Leed Canada 2009 Letter Template - DOC by mty14987

VIEWS: 104 PAGES: 45

More Info

                                April 6-8, 2009

                       SHERATON INNER HARBOR
                           BALTIMORE, MD

                                   Table of Contents

 I.       Roll Call and Introductions                                 Page 3
 II.      Debra Edwards, Director, OPP – Keynote Speaker              Page 3
 III.     National Ag Health Study                                    Page 6
 IV.      Rodenticide Group Mitigation Decision                       Page 9
 V.       Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation Measures                      Page 12
 VI.      Web Distributed Labeling Update                             Page 12
 VII.     WPS/Certification and Training and Formula Funding          Page 15
 VIII.    AAPSE Update                                                Page 16
 IX.      NASDA Update                                                Page 17
 X.       Canada’s “Cosmetic Pesticides” Regulatory Update            Page 18
 XI.      Antimicrobial Division Report                               Page 20
 XII.     Sustainability and “Going Green” Panel                      Page 22
 XIII.    PART, Enforcement Performance Measures, Baselines           Page 26
 XIV.     Department of Defense Pesticide Issues                      Page 27
 XV.      ASPCRO Update                                               Page 29
 XVI.     ECOS / AAPCO Mutual Funding Issues                          Page 29
 XVII.    OECA and OPP Updates                                        Page 31
 XVIII.   EPA and Homeland Security Issues                            Page 33
 XIX.     States Industry Forum                                       Page 35
 XX.      Label Accountability Workgroup Update                       Page 40
 XXI.     Label Mandated Training                                     Page 41
 XXII.    Container/Containment Rule Update                           Page 42
 XXIII.   Status and Potential Ramifications 6th Circuit Court Dec.   Page 44


Attachment 1    List of meeting guests
Attachment 2    National Ag Health Study presentation
Attachment 3    Rodenticide Group Mitigation presentation
Attachment 4    Soil Fumigants presentation
Attachment 5    Web Distributed Labeling presentation
Attachment 6    Certification and Training Funds Distribution
Attachment 7    WPS and C & T presentation
Attachment 8    AAPSE presentation
Attachment 9    Health Canada, PMRA presentation
Attachment 10   Antimicrobial Division presentation
Attachment 11   NPMA presentation
Attachment 12   EPA, PESP presentation
Attachment 13   PLANET presentation
Attachment 14   OECA/ PART Measures presentation
Attachment 15   Department of Defense presentation
Attachment 16   ASPCRO presentation
Attachment 17   ECOS presentation
Attachment 18   Minutes of AAPCO Business Meeting
Attachment 19   CropLife Foundation presentation
Attachment 20   CropLife NPDES presentation
Attachment 21   Florida Dept. of Ag / NPDES presentation
Attachment 22   Thorne / Sustainability presentation
Attachment 23   Label Accountability Workgroup presentation
Attachment 24   Label Mandated Training presentation
Attachment 25   Container/Containment Regulation Update presentation

                                        General Session

 I.   The meeting convened April 6, 2009, 8:05 a.m., with a welcome by AAPCO President,
      Maureen Serafini. Serafini introduced the AAPCO Board of Directors and thanked them
      for their service and assistance during her year as President. Over 150 people were
      present with the following 26 states represented: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
      California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana,
      Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New
      York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and West
      Virginia. Canada’s Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, USDA, and EPA were
      represented along with numerous pesticide registrants and industry associations. A list
      of meeting registrants is appended to these minutes (Attachment 1).

II.   Debra F. (Debbie) Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA, provided
      the opening address. Edwards began by affirming the importance of the symbiotic
      relationship of the state and Federal regulatory agencies. Edwards noted what is
      currently the most discussed issue – the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on
      permitting requirements for pesticide use under the Clean Water Act. State Lead
      Agency (“SLA”) concerns and uncertainty were expressed in AAPCO President Serafini’s
      letter to Administrator Lisa Jackson last week, asking for a stay or re-hearing of the
      decision. EPA’s Office of Water, OPP, and Office of General Counsel have been working
      on a response to the Court. EPA is aware of the legal, logistical and practical
      implications if the existing rule is vacated on April 17th. Motions are due to the Court on
      April 9th.

      Edwards then discussed coordination between OPP and the Office of Water (“OW”) on
      aquatic eco-toxicity data for assessing ecological effects. For two years, State FIFRA
      Issues, Research and Evaluation Group, Environmental Quality Issues Working
      Committee (“SFIREG EQI/WC”) has focused on OPP and OW interactions, largely
      because of the states’ needs to interpret and communicate risks of pesticide detections
      in water bodies. Last year OPP published a web site with pesticide benchmarks. By the
      end of April 2009, the site will be expanded to include 148 pesticides and their
      degradates. At the June 2008, SFIREG meeting, Edwards and Ephraim King, Director
      Office of Science and Technology, OW, discussed common goals to improve approaches
      to protecting aquatic ecosystems. A common scientific basis for deriving ambient water
      quality values and for assessing ecological risks under FIFRA is the goal. Edwards and
      King sent a letter in 2008, to the broad stakeholder community informing them of their
      efforts. As a follow-up, a Project Scoping document will soon be mailed and posted on
      the EPA web page. The document calls for a number of White Papers and case studies
      that explore various approaches to characterizing the potential for adverse effects on
      aquatic organisms. Stakeholder input will be requested on these approaches.

      Edwards discussed the four recommendations of the 2008 Label Accountability
      Workgroup: update the Label Review Manual; develop a new training tool for label
reviewers; improve State Label Issues Tracking System for use as a management tool;
and develop Quality Assurance procedures in each registering Division. Edwards
reported all of the recommendations are moving forward: the LRM is close to
completion and will be a “living document;” QAP’s are being implemented in all of the
registering Divisions; an enhanced SLITS will be in place this year; and a new web-based
training tool is under development. On March 19th a training event was held for OPP
staff with 127 signed up. The training gave an overview of EPA principles on label
quality – clarity, accuracy, consistency with EPA policy, and enforceability.

Edwards commented on EPA efforts to improve the quality and timeliness of OPP advice
to SLAs on enforcement-related questions. These questions come through SLITS, SLA
letters, phone calls, emails, and SFIREG issues papers, asking for interpretation of label
statements, clarification of regulatory intent, registration status, or acceptability of label
claims. EPA is currently reviewing SOPs in this area to ensure timeliness and quality of
responses. A draft of these SOPs will be available for SLA review this summer. Edwards
encouraged SLAs to continue making informal inquiries, while they improve the process
of responding to formal inquiries.

Edwards addressed the post registration testing conducted since the early 1990s, on
public health anti-microbial products – to ensure the products are effective when used
as directed by the label. Over 325 products have been tested at three (3) state contract
laboratories (NC, OH, MI) and the EPA Ft. Meade Lab. This is under half of the products
targeted products under the program. One third (1/3) of the disinfectants and 50% of
the tuberculocides did not fully meet the standards for efficacy. Understanding the
specific cause has been elusive. Qualitative methods used are very sensitive to even
slight changes in protocol. When products do not meet the efficacy standards, EPA may
initiate an enforcement case review (Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
“OECA”) or initiate a regulatory action in OPP. The goal is to bring the products into
compliance (through dropping claims, formulation changes, or Stop Sale Use and
Removal Orders). Upon completion of an enforcement action OECA often issues a press
release, however, OPP has not historically provided the same public notice of their
actions. OPP is currently developing a web page on their anti-microbial testing program
with results of all individual products tested. EPA is working to complete testing of the
first round of anti-microbial products and recently sent a letter to 100 registrants
requesting that they ship products directly to EPA for the testing program. Response
has been slow but favorable. The expected conclusion of testing all primary products is
by 2011, but EPA needs to plan for a more efficient on-going compliance and
enforcement program to ensure anti-microbials meet EPA standards.

On the topic of pesticide spray drift, Edwards commented that in February 2008, EPA
formed a Spray Drift Workgroup to implement the recommendation of the Pesticide
Program Dialogue Committee (“PPDC”) to develop a Pesticide Registration Notice
(“PRN”) on pesticide spray drift. The Workgroup has completed drafts of a PRN and a
Federal Register Notice (“FRN”) on spray drift labeling and are working on a draft

labeling interpretation guidance document. The draft PRN contains recommended
generic statements that should appear on all products that may drift and also
recommends formats to present product specific use restrictions. The statements are
intended to provide users with consistent, understandable, and enforceable directions
on how to protect human health and the environment from pesticide drift. The FRN will
provide background information on spray drift, a description of current and planned EPA
action to address spray drift (the PRN, Best Management Plans, and EPA’s drift
reduction project), and specific questions for information EPA is seeking from
stakeholders. Edwards also asked for state and tribal input on the drift label
interpretation guidance document.

On the topic of chemigation, Edwards noted the SFIREG request for improvements to
the 1987 Chemigation PRN. Last fall, EPA posted a Question and Answer document on
the Label Consistency web page to obtain preliminary comments on what approach they
should take. Edwards stated chemigation label statements should set performance
goals of protecting irrigation source water, but should not specify equipment or system
design. The comment period closed and in general comments support the EPA
approach of a performance goal and many supported inclusion of products labeled for
residential application. Next steps will be discussion of the comments at the SFIREG
Working Committees meeting April 27-28th and a decision on the best path forward.

On the topic of the EPA global initiatives, Edwards discussed their work with USDA and
FDA enforcement agencies to ensure safe food and pesticide product imports. EPA
collaborates with these agencies in monitoring, setting tolerances, risk consultation, and
analytical methods development. EPA is also involved in the promotion and adoption of
reduced risk pesticides through global reviews with international regulatory partners
and they are working with the CODEX Commission (which sets international maximum
residue levels). In an effort to improve the scientific basis of registration decisions EPA
is working with 30 industrialized countries to incorporate a broader range of scientific
expertise. In the area of preventing trans-boundary pollution, EPA is providing scientific
assessment of pesticides that affect the global commons. In November 2007, EPA
signed a bi-lateral agreement (a Letter of Intent) with the Chinese pesticide regulatory
authority. Last year several meetings were held with counterparts in Beijing to establish
a foundation for collaboration. This year EPA will be working with Chinese officials on
technical and scientific exchanges on both human and environmental risk policies.
Edwards characterized the current arrangement as technical assistance, with the
eventual development of regulatory harmonization. The EPA web page will soon be
posting new information on their international regulatory efforts.

On the subject of new administration policy changes, Edwards stated the OPP focus will
remain “protection of public health and the environment - through sound science,”
within legal frameworks, and with public transparency. The new administration will
work to improve public communications and will open more regulatory processes to
direct public involvement – including pesticide registrations.

       Edwards closed by announcing the next meeting of the PPDC will be April 22-23rd and
       several topics of current interest: an upcoming Bedbug Summit in Washington, D.C.; an
       upcoming Scientific Advisory Panel discussion on semi-volatile chemical risks from
       pesticide use; pollinator protection (working with California, Canada, and the European
       Union on research); OPP progress on nanotechnology enforcement issues; OPP
       regulation of 25(b) insect repellants; and movement forward on the endocrine disruptor
       screening program.

       Dennis Howard, FL, asked if there was further discussion between EPA and USDA on
       pesticide use surveys. Edwards stated some of the crop surveys would be reinstated.
       Edwards responded to a question from the floor on the availability of the completed
       LRM, that if not currently, it would soon be available on the web. Serafini asked if OPP
       was working with hospital associations and others on the increase in hospital infections.
       Edwards replied that OPP is working more with the infection control organizations – but
       the primary cause of increased infections is related to hand washing and equipment

III.   Dr. Michael Alavanja and the National Ag Health Study. Alavanja’s presentation
       incorporated slides (Attachment 2). He discussed the outline of his presentation:
       background of the Ag Health Study, recent findings, and future research for the study.

       The Ag Health Study (“AHS”) is an epidemiological study begun in 1993, with a timeline
       for conclusion in 2015. Although the study originates at the National Cancer Institute, it
       focuses not only on cancer, but also on non-chronic cancer diseases as well. More
       information on the study is available at www.aghealth.org. The study is a prospective
       cohort study of 89,658 pesticide applicators & spouses. 82% of the targeted population
       was enrolled through the initial phase of the study and only 2% has been lost during
       follow-up. Cancer incidence and mortality in the study are updated annually.
       Comprehensive exposure assessment information on 82 pesticides has been collected at
       three points in time. Questionnaire exposure assessment evaluations (which include
       field measurements of pesticides) are currently being published and released. These
       compare the answers from the study populations with the actual field measurements.
       Two states were chosen for the study (NC and IA). Cohort characteristics were provided
       and the four phases of the study timeline were described. For Phase 1 (enrollment),
       AHS researchers attended private applicator training and testing sites and asked
       applicators to participate. Phase 2 data (Exposure Assessment) was collected via
       telephone interviews and has been completed. Phase 3 (Disease Etiology) is the current
       stage of the study with the publishing of findings on the associations between individual
       pesticide exposures and specific diseases. Phase 3 will continue into Phase 4 (Disease
       Etiology and Molecular Epidemiology). The Ag Health Study is unique in that it is the
       only study of its size which includes applicators’ lifetime exposure history.

Buccal cells were collected on 40,000 study subjects during Phase 2 interviews. Urine,
blood and environmental samples have been collected in various add-on studies.

Alavanja discussed three forms of causal logic in the Ag Health Study. In the initial
observations of data, they looked for an exposure-response pattern and for basic
consistency in results between NC and the IA subjects. In their follow-up observations
(just beginning), the researchers are seeking a correlation between initial observations
and a second point in time. Biologic plausibility (collection of biologic information) was
the third form of causal logic and it could be used to support or refute the classic
epidemiology results. Biologic studies are very expensive and Alavanja is attempting to
find funding to start a study (an example of expensive biologic info was given - collecting
urine from across the state of IA).

Alavanja proceeded to show a series of slides (number of pesticides used per applicator;
concentrations in post-application urine; pesticide concentrations in farm and non-farm
homes, etc.) The Ag Health Study has information on 81 of the most frequently used
pesticides. That information is used in the statistical analysis and control for other
exposures. Personal protection equipment worn by applicators and application
methods were factored into the study. Pesticide concentrations in farm homes were
shown to be significantly higher than non-farmer neighbors’ homes. Foundational to
the Ag Health Study is the calculation used for cumulative pesticide exposure
(cumulative exposure = intensity of exposure x duration). Predicted exposure was
verified in the field using the exposure intensity scores based upon interviews.

Alavanja discussed his 2003 published report (Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157:800-814) on
prostate cancer incidence in pesticide applicators. The report associates an excess risk
of prostate cancer to a combination of pesticide exposure and family history of prostate
cancer. A follow-up study is planned with a more powerful statistical basis. There will
be a comprehensive genetic component to the study.

Alavanja then discussed his 2004 published report (Am J Epidemiol 2004; 160:876-885)
which found an association between elevated lung cancer incidence and pesticide
exposure. As a follow-up a very large lung cancer analysis will be conducted. The
analysis will be based on 600 lung cancer cases and will begin this year. This is not a
part of Alavanja’s study.

Next, Alavanja discussed a published report by Olaf Landgren, et al, Blood, January 29,
2009, which firmly established a protein in blood, Monoclonal Gammopathy of
Undetermined Significance (MGUS), precedes multiple myeloma. Multiple myeloma is
elevated in farmers in the AHS and MGUS was elevated in 678 AHS subjects (two-fold
occurrence from general population). Details will not be discussed until the AHS paper
is published. MGUS will be studied in relation to specific pesticide exposures in the
future. Mayo Clinic is a partner in the add-on MGUS studies. Results will be published
in 3-4 years.

Alavanja stated there is a lot of work to be done – about 110 peer review publications
from the AHS. The findings must be replicated for each of the studies, including
biological plausibility studies when possible. There are suggested associations between
specific pesticides and cancer types. Alavanja’s general conclusions at this point:
    • There are no pesticides associated with all or many cancers
    • Cancer associations do not cluster by chemical class
    • Some associations occur for cancers not elevated among farmers (colon, rectum,
        lung, bladder)
    • Cancer excesses are small. This could indicate they are:
    •           - due to chance or confounding
    •           - real, but impact is weak
    •           - real, but impact is reduced because of misclassification
    • Exposure assessments need to be improved, and
    • There is a need to replicate analyses.

AHS Phase IV (2010-2015), “Disease Etiology and Molecular Mechanisms” plans were
presented by Alavanja. There will be a questionnaire related to non-cancer diseases and
exposure and molecular epidemiology studies relating to:
   • Gene X Environment (prostate cancer)
   • MGUS
   • MBL (monoclonal B cell clones as early makers for chronic lymphocytic leukemia)
   • Telomere shortening of chromosomes (data already exists)
   • DNA methylation aberrations (another marker of potential hazard)
   • Hematotoxicity- immune suppression

In conclusion, Dr. Alavanja commented on other non-cancer outcomes to be evaluated
in the AHS:
    • Nonmalignant respiratory disease
    • Parkinson’s disease and other neurologic outcomes
    • Cardiovascular disease
    • Diabetes
    • Injuries
    • Fertility
    • Depression
    • Hearing loss
Arty Lawyer asked Dr. Alavanja for the timing of reports to be published on the “other,
non-cancer out-comes” research. Alavanja replied that there were a number of initial
findings papers published last year (asthma, respiratory weeds). A major study will
begin on asthma (to be concluded in about 3 years). There are also studies on chronic
bronchitis and farmer’s lung that are just now being published. Parkinson disease
papers have been published and a more rigorous paper will be published in 2010. For
cardiovascular disease, no association has been found yet. There are a number of
papers on gestational diabetes – with a new paper to be published this year. Injury

      epidemiology will have a paper before the end of this year (relating to acute exposures).
      There is a paper in final review on depression.

      Carol Ramsay asked about macular degeneration. Alavanja found there is an association
      with orchard spraying but pesticide exposure has not been found to be a direct cause.
      There is an on-going analysis.

      Dennis Howard asked if inert ingredients are factored into the assessments. Alavanja
      stated although difficult, and privacy is a concern, the AHS does consider the common
      inert ingredients.

      Kevin Keaney asked how behavior modification factors into reducing exposure. Alavanja
      noted that hands and application method are major considerations for exposure. He
      also commented that acute exposures – which show up as a risk factor for macular
      degeneration, neurologic symptoms and, respiratory diseases - were found in 16% of
      the AHS cohort.

      Tom Delaney asked how exposed and non-exposed individuals’ disease incidence is
      correlated. Alavanja used lung cancer as an example - smoking and radon exposure are
      considered confounding factors, but because of the thorough documentation of their
      effects on lung cancer incidence, they can be statistically accounted for.

      Larry Schulze asked about the confidence in the AHS numbers used in the farmer home
      vs. non-farmer home analysis. Alavanja replied that the sample size was small and
      better data was needed.

IV.   Rodenticide Group Mitigation Decision. Meredith Laws, Chief of the Insecticide-
      Rodenticide Branch, Registration Division, OPP, EPA, introduced staff - Laura Parsons
      and Russell Wasem, Special Review and Reregistration Division (“SRRD”) and John
      Hebert, Product Manager, Rodenticides, Registration Division. Attachment 3 is the set
      of slides used during the presentation.

      Laura Parsons recapped the decision timeline, beginning with the issuance of the 1998
      Registration Eligibility Document and concluding with the Risk Mitigation Decision, May
      2008. The Risk Mitigation Decision (“RMD”) affected nine rodenticides classes: 3
      second generation anti-coagulants, 3 first generation anti-coagulants, and 3 non-anti-
      coagulants. The RMD outlined measures to reduce risk to children and ecological risks:
         • Tiered bait station requirements were established for all “residential consumer”
             – Tier 1 – (the premier station) Tamper-resistant for children and dogs;
                 weather resistant; tested according to EPA protocols; indoor and outdoor use
             – Tier 2 – Tamper-resistant for children and dogs; tested according to EPA
                 protocols; indoor use only

       – Tier 3 – Tamper-resistant for children; tested according to EPA protocols;
           indoor use
       – Tier 4 – Self-certification; packaging not reasonably anticipated to release
           other than small quantities of bait; resistant to opening by child < 6 yrs. old;
           indoor use only
       – Pellets and meal baits prohibited for all “residential consumer” products
           • Other bait forms that are difficult for a rodent to move would be
   •   Package size restrictions (≥ 16 lb. for PCOs; ≥ 8 lb. for livestock) were put in place
       for the 2nd generation anticoagulants
       – Designed to discourage use of these products by “residential consumers”
   •   Restrictions on sale/distribution of 2nd generation anticoagulants were placed in
       the terms/conditions for registration
       – Prohibiting sale in certain categories of stores – e.g., drug stores, grocery
           stores, etc.
       – Sale in farm stores would be ok
   •   Labeling statements were added to include:
       – PCO products: “Intended for use by licensed pest control operators”
       – Livestock products: “For use around agricultural buildings,” and, “Not for use
           in homes.”
           Both types of products the labels specify, “Do not apply further than 50 feet
           from buildings.”
   •   Bait stations will be required for outdoor above-ground placements of 2nd
       generation anticoagulants
       – For PCOs and livestock production, the type of bait station for outdoor
           placements would be left to the discretion of the applicator

Wesom provided a summary of the implementation timeline of the RMD. The RMD was
signed in May 2008. Outreach to explain the decision was made to a variety of
stakeholders, particularly those who expressed interest during the comment periods.
A month following the publication of the RMD, EPA requested registrants inform the
agency of their RMD compliance intentions within 90 days. Respondents were given the
following choices:
           1. The RMD does not apply to our product because it is an MUP/Tech,
               labeled strictly for underground or field use;
           2. We intend to comply with the RMD and will submit amended mitigation
               compliant labels in the near future;
           3. We wish to voluntarily cancel our rodenticide product; or
           4. We do not intend to bring our product into compliance with the RMD.

Responses were received from every registrant whose products were affected by the
RMD. Most registrants intend to comply. Two registrants informed the Agency they do
not intend to bring products into compliance with the RMD. Voluntary requests to
cancel 22 rodenticide products were also received within the 90-day responses. A FIFRA

6(F) notice announcing the receipt of requests to voluntarily cancel these products was
published in the FR on December 24, 2008, with a 180 day comment period that closes
on June 22, 2009. All of these documents - the 90-day responses, the 6(f) FR Notice, any
formal letter sent to or received regarding the RMD, minutes from any meeting with the
public regarding the RMD, and any relevant registrant correspondence - are available in
the Rodenticides docket at www.regulations.gov. By December 4, 2009, EPA expects to
receive applications for new or amended registrations compliant with the 2008 RMD.
EPA provided registrants a year and a half to allow sufficient time to develop and test
these new products. The Agency intends to issue decisions on amendments or new
products received on or before December 4, 2009, after thorough review of the
amendments, new products, and any supporting data accompanying them. Registrants
can present new and amended rodenticide products after this date, but EPA can only
guarantee a decision on amendments and new products received by the June 4, 2011,
deadline. Three (3) years after the RMD publication will be the last day for registrants to
release into commerce products not complying with the mitigation decision. After June
4, 2011, registrants will have to sell new or amended products that are compliant with
the RMD. Non-compliant products released by registrants on or before, June 4, 2011,
can be sold until retail supplies are exhausted. EPA is currently discussing how to handle
registrants who do not intend to comply with the RMD. The intent is to prevent a
competitive advantage to registrants refusing to comply.

John Hebert discussed the new and amended products and the implementation of the
RMD from the perspective of the Registration Division. He began by discussing changes
to the bait station test protocols. Protocol changes will be placed in the docket.
Products without commensal rodents and manufacturing use products are being
reregistered now. For products with commensal uses - only agricultural products and
PCO products have been reregistered. Approximately 35-40 products have been
reregistered to date - no over the counter products have been reregistered. The
Registration Division is adding all of the labeling statements from the RMD and the RED
documents. There is a strong effort to provide enforceable statements on the new
labels. The language for placement “In and around” buildings, has been replaced by
“within 50 feet of buildings.” RD is also “2(ee) proofing” the labels by adding the
statement, “Use only for sites, pests, and application methods described on this label.”

Only 2 new products have been registered which comply with Tier 4 bait stations.
Amended registrations are not subject to PRIA fees. Pelleted formulations have been
removed from residential use sites, and Hebert noted two companies have recently
registered a new “paste” bait type.

Tim Creger asked if the bait station protocols would result in a revision to PRN 94-7.
Hebert responded that the protocols are amendments and a new PRN will not be issued.
The changes will be published in the docket.

      Laura Quakenbush asked how the restrictions on sales in certain stores will be enforced.
      Hebert responded, a statement will not be placed on the label – it will be in the terms
      and conditions of product registration. Meredith commented that EPA would seek
      suspension or cancellation if found in the “big box” stores.

      Dave Scott commented on the use of the language “intended for use by pest control
      operators.” Would it be used on the label? Meredith commented it is meaningless, but
      difficult to remove from the label based upon registrants’ objections. The term “in and
      around” was also discussed as being unenforceable. Meredith commented that 50’ was
      deemed reasonable for rodenticides and that other product types may be revised to
      indicate 25’ from buildings or structures. Comments from Jim Wright and Jim Gray also
      emphasized the use of enforceable language.

V.    Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation Measures

      Rick Keigwin, Director, SRRD, OPP, EPA, provided an overview of the soil fumigant RED
      and associated risk mitigation measures (Attachment 4). Keigwin noted this is the first
      comprehensive review of the soil fumigants (with the exception of methyl bromide)
      since they were first registered. Methyl bromide, chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium
      and metam potassium, iodomethane and some formulations of 1,3 dichloropropene
      (containing chloropicrin) will be subject to the risk mitigation measures. After
      identifying the risks associated with soil fumigant use, and the benefits of use, EPA
      developed risk reduction measures intended to provide the necessary protections while
      providing growers with flexibility. Keigwin stated the risk mitigation measures should
      be considered as a package – not individually. The full six (6) phases of the public
      comment process were employed in the development of the soil fumigant RED.
      Stakeholder outreach was extensive and comments on the final decision are now being
      considered. Extensive comments were received (buffer zones, posting, notification to
      states, etc.) An outline of the measures was displayed (Attachment 4). The next steps:
          • Early 2009 – EPA considers comments, develops responses
          • Spring 2009 – EPA develops RED amendments and issues product-specific and
              generic data call-ins (DCIs)
          • 2009 – Registrants begin implementing training and community outreach and
              education programs
          • Late 2009 – Product data and revised labels submitted to EPA.
          • 2010, labels begin appearing in the field
          • 2011, full implementation and 2013, Registration Review begins.

      Carol Ramsay commented that development of training manuals and exams can take as
      long as two years. Keigwin acknowledged the importance of training, but that the
      mitigation needs to be in place as soon as possible.

VI.   Web-Based Labeling Update William Jordan, Senior Policy Advisor, OPP, gave a
      presentation assisted by Carol Ramsay, WSU, (Attachment 5). The presentation

incorporated a survey of the audience using interactive polling devices which
immediately tabulated results. Jordan gave a background on web-based labeling, or
Web Distributed Labeling (“WDL”): what it is, the benefits of WDL, and the status of its
development. Jordan acknowledged SLA’s as the prime advocates of the original
concept. The two major pay-offs of WDL for EPA and states are, it will accelerate the
process of incorporating risk mitigation measures on product labels, and will improve
compliance due to streamlined, more readable labels. Jordan displayed a workflow
chart of a pesticide label’s development – incorporating many different forms and
players – and the added benefit of eliminating some of these labeling steps and formats.
A 3 page sample WDL label was contrasted with the existing 30 page label of a Dupont
Lannate LV label. A draft “Directions for Use” reference on the WDL label was
presented as:

                                       DIRECTIONS FOR USE
     “You must obtain and follow additional labeling from http://pesticidelabeling.gov/
     or by calling 1-8**-LABELING. You must possess a copy of this additional labeling
     at the time of application. It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a
     manner inconsistent with its attached label or the additional labeling obtained in
     one of the methods listed above.”
       This statement resides on the container-affixed portion of the label.

Jordan outlined how users could download the WDL labeling. Jordan then asked for
audience response on several questions:
            Do you believe the goal of a shorter, streamlined label warrants
              continued development of the WDL concept? 76% agreed.
            What is the likelihood applicators will read and comply more consistently
              with the 5-8 page WDL vs. the 20-60 page label? 76% agreed “very likely”
              or “somewhat likely.”
            Can you enforce the WDL label with the sample “Directions for Use”
              statement? (SLA response only). 62% agreed.

The EPA Workgroup is finalizing the “Enforcement” Issue Paper and will be presenting it
to the PPDC in June 2009. Jordan explained the labels must be enforceable and not
result in additional infrastructure for states to enforce labeling. Registrants would be
subject to the following potential violations:
             Incomplete, inaccurate, or differing labeling provided by the website
                (FIFRA §§ 12, 14).
             Website fails to reflect most recent EPA-approved master labeling (FIFRA
                §§ 6, 12, 14).
             Website is non-functioning and labeling is not available
                (FIFRA 6, 14).

Potential violations for users: failure to obtain and follow WDL prior to application
(Misuse of the pesticide, FIFRA § 12). Potential violations for “others”:

              Website host - If not registrant, could also be held accountable as an
               agent of the registrant.
            Other entities involved in the distribution chain
                   Extension Agents
                   Crop Advisors
Providing services to users does not make these groups liable for a user’s failure to
obtain labeling.

Jordan asked SLA’s if the WDL was enforceable based on his outline and 48% responded
yes, 30% possibly. He then asked if SLA’s would need to change their state laws or
regulations to make WDLs enforceable and 55% responded “no.”

Jordan concluded with the next steps for the EPA Workgroup and with the expectations
of a “virtual” pilot using WDLs – a select group of products would have WDLs accessible
on a website. He emphasized there would be no rush to implement WDLs – all the
issues must be worked through.

Tom Delaney asked if applicators must download onto paper or to a device. Jim Gray
responded either would likely apply but states may develop state-specific requirements.
Delaney asked about the timing of the download and how long it must be kept as a
record. Gray responded that the life span of the label is being considered by the
Workgroup. If linked to a download date, there must be a reasonable life span. Delaney
asked about records availability after application, and Jordan replied the requirements
would be no different than existing recordkeeping and record availability (for
inspectors). Larry Schulze asked about WDL labels downloaded from two separate
databases. Jordan commented that the official version must reside on the website
listed on the product label. Schulze asked if the WDL would apply only to ag-use labels.
Jordan responded that the virtual pilot would use only Ag labels; however, ultimately it
may apply to other use categories (other than home use products). Dave Scott
commented that the “Must possess a copy of this additional labeling. . .” statement is
not currently on products, and asked if the intent was for the applicator to have a copy
in hand at the time of application. Gray responded that “in possession” was intended
(either paper or electronic version). Scott asked if paper labels would all be requiring
the same statement. Gray responded that some states have specific rules that may
require copies of the label in possession at the time of application. Scott also
commented that there appears to be a “division” occurring on labels – what is
“important” and what is “fluff.” Scott asked if there was a move towards separating
“enforceable” language from unenforceable language. Gray responded that the label
stewardship language is valuable but not necessarily enforceable. Stewardship language
through WDLs could be greatly enhanced while providing users with better information
on what is enforceable language. Jordan commented that EPA’s focus on label
consistency will improve the enforceability and quality of labels. Also, e-submissions
will provide a better system for improving content and consistency. Gray commented

       that it would be beneficial to have a core set of “virtual pilot” enforcement questions
       ready for the June SFIREG meeting. Dennis Howard, FL, commented on streamlining
       labels and the ability to implement quickly mitigation measures and asked how user
       outreach would be incorporated. Jordan replied that initially, WDL will be a voluntary
       system for registrants. Jordan acknowledged this as a “culture change” and commented
       that the education of the user community was very important. The user community will
       need to be educated on the benefits of WDLs and how to use them. The Workgroup is
       considering how to get the message out. Chuck Andrews, CA, commented that it is
       more than a culture change. There is also a shift in liability towards growers – they must
       download labels under this system. Jordan responded that under the virtual pilot, there
       should be some indication if this is an issue. Andrews also asked if pesticide dealers
       could be held liable as the WDL source for applicators. Jordan replied that there is no
       intent to hold dealers responsible, but they will be encouraged to support the system
       and they may choose to provide WDLs as a part of their service.

VII.   WPS/Certification and Training Rule Changes, and Funding Formula Changes. Kevin
       Keaney, Chief, Pesticide Worker Safety Program and Pesticide Container/ Containment
       Program, OPP, EPA, opened with a description of the old Certification and Training (C &
       T) program funding formula and discussed the efforts to improve the simplicity and
       equity for funding state programs. The new method of C & T funds allocation and
       distribution (Attachment 6) was outlined as follows;

          The same formula for SLA & CES funding will be used, but with different base
           allocations and weightings
          Base funding will be raised for both SLA & CES
          There will be no withheld discretionary funds (only applies to SLA)
          The “number of farms" factor will be eliminated
          Simplified Formula Factors:
           o number of certified private & commercial applicators
           o weighting to reflect resource burden associated with commercial applicator
               certification vs. private applicator certification
           The National allocation minus base funding is the amount to be allocated by
           o Formula allocation ($$) is weighted 70% commercial applicators, 30% private
           o State allocation = Base + (SC% x 70% $$) + (SP% x 30% $$)
                   – SC% = state's commercial applicators as a % of national total
                   – SP% = state's private applicators as a % of national total

       The accuracy of the C & T reporting template was very helpful in determining the best
       means of revising the formula. The numbers of applicators has not changed
       dramatically and the President’s budget numbers are basically the same. This change
       will most likely apply in the 2010 fiscal year. Eight states will see a decline in funds and

        the rest will see an increase. The funding change was driven more by the accurate
        reporting numbers rather than the formula changes.

        Keaney provided a background and context of changes to the Pesticide Worker Safety
        Program (Attachment 7). Keaney estimated 2,000,000 migrant and seasonal farm
        workers, 533,000 private applicators, and 387,000 commercial applicators. “Under
        supervision of certified applicators” was mentioned as another large population
        (unspecified). Keaney noted the need for changes to the WPS and C & T rules to meet
        evolving demands, improve the understanding of risks, and to satisfy statutory
        mandates under FIFRA and PRIA. Some deficiencies can be resolved without regulatory
        changes, but some need to be addressed by rule changes.

        Keaney outlined the various phases of the rule development and stakeholder outreach.
        OPP has published a report on recommendations from the various workgroups and
        stakeholders. Keaney summarized the following areas where gaps exist and changes are
        recommended for the WPS and C & T rules:

           Agricultural Worker Safety
             Training
             Notification
             PPE - Handlers
             Safety Supplies - Handlers
             Entry Restrictions
             Emergency Procedures
           Applicator Competence
             Prerequisite Certification Requirements
             Initial Certification Requirements
             Recertification Requirements
             Supervision Requirements
             Administration

        Any rule changes must be supported by economic analysis and benefits. Administrative
        costs to states will also be considered. A contractor will provide an analysis of state
        impacts through SFIREG input. Pending extensive agency and OMB review, the current
        schedule is to publish the proposed rule in November 2010, and final Rule
        implementation October 2012.

VIII.   AAPSE Update

        Ples Spradley, President AAPSE, gave a brief summary of AAPSE activities and issues
        (Attachment 8). Web-Distributed Labeling, Label Mandated Training, and funding
        changes for safety and education programs were identified as primary issues. Spradley
        cautioned, “Make sure the world is ready,” in regards to the impact of WDLs in

      “unwired” areas of the country. Picloram, and label mandated training elicited an
      AAPSE letter to Debbie Edwards. AAPSE recognizes the benefits in some instances for
      label mandated training, but questioned the rationale for the picloram labeling. The
      current RUP program covered 80-90% of the picloram mandated training. New training
      should be designated for groups of products with similar risk profiles - not
      individual/specific products. Spradley outlined a number of questions related to label
      mandated training. On the subject of Certification Program funding, Spradley noted the
      $1.7 million allocation is about the level of six years ago before cuts. The funding
      formula resulted in only one state having a cut in funds. Spradley thanked EPA for
      consulting with AAPSE in the formula development. Spradley announced the date and
      location of the 2009 North America Pesticide Applicator Certification and Safety
      Education Workshop, August 11-13, 2009, in Charleston, SC. Spradley closed with
      recognition of Mary Grodner’s retirement and heart-felt thanks for her great
      contributions to AAPSE and pesticide applicator safety education.

IX.   NASDA Update

      Bob Ehart, Animal and Plant Health Safeguarding Coordinator, NASDA, provided an
      update on NASDA staffing. Rick Kirchoff has been replaced by Stephen Haterius as
      Executive Director. Charlie Ingram is now in charge of NASDA enumerators working for
      the NASDA/NASS program (about 3,800 employees). There may be the addition of a
      Director of Public Policy. The NASDA Board has directed more staff attention and focus
      on Capitol Hill activities. NASDA is hopeful that a re-hearing will be scheduled on the 6th
      Circuit Court of Appeals Decision. Secretary Vilsack, USDA, stated it is the worst ruling
      he’s ever seen. There are two Clean Water Act bills that would have a similar impact on
      pesticide use (Oberstar and Feingold bills). Ehart commented on positive developments
      in the fields of pesticide disposal and spray drift. The EPA Farm, Ranch, and Rural
      Communities Advisory Committee (Leonard Black, UT, is a member) was mentioned.
      While pesticide issues are discussed by this committee, the first tasks to be addressed
      are CAFO impacts and climate change issues. The Department of Homeland Security
      (“DHS”) rules were mentioned and how NASDA is trying to improve the communication
      difficulties with that agency. The NASS survey cuts received a lot of NASDA attention,
      and some crop pesticide use surveys will be re-instated this fall. Ehart noted the issues
      with soil fumigants, emergency planning (plant and animal emergency response
      planning – especially contact information) and pesticide program funding. Ehart could
      not predict if more funding for agriculture will be available but NASDA will be pushing.
      He speculated that if agriculture funding needs are translated through the lens of
      “energy” this Administration may be more receptive.

      Serafini asked for Ehart’s advice on how AAPCO can increase program funding. Ehart
      welcomed collaboration between NASDA and AAPCO and noted that meeting with key
      Appropriations Committee members is one of the best ways to have funding needs
      heard. Also, SLA staff familiar or close to key members of Congress can help. Serafini

     asked if a meeting with AAPCO and NASDA staff could be arranged and Ehart agreed this
     was possible within travel constraints.

     Monday’s Meeting Adjourned at 3 p.m.

     Tuesday’s Meeting Convened at 8 a.m.

X.   Canada’s “Cosmetic Pesticides” Regulatory Update

     Lindsay Hanson, Communications and Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Pest Management
     Regulatory Agency, presented an update on the regulation of “cosmetic pesticides” in
     Canada (Attachment 9). In Canada, Health advocacy groups and some
     municipal/provincial government officials classify some uses of lawn and garden
     pesticide as “cosmetic”, uses. They view these uses as non-essential or merely for
     aesthetic purposes. This has served as the basis of pesticide use restrictions or bans in
     several municipalities and the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The terms “cosmetic”
     or “non-essential” are not defined in the federal Pest Control Products Act (PCPA). For
     registration, the Act requires that the scientific risk assessment provide reasonable
     certainty of no harm to human health or the environment and that the pesticide must
     have value. Value is defined and means the pesticide has actual or potential
     contribution to pest management:
         • Efficacy
         • Effect on host organisms
         • Health, safety and environmental benefits and social and economic impact.

     Hanson provided a historical background of cosmetic pesticide regulatory actions in
     Canadian municipalities and provinces. The most recent action will occur on April 22,
     2009, when the province of Ontario will ban the cosmetic sale and use of more than 80
     “cosmetic” active ingredients. Prince Edward Island will introduce restrictions around
     “cosmetic” pesticide sale and use in 2010, and Alberta will ban the use and sale of
     combination products (herbicide-fertilizer) to homeowners in 2010. Municipal bans
     have appeared in six out of ten provinces and it is estimated that over 15 million (50%)
     Canadians live in municipalities which have implemented some level of “cosmetic”
     pesticide use restriction.

     Hanson described pesticide regulatory authorities at the Federal, provincial, and
     municipal levels of government. Municipalities may only ban the use of pesticides,
     while provinces may ban the sale and use.

     The rigorous assessment process used by Health Canada provides “scientific reasonable
     certainty that no harm” will occur when pesticides are used according to label
     directions. Provinces and municipalities are not required to base their decisions solely
     on science. Hanson noted that health and environmental advocacy groups have been
     successful in convincing provincial and municipal officials there is a link between

cosmetic pesticide use and adverse health or environmental effects. He further noted
that this link is not supported by scientific weight of evidence and studies reviewed by
Health Canada’s PMRA.

Hanson also covered the PMRA’s “Healthy Lawn Initiative” and the PMRA’s new
regulations under their Pest Control Product Act. The new regulations include a new
listing of “Formulants and Contaminants of Health or Environmental Concern,” sales
reporting regulations, incident reporting, mandatory public consultation, an electronic
public registry, and public access and inspection of test data (a reading room).

Hanson discussed the impact of “cosmetic pesticide” regulatory restrictions on public
pesticide use. Large retail outlets across Canada, (Home Depot, etc.) have already
removed certain “cosmetic” pesticides from their shelves and replaced them with
“green” products. Restrictions have also resulted in some uses of un-registered
alternative pesticides with unknown health or environmental risks. In a case study of
pesticide use on lawns in Quebec, it was found that in some instances:
    a) agricultural pesticides were used on lawns,
    b) there were sales of unregistered alternative pesticides (vinegar, neem, beet
        juice, canola oil), and
    c) there were uses of unregistered (homemade) pesticides and promotion of these
        uses on web sites.

Some of these municipal prohibitions have affected the use of weed and feed products
and certain pesticides on lawns and/or flowers and/or private vegetable gardens.
Exemptions exist for indoor use, golf course, agriculture, forestry, natural resources
(control of invasive species), large urban trees (≥ 15 feet & 4 inches diameter), public
health/safety threats, sport fields (national/international events), specialty turfs (lawn
bowling, cricket, croquet, tennis), and public rights of ways (railways, highways, power
works, gas works). A 2007 Households and the Environment Survey indicates a
substantial drop in lawn and garden pesticide use – especially in Quebec province.

A list of Health Canada public messages on the subject of pesticides includes a
statement of their confidence in the safety of lawn and garden products when used
according to label directions. Hanson closed with comments on the dangers posed by
homemade pesticides and provided a web page link for a Health Canada fact sheet on
the subject: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/homemade-artisanaux-

Carol Ramsay asked about vendor certification. Hanson responded that there is a
training module for vendors of domestic products. The domestic categories are divided
into “ready to use” and “concentrates.” Concentrate purchases require the purchaser
to speak to the vendor – with a resultant exchange of information. Jack Peterson asked
if there has been any repercussions in Quebec where dandelions have taken over lawns.
Hanson replied there has been tolerance expressed by some in Quebec – but these are

      societal decisions taking place right now. If there are alternatives for dandelion control,
      they will have a great market. Larry Schulze asked if there will be a reversal of the
      political decision to ban cosmetic use in Ontario. Hanson responded that it is unknown
      if and when there will be a reversal. A question from the floor concerned the dangers of
      alternative products, and Hanson responded that the fact sheet on “homemade”
      pesticides was intended to address some of those uses. Ann Wick asked how these
      bans/restrictions are enforced – especially in light of tight budgets and cross border
      availability of many of these products. Hanson replied there are cross border issues and
      internet sales.

XI.   Anti-Microbial Division – Issues and Timely Topics

      Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, Antimicrobials Division Director, EPA, described the scope of the
      Antimicrobial Division’s (“AD”) responsibilities, their priorities, and their involvement in
      specific and timely issues (Attachment 10). The priorities were outlined as:
      •       Staff Development – Building a stronger AD
      •       Meeting 100 % of PRIA deadlines
      •       Re-tooling the Antimicrobial Testing Program
      •       Requesting that all the Disinfectants used in hospital not yet tested, be
      •       Finalizing policy issues such as HVAC and Mold
      •       Ensuring Risk mitigation gets on Product labels
      •       Advancing the Part 158 W rule
      •       Developing closer communication with the Public Health organizations
      •       Enhancing test methods for towelette products
      •       Providing C. difficile guidance
      •       Enhancing labels

      Harrigan-Farrelly discussed some of the recent issues being handled by AD, such as, the
      efficacy of hospital sterilants and sanitizers; the efficacy of decontaminants associated
      with Homeland Security (anthrax); wood preservative restrictions (e.g., use of treated
      wood in playgrounds); and antifouling products.

      On the subject of ensuring efficacy of hospital disinfectants/sanitizers/sterilants, EPA
      has tested 325/650+ products since 1991, just under one half of the targeted primary
      registrations in the testing program. Of the tested products, slightly over one third of
      the disinfectant products and almost half of the tuberculocidal products did not fully
      meet the performance standard for efficacy. EPA is unsure of the cause for this
      significant failure rate, but it is known that the qualitative test method may be too
      sensitive to minor changes in protocol. If the products do not meet standards, they are
      either sent to OECA for enforcement case review, re-tested, re-labeled, or otherwise
      brought into compliance. To speed the efficacy testing process AD has asked about 100
      registrants to send samples directly to EPA and contract labs. AD is developing a web
      site for posting of all tested products and their status. In an effort to broaden

communications on antimicrobials, AD is meeting with and seeking recommendations
from Hospital Associations and health care professionals. They will be meeting with the
D.C., MD, and VA Hospital Associations, and may be hosting a workshop on the subject.
Harrigan-Farrelly relayed her experience with hospital posters and health care provider
efforts to enforce hand washing by staff.

Harrigan-Farrelly briefly discussed the Disinfection Hierarchy Guidance which ranks
microorganisms according to their susceptibility to inactivation by hard surface
disinfection products. Development of this guidance began after the nationwide
anthrax incidents. On April 3, 2008, AD posted guidance for use of this process whose
goal is to provide timely information to the public regarding the effectiveness of
disinfectant products against emerging pathogens. AD will rank these products on their
ability to inactivate microorganisms on hard surfaces – in a shortened review process
that will take 10-20 days. Harrigan-Farrelly commented on AD’s work with CDC, FDA
and others to develop science-based parameters for efficacy testing of Clostridium
difficile. EPA registered the first product for C. difficile in December 2008.

On the subject of risk assessment, Harrigan-Farrelly discussed AD’s work in revising Part
158W (Part 158 addressed primarily conventional pesticides, and not antimicrobials). In
2008, EPA proposed a Part 158W for antimicrobials. The comment period has closed
and AD will be reviewing the many comments received. Currently AD is using Part 158
and Part 161 to acquire data.

On the subject of State and Regional coordination, Harrigan-Farrelly commented that
AD has instituted more rigorous label review training of staff and is working with States
to address their concerns related to disinfectant wipes. Harrigan-Farrelly invited
comments and ideas from states on ensuring efficacy of wipes.

Regarding HVAC, Harrigan-Farrelly stated the draft PR Notice was issued September
2006. It is her intent to bring this PRN to a close this year. The “Do not use in HVAC
systems” statements are causing some concern and there is no overwhelming support
of the PRN. To date, AD has received comments from individuals and groups and they
are holding calls with the HVAC Association and product manufacturers.
AD is initiating an 18 month pilot on accepting toxicity data based upon non-animal test
methods (acute ocular hazard). The pilot will involve primarily cleaning products. If
successful, it may be expanded into other OPP registration divisions.

On the subject of international activities, AD is working with Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, the European Union, and a NAFTA working group on the
harmonization of efficacy test methods for antimicrobials used on hard surfaces and in
treated articles.

       In closing Harrigan-Farrelly asked for broader stakeholder input and encouraged a
       stronger partnership with AAPCO. She solicited AAPCO input on issues and areas for
       EPA focus.

       Serafini listed a number of AD areas of interest within AAPCO: cause marketing,
       “dishwashing liquids” label directions for use, over-use of antimicrobial products (vs. use
       of hand soaps), use of antimicrobials on artificial turf, and lack of control of
       antimicrobial distributor labels. Harrigan-Farrelly responded that FDA is the authority
       on registration of hand disinfectant products. She related to the label directions and
       real-life use of the products (e.g., use of wipes). Harrigan-Farrelly emphasized that if the
       application for registration is supported by data, etc., AD does not deny the product
       registration. She also commented that she is witnessing more of an avalanche of new
       applications vs. a slow down. But, AD is not in the business of hindering the
       marketplace – consumers will decide. On the subject of artificial turf, she stated AD is
       struggling with how the products will be used and if they will work, but no decision has
       been made at this point. In reference to distributor labels, she recognized that AD is
       only looking at 670 hospital products, yet thousands are sold under distributor labels.
       When sampling, distributor products are collected in the field and liability is placed on
       the basic registrant if the product fails. Harrigan-Farrelly believes the basic registrants
       will practice product stewardship and cut-off distributors who may be adulterating or
       mis-labeling their products. Long-term, AD will be testing distributor packaged

XII.   Sustainability and “Going Green” What does the future hold?

       A panel was introduced consisting of Bob Rosenberg, National Pest Management
       Association, Tom Brennan, Chief, Environmental Stewardship Branch, BPPD, EPA, Lee
       Tanner, Environmental Protection Specialist, EPA, and Tom Delaney, Professional
       Landcare Network (PLANET).

       Rosenberg opened with a slide presentation (Attachment 11) and discussion of what
       the structural pest control industry is doing in the realm of “green” pest management.
       NPMA member companies do about 90% of the pest control in the U.S. NPMA met 1 ½
       years ago to discuss “green” pest management and subsequently commissioned a
       survey of 3,000 consumers on the subject. A series of slides summarized the results of
       the survey – which indicated overwhelming support of “green” pest control (60% would
       pay more for a green service over conventional service). Rosenberg correlated the
       increase in organic food sales to the mindset of U.S. consumers – healthier planet and
       healthier families. NPMA commissioned a firm to work with focus groups in Atlanta and
       San Francisco to delve into the subject further. These groups also liked the idea of
       “green” but they also had some reservations and questions such as: increased cost, use
       of “green” as a marketing ploy, and is “green” service efficacious. Green service is

similar to IPM – use of less toxic materials, fewer pesticide applications, precision
applications, more use of baits.

Rosenberg described the evolution of a credentialing program now titled “Green-Pro.”
The program began after Labor Day 2008. This program has high membership standards
and four (4) basic pillars:

   1. The business must be operated in a professional manner (background checks on
      employees, etc.)
   2. Consumer Protection
   3. Employee Training
   4. Environmental Stewardship

NPMA struggled with the Environmental Stewardship component – what should the
standards be?

There are currently 402 companies in the program and 67% of the top 100 grossing
companies are members. The goal of the program must be affordable, practical,
credible, and provide meaningful risk reduction. The guts of the Green-Pro program

   1. Employees must be “green” trained and tested
   2. Annual training for designated company “green” managers
   3. Extensive requirements for educating and communicating with customers
   4. Before using a pesticide a company must inspect, monitor and reduce conducive
   5. If a pesticide is used it must be used in a manner that minimizes risk to human
      health and the environment
   6. Comprehensive audits are required.

Most of the Green-Pro information is available on a CD, at Qualitypro@pestworld.org.
All interested companies are provided two tool kits – one for employee training, etc.
and a second for how to market green pest management services. Standards are
getting tougher – including a 3rd party audit. NPMA also has met with an environmental
group and an endorsement agreement has been reached (to be announced in 2-3
weeks). NPMA is also seeking AAPCO support of the program.

Tom Brennan discussed the importance of the pest control sector and the role of the
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (“PESP”) (Attachment 12). Defining
“green” is difficult but 3rd party certification is an important step (Green-Pro, Green
Shield, etc.) Brennan and Tanner’s Environmental Stewardship program is a
collaborative approach to meeting the EPA goals of protecting human health and the
environment. Brennan noted that the actions of informed individuals in the field, beats
regulatory standards in specific situations – attitudes play an important role.

Tanner gave an overview of the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program. The EPA
PESP vision is to create confidence in an Environmental Stewardship Program through
high standards. EPA seeks stakeholder input, data collected through sound science, 3 rd
party verification and leverage using the power of the EPA brand. Membership in the
PESP is categorized into “Gold,” “Silver,” and “Bronze.” Companies are provided tool
kits with risk reduction strategies to help them progress to the Gold level. Member
benefits also include EPA Public Service Announcements and videos and marketing
outreach. PESP next steps are too develop a stronger business system, ensuring the
logo is being used properly (screening companies), additional stakeholder meetings, and
a soft launch for tiered standards (to see how it works and move forward).

Tom Delaney gave an overview of The Professional Landcare Network (“PLANET”),
(www.Landcarenetwork.org) (Attachment 13). PLANET has a number of certification
programs for different categories of landscape professionals and provides a number of
educational and public service events. PLANET does outreach in collaboration with a
number of agencies and organizations – EPA, OSHA, Project Evergreen, etc... PLANET
issues include pesticides, fertilizer, water quality and quantity (droughts), local
ordinances, storm water, air pollution, LEEDS, endangered species, drift, and NPDES
permits. The drought in Atlanta put 17% of the industry out of business.

Other industry issues include immigration (H2B), fuel costs, health care, OSHA, and the
effect of the cosmetic pesticide restrictions in Canada. Some green industries are
affected more than others – lawn care is under direct attack with negative media
coverage and negative consumer attitudes. Negative legislation and rules often result.

Delaney discussed the elements of the EPA Environmental Lawn and Garden Care
Questionnaire. He also gave an overview of the Lawns and Environment Initiative,
http://www.lawnsandenvironment.org. The EPA GreenScapes program and the EPA
WaterSense programs were described. The draft specs under WaterSense have some
disturbing elements for the turf industry, namely restrictions on the amount of turf that
can be used or the amount of irrigation allowed.

Delaney provided one definition of sustainability: “The ability to continue a defined
behavior indefinitely.” Sustainable practices were defined as: “Meeting the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.” Delaney also referenced a book titled, “Cradle to Cradle” by William
McDonough, which is about sustainability.

Delaney noted the recent Crystal Ball Report (an annual PLANET report) which featured
sustainability and its meaning to the landscape industry. The report outlined the
benefits of sustainability to the green industry:
       •        Reducing operating costs
       •        Better risk management

       •       Creating value through enhanced and positive customer response
       •       Increased ability to attract and retain employees
       •       Continuing innovation and improvement
       •       Reduced government intervention

Numerous sustainable principles were covered including IPM/sustainable management
practices, employee and consumer management, and costs/profits consideration.

Delaney discussed the US Green Building Council- LEED Program. LEED is the Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design - a Green Building Rating System™ which
encourages global adoption of sustainable green building and development practices
through the creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted tools
and performance criteria. Architects, real estate professionals, facility managers,
engineers, interior designers, landscape architects, construction managers, lenders and
government officials all use LEED certification. On April 27, 2009, the next version of
LEED will launch. The LEED program calls for a 50% reduction in irrigation water use, no
potable water use of irrigation, and it assigns points for no irrigation (a concern of

Another program discussed by Delaney was the Sustainable Sites Initiative (comprised of
the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
and the United States Botanic Garden). This initiative is designed to create voluntary
national guidelines and performance benchmarks for sustainable land design,
construction and maintenance practices. The initiative uses the “precautionary
principle” and Delaney outlined their proposed performance benchmarks. LEED will
adopt the Initiatives guidelines upon completion. The Sustainable Sites Initiative
Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks 2009 – is expected to be released in the
summer of 2009 (http://www.sustainablesites.org/review).

Delaney concluded by presenting a series of survey results of public and business
attitudes on sustainable and “green” practices.

Tim Creger asked Rosenberg if the Green-Pro certification program had sought C & T re-
certification accreditation. Rosenberg stated it is basically technician training, and re-
cert credits are not being sought at this time. Joan Harrigan-Farrelly commented that
several manufacturers have met with EPA, AD, to discuss a pilot process for identifying
“green” antimicrobials. A question from the floor asked how a Green-Pro technician
responds to customers who do not wish to abide by basic sanitation and other best
management practices. Rosenberg stated the technicians are trained to encourage
customer participation, but if the customer refuses, the program is no longer identified
as a “Green” service account. Rosenberg noted that NPMA’s goal is not to achieve 100%
“Green” service. A question from the floor related to the objections from customers on
the additional cost. Rosenberg stated the cost is about 10-15% more expensive. Some
customers are willing to pay the higher price – and some are not. Tanner noted that

        under the stimulus package, HUD has received $7 billion additional – and that some of
        this could perhaps be used for a collaborative effort to promote “Green” pest control.

XIII.   PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) Enforcement Performance Measures,
           Baselines and Targets

        Al Havinga, Chief of the Agriculture Branch, OECA, and Liza Fleeson provided a summary
        of the PART measures, baselines, and targets for the Pesticide Enforcement grant
        agreements with states (Attachment 14). Under the Government Performance and
        Results Act review, the Enforcement Grant was rated “ineffective” under the program
        “results and accountability” portion of the review. Havinga presented the existing
        measures (repeat violators; complying actions; and efficiency) and he provided the
        history/timeline of PART (pesticide measures were established 2005; pesticide baselines
        & targets were set in 2008; and pesticide national targets are set to start 2010). Havinga
        displayed a chart showing the PART Enforcement Measures data collected from the
        states for the period 2006 through 2008.

        Liza Fleeson discussed the EPA Enforcement PART workgroups activities from 2004 -
        2008. The first workgroup drafted measures and collected comments from states.
        Many challenges were identified including:

           1. Not all of the data requested was being collected (complying actions)
           2. Systems were not in place for readily collecting the data
           3. The data resided in different databases (e.g., enforcement or registration)
           4. In some instances, data was collected by hand.
           5. The question of resources for collecting and reporting data
           6. Consistency – definitions & reporting
           7. Separating Enforcement Funding
           8. Increased, complicated reporting requirements
           9. Uniform Guidance lacking
           10. Due dates for reporting insufficient to compile, analyze and report data
           11. Data Usage – would state data be compared? Tied to funding?

        In 2007, a new workgroup was formed to address the consistency issues with the
        guidance. The measures were already set. Terms were defined; a Q & A was

        In 2008, another workgroup was formed to establish baselines and targets for the
        measures. The group included states and Regions. Consensus on definitions and the
        setting of baselines and targets was difficult. Bottom-line, the measures, baselines, and
        targets were accepted only because they were the best available options. Fleeson
        stated that in the future is would be desirable to include the total program in measuring
        success, recognize the uniqueness of different state programs, need to evaluate the
        data consistency, re-evaluate the current measures as standards for “success,”

       recognize that all enforcement actions are not “created equal,” and consider state
       resources and costs and the impact reporting may have on grant commitments. In
       closing, Fleeson offered, “These measures do not accurately gauge our program
       accomplishments or capture the protective measures (either of health or the
       environment) we achieve through compliance assistance….”

       Havinga proceeded to review the baseline and targets recommended by the workgroup
       (and required to be set by OMB). The workgroup agreed to use the 2007 reporting
       numbers as the baseline for PART measures. The targets were set using a 3%
       increase/decrease and 2010 will be the beginning of their use. OECA reports only
       national numbers to OMB, not the individual state numbers. Havinga questioned
       whether future baselines should be based on a “rolling 3 year average” or use 2007
       PART results. No decision has been made. Havinga discussed the trends in data
       collected under PART – the “repeat violators” measure is trending in the wrong
       direction but this could be interpreted as a success due to the targeting of repeat
       violators for inspection. Havinga stated that beginning in 2010, the measures for PART
       reporting to OMB will be the number of inspections. Havinga closed by stating PART
       may see additional changes in the future.

XIV.   Department of Defense Pesticide Issues

       Col. Charles “Gene” Cannon briefed the audience on the activities of the DoD, Armed
       Forces Pest Management Board (“AFPMB”); DoD Pesticide Applicator Training program
       and a list of DoD pesticide issues (Attachment 15). Currently there are 60 Army, 35
       Navy, and 15 Air Force entomologists on active duty. The history and functions of the
       AFPMB were described. The AFPMB Directorate is located on the Forest Glen Annex of
       Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Silver Spring, MD. In March 2009, the AFPMB was
       reorganized into a Support Staff Section and three Divisions, the Operations Division,
       the Research Division, and the Information Services Division. The Deputy Under
       Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment provides operational direction
       and supervision of the AFPMB. The AFPMB mission is to “Ensure military personnel
       have the most effective and environmentally sound disease vector control and pest
       management capabilities to prevent adverse effects on troops, weapons systems,
       supplies & equipment, and installations.”

       The DoD pesticide certification has two categories of applicators – Civilian/Engineer and
       Military. There are two types of military personnel applicators certified:
               1.     Track One is for engineering personnel who routinely apply pesticides as
                      part of their day-to-day job- it requires apprenticeship and formal
                      training. (Example: Air Force Pest Control Technicians)
               2.     Track Two is for medical personnel who rarely apply pesticides except
                      during contingency operations, most of which are outside the jurisdiction
                      of the United States. It requires formal training only.

Cannon described the DoD categories of certification (all commercial categories, no
private applicators); numbers of applicators certified; and re-certification requirements.
Currently there are five (5) DoD pesticide applicator training centers.

Cannon commented on the DoD Certification Plan. The plan is posted on the AFPMB
Website (http://www.afpmb.org/pubs/dir_inst/415007MV1p.pdf ) and on the DoD
Publication Website. The Department of Defense cooperates with individual States by
adhering to
standards that meet or exceed those established by the State or EPA. If a given State’s
standard is more stringent than standards established by DoD, the State may notify the
Department of Defense and request DoD compliance in accordance with Executive
Order 12088 [Reference (i)]. Upon notification by the State of a substantive standard
issue, the Department of Defense will attempt to mediate the issue with the State. If
unable to reach an agreement with the State, the Department of Defense will
immediately forward all such notifications to EPA, which will render its opinion as to
whether the standard is substantive or administrative in nature. The EPA administrator
may mediate conflicts or cases of disagreement between the Department of Defense
and a State. Commercial firms that contract to apply pesticides for the DoD
Components are not DoD pesticide applicator employees. They may be trained by, but
may not be certified by, the Department of Defense. All contract pesticide applicators
must be certified by the appropriate regulatory authority under the provisions of EPA-
approved plans.

Cannon concluded by summarizing the primary issues facing DoD pesticide applicators:

   1. Declining pesticide options for Public Health Pest Control
          • Deregistration – loss of chemistries
          • Few new chemistries
          • Development Costs (up to $200M for new chemistry)
          • Market Size
                 a. <10% of non-agricultural use
                 b. Public Perception
                 c. Pesticide misinformation
                 d. Poor risk analysis (disease vs. pesticide)
   2. Issue: Need Innovative Methods for Pesticide Application

Jack Peterson asked if DoD was considering contracts for 25(b) products. Cannon
replied that currently no 25(b) contracts have been awarded. When asked, 25(b)
packagers typically do not submit efficacy data.

XV.    ASPCRO Update

       Bonnie Rabe, NM, and AAPSE President, provided an update on AAPSE activities
       (Attachment 16). Rabe provided the ASPCRO Board make up, referenced the ASPCRO
       website (www.aspcro.org), and displayed a map showing the member states of ASPCRO
       (37 states). Several ASPCRO Committees were named and described:
                          1. State Meeting Assistance Committee
                          2. Borate Insecticides Committee
                          3. Training for Structural Inspectors (working on a training manual,
                              and hands-on training)
                          4. Label Issues (consistency, enforceability, etc.)
                          5. Outdoor Residential Misting Systems (results of state survey to be
                              posted on the ASPCRO web site).
                          6. Termiticide Standards
                          7. Termiticide Scientific Review
                          8. Termiticide Label Review
                          9. Pest Management in Schools
                          10. “Green” Committee
                          11. 25(b) Products

       Rabe discussed joint training exercises with EPA and ASPCRO SLA’s. These training
       events have been very helpful in giving EPA staff hands-on experience in structural pest
       control technology and methods. Depending upon funding availability there is another
       training event planned for 2009 in Louisiana. Rabe closed by announcing the dates and
       location of the 2009 ASPCRO meeting (August 30 – September 2, 2009, in Denver, CO).
       Jack Peterson asked if ASPCRO had a position on borates as a stand-alone treatment.
       Rabe replied, no, but the Committee has worked on clarification of field inspection
       techniques. The Committee is still active on a number of borate issues. A comment
       from the floor questioned the declining concern from states and EPA regarding misting
       systems. Rabe noted the state survey ranked the misting systems as a low concern. She
       felt the survey may need further clarifying questions, and also many states have not
       experienced heavy use in urban areas at this point in time.

XVI.   ECOS / AAPCO Mutual Funding Interests

       Steve Brown, Executive Director, Environmental Council of States (“ECOS”) began by
       noting that Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator, Nancy Sutley, Chair, CEQ, Gina McCarthy,
       Nominee, Office of Air, and Steve Owens, OPPTS nominee, are all former ECOS members
       (Attachment 17). The new administration officials bode well for state/EPA
       communications in the near future. Partnerships with EPA include: a data Exchange
       Network (state-to-EPA data exchange is second only to IRS data volume); an Interstate
       Technology and Regulatory Council, numerous forums and workgroups; and a new
       Partnership Council of the Office of Water and States.

The budget status was summarized by Brown. There are three budgets in process:
current year, 2010, and the development of the 2011 budget. The stimulus package
contains a number of increases for environmental programs, including a total of $6.6
billion in STAG (State Tribal Assistance Grants) plus Superfund (about a five-fold increase
from 2009).

Brown displayed a chart showing the number of new Federal rules impacting state
environmental programs over the past 10 years – a significant increase relative to a
decrease in categorical grant funds. Brown followed with examples of negative impacts
to state program resources and capabilities.

A summary of the 2010 budget has been released but the numbers for state categorical
grants will not be released until April. There is $3.9 billion for STAG infrastructure
(primarily water grants), which is a large increase from the 2009, $1.8 billion. ECOS has
proposed $2 billion for STAG categorical grants, an increase from $1 billion. The Senate
and House Appropriations Committees were not pleased, but listened at length to the
ECOS budget request for 2010.

AAPCO was asked to help develop the 2010 ECOS budget request which is premised, in
part, on the cost of implementation of new rules mandated by Congress. The 2011
budget process is under way and Brown asked AAPCO for input by late April (changes
based on regulatory changes, etc.)

Policies pending on the “Hill” were outlined:
    • Climate Change
    • Clean Water SRF Reauthorization (passed in 10 days in the House, now in Senate)
    • Clean Water Act Jurisdiction (Senate Bill re-defining waters of the U.S. – a huge
        ECOS priority)
    • 2010 Budget

       Other items may be on hold legislatively while EPA re-issues rules, including …
   •   CAIR (Clean Air Interstate Rule) – Court Remand
   •   CAMR (Clean Air Mercury Rule) – Court Remand
   •   California Waiver – Jackson will look at science and the law before decision
   •   Coal Ash
   •   Perchlorate – to be revisited by EPA as water contaminant

Delaney asked for the membership composition of ECOS. Brown replied it is composed
of state lead agencies for the environment. Tim Creger asked how the budget numbers
are crunched. Brown pulled the numbers together with the help of staff (15 staff
members at ECOS). Jim Skillen asked for ECOS’ position on the Oberstar bill regarding
the removal of the term “navigable waters” of the U.S. ECOS proposes taking the
current definition of “waters of the U.S.” from existing rules and add to the statute. This
definition does not contain navigable. ECOS also proposes that the 404 program be

        delegated from the Corps of Engineers to the states. Serafini asked if AAPCO should
        provide anything additional to the budget information provided to ECOS last year. Is an
        update sufficient? Brown suggested just an update, but was open to any other
        important budget issues. He commented that when budget proposals unite the various
        state associations, they carry more weight. Serafini asked what else AAPCO could do to
        move the funding issue forward. Brown suggested partnering with others and visits
        individually with House and Senate Appropriations. He noted that state officials are not
        considered lobbyists. Dennis Howard, FL, asked for comment on NPDES, and ASWIPCA’s
        request for a two year stay of the Court’s ruling. Brown commented that he is
        unfamiliar with the details of the letter and would rather not comment until he has
        further information.


        Jim Roelofs, OPP, covered several items in OPP weekly reports. The National Pesticide
        Information Center, Oregon, has launched a new web page which provides a site for
        people to report pesticide incidents. NPIC currently processes 25,000 phone calls from
        the public each year and is a de facto reporting tool. The categories designated for
        reporting incidents are: human illness, animal illness, environmental impact, illegal
        pesticide application, and problem labels. Roelofs is looking forward to review of the
        “problem label” incidents reported.

        Roelofs discussed the fall 2008, report released from the CDC which covered mortality
        associated with total release foggers – and the interest it generated, especially in NYC.
        Last week EPA received a petition from the Asst. Commissioner of the NYC Health Dept.
        (a co-author of the CDC report). The petition requested EPA to classify TRFs as
        Restricted Use Pesticides. EPA has no obligation to respond, however, EPA attorneys
        are preparing a response, and OPP will meet with the Asst. Commissioner in the next
        couple of weeks. EPA will also discuss the issue with registrants of TRFs. Based on the
        AAPCO survey, 18 states responded TRFs are not a problem, 2 responded yes.

        OPP has formed a Pollinator Protection Team that will be developing a strategic plan. A
        PRN attempt failed 10 years ago. OPP is crafting a “tool box” of protective statements
        with application sites, methods, etc. specified by product. The recent carbaryl labeling is
        an example of the approach to be taken. New data requirements on sub-chronic
        toxicity to bees may also be considered. EPA is also discussing with bee keepers new
        ways of collecting better data on bee incidents.

        Al Havinga announced the final awards of 2009 Enforcement grants - $18.6 million total.
        He reported on the upcoming PIRT (Pesticide Inspector Residential Training) courses
        planned: Breaking Barriers (April 5, Ft. Myers); 2 product enforcement/
        Container/Containment (May 3-7, Savannah, GA and August or October in PA); and a
        Structural Use/Misuse - New Generation Pesticides course (September 20-24, MA).
        Travel is becoming more expensive for PIRT and the number of inspectors attending has

been cut. Havinga discussed the priorities in the National Program Managers Guidance
– Imports, Fumigant Applications, Return Collection Centers (big-box stores) and High
Incident Pesticides. The Regions will discuss these priorities with the states and a
decision will be made on which priority the state will focus. 2010 Grant Guidance was
sent to the Regions last week listing the 4 priorities. The Regions were also asked to
discuss PART reporting with the states.

The 2011-2013 Grant guidance was also discussed. Focus areas considered for this 3
year cycle period are: Fumigants; Inspecting non-traditional marketplaces (beauty
supply, marinas, imports, janitorial supply, etc.); biotech (plant incorporated protectants
rule); container/containment; re-emphasis on Producer Establishment Inspections; and
WPS. Dropping WPS for a short time is being considered – until the new rules are
issued. The Regions will ask for state recommendations on these focus areas.

Havinga concluded with a description of the 2011-2013 FIFRA Strategic Plan
development. Gina Mortensen has been charged with putting the Plan together by the
end of September. Some areas under consideration:
   1. What are the Federal/State compliance roles?
   2. How are core priorities set?
   3. What are compliance programs overall goals?
   4. What are data and measures used?
   5. What are the programs’ strengths and weaknesses?
   6. What are the Federal/State inspector infrastructure needs?
   7. What are the training needs?
   8. How do we address the universe of inspections and allocate coverage?
   9. How do we meet both priority and core program needs?

Havinga promoted improved analysis and use of data coming into OECA to facilitate
strategic planning.

Jack Peterson asked if states would be asked to sign onto one of the priorities. Havinga
replied that each Region must sign on to the Imports priority, and states will be asked to
support one of the three other priorities. Tim Creger and Dave Scott questioned the
four priorities listed in the 2010 guidance. Scott asked for clarification of the “High
Incident” pesticides. Havinga replied it could be human exposure, death, injury
incidents. He did not have the data set listing these incidents, but could provide it later.
Dennis Howard asked if states with higher fumigations rates would be expected to sign
onto and account for significantly more fumigant inspections. Havinga responded that
states would need to negotiate terms with their Regional Office on how best to work
together. Headquarters is not mandating how this occurs.

XVIII. EPA and Homeland Security Issues

      Jay Ellenberger, Associate Director of Field and External Affairs Division, OPP, and
      Dennis Deziel, Office of Homeland Security, discussed security issues and activities
      related to the food and agriculture sector.

      Ellenberger stated that OPP collaborates with EPA’s Office of Research & Development
      (particularly the National Homeland Security Centers located in Cincinnati and Research
      Triangle Park), the EPA Office of Solid Waste (now Resource Conservation and Disposal),
      and with the EPA Office of Homeland Security (Kate Perry is the coordinator of food and
      ag Homeland Security initiatives). Other key groups include the Food & Agriculture
      Governing Coordination Council (a venue for Federal, State and Local officials to meet
      quarterly and discuss security plans and activities); the Food and Agriculture Sector
      Coordinating Council (composed of food and ag industry). Charlie Ingram, NASDA,
      participates on the Governing Coordination Council. Ellenberger has asked that AAPCO
      and ECOS representatives be included on the Council and is waiting for an approval.
      OPP is also involved in “table top” exercises. These exercises can span 2-3 days and are
      based on natural or man-made disaster scenarios. An example was given of Exotic New
      Castle disease and its spread from chickens into a livestock and human health problem.
      Ellenberger suggested this type of training be expanded.

      OPP is also working with other Federal agencies preparing guidance on how to deal with
      high pathological avian influenza outbreaks. Collaborative guidance has also been
      worked on which deals with response and recovery from major biotoxic contamination
      at major transportation hubs. The Office of Solid Waste has written guidance for
      disposal of chemical, radiological, and biological wastes – including disposal of livestock
      carcasses. They also have a decision/software tool to guide states on options available
      for dealing with environmental and other media contamination. EPA also issued a PRN
      in August 2008, which provided industry guidance on registration of anthrax
      disinfectants. In the area of research and development, three OPP labs are involved
      with Homeland Security activities. The three labs have improved their capabilities over
      the past few years. The analytical and environmental chemistry labs are now part of the
      multi-agency laboratory response network and can offer sampling assistance to CDC,
      USDA, state, and other labs. The OPP Microbiology Lab has been certified by CDC to
      handle anthrax samples and for viruses. Quantitative methods have been developed for
      anthrax spores. Six OPP staff are full-time engaged with food and ag security issues.

      Dennis Deziel, Deputy Director of Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, DHS,
      stated his office is responsible for implementing new regulations issued in 2007, the
      Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). The regulations define a list of 300
      chemicals that if held above a threshold, the holding facility must go through a chemical
      screening process. Out of the 300, DHS has focused on a core of 14 pesticides. The
      Division has a staff of 97 and a $100 million budget. The overall process – if you are a
      chemical storage facility and you have one or more of the 300 listed chemicals at or

above the threshold quantity, you must go through a screening process. This process
can be done through the DHS secure website. A top-screen questionnaire is completed
(chemical types, how much, where you are, etc.). Facilities have 60 days to submit a
top-screen. DHS analyzes the top screen information, does some modeling, looks at
security issues, theft aversion chemicals in storage, sabotage chemicals and economic-
consequence chemicals. Based on the data analysis, a facility is categorized into one of
four tiers. A Tier 1 facility is the highest risk facility. DHS has received 36,000 top
screens since June 2007, and almost 30,000 facilities have been screened out. A
preliminary Tier has been assigned to those that remain. There are about 200 Tier 1 and

Deziel described the next step: Security Vulnerability Assessment (“SVA”). SVA must be
submitted based upon conditional Tier level assignment. This is also electronically
submitted. DHS reviews the SVA and based upon this analysis and the top-screen a final
Tier letter is issued (consequence and vulnerability scores are over-laid with threat
data). The next step is the facility must develop a site security plan. DHS has developed
a guidance document and risk-based performance standards (18 standards) to assist in
developing site plans. The site security plan can be submitted on-line also.

Relative to Ag issues, DHS did not establish any “holding” provisions (e.g. holding a listed
chemical for ½ hour). Because of the way the rule was written, farmers could be
required to submit a top screen (an estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 submissions). To
avoid this, the DHS granted an extension and an additional set of questions will be sent
to 1,000 Tiered ag facilities to work out some of these issues. DHS does not intend to
ignore the 1 ton of ammonium nitrate on the farm, or the tanker of anhydrous
ammonia. Outreach is continuing with states to determine who should have submitted
top screens. Pilots are being started in NY and NJ to identify these facilities. This
process will be expanded to all of the states.

Last year DHS was granted authority to regulate the handling and possession of
ammonium nitrate. Last fall, DHS issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
with the goal of issuing a proposed rule this summer, and a Final Rule in late 2009. The
proposed rule is, in effect, a registration program. If you sell or handle ammonium
nitrate you will need a registration/permit from DHS.

Dave Scott asked if DHS has done any outreach with AAPFCO? Deziel replied that they
have communicated with many groups – CropLife, Farm Bureau, etc.
Scott asked if there was any ground truthing before a facility is dismissed from CFATS
coverage after a top-screen submission. Deziel stated that if a facility purposely
misleads or is deceptive in reporting, enforcement action can be taken. Fines can be up
to $25,000 per day and they may close a facility. Deziel stressed that DHS is in the
compliance mode, not enforcement. Jim Gray asked if DHS has any regional offices for
states to contact with questions. Deziel stated they are in the process of setting up 10
regional offices. He also suggested contacting staff through the DHS website. Laura

       Quakenbush asked for clarification on the status of Fumitoxin. Deziel stated that
       aluminum and magnesium phosphide are considered sabotage chemicals. Any amount
       of technical grade is considered significant. DHS is aware of only a few facilities that
       import the product for sale – and these facilities have submitted top-screens and SVAs.
       Analysis of risk is under review. Rosenberg commented that DOT has a placarding
       exemption for under 48 pounds. Deziel stated that a farm or granary holding Fumitoxin
       solely for use would be under the indefinite Ag exemption.

       The General Session adjourned at 4:30 p.m. and the AAPCO Business Meeting
       convened immediately. Minutes of the Business Meeting are attached (Attachment

       Wednesday, April 8th, the General Session convened at 8:05 a.m.

XIX.   States Industry Forum

       Allen Noe, CropLife Foundation, provided a description of the research and education
       arm of CropLife America (Attachment 19). Noe commented on the evolution of the
       CropLife name (there are 91 associations under the umbrella of CropLife International).
       The mission of CropLife Foundation is to promote and advance sustainable agriculture
       and environmentally sound use of pesticides and to work with industry, growers,
       researchers and educators to identify problems in achieving sustainable and economical
       agriculture, and appropriate solutions. Recent activities include a “Follow the Label”
       initiative similar to one developed by the National Ag Chemicals Association in the
       1980’s. This initiative came about through conversations with 4 ag commissioners
       alerting CropLife to growers’ not reading/following labels. A set of Fact Sheets have
       been developed in English and Spanish. CDs are also available and are available on the
       website www.croplifefoundation.org. Another major CropLife Foundation effort was a
       two year environmental stewardship project completed in North Carolina. Fact Sheets,
       CDs, DVDs and posters were developed and have been distributed to over 30
       organizations. The DVD, with 10 safety modules has been approved by EPA Region IV,
       for WPS training. 6,200 dealers will receive a Container/Containment display poster in
       May from CropLife Foundation. Jim Gray commented on the issue of farmers not
       reading labels. The complexity and confusing structure, language, etc. on labels needs
       to be addressed, and Gray offered to set up a SFIREG POM and registrants meeting to
       discuss registrant training on labels. Noe agreed to carry the message back to Ray
       MaCallister, CropLife America. Dave Scott asked why labels are in the condition states
       perceive them to be? Or do registrants believe they are ok as is? Jim Kunstman
       commented that labels have morphed due to a patchwork of reregistration decisions,
       label improvement initiatives, etc. - coherency has been lost.

       Joshua Saltzman, Assistant General Counsel, CropLife America, and Dennis Howard,
       Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services, presented an overview and the
       implications of the 6th Circuit Appeals Court decision in National Cotton Council v. U.S.

EPA (Attachment 20). Saltzman outlined the definitions contained in the Clean Water
Act (“CWA”). Section 301(a) makes it illegal to discharge a pollutant from a point source
into navigable waters of the U.S. One exception is allowed – a permit is granted under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”). There are two
exceptions to needing an NPDES permit:
     Section 402(l)(1) of the Clean Water Act
       • (1) AGRICULTURAL RETURN FLOWS.—The Administrator shall not require a
           permit under this section for discharges composed entirely of return flows
           from irrigated agriculture, nor shall the Administrator directly or indirectly,
           require any State to require such a permit.
     Section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act
           (14) The term ‘‘point source’’ means any discernible, confined and discrete
           conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
           conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal
           feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are
           or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural stormwater
           discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.

As a result of several court decisions, in November 2006, EPA promulgated the NPDES
Aquatic Rule that stated a CWA/NPDES permit is not required when the application of
pesticides to, over or near waters of the U.S. is consistent with FIFRA. An NPDES Permit
is not required for:
            • Application of pesticides directly to waters of U.S. to control pests (i.e.
                aquatic weeds, mosquitoes)
            • Application of pesticides to control pests that are present over or near
                waters of U.S. where a portion of the pesticides will unavoidably be
                deposited to the water in order to target the pests (i.e. forest canopy)
The Rule does not address spray drift.
Petitions to overturn the rule were filed in 3 Circuit Courts and these were consolidated
in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 7, 2009, a three Judge panel struck down
the EPA rule, stating it was in conflict with the CWA. The panel ruled that:
            • Waters of U.S. – included any hydrological connection to navigable
                waters, therefore ditches, erosion or wetlands are included
            • Point Source – includes nozzles used in ground and aerial applications
            • Pollutants – chemical pesticides are not chemical wastes since they serve
                a beneficial purpose, BUT the residual and excess once beneficial use is
                over, is a “chemical waste”, and therefore is a pollutant.
            • All biological pesticides are “biological materials” and therefore are
The Court did not examine the EPA registration process that takes into account residues.
The impact of the decision is that whenever pesticides or residues may enter U.S.
waters, NPDES permits will be required (for aquatic, terrestrial, and aerial applications).

Saltzman outlined the legal remedies available:
            • The mandate is not effective until appeals are exhausted.
            • A motion for rehearing en banc will be filed by CropLife on April 9, 2009
            • Decision wrong – CWA only requires permits for substances that are
               pollutants when discharged
            • Rescind portions of opinion discussing terrestrial applications which were
               not before the court and briefed
            • Declarations and amici support from allies to show practical obstacles
The 6 Circuit will take several months to decide if a rehearing will be heard and if a
rehearing is denied, there will be a motion to stay the decision to develop a general
permit. If a motion for rehearing is denied and absent a new EPA rule:
            • All aquatic applications will require NPDES permits
            • There is a potential for terrestrial applications to require NPDES permits
            • Increased potential liability for applicators under the CWA citizen-action
            • Environmental groups can sue applicators for failure to obtain NPDES
               permits or failure to comply with permits
NPDES applications will prove impossible for agriculture due to time sensitive
applications; pest emergencies; high cost impacts; delays for implementation; and
inconsistencies and unfairness with different state programs. Permits would need to be
filed 180 days before use of the pesticide and permits are subject to judicial review.
Under the scenario of general use Permits, activists have already announced that if the
Permits are “too general” they will be filing lawsuits.

Dennis Howard outlined SLA perspectives and concerns resulting from the Court
decision (Attachment 21):
           • EPA is in the driver’s seat and needs to consider a motion for re-hearing
               or stay of the decision.
           • The General Permit is considered a difficult option for states.
           • SLA and EPA dialogue must continue.
           • FIFRA evaluations should supplant the need for NPDES permits.
           • Permitting will require duplicative efforts – an overlap of CWA and FIFRA
               – and is ill advised in the tough economic conditions of today. In some
               instances an Aquatic Permit and an NPDES Permit would be required for
               the same application.
           • The negative effects on biological use are counter productive.
           • Potential drift or runoff from terrestrial applications being included
               would be a major concern. Hundreds of thousands of applications may
               need a permit.
           • State Clean Water Agencies do not have the resources to handle the
               multitude of applications for permits.
           • Fee increases are unlikely to be approved to support permit programs.

               •   Permits would take months to approve and delays would hamper many
                   time-sensitive applications to control mosquitoes, aquatic weeds,
                   invasive species, and other emergencies, such as, West Nile Virus.
               •   Potentially far-reaching impacts on crop loss and US ability to provide
               •   Applicators and agencies would become susceptible to CWA lawsuits;
               •   What impact relating to drift, runoff, irrigation return, residential use?
               •   What is “near” water?
               •   Which pesticides become subject? Who decides?
               •   How fast must residuals dissipate for exemption?
               •   How much residue can remain for exemption?
               •   Who enforces?
               •   Will federal support assist implementation?
               •   Do permits involve public comment?
               •   Could permit requirements contradict label?
               •   Will monitoring, reporting be required?

    Jeff Case asked what other options are available if EPA asks for a stay. Is the Supreme
    Court the only other option to overturn the decision? Saltzman stated if the EPA does
    not file a motion to re-hear by April 9th, they will hold off on a motion to stay until the
    Court has decided on the CropLife motion to re-hear. If the motion to re-hear is denied,
    CropLife will then file a motion to stay. Chris Mason asked if there was any move to fix
    the issue through legislation. Saltzman stated that re-opening FIFRA is not a
    consideration of CropLife and he is unaware of any other efforts.

•   John Thorne, Crowell & Moring LLP, gave a presentation of emerging agricultural
    sustainability projects (Attachment 22). Thorne noted the many definitions and
    interpretations of sustainability. Many organizations and industries are developing
    voluntary standards or adopting standards passed up the supply chain. Thorn described
    the ANSI effort to establish a set of standards on sustainability. There were many
    controversial proposals in their draft and USDA and large farm organizations objected.
    The Leonardo Academy was brought in and a more transparent process was set up. A
    writing committee was set-up but unfortunately agriculture is not well represented
    (25% is environmental sector). A sub-committee is identifying the Ag sectors not
    represented and who should be added to the committee. It will be a long process and
    funds are already short. If and when it is developed, ANSI may choose not to accept it.
    If it is accepted by ANSI, it will likely be used as an international standard. Another
    organization is Keystone – which has a farm group alliance charged with finding
    sustainable practices for conventional agriculture. It is not a standard setting
    organization but a source and distributor of information to food suppliers for use in
    answering consumer questions on BMPs used by agriculture (energy use, carbon
    emissions, water and soil conservation. and soil). Most of their information is gleaned
    from USDA. Western Growers have partnered with NRDC to set up a “Stewardship
    Index.” Among many other functions, the Stewardship Index helps farmers increase

productivity while limiting adverse environmental impacts. The “Food Alliance” certifies
farmers, food processors and handlers in 14 states. They have established standards for
environment, stewardship, safe and fair employee working conditions, humane animal
treatment, prohibitions on GMO crops and animals, reduced pesticide use and toxicity,
and prohibitions on hormones and non-therapeutic antibiotics use. The “Sustainable
Food Laboratory” is consortium of 70 organizations from three continents. It is at the
retail level primarily. They share BMPs, factor in climate change effects, social effects,
etc. Global Gap is a certification process for Ag products. They have an “eco” label, and
focus on minimizing adverse agricultural impacts, reducing the use of chemical inputs,
responsible worker safety & health, and animal welfare. SYSCO has set up performance
standards required of their frozen and canned fruit and vegetable suppliers. They claim
to have reduced use of 300,000 pounds of pesticide a.i. in the first year – 2005 of their
program. Wal-Mart has been very active in developing supply chain restrictions and
implementing energy conservation. Their goal is to supply 100% of their stores with
renewable energy, create zero waste and sell products that sustain natural resources
and the environment. Thorn also described Nestle and Unilever sustainability programs.
Retailers are looking at bottom line savings from energy conservation, waste stream
reductions, etc., - and long term sales improvement from using sustainable practices.
Thorne closed by stating there will be continued emphasis on sustainability (including
Congressional interest), and a lot more retail driven programs to effect products.

Dave Scott discussed the ongoing work and EPA’s efforts relating to a drift PRN. Scott
referenced the work completed since the draft PRN of 2001. AAPCO commented on
PRN 2001-X and agreed that improving the default drift language and standardization of
label language was needed. AAPCO felt boom height restrictions were not practical and
buffers should be product or site specific. AAPCO recommended the following default,
precautionary drift statement for labels:

“Do not apply this product in a manner that allows spray to drift from the application
target site and/or cause harm to humans, animals or other non-target sites.”

There were many comments on PRN 2001-X, with no consensus. The PRN was not
published. In March 2008, another EPA workgroup was formed to draft a PRN 2009-X
for drift labeling. The new PRN initiative has these major components:
    • Labeling Interpretation Guidance (for SLAs)
    • Promotion of a Drift Reduction Technology project and incorporation into labels
    • Development of BMP drift reduction guidance
Scott acknowledged the strong efforts and resources EPA put into the initiative. Scott
noted the scope would not include certain products (e.g., indoor products, mosquito
adulticides). There is a two pronged approach to the default label statement:
    1. A general drift statement…consistent for all products covered by the PR Notice,
    2. Product specific application restrictions… a case by case basis, based on product
         toxicity, hazard, risk assessment, etc.

      There will likely be two forms of “general drift statements” – one for commercial use
      products and one for non-commercial products. Scott also discussed the work being
      done on an Interpretive Guidance document (primarily to help states interpret some of
      the labeling statements). Case studies were used to ground truth proposed language.
      Scott also discussed the basis of some product specific language (drift reduction
      technology, boom height, wind speed, droplet size, etc.) Scott is hopeful EPA will move
      the PRN forward and encouraged SLAs, Extension Service, and others to comment on
      the document when published.

      Arty Lawyer felt that the “Table” on the label which details drift restrictions/reduction
      was helpful, but asked if it would slow down registrations. Scott commented that the
      information in the Table would be enforceable and did not feel it would slow product

      Jack Peterson thanked the State Industry Forum speakers and solicited audience ideas
      and participation in development of the 2010 Forum.

XX.   Label Accountability Workgroup Update Jim Roelofs, OPP, gave a background,
      summary and findings of the Label Accountability Workgroup (Attachment 23). The
      recommendations of the Workgroup were:

      •      Finish updating the Label Review Manual,
      •      Develop Training for Label Reviewers,
      •      Improve SLITS as a feedback and management tool, and
      •      Develop Divisional Quality Assurance procedures.

      The Label Review Manual is almost done – 18 Chapters – and will be considered a “living
      document.” While the LRM cannot be used to set policy, suggestions on improvements
      are welcome.

      Label Reviewer training has begun. On March 15th, 127 OPP staff attended the opening
      training class. Debbie Edwards stated her commitment to the training and Dea
      Zimmerman gave a presentation on the enforcement issues with labels. The training
      covered the core principles of labeling, EPA policies and regulations, and the importance
      of consistency, clarity, and that guidance is not just guidance – variations from guidance
      must be justified. Each principle was illustrated by a problem label. A meeting
      evaluation survey of the Label Reviewers showed a positive response and 94% asked for
      more enforcement training. OPP also has a goal to complete a compact, introductory,
      basic training tool ≈3 hours in length. This training would likely contain 10-12 modules.
      A draft version will hopefully be completed by this summer.

      Roelofs discussed the State Label Issues Tracking System and its current limitations. An
      EPA workgroup was formed to compile a “wish” list and state input was also received at

       a PREP course. The workgroup asked that SLITS features include the ability to search
       the database. It is hoped the programming update will take place this summer.

       Roelofs also discussed the development of Quality Assurance plans in each of the three
       EPA registration Divisions. The Division plans (Registration, BPPD, and AD) have all been
       implemented. Registration Division has worked with a POM label subcommittee on
       some new product labeling review. The POM subcommittee provided 16 pages of
       comments in a very short turn-around.

       Roelofs closed with comments relating to resource challenges; the need for long term
       engagement of industry; and the need to keep the label improvement process going –
       training, LRM improvements, and web-based support.

       Jim Kunstman commented that SRRD should be included in the training and he offered
       participation by industry. Jim Gray thanked Jim Roelofs for his efforts in moving the
       label improvement issues forward to management.

XXI.   Label Mandated Training John Leahy, Senior Advisor, and Karen Santora, Chemical
       Review Manager, SRRD, discussed concerns related to label mandated training as a
       component of risk mitigation (Attachment 24). Leahy gave a summary of the concerns:

       •      Is EPA requiring training in lieu of other types of risk mitigation?
       •      Is training an effective mitigation measure?
       •      If training is required by labeling, how and by whom will it be enforced?
       •      What criteria does EPA use when deciding to require training?
       •      Does EPA have a policy? Is one needed?

       Leahy presented arguments supporting training as an effective mitigation tool. Leahy
       also outlined factors to consider before employing training as a tool: without training,
       safety is less certain; training targets a specific audience; training should not be
       redundant; and, if training is required, compliance/enforcement should be expected.
       Leahy then outlined how label mandated training can be implemented.

       Karen Santora gave examples of label mandated training – including picloram, anthrax
       products, soil fumigants, acrolein, and azinphos methyl. Other examples were sulfuryl
       fluoride, phosphine and sodium cyanide (for coyote, fox, and wild dogs). Applicator
       training in some of these instances was required as part of a stewardship program and
       not label mandated.

       Because of issues related to picloram and soil fumigants registration decisions, OPP is
       very tuned into using good rationale and stakeholder input before considering label
       mandates for training. Although there is no formal policy, EPA is aware of the need to
       be consistent and to evaluate the effectiveness of label mandated training.

        Jim Criswell strongly encouraged SRRD to work with EPA Certification and Training
        Branch, and with SLAs and Extension when training needs arise. Criswell also
        commented that the phosphine training for railcar use is not well documented. Leahy
        replied that EPA is trying to improve upon the phosphine example.

        A question from the floor relating to azinphos methyl training requirements – are they
        on the label? Santora replied that the training is not on the label. Registrants will do
        periodic reports to EPA Headquarters and states are not involved directly.

XXII.   Container / Containment Rule Changes and Compliance Strategy

        Nancy Fitz, OPP, and David Stangel, OECA, presented an update on the
        Container/Containment Rule (“CCR”)(Attachment 25). Fitz provided background on the
        CCR and compliance dates:
            Registrants
               •      Ensure their nonrefillable containers (by Aug 2009) and refillable
                      containers (by Aug 2011) comply with container standards
               •      Ensure that labels have required statements (by Aug 2010)
               •      Authorize refillers to repackage product; develop & provide certain info
                      to refillers (by Aug 2011)
            Refillers (registrants, distributors, retailers)
               •      Obtain & follow registrant info; inspect, clean & label refillable containers
                      (by Aug 2011)
            Retailers, commercial applicators, custom blenders
               •      Must have secondary containment around large stationary tanks and
                      containment pads for dispensing areas (by Aug 2009)
            Pesticide users
               •      Follow container-related directions on label (by Aug 2010)

        Fitz described the amendments to the regulations which were finalized October 29,
        2008. The amendments extended the compliance date for label requirements to August
        17, 2010, and changed the wording from “sold or distributed” to “released for
        shipment” for all compliance dates in the rule (but other dates stay the same as
        published in 2006). Amendments also exempted certain container types from some of
        the label requirements, e.g., “Nonrefillable container. Do not reuse or refill this
        container.” They also provided the option to request waivers from container type
        statements on a case-by-case basis.

        In 2008, EPA Regions were given the task of reviewing SLA programs to determine
        adequacy for residue removal requirements under the CCR (for example, ability to
        conduct inspections and enforce label residue removal requirements). All of the states
        were determined to have adequate programs (a couple states are adequate pending
        some regulatory changes).

SLA regulations on containment are also under review for equivalency with the CCR.
Twenty one states have state containment regulations. Equivalency has not been easy
to determine due to nuances between the state regulations and CCR. Progress has been
made working with OGC, OECA, the Regions and SLAs, however, the determinations
have not been concluded. Letters informing states of the EPA determinations will be
sent to SLA’s by the end of April, and Fitz promised there would be no surprises. For
states without containment rules, Fitz outlined four options:
      1.       Implement federal containment regulations
                     • Default option; no State regulations
      2.       Issue State regulations that incorporate federal containment regs by
      3.       Issue State regulations that are identical to federal containment regs.
      4.       Issue State containment regs that are different than federal containment
               regs - but do not conflict with federal regs (which apply regardless of
               what State does).

For training, a CCR PREP Course was held in Grand Rapids, MI, July 2008. The material
used in this training course was adapted for use in other training classes. In 2009, there
will be a Container-Containment Day at the PREP Compliance Course in Davis, CA (April
21, 2009), a Container-Containment PIRT in Savannah, GA (May 3-7, 2009) and, perhaps
another Container-Containment PIRT. Outreach material is available on the OPP web
site- http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/containers.htm . A check list and poster
for mini-bulk containers will be sent to retailers in the near future and there will be
additional materials developed for distribution.

Dave Stangel gave an update on changes to the OECA Compliance Strategy based upon
changes made in the October 2008, amendments. Container design requirements will
become effective in 2009 and will be enforceable immediately. 2010 is the effective
date for labeling requirements. The Compliance Strategy will allow states to conduct
compliance assistance for containment during 2009 and 2010, at the state’s discretion.
The Office of Compliance is in the process of revising a VA Inspector Checklist for use in
CCR inspections. The checklist will be tested at the next PREP and PIRT courses. The
website will have waivers to the CCR posted in the near future.

Tim Creger asked if state inspectors would be doing CCR inspections under Federal
credentials in states where there are no state rules. Stangel replied that Producer
Establishments will likely be done under Federal credentials. Peterson asked for the
definition of “released for shipment.” Stangel replied that it is “one point in time” when
a product is said to be ready for shipment, sale, or use. Liza Fleeson asked if there
would be a separate Enforcement Response Policy for CCR violations. Stangel replied
that the Enforcement Response Policy is under revision, and the CCR would be
incorporated into the revised edition. Tim Creger asked how many states are going to
accept the CCR and how many will write their own. Fitz estimated about 50% are
writing their own and the other half are adopting the CCR through reference.

XXIII. Current Status and Potential Ramifications of 6th Circuit Court NPDES Decision

       Tim Creger introduced Jim Hanlon, Director, Office of Waste Water Management, and
       Steven Bradbury, Deputy Director for Programs, OPP. Creger noted that Nebraska is
       the first state to issue a state general permit by regulation – similar to the current
       general permits for CAFOs. The rule has not been signed by the Governor and will not
       be implemented until the Court makes a final decision. Creger also quoted the concerns
       expressed in the AAPCO letter to Administrator Jackson.

       Hanlon provided a briefing on the rule that was vacated by the 6 th Circuit Court in
       January 2009. The deadline for motions to stay or motions to request a re-hearing is
       April 9, 2009. EPA looked at the options in the case in terms of the standard for review.
       The first criteria is a “difference in prior decisions” the 6th Court has made and therefore
       grounds for a re-hearing. The second criteria is one of “exceptional importance.” EPA’s
       interactions with the Court are through the Department of Justice – they have the final
       call on the position of the Federal government. EPA decided today that the government
       will not be seeking a re-hearing. Tomorrow, EPA will ask for a 24 month stay of the
       Court’s mandate. If any parties request a re-hearing, the clock stops on any other
       motions, until the Court decides on the re-hearing. Once a decision is made to re-hear
       or not, the Court will then make a decision on the motion to stay. Worst case, the court
       could decide not to re-hear and not to stay the decision, and by May the states must
       start permitting. If the motion to stay is granted, the states will have 24 months to work
       on a permitting mechanism. The CWA provides that states can seek and be authorized
       to issue NPDES permits. To date, 46 states have this authority. Hanlon assumes that
       most states will be using General Permits – but some may choose to use individual
       permits. Given the numbers, it is more likely General Permits will be issued. EPA’ Office
       of Water has started work already, with Steve Bradbury and staff at OPP. Time is of the
       essence. They will also work with states, ASWIPCA and AAPCO. Hanlon described some
       existing General Permits as examples of what could be done – CAFO’s and General
       Permits for 70,000 vessels (ships may have 28 waste streams). If allowed, the 24 month
       time period will provide time for a public comment period for a General Permit

       Steve Bradbury re-emphasized the need for time to set up a permit process. He
       expressed hope there will be enough time for applicators to avoid the choices of not
       spraying or spraying and facing citizen allegations under the CWA. Bradbury also
       emphasized the need for dialogue and feed back from SLAs in AAPCO and ASWIPCA. He
       stressed the challenges will be big, but EPA must make sure they meet the goals of the
       CWA – effectively and efficiently.

       Jim Gray asked if there were any EPA briefing papers that SLA’s could distribute to
       stakeholders to apprise them of “what’s going on?” Hanlon stated the November 2007,
       rule remains in place and will remain the law until the Court addresses the filings made

for re-hearing and/or the motions to stay. The EPA web page EPA/NPDES.gov will
provide updates. Tom Delaney asked for the rationale for making the decision to ask for
a motion to stay. Hanlon replied that Jackson made the decision. EPA defended the
rule, but they used the best option available. Jack Peterson commented this decision
would result in a huge change in agriculture and it would be difficult for state Ag
agencies. Peterson asked that SLA’s be included in the discussions as plans proceed.
Hanlon commented that if the 24 month stay is granted, there is not enough time to re-
do all of the labels and we will have to rely on the labels in place. The large vessel
General Permit may be a good model under these circumstances – basically the permit
is structured so most of the 70,000 vessels do not have to make a paper permit
application – EPA is the keeper of the permit. Mostly the vessels must do BMPs that
were established even before the permits. The largest of the ships must keep records
on the ballast water. Julie Spagnoli asked how EPA would handle consumer products.
Hanlon responded that he does not expect homeowners to be required to get a permit
(at least not an EPA permit). Hanlon stated EPA is not preparing for farmers to get an
EPA “paper” permit either. Spagnoli also asked what if any additional environmental
benefits are there to requiring a permit? Bradbury replied that the goal is to be efficient
and in theory there should be harmony between the CWA and FIFRA. Tim Creger asked
how the Court decision will impact “biologicals.” Hanlon replied that the CWA act
definition of pollutants includes “chemical waste” and “biological materials.” The Court
decision was based on this definition and the use of chemical and biologic products.
John Thorn asked who will make the decision on the “residuals” from applications.
Bradbury replied by using the example of a mosquito larvicide: while the larvicide is
actively killing mosquitoes it is beneficial and is a product. Once the larvicide is no
longer killing mosquitoes, and there remains larvicide residue in the water – it becomes
a waste. Bradbury stated there are no previous cases to help define this issue.

The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Grier Stayton, AAPCO Executive Secretary


To top