AAPCO: WC/POM Meeting, April 3-4, 2006

From: Subject: AAPCO: WC/POM Meeting, April 3-4, 2006 Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:36:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C69141.74B7EB70" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C69141.74B7EB70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://aapco.ceris.purdue.edu/doc/min2006/pom040306.html AAPCO: WC/POM Meeting, April 3-4, 2006

SFIREG WC/Pesticide Operations = &=20 Management
April = 3-4, 2006=20 Minutes

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SFIREG Working Committee/Pesticide Operations & = Management=20 (WC/PO&M) Meeting
Santa Fe, NM - April 3-4, 2006

I. Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) Worker Safety = Sub-Group Update=20

II. Consumer Labeling

III. Endangered Species Enforcement Issues - Development of List of=20 Concerns

IV. Regional Section 18 Options

V. Section 18 Changes and Resistance Management

VI. US Fish & Wildlife Service Consultations and Special Local = Need=20 Applications

VII. "For Use By" Label Statement Proposal

VIII. Potential Structure for Container Recycling Rule

IX. Federal Funding for State Certification & Training Programs =

X. Proposed Label Identification Numbering Scheme for Printed = Pesticide=20 Labels

XI. PART Measure Implementation Issues

XII. Office of Compliance (OC) Update

XIII Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Update

ATTACHMENTS

A. Endangered=20 Species Enforcement Issues - PPT by Jim Gray

B. OPP= Policy=20 Discussion Document "=91For Use By=92 Label Statements"

C. Febr. 2002 AAPCO Information Technology = Committee=20 Report (Tim Creger); June 2005 draft WC/PO&M Issue Paper on = Electronic=20 Labeling (Creger)

D. PPT=20 presentation by Marilyn Hunter on the Ag Industry Identification System=20 (AGIIS)

E. Draft=20 SFIREG Issue Paper by Steve Foss "Version Identification Number (VIN) = for=20 Pesticide Labels;"

F. OPP=20 May 2003 document "Specifications for Text PDF Product Labels"

G. Office=20 of Compliance (OC) PPT on PART Measure 2 Efficiency (3 slides only) =

MINUTES OF MEETING
SFIREG Working = Committee/Pesticide=20 Operations & Management (WC/PO&M)
Santa Fe, NM - April 3-4,=20 2006

Members Present: George Robinson, ID, Chair; Jim Gray, ND; Lebelle = Hicks, ME;=20 Bobby Simoneaux, LA; Mary Ellen Setting, MD; Liza Fleeson, VA; Chris = Mason, NV;=20 Tim Creger, NE; Samuel Jackling, NY; and Steve Foss, WA. Member Absent: = Dave=20 Scott, IN. Others Present: Sharron Stewart, NC, Chair, Full SFIREG; Jack = Peterson, AZ, President, AAPCO; Jim Roelofs, Field & External = Affairs=20 Division (FEAD), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), EPA; Jack Neylan, = Office of=20 Compliance (OC), EPA; and visitors. The following topics were = reviewed:

I. Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) Worker Safety = Sub-Group=20 Update

Mary Ellen Setting presented a summary of EPA regulatory proposals = involving=20 enhancements to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) and to the = Certification=20 & Training regulations which had been discussed at the recent PPDC = Worker=20 Safety Sub-Group meeting. (there are 3 SLA reprs on the Sub-Group: = Setting,=20 Chuck Andrews (CA), and Gina Davis (MI), as well as 3 AAPSE reprs). Many = of the=20 proposals relating to the latter had come from the Certification & = Training=20 Advisory Group (CTAG). Setting showed slides taken from Kevin Keaney=92s = PowerPoint presentation to the March AAPCO meeting (see ATTACHMENT=20 J to the report on the March meeting for Keaney=92s presentation). = Setting=20 said EPA had asked the Sub-Group whether or not these were important = proposals=20 to pursue, and thus she was posing the same question to members of the=20 WC/PO&M (Jack Neylan said funding issues would not be considered for = now).=20 Setting noted the EPA schedule of August 2007 for publication of a = proposed=20 Rule, which will cover both the WPS and C&T; this may be too = optimistic.=20 Setting has not seen comments from other Sub-Group members, but the = comments are=20 supposed to have been submitted to Keaney by March 15. One important = idea here=20 is to bring EPA regs. into sync with state regs, so that a national = standard may=20 be produced. Setting expressed the need for reciprocity among states in=20 emergency situations. George Robinson agreed on the need to decrease = variations=20 among state rules and in reciprocity, but said it would take at least = two years=20 to accomplish this (Setting noted it might not be possible universally = among=20 states). There is need for a detailed analysis of what the states = currently have=20 in the way of regulations.

Among the specific issues discussed by POM in the C&T area were = the=20 following: 1. Evaluation of Ongoing Competency - Setting said EPA felt = the need=20 to make changes in this area, basically expanding user requirements to=20 demonstrate competency. EPA is trying to decide which requirements to = pursue and=20 which to let go. Who should be brought under C&T, e.g. janitors who = apply=20 pesticides in schools? What workers are at risk? State input is needed = here.=20 Setting asked if EPA should pursue requiring certification of private=20 applicators for general use pesticides (GUPs); no state does this now. = Lebelle=20 Hicks noted that the number of restricted use products (RUPs) for = Private=20 Applicators (PAs) has been reduced; shouldn=92t PAs require = certification if they=20 are working with pesticides on food products? In ME, there is no = reporting on=20 GUPs; thus it is difficult to get risk estimates. Sharron Stewart noted = there=20 were issues in NC with workers being in the fields when both RUPs and = GUPs were=20 being applied. The basic Q. is: do the states want to see EPA regulate = GUPs. Jim=20 Gray noted that all applicators making commercial applications, whether = RUPs or=20 GUPs, have to be certified for commercial use in ND. Tim Creger said it = was=20 different in NE, where there is more of a distinction between RUPs and = GUPs.=20 Gray asked if SLAs want users of hard surface disinfectants regulated; = he noted=20 the distinction in states requiring licensing as well as certification. = Setting=20 asked if there were any reason why EPA should not expand its coverage to = be more=20 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=20 brought into the program, which would be impossible to fund. However, he = did=20 suggest the need for regulation of disinfectant applicators. Bobby = Simoneaux=20 said he was "scared" by the idea that if you apply any pesticide, you = will=20 require certification. Gray noted states could regulate whomever they = chose now;=20 there was no need for a change in the federal regs. If expanding = certification=20 to other applicators was federally required, ND would be in trouble. = States deal=20 with risk in their own ways. Stewart noted that as regards additional = areas=20 needing coverage, there is only anecdotal information available. Jack = Peterson=20 observed that with the C&T template now out, much data on state = practices is=20 now available. Liza Fleeson said it would be difficult to include all=20 occupational users. However, VA is concerned about applicators using = GUPs.=20 Setting summarized by saying that the subject would require more time = and more=20 data before the SLAs could reach a conclusion.

2. "Under Supervision of a Certified Applicator" - Setting said EPA = would=20 like to further define this phrase, or else eliminate it altogether. She = noted=20 MD "could not live" without the "under supervision..." provision, and = said=20 redefining it made much more sense. State regulators are the engaged=20 stakeholders in this case. Gray said that in ND, the supervisor has to = be=20 available on site within 30 minutes. However, it was noted that many = other SLAs=20 have a "within sight and sound" requirement. Neylan and Jim Roelofs = observed=20 that the term cannot be deleted because it is in FIFRA; however, it can = be=20 redefined. A discussion of the term "registered technician" ensued. In = VA there=20 are different levels of testing, with less difficult tests required for = a=20 =91technician=92 than for a certified applicator. Everyone present = agreed on the=20 need for redefinition of "under supervision..."

3. Competency Demonstration for Pesticide Dealers - Setting noted = that=20 CropLifeAmerica presumably requires verification of dealers=92 = competency only if=20 they are selling RUPs. How should dealers demonstrate competency? By=20 certification? PA is moving in this direction; CA already has the = requirement.=20 Some states require licensing of "dealerships"; others of "dealers". In = ND,=20 dealers are licensed, but not certified. Setting asked if the issue = should be=20 pursued. Simoneaux and Peterson both supported increased requirements = for=20 dealers for their states. There was a general belief among WC members = that=20 additional moves in this direction should be supported.

4. Ensuring Competency of Trainers - SLA reprs present agreed that = enforcing=20 this would be an overwhelming task. Robinson noted that WPS trainers had = gone=20 through training themselves in ID; to expand this to all areas would be = very=20 difficult. If certification of trainers were mandatory, it could result = in less=20 training. Peterson noted the need for demonstrating trainer competency = on a=20 regular basis (this is required every 3 years in AZ). In CA, trainers = are=20 trained "for life", but are given no exam, all of which results in = problems for=20 CA trainers coming to AZ.

The problem of certifying industry trainers was noted. Neylan asked = if there=20 were a collective body available of information on ensuring trainer = competency;=20 noone seemed to know.

5. Minimum Age for Pesticide Applicators - Setting said this issue = was still=20 moving ahead in EPA. However, there are possible enforcement = complications as=20 well as potential conflict with state laws here, and SLAs have little = enthusiasm=20 for tackling the issue. Creger noted that in all states, anyone of any = age can=20 apply a GUP on a farm. According to Setting, a 16 year old in this = discussion=20 applying an RUP must be on his family=92s farm. Simoneaux disagreed. = Setting noted=20 that at the PPDC meeting, the state reprs. present had said they were = not in=20 favor of pushing a minimum age requirement. However, Fleeson said she = favored=20 some minimum age, and Hicks noted that pesticide toxicity could impact = pubertal=20 development for anyone under 16.

6. Require Testing for All Occupational Users to Prove Competency - = Setting=20 noted that this idea had come from CTAG. However, there was concern = among SLAs=20 over the impact of sheer numbers on testing, including financial = implications.=20 The need for trying to standardize the quality of exams was noted, = including the=20 need for a validated core exam (Simoneaux objected to the latter). = Roelofs=20 argued on behalf of the main idea, rather than a specific PPT slide, the = idea=20 being the need to bring more occupational users under the C&T rule. = Neylan=20 noted the idea supports possible changes in who should be certified, = e.g.=20 janitors in schools, nursing home attendants, etc. Stewart said that in = NC, the=20 bar may well be raised for spraying any pesticides. There followed a = discussion=20 of open book exams, with Peterson noting that such an exam does not mean = that=20 you can=92t bring in reference material. The core exam requires = memorization, and=20 thus there should be no open book for this exam. Category exams are = different,=20 however. Setting noted that the AAPSE reprs. at the PPDC meeting = supported open=20 book exams. There was discussion of the impact of required testing on = Pest=20 Control Operators (PCOs); there would also be reciprocity issues if = testing were=20 required.

7. Standardize Exam Development and Security Requirements - Robinson = asked if=20 the SLAs really wanted to standardize exams when such great differences = existed=20 among states in terms of crops, applicators, weather, etc. Peterson = again noted=20 the difference between the core exam and category = exams.

II. Consumer Labeling

Chris Mason discussed consumer labeling issues along the lines of = Chris=20 Wible=92s presentation at the March AAPCO meeting (see ATTACHMENT=20 D of the March meeting report for Wible=92s PPT slides). Mason noted = that the=20 language on commercial labels may not be appropriate for homeowners and = vice=20 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=20 issue of a second language on labels was raised; it was noted that more = &=20 more labels are being written in Spanish as well as English. Don Stubbs, = OPP=20 Registration Division, said that the results of this PPDC work group = would be=20 fitted into the OPP Labeling Committee deliberations eventually. There = was also=20 discussion of the enforceability of homeowner labels.

III. Endangered Species (ES) Enforcement Issues - Development of List = of=20 Concerns

Jim Gray gave a PPT presentation entitled "Endangered Species = Enforcement=20 Issues" (see ATTACHMENT=20 A). Among the issues he raised are: 1. How often will Bulletins be = updated?=20 2. How will pesticide users know when a new Bulletin has been published? = and 3.=20 How does this impact enforcement? It was noted that noone knows at = present how=20 often Bulletins will be updated; however, the ES website will be listed = on the=20 label with a link to the Bulletins. Gray said the 6 month advance notice = that=20 Bulletins would provide creates problems for growers. However, Jim = Roelofs noted=20 that a Bulletin would state that it is valid beginning in a certain = month until=20 it changes. Whatever comes out later, the earlier Bulletin is still = valid for=20 the month specified therein. There was discussion of the timing and = enforcement=20 of Bulletins: what Bulletin is supposed to be used when? Another Q. = arising was:=20 how long will SLAs and others have to review draft bulletins? George = Robinson=20 noted the need to get back to Arty Williams for answers to SLA concerns = in order=20 to prepare for the workshop later this Spring. Steve Foss mentioned the = problem=20 of applicator reaction if he has a Q. following downloading of a = Bulletin.=20 Fleeson said there was a responsibility falling on the user to acquaint = himself=20 with what is going on in the ES area through training, Bulletins, use of = the ES=20 website, etc. She noted one problem for the investigator will be to know = what=20 chemicals/products are being applied when he goes into the field, so = that he can=20 have the current Bulletin in hand. Neylan stressed the need for use of = the=20 common name for a chemical in the Bulletins. It was noted that, in = effect,=20 growers would go to their dealer or extension agent to find out if a = certain=20 product could be used. There was discussion of supplemental = registrations and=20 "me-toos" and their implications for ES enforcement. What is the = responsibility=20 of registrants here? There was also discussion of whether EPA has = reference to=20 ES in the database for each product. According to Neylan, this won=92t = be in a=20 searchable database. He also noted that, looking further ahead, OPP has = asked OC=20 to come up with indicators of compliance with ES bulletins. Roelofs said = the=20 system was "pretty far along", and that major changes, such as having = EPA reg.=20 numbers on ES Bulletins, would be difficult to implement. There was = discussion=20 of the use of the common chemical name on ES bulletins, with Robinson = noted=20 potential confusion among growers, who may search the database asking = for a=20 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=20 Agency guarantee that the timing for Bulletin use won=92t change? 2. Can = SLAs=20 share draft Bulletins with other groups, e.g. growers, applicators, etc. = How are=20 draft Bulletins to be vetted by SLAs and the public? 3. How long will = SLAs have=20 to review draft Bulletins, e.g. 2 days, 30 days, or what? Also, if there = is no=20 Confidential Business Information (CBI) issue, how long will EPA allow = for=20 consultation with other groups. Gray suggested 60 days; is this too = long?=20 Robinson urged the inclusion of reg. numbers on Bulletins, if possible.=20 ACTION ITEM: Roelofs agreed to e-mail Robinson and Secretary Gray = a list=20 of all the Qs. that he would be taking back to Arty = Williams.

IV. Regional Section 18 Options

Gray noted such regional/national pest problems as Varroa mites on = bees (40=20 odd states had requested emergency exemptions to control the mites), = soybean=20 rust (SR), and various disinfectant problems. In all instances, these = are=20 causing a drain on state resources. There should be an easier, more = streamlined=20 way of dealing with this problem, and Gray asked for ideas on how this = could be=20 accomplished. USDA=92s disinclination to request regional/national = Section 18s was=20 noted, but Robinson questioned whether, in view of ID=92s bad experience = with USDA=20 in this area, it was a good idea for that agency to be involved in = requesting=20 Section 18s. The Q. was raised whether EPA could request exemptions for = itself,=20 and it was noted that this was actually done in the anthrax poisoning = situation.=20 Foss said the regional approach had worked well for Region X states, = with one=20 state taking the lead for different problems. Creger reported that such = an=20 approach had also worked with NE, CO, WY, and SD requesting exemptions = for use=20 of coumophos strips to combat Varroa mites. A discussion ensued of the = need to=20 break economic information out by state.

Don Stubbs said that with the new Section 18 Rule on the books, EPA = would=20 look at a tiered economic approach for issuing exemptions. Amendments to = Section=20 18s are continually being requested for new products to combat SR, and = this=20 involves constant use of OPP resources. It was noted that more exemption = requests were being submitted to cover specialty legumes against SR. = Robinson=20 noted that SR had become a political issue because it was so big; if = what was=20 done to combat SR could not be done for other smaller problems, maybe = there was=20 no sense in having this discussion. Gray said that next time USDA asks a = state=20 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=20 move ahead. Robinson concluded that states were stuck with the current = method of=20 doing emergency exemptions.

Stubbs then handed out a draft form, prepared by RD=92s Section 18 = Section, for=20 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=20 recommended that AAPCO/SFIREG take over responsibility for further = development=20 of the form. It was suggested that the AAPCO Section 18 Task Force, now = chaired=20 by Charley Clark, FL, might take on this job. Robinson asked WC members = to read=20 over the form and provide suggestions to Stubbs, or, on the contrary, if = they=20 did not believe using such a form would be worthwhile, to say so. = Robinson said=20 the form might be useful for states that had not submitted Section 18 = expedited=20 requests previously. He noted that the Roman numerals on the form = referred back=20 to guidelines for expedited requests. Creger suggested the WC approve = the form=20 and forward it to the Section 18 Task Force. Peterson suggested the WC = take the=20 form home, review it, and send comments to Charley Clark. There was = discussion=20 of possible changes in the form, and Robinson reviewed these suggestions = which=20 he agreed to send on to Clark. Peterson asked that the document be = posted in the=20 Policy Documents section of the AAPCO website.

V. Section 18 Changes and Resistance Management (RM)

Robinson noted that one change requested by the states, i.e. for EPA = approval=20 of an exemption for a 3-5 year period, had not made it into the new = Section 18=20 Rule. Another request for allowing exemptions for RM purposes had also = not been=20 approved. Robinson said SLAs had wanted EPA to consider multiple = chemicals for=20 use on e.g. whiteflies, which go through frequent generational changes. = He asked=20 if WC members thought this was still a felt need by states, and also = asked for=20 Stubbs=92 opinion. The latter noted that in the near future, the chances = for EPA=20 considering RM were not good because: 1. it takes a long time to change = a=20 regulation; and 2. the states had asked for this change previously, but = didn=92t=20 obtain it. Stubbs suggested SLAs "wait a few years" before again = requesting the=20 change.

Creger noted there were many RM scenarios now. Gray cited examples in = the=20 case of sugar beets in ND. Roelofs said setting criteria for the use of = RM was=20 too difficult; however, occasional use of RM could be justified. The = problem of=20 industry pressure for 18s for new active ingredients (a.i.s) was noted. = Creger=20 said that Section 18 was not the proper vehicle for moving technological = changes; the whole purpose of exemptions was to respond to emergencies = rather=20 than to create long term environmental enhancement. Foss promoted the = idea of=20 technological changes from an IPM standpoint. However, Creger noted = cases every=20 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=20 SFIREG at the present time.

VI. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) Consultations & = Special Local=20 Need Applications

Creger explained a situation in NE where cattlemen had applied for a = Section=20 24(c) registration for Rozol (chlorophacinone) to control prairie dogs, = a label=20 which had been approved in KS the year before. After work in NE started, = the=20 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=20 Creger noted, the Ferret had not been seen in NE in 50 years). NE = notified the=20 FWS ahead of time, and asked the Service to provide an assessment of = potential=20 effects on Ferret habitat. The FWS did as asked, and came down against = the use=20 of Rozol. NE went ahead and approved the label, with the use made more=20 restrictive than in KS and also implementing ideas received from the = Service.=20 Creger said it was still within the 90 day approval period allowed for = EPA to=20 deny 24(c)s from becoming federal registrations, and he didn=92t know if = the FWS=20 would try to persuade EPA to deny the registration. Creger said that to = him, it=20 seemed as though the regional FWS was trying to bypass the new = Consultation=20 Rule, recently promulgated by EPA, and if the FWS were successful here, = there=20 would be a confrontation with NE=92s SLA. Creger noted he had had a = problem with=20 the data submitted by the Service to justify its position. Also, NE had = required=20 a 2 year expiration date on the label; if the registrant wishes to = continue the=20 registration, it will have to present updated data after 2 years. It was = noted=20 that SLAs are not required to follow FWS advice. The Q. was also raised: = what=20 would the impact be on the registrant. Roelofs noted that a similar = issue had=20 arisen before in WA, where the Regional FWS had inserted itself into = discussions=20 involving a 24(c) registration. In any case, the WC took no action on = the=20 matter.

VII. "For Use By" Label Statement Proposal

Robinson distributed a January 2006 EPA document entitled "=91For Use = By=92 Label=20 Statements" which basically asked if the Agency should allow labeling=20 restrictions or recommendations such as "For Use Only By" for pesticide = users=20 outside of the restricted use pesticide category (see ATTACHMENT=20 B for the full text of the document). Neylan noted that OC can = support=20 limitations on users in some limited situations, but sales can only be = limited=20 by RUP classification of the products, and that is what ought to be done = if EPA=20 really wants to keep a product away from the general public. Roelofs = noted that=20 SLA concerns over the issue was the reason for issuance of the document. = There=20 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=20 of labels with this phrase included. Eventually the Agency will come up = with=20 recommendations for management to consider. Fleeson noted that EPA = should not be=20 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=20 standpoint; however, it would be better to classify a product RUP than = allow use=20 of the language. Jim Gray noted ND "disrespect" for the language, which = is=20 unenforceable in the state; ND does not accept labels with this = language.=20 Peterson said the language was counterproductive because it allowed = people to=20 use a product which should be an RUP. Robinson noted the need for a = better=20 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=20 the document: "Do these types of limitations cause legal problems?" = Peterson=20 said that because the language in question was unenforceable, it does = not cause=20 legal problems since the SLA can=92t do anything about it. Neylan asked = how often=20 50 states could agree on the definition of a specific group; =91not = often=92 was the=20 implication. Bobby Simoneaux noted the need for "For Use By" by Pest = Control=20 Operators (PCOs) from the standpoint of efficacy; it is best not to open = up=20 termiticide products for use by anyone for efficacy reasons. Roelofs = asked if=20 there were some middle ground here, given industry pressure to preserve = the=20 language. Discussion then ensued on the pros and cons of using "For Use = By."=20 Gray noted that if enough states stopped accepting the language it would = disappear from labels; however, few states have done this. John = McCauley, BASF=20 Corp., noted the comments on the document by the Association of = Structural Pest=20 Control Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO), and suggested WC members read = them.=20 Roelofs said there would be another round of comments at a later SFIREG = meeting.=20

VIII. Potential Structure for Container Recycling Rule

Robinson distributed an informal EPA handout prepared by Nancy Fitz,=20 OPP/FEAD, entitled "Potential Discussion Questions". Fitz had suggested=20 formulating a set of Qs. for SLAs to answer, and this handout was a = start.=20 Robinson said he would pass on WC/PO&M comments to the WC/WQ&PD = for its=20 meeting April 24-25 in Seattle. Re: Question 1(a)"How many agricultural = and=20 professional specialty pesticide containers are disposed of/managed by = each of=20 the following methods in your state? Recycling, Landfilling, Open = Burning,=20 Dumping, Other? Robinson asked whether SLAs had this data in the first = place,=20 and said a better Q. would be "Does your state have a pesticide = container=20 recycling program? Setting noted that Fitz has considerable data on = state=20 recycling efforts and numbers. In response to Q. 1(b) "Is this an = estimate or do=20 you have any studies/surveys documenting this?", Robinson said this was=20 irrelevant because few states would have the data asked for in Q. 1(a). = Q. 2(a)=20 "Are you aware of any information...documenting human health problems or = environmental contamination from pesticide container disposal? Robinson = said=20 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=20 benefits of recycling pesticide containers? Robinson noted there had = been little=20 analysis by SLAs along these lines. Q. 3(a) Do you think a federal rule=20 mandating registrants of agricultural and professional specialty = pesticides to=20 support pesticide container recycling is necessary? Robinson asked what=20 "support" meant in this context. He suggested another Q. should be: = "What is=20 working in your state in the area of container recycling and what is = not?"=20 Peterson noted that privately sponsored efforts to encourage recycling = were=20 working in AZ. Charles Rock, RIM Consulting, argued for market driven = recycling;=20 the Ag Container Recycling Council (ACRC) had built the wrong business = model.=20 Gray said a reduction in ND in small containers was being driven by = marketing=20 and stewardship concerns, rather than by the state. Roelofs agreed that = SLAs=20 need to develop data responding to Qs. 1 and 2; otherwise, EPA could = never get a=20 rule through OMB. Rock noted the need for a critical mass in containers = before=20 voluntary recycling would be successful. Robinson stressed the = importance of=20 helping Fitz to develop the proper set of Qs. Setting noted there would = be no=20 additional state dollars available for recycling proper.

TUESDAY, APRIL 4

IX. Federal Funding for State Certification & Training = Programs

Mary Ellen Setting reported on changes in the funding for C & T = to be=20 made in FY=9207. The dollars for training will not go through USDA as = they have=20 traditionally done, but rather will be awarded to states on a regional = basis,=20 with the Northeast receiving 10%, the North Central states 15%, the = Western=20 states 25%, and the South 50%. Training funds will be restricted to = initial=20 training, and not recertification training. The training funding is thus = losing=20 its connection with USDA/EX. Creger quoted OPP Official Kevin Keaney as = saying=20 that the Federal Register Notice dealing with this subject would be = published=20 this Summer. There will be competitive bidding for training grants; the = ROs will=20 administer the grants. Jim Roelofs reported that the President=92s = Budget for=20 FY=9207 was proposing slightly under 1 M for training = purposes.

X. Proposed Label Identification Numbering Scheme for Printed = Pesticide=20 Labels

George Robinson gave the background, noting the states interest in = promoting=20 electronic labeling. It would be nice to have label ID for security and = other=20 purposes. Robinson referred to the February 28, 2002, AAPCO Information=20 Technology Committee report prepared by Creger, and to a June 25, 2005, = draft=20 WC/PO&M issue paper on electronic labeling, also drafted by Creger = (see ATTACHMENT=20 C for both documents). Now is the time to review the entire = electronic=20 labeling issue: what are the options that the WC should recommend to = EPA? What=20 may or may not be possible?

Foss noted that WA is interested in converting paper labels into PDF = format=20 and putting them up on the Internet. A stumbling block of linking = e-labels to=20 databases has been the lack of a standard identifier. The creation of an = identifier appears to be the best way to do this. Wouldn=92t it be nice = if the=20 states had one e-label they could all reference instead of uploading the = same=20 label to sites, such as Kelly Registration Systems or NPIRS. What are = the=20 options? Foss said Marilyn Hunter, who has worked 7 years with RAPID, = would=20 discuss one option. The draft SFIREG Issue Paper discussed later is = another=20 option based on a process used by EPA=92s Electronic Document Submission = and=20 Review Workgroup, chaired by Kate Bouve.

Hunter then gave a PPT presentation (see ATTACHMENT=20 D) which described who and what is RAPID, barcoding and G-TIN = standards for=20 Product ID, storing numbers in the Ag Industry Identification System = (AGIIS)=20 directory, and what is AgGateway. RAPID has developed a product database = used by=20 the chemical and seed industries. Currently RAPID enables e-business in = the Ag=20 industry, develops standards, and has 2 projects underway: 1. an = Accelerated=20 Electronic Connectivity (AEC) project; and 2. a Seed Connectivity = project. Many=20 of the major manufacturers are members of RAPID, the essential elements = of which=20 are 4 core technologies: electronic data transmission, standards, ID = codes, and=20 bar codes (or RFID). Hunter said bar coding was an enabler for = e-business in=20 terms of product stewardship and business efficiencies. The GTIN is a=20 14-character bar code, which can be applied to each jug, case, or = pallet, and=20 consists of an indicator digit, company prefix, and item reference = (Product ID)=20 number, and check digit. Among the headings on Hunter=92s slides are: = Bar Coding=20 Standards for Automatic Data Capture; Different Types of Bar Codes; Bar = Code=20 Static Information; Bar Code Dynamic/Tracking Information; Application=20 Identifiers; Current Status, and Miscellaneous Information on Bar Codes. = Hunter=20 noted that most products of most of the top pesticide manufacturers have = static=20 bar codes, whereas only a small number of distributors have some = proprietary=20 products with such codes. A bar code survey in 2003 revealed that 33-35% = of=20 packages had no bar codes; 22-32% displayed bar codes that had issues or = were=20 incorrect; and only 25-33% of packages had correct bar codes with no = apparent=20 issues (there has been no updating of the survey in the past 3 years). = Hunter=20 said RAPID would like to set standards for pesticide label = identification if the=20 SLAs wanted to go this route. She laid out the impacts, both positive = and=20 negative, of using bar codes for automatic data capture (the hurdles, of = course,=20 involve various costs). Hunter noted the recent development of Crop Data = Management Systems (CDMS: the website is CDMS.net). The database only = contains=20 ag labels now, but RAPID is moving toward including structural and = surfactant=20 labels. Hunter then described AgGateway, which is a consortium of = industries;=20 its website is: http://www.aggateway.org/ = RAPID=92s website=20 is: rapidnet.org

Foss then distribute two documents: 1. a draft SFIREG Issue Paper = entitled=20 "Version Identification Number (VIN) for Pesticide Labels (see ATTACHMENT=20 E); and 2. an EPA document, dated May 12, 2003, and entitled = "Specifications=20 for Text PDF Product Labels" (see ATTACHMENT=20 F). Foss noted that the EPA document provided guidance for creating = and=20 submitting product labels to EPA electronically. The work on developing=20 electronic submission standards has been a cooperative effort between = EPA/OPP,=20 registrants, and CropLifeAmerica, with the goal being to develop a more=20 efficient registration process. The process is intended, at least for = now, to be=20 used only for master labels. Robinson discussed the industry = standardization=20 process, including bar codes, and asked the WC how it should proceed = here.=20 Hunter said that if the states wished to deal directly with RAPID, they = should=20 send a formal request to it (a "migration path" is involved here). The = next=20 RAPID conference, in February 2007, will review the application. = However, RAPID=20 could call a face-to-face meeting if necessary with reprs. of private = industry,=20 both manufacturers and distributors. Hunter said she would inform = RAPID=92s=20 Executive Director of the WC=92s intent and the nature of the = discussions.

Robinson asked if the WC thought he was the proper person to follow = up.=20 Creger said he wanted to ensure coordination of the new IP with the 2002 = IP now=20 with EPA. The Q. at hand is whether to move ahead with Foss=92 IP, or = hold off=20 pending new information. The issue of involvement of the states with = EPA=92s=20 Office of Environmental Information (OEI) was raised. Don Stubbs said he = would=20 ask OPP=92s new Labeling Committee (of which he is the Chair) to discuss = whether=20 or not to take on the electronic labeling project. This issue will be = referred=20 to the Steering Committee of OPP managers, and a decision made by that = group.=20 Roelofs said that permission of OPP management was needed to proceed = with rule=20 making here; however, he expressed himself in favor of this. He = suggested POM=20 discuss why it wants a Version Identification Number (VIN) for pesticide = labels=20 and whether EPA is the right place for it; perhaps it isn=92t. The = WC=92s response=20 here, despite some uncertainty, was that EPA/OEI was not the right way = to go (it=20 was noted here that the universe of distributor labels does not exist in = EPA).=20 Robinson said he would like to hold off on submitting Foss=92 IP at this = time.=20 Jack Peterson noted that Creger and the WC were already engaged with = RAPID;=20 however, they can always go back to OEI if necessary. Lebelle Hicks said = she=20 would like to see OEI kept informed as to what the states were doing. = The=20 following motion was then made by Mason and 2ndedbyCreger:

MOTION

It was moved and 2nded to table the VIN Issue Paper and request the=20 WC/PO&M Chair to present the topic to the Full SFIREG at its June = 19-20=20 meeting, and upon SFIREG=92s concurrence, to move the IP forward to the = AAPCO=20 Board of Directors. In addition, it was moved that the AAPCO Board = should=20 contact RAPI D and/or AgGateway to explore potential options related to=20 pesticide label identification codes.

The motion passed unanimously.

XI. Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Measure Implementation=20 Issues

Neylan gave a short PPT presentation of 3 slides on WPS enforcement = with the=20 titles as follows: 1. PART Measure 2 Efficiency; 2. Cost Per Enforcement = Action=20 (data obtained from Form 5700, with the average cost being $2276); and = 3. Cost=20 of Enforcement (expressed in graph form) (see ATTACHMENT=20 G for the slides). Only OECA grant funds were considered here. = Neylan said=20 he was looking for trends that the cost per action is decreasing. He = discussed=20 the need for RO Project Officers to know how states conducted business, = in order=20 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=20 attempt now to account for these differences. He observed that it might = be=20 useful to check out other EPA programs being PARTed to see if we could = learn=20 from them. Thus far, 800 programs across the U.S.Government have been = PARTed.=20 74% of those that had been rated effective had received program funding=20 increases; 74% of those rated "results not demonstrated" or = "ineffective" got=20 flat funding or a reduction.

XII. Office of Compliance Update

Neylan reviewed the following items: 1. Program Inspector Residential = Training (PIRT) Courses - There will be 4 courses in FY=9206 (plus one = in =9107): 1.=20 GA May 1-8 on Ag Use; 2. VA Sept. 17-21 on Advanced Structural; 3. GA=20 3^rd week of Sept. on Interviewing Techniques; and 4. TX Oct. = 7-12 on=20 Structural; 2. WPS Inspection & Enforcement Data (see above, #XI); = and 3.=20 Office of Civil Enforcement (OCE) Reorganization - The Toxics & = Pesticide=20 Enforcment Division is merging with the RCRA Enforcement Division and = with one=20 branch devoted to FIFRA issues. The new division will continue to = provide case=20 supportm, manage enforcement case reviews (ECRs), and implement = enforcement case=20 management training.

XIII. OPP Update

Jim Roelofs reported on the following: 1. OPP Memorandum of = Understanding=20 (MOU) with CDC and the National Pest Management Association (NPMA) - The = purpose=20 of the MOU will be to collaborate on the development of educational = material and=20 training programs for IPM. Outreach on automatic misters could be = included. The=20 MOU will run for 3 years and may be extended. No exchange of funds is = involved;=20 2. Reregistration Eligibility Documents (REDs) for Pyrethrins - These = will be=20 out shortly, and for permethrin soon also. The REDs will include some = label=20 provisions relating to mosquito misters. When the REDs are out, OPP=92s = Labeling=20 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.=20 OPP=92s "For Use Only By..." Issue Paper - April 3 was the end of the = stated=20 comment period for this IP. 25 comments have been received, 13 of which = were=20 from SLAs. This is one of several issues that the LC will take to the = Steering=20 Committee in May; 4. Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) - The documents = that will=20 be presented to the HSRB for its first meeting April 4-6 were recently = delivered=20 to the Office of the Science Advisor. Human studies for 8 pesticides = including=20 aldicarb, methomyl, oxamyl, ddvp, azinphos-methyl, amitraz, ethephon, = and sodium=20 cyanide will be presented to the Board seeking advice and comment on the = science=20 and ethics. Agenda and documents are at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ = 5.=20 Carbofuran risk assessment and risk mitigation measures - These are now = open for=20 comment until May 23; 6. New Fact Sheets on Alternatives to Chromated = Copper=20 Arsenate (CCA) compounds - These are available on the website: www.epa.gov/oppad= 001/reregistration/cca=20 7. E-Labeling/Supplemental Labeling Issue Paper - EPA=92s Office of = General=20 Counsel (OGC) has advised OPP that rulemaking is needed to ensure that = obtaining=20 supplemental labels is not "production" within the definition of FIFRA. = There=20 will be a briefing of the LC Steering Committee probably later in May; = 8. Update=20 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=20 OPP personnel in several divisions.

Robinson praised the efforts of EPA in connection with the Top 10 = labeling=20 issues, and adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C69141.74B7EB70 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://aapco.ceris.purdue.edu/htm/popup.js function popup(url) { width=3D.9 * screen.width; height=3D.75 * screen.height; topset=3D.05 * screen.height; leftset=3D.05 * screen.width; settings=3D "toolbar=3Dyes,location=3Dno,directories=3Dno,"+ "status=3Dno,menubar=3Dyes,scrollbars=3Dyes,"+ "resizable=3Dyes,top=3D"+topset+",left=3D"+leftset+",width=3D"+width+",he= ight=3D"+height; MyNewWindow=3Dwindow.open(url,'Win1',settings); if (MyNewWindow.blur) MyNewWindow.focus(); }