Full Committee Meeting

Zinn then introduced EPA’s Russell Jones, who gave a presentation on biostimulants. Following the presentation, there was quite a bit of discussion regarding biostimulants.

There are some issues with folks spiking products.

Jeff Comstock asked about nitrification inhibitors; he recently saw one with an EPA registration number, and wanted to understand that better. Jones says he’s not sure, but the biostimulators are being considered biopesticides. Even though the products have fertilizer aspects, the use rate is so low that they are not used as fertilizers. The claims make it seem as though they are to stimulate the growth of plants, to enhance growth and yield, resist pathogens, etc. So it looks like a plant regulator.

Rabe added that these products are fairly extensive these days..some of the labels and claims are far reaching. Does the agency want notification of these types of products? The Association of American Feed Control Officials is discussing them as well. As associations what can we do to get a handle on this? It would be nice to understand the use and any regulatory needs now. Jones said the goal is to have guidance sooner than later. At the moment EPA is looking at products on a case by case basis, trying to find a clear path.   There have been lots of internal discussion on this; questions from states are useful, please send them in, with all the info possible.

Lopez commented that in Colorado there is lots of use on cannabis. Last year the department collected 25 different products and sent them to Fort Meade to understand what the components of the products are. Lopez asked if Jones’ office would like to analyze some of the samples? Jones replied that they would love to know what they components are and get an analysis from a reputable source, but can’t he can authorize the analysis. Lopez continued by saying that frequently the claims are verbal more than written in labels or labeling. But antecdotally they are widely known.

States should continue to submit biostimulant questions to Jones’ office.

McClain responded that she is disappointed that an OPP/state discussion hasn’t occurred.  She believes this logo protects consumers.  At the point of purchase a consumer is not going to be reading every line on the label.  McClain does believe consumers will read the label once they are home.

David Difiore offered that the legal opinion EPA received regarding DfE does rely on consumers going to a website.

Rabe would like to see a new legal opinion regarding Safer Choice now, since the previous legal opinion was for DfE, and it is about 8-10 years old.

Bishop mentioned that there are scans and QR codes that could be utilized at the point of sale.

Dwinell offered that a big disconnect is the idea that a product is safe. No pesticide should ever be considered inherently safe.  It may be safe to use if the directions are followed properly.  If the product is more environmentally friendly—that road can be gone down.  But safe is not okay.  It is an exposure risk as well, not just toxicity.  And this is a very bad precedent to set.  Dwinell suggests tying it back to an environmental outcome, which is fine, but don’t go anywhere near the word safe.

McClain went on to clarify that the program believes that Safer Choice is not misleading, but DfE uses a separate website, although it is housed under the Safer Choice website.  She is looking forward to more discussion on the option mentioned by Rabe.

Lopez questioned McClain, identifying that EPA states that comparative safety claims are not allowed.  If you are putting ‘safer’ on a label, that is comparative.  McClain emphasized that DfE is for pesticides.  Rabe pointed out that it is linked online to Safer Choice.

Difiore says they have talked to OECA, and the IG has committed to rigorously enforce label issues.

He followed up by saying that the motive is to allow consumers to have efficacious products that are safer.  Hopefully can find a way to get past the trigger words and find a way to find unity.

Giguere thanked everyone for the discussion.

Lamanno suggested inclusion of a more definitive statement that the states do not have to adopt all the measures, and then on goal #4 he questioned the language about label modifications. Rabe agreed to take off the word label, so then it reads ‘state restrictions’.

Jones asked if label could be taken off of B as well—label modifications.

Renchie offered a couple of observations in general, they have gone so far as to be ready to adopt the MP3 in Texas, and they have included discussions involving stakeholders, advisory groups, etc., with about 30 types of stakeholders.  They will utilized the crop register  and the apiary registry.  To participate you have to be a licensed applicator.  They have found the MP3 to be a useful tool, and the fact that it didn’t have to be approved with EPA made it more acceptable to their communities.  It will be very useful.

Lopez agrees with Lamanno, to let everyone know that these are suggested measures.  Looking at reducing exposures of bees to pesticides. One comment relating to bee kill documentation is that the kills typically don’t involve pesticide exposures, and that has been backed up via analysis.  So, to clarify in the measure—document bee kills—that doesn’t take into account that pesticides are related.  so include both—bee kill, then abiotic/biotic, then pesticide?  Rabe recognizes that the word pesticide should be included in the subcategory.  Even if it is explicit elsewhere it will be clarified in the measure/sub measure.

Rabe added that some folks want to document all bee kills because that allows a comparison to pesticide related bee kills.  Cook added that including footnotes could be useful as well.  Giguere noted that some plans include many issues aside from pesticides, so some states would like to keep that in there.  That is more of a holistic plan perspective, and is reflected in the measures.  Lopez reiterated that they have a lot of hobbyists and they always blame pesticides.  And it is a very political issue.

Jones said he appreciates the flexibility of the plans and measures and asked if the SLA responsible for the measures?  Rabe responded that this is something that the states can take and use as they’d like.  This facilitates EPA’s needs, and the measures allow us to evaluate the MP3s.  Jones said that in NC they approached this as a rule making procedure.  Lots of public comment.  It will be difficult to capture some of the measures at the state level with all the different groups.  He agrees with Lopez that there are a lot of uneducated beekeepers and lots of folks who don’t know how to properly raise and manage the hives.  Rabe responded that is supposed to be a part of your plan, and it does take time.

#4a-b, stress pesticide kills, stress voluntary…Reed motioned, Lopez seconded.  No opposition, motion carries.  Rabe will bring anything back to the committee after making the changes.

Cook introduced EQI’s benchmarks paper. Cook would like a PREP session &/or webinar education outreach for states on how benchmarks were developed, how are new ones developed, how are states notified, how states are using benchmarks/criteria/standards, get everyone educated and using them consistently.

Comstock offered that one of the things missing in the paper is that the letter doesn’t stress enough that benchmarks are not regulatory standards, and that they were asked for initially because they are needed as reference points in the absence of mrls/etc..and using them otherwise is a strategic mistake.  That needs to be reinforced.  Suggest strengthening that reminder.  Benchmarks are not appropriate for use as regulatory standards.  if you are affiliating these with your management strategy and with your points database, that isn’t appropriate.  Reestablish a point person in EFED for states to communicate with when results are near benchmarks.  Bogner asked if the benchmarks are related to laboratory capacity?  No, the benchmarks are developed using known data and are intended to speak to environmental health. They are not related to regulatory standards or to what labs are capable of testing for/to. We need to reestablish why the benchmarks exist.  Moses supports the solutions that are suggested.

Giguere asked if the committee supports EQI working with the PREP water course committee to establish a benchmarks module.  Black suggests 2017.

Comstock requests EQI, SFIREG, and EFED to work together to create a training webinar and materials regarding benchmarks to incorporate into a PREP training module.  Reed seconds.  Seeing no opposition, motion carries.

Separately, Cook included a discussion paper on POINTS developed by EQI. EQI will submit the paper to EPA for further discussion if necessary.

NV has been developing two 24(c) applications.  Lopez requested that states slow down.  He stressed that the states can work togehter to coordinate the applications.

Zinn is the EPA point of contact for pesticide use on cannabis.  EPA is formaing a workgroup to identify and scope out issues.  They are looking to have a conference call with agency Directors, SFIREG and TPPC.

Jeff Case of CropLife Americal expressed concerns from registrants, and suggested that they be included in a workgrop as well.  They also want hemp to be included in the conversation.

Colorado has submitted a draft 24(c) template to EPA and is waiting response from the agency.

Risk cup considerations are a significant issue.  If the risk cup is already close to full, the product will not be pursued.

Colorado agricultural statistics for the 2015 season show $800 M for alfalfa, $700 M for cannabis, and $600 M for corn.  That shows the effects of legal (esp. recreational) cannabis production on the ag markets in the first year.  Industrial hemp is another crop coming on strong, and there are some University programs now working on it.

Soil Fumigation category and its role in certification and training trends, and State vs. Federal vs. Industry oversight

Keaney said he is sorry that CTAG has not been paying attention.  Every biennial meeting this rule development has been discussed.  It is difficult to see why the components of the rule are a surprise.  Keaney emphasized that this is a proposal and that there are alternatives to many of the rule components, and that they are looking forward to the suggestions in the comments.

Giguere brought up that times have changed since EPA began working on this and areas that may not have come up earlier–such as hard copy data managment in certification programs–have now expanded to such a degree that database structure changes required by the rule are enormously expensive.

Reed stated that the states appreciate EPA’s willingness to work together on the rule, and emphasized that the states need more time for commenting.  Moses asked about CTAG’s recent involvement in the rule and if there was consensus that we need to do this because the state’s applicators are not cempetent?  Keaney replied that various themes arose through time.  Some states moved foreard with those needs and some states are still where they were when the rule was first promulgated in the 1970s.  Giguere asked if comments submitted outside of the docket would be considered and Keaney responded no.  Keaney suggested using AAPCO’s comments as a starting point, include equivalency considerations, and submit comments even if they are still in draft form.  Keaney then thanked Dr. Renchie for getting the Texas economic analysis off the ground and into the state’s hands.

Renchie emphasized that everyone is working together to find the facts.  Creger asked about engagement with the regions.  Keaney responded that they had been involved as much as, or more than, the states.  Creger also asked if there had been discussion of the state’s giving the program back to EPA?  Keaney said yes.

Giguere noted that there are some trends related to the rule that are of additional interest to the states, such as 3rd party certification.  Reed added that soil fumigation is a good example-are the states to submit exams to the Registration Division for approval, per the training requirements that are on the labels?  This is a concerning area and the states do not want to see it expand into more.  Who in the agency is qualified to review certification exams?  It is not appropriate for RD to be involved in C&T.

The Annual Spring Meeting for AAPCO will be held March 6-9, 2015 in Alexandria, Va and the board is close to finalizing the agenda.  That effort has been led by AAPCO President-Elect Dennis Howard, MD.  Moses also drew attention to the new AAPCO website, which went live in September 2015.

PIRT

• The WPS course, which is co-located with PREP’s compliance and enforcement course, will be located in Asheville, NC from May 2-5.
• The Pollinator Protection course will be located in either Orlando or Kissimmee, Florida in September 19-23.
• The PIRT website will be updated with the agendas and allow a place for people to register for the courses once those are ready.
• A few weeks ago, a PIRT Charter was circulated around the FIFRA community for comment. The PIRT Charter provides guidelines and expectations for the PIRT Steering Committee and for PIRT hosts. We have incorporated those comments, and we are adding some final touches on the document. It will then be posted to the PIRT website.
• A few weeks ago, I sent out a survey requesting input on what topics people would like to see for the FY2017 PIRTs. The survey provides a list of topics that the Steering Committee came up with, as well as a suggestion box for any other ideas. Once you complete the survey, you can see the results. So far, it looks like there may be another WPS course. Several other topics are neck to neck with each other, so it’s too soon to tell what the second topic may be. The survey will close on January 4. So if you haven’t completed the survey yet, please do so. Also, it is perfectly acceptable for more than one person at a state to submit a survey response.
• In early January after the FY2017 topics have been selected, I will send out a request for hosts for those topics. We will select the FY2017 PIRT hosts in February.

WPS Dashboard

• On Friday, there was a public announcement that the WPS dashboard is available to EPA social media and ECHO updates listserv.
• Based on feedback we received, we’ve made some changes to the dashboard since the concept was first introduced to states.
• Since the webinars that were hosted a few weeks ago, some minor phrasing and graphic features have changed.
• You are welcome to visit the site and provide comments on the features by clicking the link at the top of the ECHO WPS dashboard screen .
• Data is coming from 5700 forms, ICIS for EPA actions, and the ICR from the WPS Rule.
• The WPS dashboard provides interactive charts presenting summaries of key enforcement and compliance information related to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) program. The WPS dashboard presents information on the regulated community and answers questions like: how many facilities in the United States employ workers covered by the Worker Protection Standard, how many have been inspected, and how many violations have been found and enforcement actions taken by states, tribes, and/or EPA

Performance Measures

• The new performance measures are final and EPA Regions should have had conversations with the states about them. EPA Regions and states should work together to determine how they will implement the new performance measures.
• New performance measures were selected based on collaboration between EPA and states
• There is a tab for performance measures on the FIFRA cooperative agreement work plan and report template. The template is posted online.
• We are waiting for approval for the ICR from OMB before we can start collecting the data
• We understand the new performance measures are going to require changes to all of our processes. States should prepare by updating their internal data collection procedures, forms, and/or data systems

Cooperative Agreement Guidance

• In October, OPP and OECA made some amendments to the cooperative agreement guidance.
• The changes were:
  • Where appropriate and needed, regions are authorized to allow the shift of negotiated pick-list priorities and resources to devote to the development and implementation of MP3 plans
  • 5700 forms and end of year reports can be submitted together on the same dates annually to the joint mailbox FIFRA-EOYRepots@epa.gov on or before February 28^th of each year.
  • The FIFRA CMS is being added to Appendix 4 of the guidance and will not be removing the Enforcement Priority Setting Guidance that is currently there.
  • Required Activity 01.02.10 states, “Maintain and follow a matrix to develop and issue enforcement actions.” The use of the word “matrix” was unfamiliar to many readers and, therefore, caused confusion as to how to comply with this requirement. The sentence was replaced with “Maintain and follow an enforcement response policy to develop and issue enforcement actions.”
• OECA and OPP will soon be kicking off the drafting of the next cooperative agreement guidance for FY2018-2020.

WPS Inspection Manual

• OECA, with OPP and Region 5 have begun revising and updating the WPS Inspection Manual to reflect the changes to the regulations.
• We are also hoping to make other improvements to the manual to make it more useful.
• The states and tribes will have a chance to review the draft document in early spring, but the earlier we hear about issues, the easier it is to address them.
• If States or tribes have any concerns based on the existing WPS inspection manual, or any suggestions for the new manual, we’d appreciate hearing them. You can send your ideas to Carol Galloway or Richard Pont, and we’ll also be talking about the guidance later this morning.

 Biosecurity Procedures

• OECA is revising its Biosecurity procedures
• These are the procedures field personnel implement when visiting operations that have livestock or poultry, to minimize any chance of carrying disease from one facility to another.
• To the extent that pesticide inspectors or other staff visit facilities with livestock and poultry, they should be following biosecurity protocols.
• Our revised procedures will be available in the next month or two online. If anyone has questions, they can contact Carol Galloway.

Through January 1, 2016 a manager can certify the inspector has taken the training and that is sufficient for credentially the inspector.  Mary Begin, DC, expressed issues she has had in trying to do just that.  She detailed issues and confusion in working with the region, apparent confusion between the region and headquarters, and difficulty in obtaining the credentials for her staff.  Moses chimed in that he had similar issues as well.  Messina stressed that he wants to understand and clear up issues and advised Begin, and any enforcement managers, to contact him directly at 202-564-1191 if issues arise.  Messina emphasized that this is a business record and should be easy to document.

There are three requirements: the FIFRA basic inspector course, the health and safety course, and be familiar with the DOT requirements.  The DOT section was discussed and Messina stressed that the phrase ‘Be familiar with’ did not mean memorize the entire regulation.  Know where to find the information needed, and have a general understanding of the intent and content of the regulation.

ELMS and Wiki connectivity issues continue for some states.  Messina mentioned old browsers, state security issues, password retrieval, and wiki connectivity as the major reasons folks can’t get into the site.  NETI handles the connectivity to ELMS, and if folks continue to have trouble with access, please let Messina know so that he can advocate for solutions.

Health and safety training was discussed.  A 24 hr course online or in person is sufficient.  New on ELMS, the training has been broken into modules.  The refresher courses require 8/34 modules, so inspectors can take the ones most pertinent to their work.  PIRT, PREP, label trainings, etc. all count towards refresher courses.    Jones asked about regional trainings and if they would count towards the refresher, as he had heard that EPA headquarters had rejected that.  There does appear to be a strong need for congruency between the regions and headquarters.  There are lots of miscommunications occuring.  Messina intends to address the regions and continue to improve understanding across the board.

El Abdaoui asked how to work with states who are not comfortable certifying.  She agreed that there is misunderstandings and miscommunication and pointed out areas where there is currently conflicting information on the requirements.  She emphasized that the regions need better training from headquarters to support consistency.

Liz Vizard said that EPA is looking at Tier 1 & 2 definitions right now, and would like to have more conversations with the states on that, ie the importance of timing on the inspections, and how to collect and document information.

SFIREG committee members did not have significant objections, although it was noted that the phrases ‘for use on’ or ‘compatible with x surfaces’ were not ambiguous.

• EQI will work with PREP and others on benchmarks training
• MP3 measures updated
• Biostimulants to be discussed further in EQI
• DfE back to POM.  Develop a workgroup to determine how to take states out of the equation.
• Unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) to POM for follow up on licensing and certification
• Beekill reporting follow up from EPA
• C&T trends in training
• Health and Safety training equivalency determination to POM
• EPA to follow up with clarifying memo on federal credentials
• AEZ to POM
• Inspection time allocations updated with lab information