SFIREG WC/Pesticide Operations & Management
April 3-4, 2006 Minutes

Members Present: George Robinson, ID, Chair; Jim Gray, ND; Lebelle Hicks, ME; Bobby Simoneaux, LA; Mary Ellen Setting, MD; Liza Fleeson, VA; Chris Mason, NV; Tim Creger, NE; Samuel Jackling, NY; and Steve Foss, WA. Member Absent: Dave Scott, IN. Others Present: Sharron Stewart, NC, Chair, Full SFIREG; Jack Peterson, AZ, President, AAPCO; Jim Roelofs, Field & External Affairs Division (FEAD), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), EPA; Jack Neylan, Office of Compliance (OC), EPA; and visitors. The following topics were reviewed:

I. Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) Worker Safety Sub-Group Update

Mary Ellen Setting presented a summary of EPA regulatory proposals involving enhancements to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) and to the Certification & Training regulations which had been discussed at the recent PPDC Worker Safety Sub-Group meeting. (there are 3 SLA reprs on the Sub-Group: Setting, Chuck Andrews (CA), and Gina Davis (MI), as well as 3 AAPSE reprs). Many of the proposals relating to the latter had come from the Certification & Training Advisory Group (CTAG). Setting showed slides taken from Kevin Keaney’s PowerPoint presentation to the March AAPCO meeting (see ATTACHMENT J to the report on the March meeting for Keaney’s presentation). Setting said EPA had asked the Sub-Group whether or not these were important proposals to pursue, and thus she was posing the same question to members of the WC/PO&M (Jack Neylan said funding issues would not be considered for now). Setting noted the EPA schedule of August 2007 for publication of a proposed Rule, which will cover both the WPS and C&T; this may be too optimistic. Setting has not seen comments from other Sub-Group members, but the comments are supposed to have been submitted to Keaney by March 15. One important idea here is to bring EPA regs. into sync with state regs, so that a national standard may be produced. Setting expressed the need for reciprocity among states in emergency situations. George Robinson agreed on the need to decrease variations among state rules and in reciprocity, but said it would take at least two years to accomplish this (Setting noted it might not be possible universally among states). There is need for a detailed analysis of what the states currently have in the way of regulations.

Among the specific issues discussed by POM in the C&T area were the following: 1. Evaluation of Ongoing Competency - Setting said EPA felt the need to make changes in this area, basically expanding user requirements to demonstrate competency. EPA is trying to decide which requirements to pursue and which to let go. Who should be brought under C&T, e.g. janitors who apply pesticides in schools? What workers are at risk? State input is needed here. Setting asked if EPA should pursue requiring certification of private applicators for general use pesticides (GUPs); no state does this now. Lebelle Hicks noted that the number of restricted use products (RUPs) for Private Applicators (PAs) has been reduced; shouldn’t PAs require certification if they are working with pesticides on food products? In ME, there is no reporting on GUPs; thus it is difficult to get risk estimates. Sharron Stewart noted there were issues in NC with workers being in the fields when both RUPs and GUPs were being applied. The basic Q. is: do the states want to see EPA regulate GUPs. Jim Gray noted that all applicators making commercial applications, whether RUPs or GUPs, have to be certified for commercial use in ND. Tim Creger said it was different in NE, where there is more of a distinction between RUPs and GUPs. Gray asked if SLAs want users of hard surface disinfectants regulated; he noted the distinction in states requiring licensing as well as certification. Setting asked if there were any reason why EPA should not expand its coverage to be more in sync with the states. Creger said there was a need to define what all occupational users means; in NE there would be 5-10 thousand more applicators brought into the program, which would be impossible to fund. However, he did suggest the need for regulation of disinfectant applicators. Bobby Simoneaux said he was "scared" by the idea that if you apply any pesticide, you will require certification. Gray noted states could regulate whomever they chose now; there was no need for a change in the federal regs. If expanding certification to other applicators was federally required, ND would be in trouble. States deal with risk in their own ways. Stewart noted that as regards additional areas needing coverage, there is only anecdotal information available. Jack Peterson observed that with the C&T template now out, much data on state practices is now available. Liza Fleeson said it would be difficult to include all occupational users. However, VA is concerned about applicators using GUPs. Setting summarized by saying that the subject would require more time and more data before the SLAs could reach a conclusion.

2. "Under Supervision of a Certified Applicator" - Setting said EPA would like to further define this phrase, or else eliminate it altogether. She noted MD "could not live" without the "under supervision..." provision, and said redefining it made much more sense. State regulators are the engaged stakeholders in this case. Gray said that in ND, the supervisor has to be available on site within 30 minutes. However, it was noted that many other SLAs have a "within sight and sound" requirement. Neylan and Jim Roelofs observed that the term cannot be deleted because it is in FIFRA; however, it can be redefined. A discussion of the term "registered technician" ensued. In VA there are different levels of testing, with less difficult tests required for a ‘technician’ than for a certified applicator. Everyone present agreed on the need for redefinition of "under supervision..."

3. Competency Demonstration for Pesticide Dealers - Setting noted that CropLifeAmerica presumably requires verification of dealers’ competency only if they are selling RUPs. How should dealers demonstrate competency? By certification? PA is moving in this direction; CA already has the requirement. Some states require licensing of "dealerships"; others of "dealers". In ND, dealers are licensed, but not certified. Setting asked if the issue should be pursued. Simoneaux and Peterson both supported increased requirements for dealers for their states. There was a general belief among WC members that additional moves in this direction should be supported.

4. Ensuring Competency of Trainers - SLA reprs present agreed that enforcing this would be an overwhelming task. Robinson noted that WPS trainers had gone through training themselves in ID; to expand this to all areas would be very difficult. If certification of trainers were mandatory, it could result in less training. Peterson noted the need for demonstrating trainer competency on a regular basis (this is required every 3 years in AZ). In CA, trainers are trained "for life", but are given no exam, all of which results in problems for CA trainers coming to AZ.

The problem of certifying industry trainers was noted. Neylan asked if there were a collective body available of information on ensuring trainer competency; noone seemed to know.

5. Minimum Age for Pesticide Applicators - Setting said this issue was still moving ahead in EPA. However, there are possible enforcement complications as well as potential conflict with state laws here, and SLAs have little enthusiasm for tackling the issue. Creger noted that in all states, anyone of any age can apply a GUP on a farm. According to Setting, a 16 year old in this discussion applying an RUP must be on his family’s farm. Simoneaux disagreed. Setting noted that at the PPDC meeting, the state reprs. present had said they were not in favor of pushing a minimum age requirement. However, Fleeson said she favored some minimum age, and Hicks noted that pesticide toxicity could impact pubertal development for anyone under 16.

6. Require Testing for All Occupational Users to Prove Competency - Setting noted that this idea had come from CTAG. However, there was concern among SLAs over the impact of sheer numbers on testing, including financial implications. The need for trying to standardize the quality of exams was noted, including the need for a validated core exam (Simoneaux objected to the latter). Roelofs argued on behalf of the main idea, rather than a specific PPT slide, the idea being the need to bring more occupational users under the C&T rule. Neylan noted the idea supports possible changes in who should be certified, e.g. janitors in schools, nursing home attendants, etc. Stewart said that in NC, the bar may well be raised for spraying any pesticides. There followed a discussion of open book exams, with Peterson noting that such an exam does not mean that you can’t bring in reference material. The core exam requires memorization, and thus there should be no open book for this exam. Category exams are different, however. Setting noted that the AAPSE reprs. at the PPDC meeting supported open book exams. There was discussion of the impact of required testing on Pest Control Operators (PCOs); there would also be reciprocity issues if testing were required.

7. Standardize Exam Development and Security Requirements - Robinson asked if the SLAs really wanted to standardize exams when such great differences existed among states in terms of crops, applicators, weather, etc. Peterson again noted the difference between the core exam and category exams.
 

Chris Mason discussed consumer labeling issues along the lines of Chris Wible’s presentation at the March AAPCO meeting (see ATTACHMENT D of the March meeting report for Wible’s PPT slides). Mason noted that the language on commercial labels may not be appropriate for homeowners and vice verse. Draft labels are being presented to PPDC focus groups for comment prior to being approved by EPA, the first time this has been done. The issue of a second language on labels was raised; it was noted that more & more labels are being written in Spanish as well as English. Don Stubbs, OPP Registration Division, said that the results of this PPDC work group would be fitted into the OPP Labeling Committee deliberations eventually. There was also discussion of the enforceability of homeowner labels.
 

Jim Gray gave a PPT presentation entitled "Endangered Species Enforcement Issues" (see ATTACHMENT A). Among the issues he raised are: 1. How often will Bulletins be updated? 2. How will pesticide users know when a new Bulletin has been published? and 3. How does this impact enforcement? It was noted that noone knows at present how often Bulletins will be updated; however, the ES website will be listed on the label with a link to the Bulletins. Gray said the 6 month advance notice that Bulletins would provide creates problems for growers. However, Jim Roelofs noted that a Bulletin would state that it is valid beginning in a certain month until it changes. Whatever comes out later, the earlier Bulletin is still valid for the month specified therein. There was discussion of the timing and enforcement of Bulletins: what Bulletin is supposed to be used when? Another Q. arising was: how long will SLAs and others have to review draft bulletins? George Robinson noted the need to get back to Arty Williams for answers to SLA concerns in order to prepare for the workshop later this Spring. Steve Foss mentioned the problem of applicator reaction if he has a Q. following downloading of a Bulletin. Fleeson said there was a responsibility falling on the user to acquaint himself with what is going on in the ES area through training, Bulletins, use of the ES website, etc. She noted one problem for the investigator will be to know what chemicals/products are being applied when he goes into the field, so that he can have the current Bulletin in hand. Neylan stressed the need for use of the common name for a chemical in the Bulletins. It was noted that, in effect, growers would go to their dealer or extension agent to find out if a certain product could be used. There was discussion of supplemental registrations and "me-toos" and their implications for ES enforcement. What is the responsibility of registrants here? There was also discussion of whether EPA has reference to ES in the database for each product. According to Neylan, this won’t be in a searchable database. He also noted that, looking further ahead, OPP has asked OC to come up with indicators of compliance with ES bulletins. Roelofs said the system was "pretty far along", and that major changes, such as having EPA reg. numbers on ES Bulletins, would be difficult to implement. There was discussion of the use of the common chemical name on ES bulletins, with Robinson noted potential confusion among growers, who may search the database asking for a product name, in which case there may be no answer.

Robinson then posed a series of Qs. to be taken to EPA as follows: 1. Can the Agency guarantee that the timing for Bulletin use won’t change? 2. Can SLAs share draft Bulletins with other groups, e.g. growers, applicators, etc. How are draft Bulletins to be vetted by SLAs and the public? 3. How long will SLAs have to review draft Bulletins, e.g. 2 days, 30 days, or what? Also, if there is no Confidential Business Information (CBI) issue, how long will EPA allow for consultation with other groups. Gray suggested 60 days; is this too long? Robinson urged the inclusion of reg. numbers on Bulletins, if possible. ACTION ITEM: Roelofs agreed to e-mail Robinson and Secretary Gray a list of all the Qs. that he would be taking back to Arty Williams.
 

Gray noted such regional/national pest problems as Varroa mites on bees (40 odd states had requested emergency exemptions to control the mites), soybean rust (SR), and various disinfectant problems. In all instances, these are causing a drain on state resources. There should be an easier, more streamlined way of dealing with this problem, and Gray asked for ideas on how this could be accomplished. USDA’s disinclination to request regional/national Section 18s was noted, but Robinson questioned whether, in view of ID’s bad experience with USDA in this area, it was a good idea for that agency to be involved in requesting Section 18s. The Q. was raised whether EPA could request exemptions for itself, and it was noted that this was actually done in the anthrax poisoning situation. Foss said the regional approach had worked well for Region X states, with one state taking the lead for different problems. Creger reported that such an approach had also worked with NE, CO, WY, and SD requesting exemptions for use of coumophos strips to combat Varroa mites. A discussion ensued of the need to break economic information out by state.

Don Stubbs said that with the new Section 18 Rule on the books, EPA would look at a tiered economic approach for issuing exemptions. Amendments to Section 18s are continually being requested for new products to combat SR, and this involves constant use of OPP resources. It was noted that more exemption requests were being submitted to cover specialty legumes against SR. Robinson noted that SR had become a political issue because it was so big; if what was done to combat SR could not be done for other smaller problems, maybe there was no sense in having this discussion. Gray said that next time USDA asks a state to work toward a Section 18 (as was done in the case of SR), states will probably back off, unless their commissioners lean on the pesticide division to move ahead. Robinson concluded that states were stuck with the current method of doing emergency exemptions.

Stubbs then handed out a draft form, prepared by RD’s Section 18 Section, for expediting Section 18 requests, and noted that a standardized format was possible. SLAs could fill in the form, sign it, and send it in to OPP. Stubbs recommended that AAPCO/SFIREG take over responsibility for further development of the form. It was suggested that the AAPCO Section 18 Task Force, now chaired by Charley Clark, FL, might take on this job. Robinson asked WC members to read over the form and provide suggestions to Stubbs, or, on the contrary, if they did not believe using such a form would be worthwhile, to say so. Robinson said the form might be useful for states that had not submitted Section 18 expedited requests previously. He noted that the Roman numerals on the form referred back to guidelines for expedited requests. Creger suggested the WC approve the form and forward it to the Section 18 Task Force. Peterson suggested the WC take the form home, review it, and send comments to Charley Clark. There was discussion of possible changes in the form, and Robinson reviewed these suggestions which he agreed to send on to Clark. Peterson asked that the document be posted in the Policy Documents section of the AAPCO website.
 

Robinson noted that one change requested by the states, i.e. for EPA approval of an exemption for a 3-5 year period, had not made it into the new Section 18 Rule. Another request for allowing exemptions for RM purposes had also not been approved. Robinson said SLAs had wanted EPA to consider multiple chemicals for use on e.g. whiteflies, which go through frequent generational changes. He asked if WC members thought this was still a felt need by states, and also asked for Stubbs’ opinion. The latter noted that in the near future, the chances for EPA considering RM were not good because: 1. it takes a long time to change a regulation; and 2. the states had asked for this change previously, but didn’t obtain it. Stubbs suggested SLAs "wait a few years" before again requesting the change.

Creger noted there were many RM scenarios now. Gray cited examples in the case of sugar beets in ND. Roelofs said setting criteria for the use of RM was too difficult; however, occasional use of RM could be justified. The problem of industry pressure for 18s for new active ingredients (a.i.s) was noted. Creger said that Section 18 was not the proper vehicle for moving technological changes; the whole purpose of exemptions was to respond to emergencies rather than to create long term environmental enhancement. Foss promoted the idea of technological changes from an IPM standpoint. However, Creger noted cases every year of registrants pushing a new a.i. in the pipeline on grounds of RM. Robinson summarized that this was not an issue the WC wished to bring to Full SFIREG at the present time.
 

Creger explained a situation in NE where cattlemen had applied for a Section 24(c) registration for Rozol (chlorophacinone) to control prairie dogs, a label which had been approved in KS the year before. After work in NE started, the state found that a senior EPA scientist had prepared a report noting the potential threat Rozol would present to the Black Footed Ferret (even though, as Creger noted, the Ferret had not been seen in NE in 50 years). NE notified the FWS ahead of time, and asked the Service to provide an assessment of potential effects on Ferret habitat. The FWS did as asked, and came down against the use of Rozol. NE went ahead and approved the label, with the use made more restrictive than in KS and also implementing ideas received from the Service. Creger said it was still within the 90 day approval period allowed for EPA to deny 24(c)s from becoming federal registrations, and he didn’t know if the FWS would try to persuade EPA to deny the registration. Creger said that to him, it seemed as though the regional FWS was trying to bypass the new Consultation Rule, recently promulgated by EPA, and if the FWS were successful here, there would be a confrontation with NE’s SLA. Creger noted he had had a problem with the data submitted by the Service to justify its position. Also, NE had required a 2 year expiration date on the label; if the registrant wishes to continue the registration, it will have to present updated data after 2 years. It was noted that SLAs are not required to follow FWS advice. The Q. was also raised: what would the impact be on the registrant. Roelofs noted that a similar issue had arisen before in WA, where the Regional FWS had inserted itself into discussions involving a 24(c) registration. In any case, the WC took no action on the matter.
 

Robinson distributed a January 2006 EPA document entitled "‘For Use By’ Label Statements" which basically asked if the Agency should allow labeling restrictions or recommendations such as "For Use Only By" for pesticide users outside of the restricted use pesticide category (see ATTACHMENT B for the full text of the document). Neylan noted that OC can support limitations on users in some limited situations, but sales can only be limited by RUP classification of the products, and that is what ought to be done if EPA really wants to keep a product away from the general public. Roelofs noted that SLA concerns over the issue was the reason for issuance of the document. There is great division over the issue in the pesticide community. Industry is strongly in favor of the "For Use By" language, and EPA has approved thousands of labels with this phrase included. Eventually the Agency will come up with recommendations for management to consider. Fleeson noted that EPA should not be avoiding RUP classification with the "For Use By" language, which is not enforceable in VA. As a marketing approach, it may have value from the industry standpoint; however, it would be better to classify a product RUP than allow use of the language. Jim Gray noted ND "disrespect" for the language, which is unenforceable in the state; ND does not accept labels with this language. Peterson said the language was counterproductive because it allowed people to use a product which should be an RUP. Robinson noted the need for a better definition of the language; for example, an applicator should be clearly identified as, e.g. licensed. He asked about SLA reaction to the Q. on P.2 of the document: "Do these types of limitations cause legal problems?" Peterson said that because the language in question was unenforceable, it does not cause legal problems since the SLA can’t do anything about it. Neylan asked how often 50 states could agree on the definition of a specific group; ‘not often’ was the implication. Bobby Simoneaux noted the need for "For Use By" by Pest Control Operators (PCOs) from the standpoint of efficacy; it is best not to open up termiticide products for use by anyone for efficacy reasons. Roelofs asked if there were some middle ground here, given industry pressure to preserve the language. Discussion then ensued on the pros and cons of using "For Use By." Gray noted that if enough states stopped accepting the language it would disappear from labels; however, few states have done this. John McCauley, BASF Corp., noted the comments on the document by the Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO), and suggested WC members read them. Roelofs said there would be another round of comments at a later SFIREG meeting.
 

Robinson distributed an informal EPA handout prepared by Nancy Fitz, OPP/FEAD, entitled "Potential Discussion Questions". Fitz had suggested formulating a set of Qs. for SLAs to answer, and this handout was a start. Robinson said he would pass on WC/PO&M comments to the WC/WQ&PD for its meeting April 24-25 in Seattle. Re: Question 1(a)"How many agricultural and professional specialty pesticide containers are disposed of/managed by each of the following methods in your state? Recycling, Landfilling, Open Burning, Dumping, Other? Robinson asked whether SLAs had this data in the first place, and said a better Q. would be "Does your state have a pesticide container recycling program? Setting noted that Fitz has considerable data on state recycling efforts and numbers. In response to Q. 1(b) "Is this an estimate or do you have any studies/surveys documenting this?", Robinson said this was irrelevant because few states would have the data asked for in Q. 1(a). Q. 2(a) "Are you aware of any information...documenting human health problems or environmental contamination from pesticide container disposal? Robinson said most states do not have hard data to back up/document such problems; the information would be anecdotal. Q. 2(b) "Has your state done any analysis of the benefits of recycling pesticide containers? Robinson noted there had been little analysis by SLAs along these lines. Q. 3(a) Do you think a federal rule mandating registrants of agricultural and professional specialty pesticides to support pesticide container recycling is necessary? Robinson asked what "support" meant in this context. He suggested another Q. should be: "What is working in your state in the area of container recycling and what is not?" Peterson noted that privately sponsored efforts to encourage recycling were working in AZ. Charles Rock, RIM Consulting, argued for market driven recycling; the Ag Container Recycling Council (ACRC) had built the wrong business model. Gray said a reduction in ND in small containers was being driven by marketing and stewardship concerns, rather than by the state. Roelofs agreed that SLAs need to develop data responding to Qs. 1 and 2; otherwise, EPA could never get a rule through OMB. Rock noted the need for a critical mass in containers before voluntary recycling would be successful. Robinson stressed the importance of helping Fitz to develop the proper set of Qs. Setting noted there would be no additional state dollars available for recycling proper.

Mary Ellen Setting reported on changes in the funding for C & T to be made in FY’07. The dollars for training will not go through USDA as they have traditionally done, but rather will be awarded to states on a regional basis, with the Northeast receiving 10%, the North Central states 15%, the Western states 25%, and the South 50%. Training funds will be restricted to initial training, and not recertification training. The training funding is thus losing its connection with USDA/EX. Creger quoted OPP Official Kevin Keaney as saying that the Federal Register Notice dealing with this subject would be published this Summer. There will be competitive bidding for training grants; the ROs will administer the grants. Jim Roelofs reported that the President’s Budget for FY’07 was proposing slightly under 1 M for training purposes.
 

George Robinson gave the background, noting the states interest in promoting electronic labeling. It would be nice to have label ID for security and other purposes. Robinson referred to the February 28, 2002, AAPCO Information Technology Committee report prepared by Creger, and to a June 25, 2005, draft WC/PO&M issue paper on electronic labeling, also drafted by Creger (see ATTACHMENT C for both documents). Now is the time to review the entire electronic labeling issue: what are the options that the WC should recommend to EPA? What may or may not be possible?

Foss noted that WA is interested in converting paper labels into PDF format and putting them up on the Internet. A stumbling block of linking e-labels to databases has been the lack of a standard identifier. The creation of an identifier appears to be the best way to do this. Wouldn’t it be nice if the states had one e-label they could all reference instead of uploading the same label to sites, such as Kelly Registration Systems or NPIRS. What are the options? Foss said Marilyn Hunter, who has worked 7 years with RAPID, would discuss one option. The draft SFIREG Issue Paper discussed later is another option based on a process used by EPA’s Electronic Document Submission and Review Workgroup, chaired by Kate Bouve.

Hunter then gave a PPT presentation (see ATTACHMENT D) which described who and what is RAPID, barcoding and G-TIN standards for Product ID, storing numbers in the Ag Industry Identification System (AGIIS) directory, and what is AgGateway. RAPID has developed a product database used by the chemical and seed industries. Currently RAPID enables e-business in the Ag industry, develops standards, and has 2 projects underway: 1. an Accelerated Electronic Connectivity (AEC) project; and 2. a Seed Connectivity project. Many of the major manufacturers are members of RAPID, the essential elements of which are 4 core technologies: electronic data transmission, standards, ID codes, and bar codes (or RFID). Hunter said bar coding was an enabler for e-business in terms of product stewardship and business efficiencies. The GTIN is a 14-character bar code, which can be applied to each jug, case, or pallet, and consists of an indicator digit, company prefix, and item reference (Product ID) number, and check digit. Among the headings on Hunter’s slides are: Bar Coding Standards for Automatic Data Capture; Different Types of Bar Codes; Bar Code Static Information; Bar Code Dynamic/Tracking Information; Application Identifiers; Current Status, and Miscellaneous Information on Bar Codes. Hunter noted that most products of most of the top pesticide manufacturers have static bar codes, whereas only a small number of distributors have some proprietary products with such codes. A bar code survey in 2003 revealed that 33-35% of packages had no bar codes; 22-32% displayed bar codes that had issues or were incorrect; and only 25-33% of packages had correct bar codes with no apparent issues (there has been no updating of the survey in the past 3 years). Hunter said RAPID would like to set standards for pesticide label identification if the SLAs wanted to go this route. She laid out the impacts, both positive and negative, of using bar codes for automatic data capture (the hurdles, of course, involve various costs). Hunter noted the recent development of Crop Data Management Systems (CDMS: the website is CDMS.net). The database only contains ag labels now, but RAPID is moving toward including structural and surfactant labels. Hunter then described AgGateway, which is a consortium of industries; its website is: www.aggateway.org RAPID’s website is: rapidnet.org

Foss then distribute two documents: 1. a draft SFIREG Issue Paper entitled "Version Identification Number (VIN) for Pesticide Labels (see ATTACHMENT E); and 2. an EPA document, dated May 12, 2003, and entitled "Specifications for Text PDF Product Labels" (see ATTACHMENT F). Foss noted that the EPA document provided guidance for creating and submitting product labels to EPA electronically. The work on developing electronic submission standards has been a cooperative effort between EPA/OPP, registrants, and CropLifeAmerica, with the goal being to develop a more efficient registration process. The process is intended, at least for now, to be used only for master labels. Robinson discussed the industry standardization process, including bar codes, and asked the WC how it should proceed here. Hunter said that if the states wished to deal directly with RAPID, they should send a formal request to it (a "migration path" is involved here). The next RAPID conference, in February 2007, will review the application. However, RAPID could call a face-to-face meeting if necessary with reprs. of private industry, both manufacturers and distributors. Hunter said she would inform RAPID’s Executive Director of the WC’s intent and the nature of the discussions.

Robinson asked if the WC thought he was the proper person to follow up. Creger said he wanted to ensure coordination of the new IP with the 2002 IP now with EPA. The Q. at hand is whether to move ahead with Foss’ IP, or hold off pending new information. The issue of involvement of the states with EPA’s Office of Environmental Information (OEI) was raised. Don Stubbs said he would ask OPP’s new Labeling Committee (of which he is the Chair) to discuss whether or not to take on the electronic labeling project. This issue will be referred to the Steering Committee of OPP managers, and a decision made by that group. Roelofs said that permission of OPP management was needed to proceed with rule making here; however, he expressed himself in favor of this. He suggested POM discuss why it wants a Version Identification Number (VIN) for pesticide labels and whether EPA is the right place for it; perhaps it isn’t. The WC’s response here, despite some uncertainty, was that EPA/OEI was not the right way to go (it was noted here that the universe of distributor labels does not exist in EPA). Robinson said he would like to hold off on submitting Foss’ IP at this time. Jack Peterson noted that Creger and the WC were already engaged with RAPID; however, they can always go back to OEI if necessary. Lebelle Hicks said she would like to see OEI kept informed as to what the states were doing. The following motion was then made by Mason and 2ndedbyCreger:

It was moved and 2nded to table the VIN Issue Paper and request the WC/PO&M Chair to present the topic to the Full SFIREG at its June 19-20 meeting, and upon SFIREG’s concurrence, to move the IP forward to the AAPCO Board of Directors. In addition, it was moved that the AAPCO Board should contact RAPI D and/or AgGateway to explore potential options related to pesticide label identification codes.

The motion passed unanimously.
 

Neylan gave a short PPT presentation of 3 slides on WPS enforcement with the titles as follows: 1. PART Measure 2 Efficiency; 2. Cost Per Enforcement Action (data obtained from Form 5700, with the average cost being $2276); and 3. Cost of Enforcement (expressed in graph form) (see ATTACHMENT G for the slides). Only OECA grant funds were considered here. Neylan said he was looking for trends that the cost per action is decreasing. He discussed the need for RO Project Officers to know how states conducted business, in order that OC might make its case to OMB. The differential costs across states resulting from, e.g. travel distances, was noted, and Neylan said there was no attempt now to account for these differences. He observed that it might be useful to check out other EPA programs being PARTed to see if we could learn from them. Thus far, 800 programs across the U.S.Government have been PARTed. 74% of those that had been rated effective had received program funding increases; 74% of those rated "results not demonstrated" or "ineffective" got flat funding or a reduction.
 

Neylan reviewed the following items: 1. Program Inspector Residential Training (PIRT) Courses - There will be 4 courses in FY’06 (plus one in ‘07): 1. GA May 1-8 on Ag Use; 2. VA Sept. 17-21 on Advanced Structural; 3. GA 3^rd week of Sept. on Interviewing Techniques; and 4. TX Oct. 7-12 on Structural; 2. WPS Inspection & Enforcement Data (see above, #XI); and 3. Office of Civil Enforcement (OCE) Reorganization - The Toxics & Pesticide Enforcment Division is merging with the RCRA Enforcement Division and with one branch devoted to FIFRA issues. The new division will continue to provide case supportm, manage enforcement case reviews (ECRs), and implement enforcement case management training.
 

Jim Roelofs reported on the following: 1. OPP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDC and the National Pest Management Association (NPMA) - The purpose of the MOU will be to collaborate on the development of educational material and training programs for IPM. Outreach on automatic misters could be included. The MOU will run for 3 years and may be extended. No exchange of funds is involved; 2. Reregistration Eligibility Documents (REDs) for Pyrethrins - These will be out shortly, and for permethrin soon also. The REDs will include some label provisions relating to mosquito misters. When the REDs are out, OPP’s Labeling Committee (LC) will then consider possible additional steps, e.g. public outreach or a PR Notice, to address generic issues for this use pattern; 3. OPP’s "For Use Only By..." Issue Paper - April 3 was the end of the stated comment period for this IP. 25 comments have been received, 13 of which were from SLAs. This is one of several issues that the LC will take to the Steering Committee in May; 4. Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) - The documents that will be presented to the HSRB for its first meeting April 4-6 were recently delivered to the Office of the Science Advisor. Human studies for 8 pesticides including aldicarb, methomyl, oxamyl, ddvp, azinphos-methyl, amitraz, ethephon, and sodium cyanide will be presented to the Board seeking advice and comment on the science and ethics. Agenda and documents are at:  http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ 5. Carbofuran risk assessment and risk mitigation measures - These are now open for comment until May 23; 6. New Fact Sheets on Alternatives to Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) compounds - These are available on the website:  www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cca 7. E-Labeling/Supplemental Labeling Issue Paper - EPA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) has advised OPP that rulemaking is needed to ensure that obtaining supplemental labels is not "production" within the definition of FIFRA. There will be a briefing of the LC Steering Committee probably later in May; 8. Update on Labeling Committee Activities - the latest include improved guides on warranty issues; 9. Top 10 Labeling Issues - These include Mandatory vs. Advisory statements. Thus far, training has been conducted on this issue for 61 OPP personnel in several divisions.
 

Robinson praised the efforts of EPA in connection with the Top 10 labeling issues, and adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m.