dippel moved, Jones 2nded a motion to identify and fund travel for 1-2 SLA reprs. to attend the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Stayton will discuss the matter with Paul Liemandt, Chair of the SFIREG WC/PO&M.

Zuelsdorff noted that a draft of the Secretary’s performance evaluation had been prepared, and that he and President-elect Stayton would be meeting with the Secretary to discuss it.

Carol Kemker, EPA Region IV, distributed a document entitled "Pesticide Field Data Workgroup" (see ATTACHMENT F), and asked for four state reprs. to serve on the EPA workgroup. There will be 1-2 conference calls and 1 face-to-face meeting in the short run; in the longer run, i.e. 9-12 months, there will be more conference calls. Zuelsdorff asked Liemandt for volunteers from the WC/PO&M, with others not excluded. Kemker asked for the names within the next two weeks. Liemandt will work on this and get back to Kemker.

1. Nominations Committee - It was agreed that Jones and Liemandt would discuss among themselves which one should come first in the listing of AAPCO directors, both having been appointed at the same time (ed note: subsequently Jones and Liemandt agreed that Jones would be recorded as first appointed, Liemandt as second ). Bob Batteese, Chair of the Committee, announced that Steve Rutz, FL, would be the new nominee for membership on the Board.

2. SFIREG Representative to Tribal Pesticide Program Committee (TPPC) - It was agreed that Marvin Lawson, incoming SFIREG Chair, would discuss with the Region VIII, IX, and X reprs. which one of them would supply a repr. to the TPPC.

3. Committee Structure and Chairs - Any Changes Needed? - A suggestion was made to disband the Uniform Data Committee and create a new Electronic Commerce Committee in its place. Stayton moved, Batteese 2nded a motion to this effect. It passed unanimously. The Board agreed that a review of committees would take place at the December Board Meeting.

Fresvik reported that everything was in good order, and that a request for the next year’s funding of the Grant had been submitted to EPA.

After a short discussion, Fresvik moved, Dippel 2nded a motion not to charge such fees for media reprs. for attendance at the Spring Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

XIV. Lab Committee Issues; QAPP Guidelines (see Lazslo Torma’s Lab Committee Report for a more extensive discussion of the issues)

Torma noted improved relations between the lab directors and EPA in a number of areas. He stressed that with the new compounds and degradates coming out, the labs were falling behind, and there was a great need for new resources. Jim Roelofs announced that a draft of the new QAPP guidelines would go out for review shortly. There is a need for the right people in both the SLAs and ROs to see this document and comment on it. A discussion followed on whether the failure of a check sample by a state lab would result in the loss of enforcement grant funds. Jack Neylan said this would not happen automatically, but that there might be problems in the long run if labs failed repeated check samples. Neylan said he would ensure that the results of the check sample analyses were provided to both the state laboratory and regulatory program involved.

Zuelsdorff noted that some of the recent WC meetings had been light on agenda items. He suggested an increase in the size of the WC, while at the same time possibly reducing its number of meetings per year from 3 to 2. There was no objection from the Board, and Zuelsdorff referred the matter to SFIREG Chair Lawson for implementation.

Roelofs noted that his division director, Anne Lindsay, had asked him to raise this topic in light of the SLAs’ unhappiness with the recent chlorpyrifos decision and the process which led to it. Roelofs noted the confidentiality (registrants want such negotiations tightly held) and time constraints involved. He asked if there were any way for SLAs to meet the necessary criteria for participation so that they could become involved in future negotiations. Lawson noted the need for EPA consultation with its state partners prior to the decision; many outside parties knew the essential elements of the decision prior to its announcement, but not the states. Jones noted the need for communication thru AAPCO/SFIREG on impending decisions. A discussion ensued on how to improve EPA top management sensitivity to the need for consultation with states. The Board agreed that for starters EPA should consult with the AAPCO President and the SFIREG Chair, including at their homes if necessary.

The Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

REPORT ON AAPCO ANNUAL MEETING
Charleston, WV - August 7-8, 2000

See ATTACHMENT G for a copy of President Zuelsdorff’s address.

Charley Ingram noted a major new NASDA initiative in preparation for the next Farm Bill. Work is already underway on a policy document dealing with six categories: production, risk management, markets, transport, stewardship, and technology. The recommendations coming out of this initiative must ensure the following: profitability, an economic level playing field, market orientation, flexibility and voluntary incentive based, use of sound science, emphasis on the role of states and state programs, and delivery through partnership and pilot programs. There are currently six NASDA committees working on the policy document. Committee working documents will be sent this month to all NASDA affiliates. The Commissioners intend, at the Sept. meeting, to fully flesh out the recommendations. By the Spring of 2001, the intent is to have a set of final recommendations for Congress and the White House. The Commissioners are seeking input from all willing participants.

NASDA is leading a group of stakeholders pushing for Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) amendment. The so-called Pombo Bill, HR 1592, would require EPA to publish guidelines, to use sound science, to streamline the Section 18 process, to analyze impact of regulatory decisions on international trade; the Bill would also establish the current EPA/USDA committee on FQPA implementation as a permanent body. The Pombo Bill currently has 235 co-sponsors in the House who are pushing for hearings (Ingram said the Commerce Committee has primary jurisdiction, but it is reluctant to hold hearings due to the impending election). The House Agriculture Committee intends to mark the Bill up Sept. 7. NASDA assumes the Bill will be taken to a vote on the floor before the House adjourns (Cong. Pombo intends to bring the Bill to the floor bypassing the Commerce Committee if necessary). Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate, but there has been no additional action there.

Ingram reported that NASDA was also involved in the Theoretical Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) issue. The TMDL Rule, recently promulgated by EPA, is controversial in Congress. NASDA’s position is that EPA has no authority to regulate non-point source pollution under the Clean Water Act. EPA Administrator Browner ignored Congressional wishes in signing the final Rule, an action which has angered legislators. However, spending restrictions are still in effect, and the Rule cannot currently be implemented until the funding restrictions expire in the Fall of 2001. Legislation has been introduced in both houses of Congress; one House Bill would require EPA studies and provide new funding for states to develop non-point source programs. It is currently difficult to predict the outcome of this legislation. In other actions, NASDA is watching the progress of various appropriations bills, including the agriculture appropriation, closely. These bills must be dealt with before Congress adjourns. Ingram also noted that NASDA had not as yet developed a policy to deal with e-commerce issues; however, this has been identified as one of the issues NASDA will address in the policy recommendations.

(For a 15 page set of materials on the chlorpyrifos decision and on IPM in Schools, please call Phil Gray at 802-472-6956; e-mail address is: aapco@plainfield.bypass.com)

Robert McCarty, MS, gave the update in the absence of ASPCRO President Jim Haskins. McCarty discussed the EPA chlorpyrifos decision extensively, noting that state regulators and Pest Control Operators (PCOs) were in a dilemma as a result of the decision. He said EPA had ignored PR Notice 96-7 policy in canceling chlorpyrifos uses. First of all, states learned of the decision via the media, and state regulators began getting phone calls before they were aware of the decision. Nothing in writing had been made available to regulators, as a result of which the states were put at a real disadvantage. McCarty castigated the lack of partnership spirit shown by EPA which he said had happened repeatedly over the years. He also noted the problem faced by PCOs with the chlorpyrifos decision because the maximum rate allowed (0.5%) is below any known efficacious rate supported by data; ASPCRO sees this as a real problem.

McCarty discussed the issue of IPM in Schools, noting an ASPCRO committee chaired by John McCauley, KY, had been set up to develop guidance. No formal meetings had been held as yet, but a meeting of the committee is scheduled for Aug. 26 in Little Rock AR, with another meeting to be held in Las Vegas in Oct. The model guidance should be ready for SLAs by the end of 2000. Various state legislative efforts in this area were noted, as was the need for coordinating on the guidance with AAPCO, and the need for contacting extension personnel on the issue.

McCarty noted that other current ASPCRO activities deal with: liquid soils residues sampling procedures; model rules for termite baiting; minimum standards for termite control; standards for becoming a registered technician; and establishment of a committee on wood treatments.

Kurt Getsinger, USA Corps of Engineers, discussed the aquatic plant control research program in FL (for a summary of his presentation, see ATTACHMENT H).

Paul Liemandt, MN, noted the need for SLAs to work with other state agencies on aquatic herbicide issues. He cited the reasons why use of such herbicides was necessary, but also ran thru a list of problems with them in the areas of monitoring and enforcement, registration, and e-commerce. There are also seasonal issues, cultural issues, agricultural issues, public vs. private waters issues, and such practical issues as: How much herbicide do we want in waters used for recreation and drinking?

David Villarreal, TX Dept. of Agric., discussed aquatic herbicides from the standpoint of being on the front line in terms of public response to use of herbicides to control, e.g. hydrilla, in TX lakes. He noted greater problems for the future control of hydrilla because of a political decision to use mechanical means rather than chemicals. Some fishermen actually wanted the hydrilla left alone because it improved the fishing, and there were multiple chemical sensitivity issues as well. Other problems involved the use of imazopyr to control salt cedar in West TX. Villareal noted problems with definitions of such terms as "treated area" and with distances. Time interval restrictions were also a problem. There are public concerns not only with toxicity, but with endangered species as well. The TX legislature has mandated the development of guidelines for use of aquatic herbicides in TX, but has appropriated no monies for studies to support future recommendations. Meanwhile, the problem of aquatic plants is getting worse in TX.

Don Stubbs, Chief, Herbicide Branch, OPP, noted the large number of stumbling blocks, many unique to aquatic herbicides, to registration of these pesticides (see ATTACHMENT I for a set of materials distributed by Stubbs). Stubbs mentioned the many limitations on aquatic herbicide labeling. Frequently, one ends up with restrictions which are not enforceable. The last such herbicide registered by EPA was in 1986! Hopefully additional aquatics will be registered in the next several years (Experimental Use Permits for two new aquatic herbicides are coming on in the next five years). Stubbs proposed the establishment of a new committee to act on behalf of AAPCO as a resource for EPA and aquatic herbicide registrants on labeling issues (see MOU PROPOSAL as a part of ATTACHMENT I). Dave Scott compared this suggestion with the failure of EPA to implement the termiticide PRNotice properly, and urged that the committee, if established, be used by EPA; otherwise it was not worth the effort. Stubbs asked for SLA help; the states could at least help to clean up the labels. Jones noted the need for OPP cooperation with the various Office of Water offices in EPA, and urged the Agency to work to overcome the statutory conflicts between FIFRA and CWA/SDWA (Stubbs said he would take this under advisement). Jones also noted problems with anti-fouling paints in water. In concluding, Stubbs admitted the need for OPP to better explain what it is doing and why in the aquatic herbicide area.

V. Report on Issues from Laboratory Directors

Lazslo Torma noted the establishment of a Steering Committee for EPA technical support composed of Bill Cusick, CA; John Jawarski, VT; Steve Sobek, WI; and Torma himself. The new SFIREG Lab Repr. is Chris Mason, NV. The current AAPCO Check Sample coordinator, Ralph Denning, NC, is giving this job up in December. The new recommended coordinator is Dr. Victoria Goodwin, IN State Chemist Office. Torma showed overheads on a number of topics including the AAPCO Lab Committee, Communications, Analytical Methods, QA/QC, Training, Check Samples, and Lab Funding (see Torma’s Lab Committee report for more details).

Jack Neylan, Agriculture Branch Chief, Office of Compliance, covered the following topics: Worker Protection Standard - a work group headed by Donald Baumgartner, Region V, has been set up in order to develop a better definition of a WPS inspection. It is hoped a draft will be ready soon for SLA review. The question of: should there be a minimum level of WPS inspections needs to be tailored to individual state situations. Another question is: how to better collect data on WPS inspections. The currently used computer system is not good for this purpose. Something like the Region IV CATS program is needed. Another issue is the WPS program review: what changes are needed in the requirements and in the program in general. This will be a comprehensive review; possibly 8 out of the 10 Regions will be covered. Protocols for this review still need to be developed, and Neylan was unsure when the review would begin, but probably not before FY 2001.

Grants - Guidance for FY 2001 was sent to the ROs in July. In the future, joint guidance with OPP will be developed, as it had been years ago. Beginning with the cycle FY 2002 - 2003, there will be a joint work group for this purpose. Appendices associated with the guidance are being updated. SLAs will be asked for their ideas on program priorities for the years ahead.

Manual for Federal Inspectors - A second draft came out the previous week for review by the work group. After comments are received, the draft will go to a wider group for review.

Inspector Credentials - Neylan believes OC has been responsive to work group comments, and he gave credit to state officials Creger, Preddy, and Davis for their help. By September, SLAs can expect to see another draft for their review.

Electronic Commerce - OC has a number of concerns here. It will be working on some kind of guidance to put out to cover books and record keeping in e-commerce.

Compliance Assistance Center - Neylan suggested the states tap into this website at least once a week to see what is going on.

Carl Eichenwald, Pesticide Branch Chief in the Office of Regulatory Enforcement (ORE) noted that EPA had responded to Zeneca on the Achieve 80 issue. He said from ORE’s standpoint, the practice of ND growers in relabeling Achieve 80 against the wishes of Zeneca was wrong. He also noted that Zeneca had never submitted final printed labeling for Achieve 40, which appeared to be a paper registration only. The EPA letter to Zeneca is now available, and will be sent out Liemandt for distribution to SLAs.

Jim Roelofs covered the following topics: PR Notices - 1. the comment period on the disposal label language PRN closed Aug. 14; 2. OPP is considering a revision to the PRN on first aid statements due to the comments received; 3. the PRN on bee labeling is still on Roelofs’ desk. OMB will have a chance to review it, probably in Sept; 4. Jay Ellenberger is scheduled to brief OPP Director Marcia Mulkey in a couple of weeks on the spray drift labeling PRN. Hopefully it will be published for comment by the end of Sept. On other topics, a new label review manual is being developed (the previous edition dates back to 1996). This is intended for use by EPA staff, but will be useful to SLAs. A Quality Assurance Plan Project draft guidance document has been produced by a work group and will be distributed for comment to the widest possible audience including lab, program, and RO Quality Management officials. Roelofs reported on the following schedule of meetings: 1. a Consumer Labeling Initiative stakeholders’ meeting Sept. 21-22 in Alexandria, VA; 2. another national WPS meeting in December following the full SFIREG Meeting Dec. 4-5; 3. a meeting of the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT, the successor to TRAC) in mid-October; 4. a meeting of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) Aug. 17-18 to review the malathion carcinogenicity issue; and 5. the ASPCRO meeting in Little Rock Aug 26-27, to be attended by Marcia Mulkey because of the chlorpyrifos issue. Here, Roelofs admitted EPA would have been better off if it had sought SLA input on the decision. He assured the states, however, that the Agency was not backing off from PR Notice 96-7. Von McCaskill noted the erosion of the federal state partnership inherent in the way the chlorpyrifos decision was reached. SLAs are not just stakeholders, but co-regulators. The precedent had been set earlier for state participation in so-called ‘black box’ decisions with EPA, and SLAs must be involved in such future negotiations. It is counterproductive for states to be excluded from the discussions when they will be expected to enforce the results.

Roelofs noted that the Pesticide Management Plan (PMP) Rule had been identified by Administrator Browner as the one item she wished to see finished up on her watch. A preliminary briefing with OMB has been held, and it went well, thanks in part to the SLAs through whom OPP was able to develop real world estimates of cost which it provided to OMB. EPA expects the Rule to go to OMB for final review in Sept. Marvin Lawson here noted the need for a shorter lag time in completion of EPA projects, eg. WPS, PMP Rule, etc.

Paul Liemandt noted the training needs for implementation of the EPA policy now entitled "Authorization Criteria for State and Tribal Governments". Training requirements are tied in closely with this initiative in three areas: basic inspector training, FIFRA oriented training, and health & safety training. Approval of such training must allow for flexibility from state to state, and the language in the EPA initiative now does this. Training will be available in a CD-ROM format. Liemandt noted that AAPSE was creating a series of regional safety education centers with $180K from an NC trust fund. This concept may be a good fit with the health & safety training required under the EPA initiative. Liemandt urged SLA to review the initiative, keeping in mind the training implications. Comments should be sent to Jonathan Binder, OC, with copies to the ROs. Tim Creger noted that Binder hoped to have the EPA document out within two weeks for 60 day comment, and there is pressure on him to have the initiative finalized by the end of 2000. Finally, Liemandt suggested establishment of an AAPCO standing committee on training.

Grier Stayton noted the flat EPA funding for states over the past five years of FIFRA oriented programs. He thanked the 32 states which had responded to the recent survey, complete results of which are now available. Stayton said federal funding on average was only $526,208 per state, whereas the average state expenditure on FIFRA programs was $3,677,960. Thus, the federal contribution was only 14% of the total. He noted a recent AAPCO/SFIREG meeting with Marcia Mulkey and Mike Stahl, who suggested a new AAPCO/SFIREG letter to the next highest level, i.e. Ass’t Admins. Wayland and Herman, with a copy to Lisa Lund, the EPA Congressional contact on intergovernmental relations. Stayton referred to an EPA budget meeting in Atlanta at the end of August to which SLA reprs. have been invited. He stressed the urgent need for new federal funding for state programs; it comes down to what kind of quality programs are needed (and will be expected by EPA) in the future.

Marvin Lawson discussed the lab funding needs, noting the more expensive equipment required for analysis of the new compounds. The latest survey here showed a need for $25M additional federal funding per year for state labs if one included not only the cost of new equipment, but also the maintenance and training costs as well. Lawson noted the difficulty of obtaining new funds in a presidential election year, but it was important, nonetheless, to keep the issue on the table. For the first time, SLAs have produced real data on costs, and EPA respects this. The total amount seems large, but in relation to other environmental programs in the areas of air and water protection, it is not. Lawson said NASDA would send its own letter to EPA in support of AAPCO’s efforts.

Bud Paulson, who has been contracted with by AACO to set up the 2001 annual meetings, noted the meetings were scheduled for the Radisson Resort and Spa in Scottsdale, AZ. The Pesticide meeting will take place Thurs - Fri. August 9-10. One of the questions which arose was whether this meeting should be for one and one-half days, or for the full two days. Stayton will discuss this with Lawson, who is the incoming Chair of the Summer Meeting Committee.

STATES - INDUSTRY FORUM
Charleston WV - August 7, 2000

James A. Craig gave the presentation in the form of a Power Point slide series (see ATTACHMENT J). Craig claimed that CDMS had the most complete set of agric. chemicals and regulatory information data bases now available. The CDMS web page is: www.cdms.net

Dr. James Brady, Novartis, gave the presentation (see ATTACHMENT K for a set of Brady’s overheads), focusing on the Novartis compounds mefenoxam/metalaxyl and S-metolachlor/metolachlor.

Scottie Ford discussed the WV program (for a brochure, see ATTACHMENT L). She urged other states to join The North American Agromedicine Consortium (see the brochure for details). John Tacelosky then reviewed the PA program (for a brochure, see ATTACHMENT M).

Tim Creger summarized the various data bases available on the Internet. Searches are available for pesticide databases, pesticide registrations, licensed dealers, and certified pesticide applicators. The availability of such databases is being publicized by the NE Dept. of Agric. through news clips, radio spots, etc. Creger said he hoped the databases would help people looking for home/garden products to save time and effort in stores.  (See ATTACHMENT N for a summary of Tim Creger's Presentation at the States-Industry Forum on "Internet Availability of Regulatory Databases".)

Peter Tutini and Brian Donnelly, representing the Health & Safety Information Service (HSIS), gave the presentation (see ATTACHMENT O for a summary in Power Point format). HSIS is a joint venture between the Dept. of Commerce’s National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and Compliance One, a private company. Its web site is: http://hsis.fedworld.gov

NAAPL is a national data base of agric. products, buyers, and sellers. HSIS would like to obtain state data for NAAPL on a frequent basis, eventually on a daily basis, if possible. Tutini reported that 10-12 states had indicated they would provide data to NAAPL.

AAPCO BUSINESS SESSION
Charleston, WV - August 8, 2000

The Session was called to order by President Ned Zuelsdorff. The following committee reports were presented (committee reports submitted in writing are included as ATTACHMENT P; the latest list of AAPCO committees, together with membership, is included as ATTACHMENT Q).

1. AAPSE Liaison - Gina Davis, MI, reported that USDA was currently interviewing to fill John Impson’s position. A decision is due in October. Meanwhile, there will be no increase next FY in Pesticide Applicator Training funding.

2. ASPCRO Liaison - no report

3. Bulk Pesticides - no report

4. Check Sample - see Ralph Denning’s report

5. Laboratory - see Lazslo Torma’s report

6. Life Membership and Memorials - see Bobby Simoneaux’ repo rt. The Members voted to confer Life Membership on Janet Bessey-Paulson, and to Memorialize John Dreves, MI, and John Smith, NC.

7. Food Quality Protection Act/Minor Use - No report

8. NASDA Liaison - President Zuelsdorff noted that he had attended the NASDA Mid-Winter Meeting.

9. NPIRS - No report

10. Off-Target Movement of Pesticides - no report

11. Publications - No report

12. Section 18 Task Force - No report

13. SFIREG - See retiring Chair Tobi Jones’ report

14. States-Industry Forum - See Mary Ellen Setting’s report< /p>

15. Spring Meeting Program - No report

16. Summer Meeting Program - No report

17. Uniform Data Systems - No report; at its August 6 meeting, the Board voted to disband this committee and replace it with a new committee dealing with E-Commerce.

18. Worker Protection Standard - See Charles Armstrong’s rep ort

19. Nominations - See Chair Bob Batteese’s report. Setting m oved, Creger 2nded a motion to accept the new slate of officers as recommended. The motion passed unanimously. Zuelsdorff then passed the baton to the new President, Grier Stayton, who asked for more communication on issues with states via e-mail.