Report on the
1991 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement
and Project Officer Meeting
San Francisco, CA
February 26-28, 1991
Prepared for
Grants and Evaluation Branch
Office of Compliance Monitoring
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared by
SRA Technologies, Inc.
4700 King Street, Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22302
April 30, 1991
-------
1991 FIFRA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT and PROJECT OFFICERS MEETING
SUMMARY REPORT
Table of Contents
Page
I. BACKGROUND 1
»
II. INTRODUCTION 1
Welcome 1
Opening Address 3
Meeting Objectives 5
Headquarters Updates - General 5
Update on Status of Developing Programs 10
Policy Updates 12
III. NEGOTIATING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 14
Priority Setting Update 15
Balancing Priorities 18
Compliance Strategies 20
Coordination between State Agencies 22
Coordination between States and Tribes 25
Laboratory Support for Grant Activities 30
Costing Out State Activities 30
V. PROJECT OFFICERS ROLE IN OVERSIGHT OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 31
Required Reporting 31
Summary of Inspector General Reports 34
Qualitative Assessment Reports 35
Revised Protocol for End-of-Year Evaluations of State Programs 37
Oversight Manual 37
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
General Definition of Oversight Responsibility of Project
Officer with Regard to Cooperative Agreements and Grants 38
Programmatic Activities 41
Evaluations 42
VI. OUTSTANDING ISSUES 44
SFIREG Presentation 45
Action Items 46
Oversight Work Group 46
Worker Protection Work Group 47
Tribal Work Group 47
Ground Water Work Group 48
Attachment 1: Agenda
Attachment 2: Attendees List
Attachment 3: Draft Tracking Tool
Attachment 4: Form 5700-33H and Guidelines for Using Form 5700-33H
Attachment 5: Protocol for End-of-year Evaluations
Attachment 6: SFIREG Overview
11
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
1991 FIFRA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT and PROJECT OFFICERS MEETING
SUMMARY REPORT
I. BACKGROUND
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the states
have primary responsibility for enforcing pesticide use regulations. Cooperative
agreements with the states and Indian tribes enable federal funds to continue to
support state regulatory enforcement efforts and pesticide application
certification and training programs. In addition, new initiatives in ground
water protection, endangered species protection, and worker protection programs
will expand the states' responsibilities and concomitant reporting requirements.
The goal of the 1991 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Meeting was to bring together
Project Officers (PC's) from the regions with headquarters personnel to share
program concerns and problems, update the regional personnel on the status of the
new program initiatives and guidances, and improve the channels of communication
between states, regions, and headquarters that are so vital to the success of the
pesticide program.
II. INTRODUCTION
The 1991 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement and Project Officers Meeting was held
February 26-28, 1991 at the Holiday Inn, Union Square, in San Francisco. The
meeting agenda is provided in Attachment 1. Attendees to the workshop included
Project Officers from EPA regional offices as well as headquarters personnel.
A list of attendees is provided in Attachment 2.
Welcome
Deputy Director of the Air and Toxics Division, Carl Kohnert, Region IX, stated
that his purpose was to welcome the Project Officers (PO's) and headquarters
personnel to San Francisco. He was pleased that so many regions were represented
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
at the meeting. Carl felt that it was an excellent idea for the pesticides
program to focus on the role of the PO, and said it would be a good idea for the
air program to follow suit. Carl also thanked the people from headquarters and
Nancy Frost and Connie Goochee from Region IX who worked so hard to make the
meeting possible. He emphasized the interactive nature of the meeting and
stressed that the success of the meeting and the program was dependent on the
participation of all present. He added that all PO's are experts about what they
do, and PO's need to share experience so that everyone can take ideas back that
will enable them to perform their jobs more efficiently.
From a manager's perspective, PO's are the "eyes and ears" of what is happening
on the front lines at the state and local level. PO's perform an important
mission: many times PO's are the pesticide program's only contact with the
states and tribes; and PO's provide feedback on how policy and guidance are
received. The PO knows what is working and what is not.
Looking ahead to changes in the themes and directions for the Agency over the
next 10 years. Carl identified three major areas:
total quality management;
pollution prevention; and
multimedia programs.
These areas will impact future program initiatives and will continue into the
90's.
With the emphasis on the above themes and the implementation of new initiatives
(i.e., ground water protection, worker protection, and endangered species
protection), growing importance will be given to oversight and the role of the
PO. The oversight role and the responsibility of the PO will need to be
developed and implemented, as will the definition of state and tribal programs.
The PO will have to nurture these programs and become an advocate for both the
states/tribes and EPA.
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
In closing, Carl restated the interactive nature of the meeting. He again urged
attendees to share their experiences, problems, and solutions during the course
of the meeting.
Opening Address
John J. Neylan, III, (Jack), Director, Grants and Policy Division, Office of
Compliance Monitoring, was pleased to be at this meeting for PO's, and recalled
that the first PO meeting was held not long ago. He stated that the PO meetings
were valuable to headquarters and hoped that they were also valuable to the PO's.
The meetings provided headquarters with the opportunity to get feedback from a
grassroots level. Jack said that in terms of FIFRA goals, he thought that most
people were aware that the Agency was trying to ensure that pesticide products
are safe and effective, and that their applications are the least disruptive of
human health and environment. There are many programs in place to try and
achieve these goals: ground water management; endangered species; worker
protection; and the new storage and disposal regulations. The cooperative
agreements have a big effect on the implementation of these programs.
The FIFRA cooperative agreement program is in its sixteenth year. The pilot
project was initiated in the mid '70s and was basically an extramural project to
enhance compliance and inspection programs. (At present, the Agency is
considering starting a similar cooperative agreement pilot project under EPCRA.)
By the late 1970's, EPA's relationship with the states became adversarial, and,
at times, the program was nearly lost. There were also problems with Congress.
As a result, the state FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) was
developed as a mechanism for mending relationships, sharing information and
forming partnership arrangements. SFIREG is now at a peak in terms of
cooperative interaction between states and the EPA regions and headquarters.
SFIREG has recognized the need to work together to make programmatic changes.
Since 1978, SFIREG has initiated:
the concept of state primacy, which came as an outgrowth of the
adversarial relationship;
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
the implementation of priority setting;
the implementation of state response policies, as a result of which,
some states have better enforcement statutes than FIFRA; and
the addition of pesticide program grants, not just for compliance, but
for the total state program.
These improvements, however, have increased the need for external and internal
oversight by Congress, the Inspector General's Office, state auditors, citizens'
groups, public interest groups, and environmentalists. The Agency needs to
ensure that the level of oversight adequately addresses areas of concern.
Jack identified major issues that will effect the pesticide program:
changes in the certification and training regulations;
review of state plans; and
the amendments to FIFRA 1988 Section 19(f) state compliance program for
certifying applicators.
He also identified the major deficiencies in the program:
a lack of feedback concerning state compliance programs; and
the concomitant inability to discern enforcement trends.
Bean counts do not supply information on how the strategies are working.
Headquarters needs information on general problems as well as the products and
numbers regulated. He asked for specific information from the PC's.
Jack stressed the need to work together and stated that was why he had asked his
staff to attend the meeting. He concluded by stating that this was an excellent
opportunity for face-to-face interchange.
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Meeting Objectives
Nancy Frost, Section Chief, Pesticides Program, Region IX, asked participants to
identify themselves and their program areas (See Attachment-2). Program areas
represented included Toxics, Water, Pesticides, Worker Protection, and
Occupational Safety.
Nancy thanked Mary Ellen Podniesinski, Office of Compliance Monitoring, and
Connie Goochee, Pesticides Program, Region IX, for putting together the agenda
for the meeting. The agenda was developed with the PO in mind. The opening
sessions focus on updates of Agency programs and policy that affect the PO's.
The afternoon session addresses the grant process. The second day is devoted to
an overview of the oversight process. The last day concludes with a wrap-up of
the previous sessions, discussion from the states' perspective, and a
presentation by a SFIREG member. The purpose of the panel discussion will be to
raise issues and encourage group participation. Nancy observed that each region
handles grant programs differently. She called attention to the wealth of
knowledge within the group on how to tackle grants. Some PO's handle
consolidated grants and others work with grants separated by functions. One of
the reasons PO's attended the meeting was to find out how to deal with grants,
especially now that there are multiple programs.
Copies of the "almost" final FY 92 Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement
Guidance were available on the table at the back of the room. The changes and
revisions in the guidance were discussed by the next panel.
Headquarters Updates - General
Panel members for this session summarized significant revisions in the FIFRA FY
92 Cooperative Agreement Guidance. Revised sections were highlighted in the
copies provided.
Therese Murtagh, Field Operations Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, updated
the attendees on the Certification and Training initiatives. Therese began by
saying that this was her first year to be associated with grant guidance. It was
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
also her first year to try and figure out what to include in the guidance in
order to make it a good document and to respond to the needs of the PO's. For
the past month, work has focused on trying to incorporate the comments received
on the earlier draft. Therese focused on items that have been added to the
guidance this year.
Item "f," under Certification and Training, identifies a mechanism for
headquarters to gather information on training materials. Asking states/tribes
to provide information in mid- and end-of-year reports on training programs that
they use or are developing will provide information to consolidate high quality
training materials. Therese also mentioned the training materials being
developed by EPA and the Department of Agriculture. In addition to input on
training materials, headquarters also is asking for state/tribal plans for
implementing the revised 40 CFR 171 so that these plans can be implemented when
the new revised regulations are final. The planned publication date for the
revised regulation is March 1992.
Under the work program activities for the Ground Water Protection Program,
states/tribes are encouraged to propose an expanded work program in cases where
many of the other work program requirements have already been met. Expanded work
programs are also encouraged under the Endangered Species Protection Program, as
is obtaining public comment on review maps and pesticides tables.
Finally, a new component has been added to the work program activities for the
Worker Protection Program. An initial outreach/communication effort is required.
Within 3 to 6 months after the Worker Protection Standard is published,
states'/tribes will reproduce and distribute informational materials provided by
the EPA regional Program Office.
Changes in the Enforcement Activities section of the FY 92 Guidance were
presented and discussed by Linda Flick, Acting Branch Chief, Grants and
Evaluation Branch, Office of Compliance Monitoring. Linda stated that most of
the changes were primarily administrative. The two enforcement priorities for
FY 92 are (1) the followup of pesticide regulatory actions and (2) planning and
conducting worker protection enforcement activities.
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Linda discussed the revised sections under Enforcement Activities. Some of the
sections discussed are briefly summarized as follows:
Suspension enforcement actions will be tracked on the quarterly
reporting form and narrative reports will be prepared.
Enforcement activities for the revised Worker Protection Standards will
be undertaken within the schedule set forth in the guidance.
FY 92 Guidance recommends that state/tribe pesticide enforcement grant
programs submit their cooperative agreement application 90 days prior
'to the proposed budget period.
Checklists have been developed for states/tribes to use in ensuring they
file complete applications. These then are recommended to be submitted
with the cooperative agreement applications.
A sample core work program, included in the guidance, outlines the
minimum activities which must be addressed by the grantee. This could
be used as a starting point for developing FY 92 pesticide enforcement
grant work programs. These have been sent out to the regions on
diskette and will be updated.
There was discussion over the review process during the period of grant
application and negotiation. Headquarters wants to have an opportunity to review
the application before negotiations are concluded. States are encouraged to
complete the application checklist when preparing their application for the
region. The regions assume that applications are "draft" and not final during
the negotiation process; therefore, there was confusion over whether the regions
were expected to send "draft" applications to headquarters for review.
Headquarters does want to review them and encourages the regions to establish a
time schedule that allows for response to headquarters comments. It may be
necessary to have renegotiations between the region and state/tribe.
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
The regions raised the issue of the difficulty in specifying what portion of
state grants budgets are used for paying salaries, laboratory costs, or
inspection activities. It is extremely difficult to differentiate what FTEs are
paid by state or federal monies. Also, it is hard to track outside personnel
categories, i.e., compliance monitoring personnel.
The tracking of resources is also a problem in trying to work and account within
the different fiscal years as they were defined by the Agency and by the states.
Many of the states have fiscal years that do not begin on October 1. Reporting
on activities and funds for the fiscal year may not be possible because of the
incompatible time frames. Reporting requirements affected by this discrepancy
were discussed later in the conference.
The new guidance, with highlighted revisions, had been targeted for circulation
within 2-3 weeks. In order for the PC's at the meeting to have an opportunity
to provide their comments on a new lawn care initiative, Linda extended the
period to receive input on that language from the regions to March 11. Linda
also stated that the Office of Compliance Monitoring is planning on disseminating
Section 6(g) recall information to regions and having the strategy for Worker
Protection Compliance available in a timely manner. OCM will also distribute to
regions a revised priority-setting plan.
The PC's requested that the new FY 92 guidance package include all appendices to
the guidance with cross references and page numbers.
Jake Mackenzie, OCM, Vest Coast, Region IX, presented an update on state and
regional involvement in national inspector training programs. Jake opened by
recalling the first PO meeting held in Chicago on September 14-15, 1987. He made
reference to the early cooperative agreements negotiated by Region IX in 1979,
the first was with California and the first funded agreement was with Hawaii.
Jake also brought a copy of the notes from the first SFIREG meeting held on March
30, 1978. He noted that Jack Neylan had been present at the meeting. Jake
recalled that in 1980 there had been significant distress over the lack of EPA
funds for ongoing agreements. Then, in 1985, the oversight task force made a
qualitative review and recommended that an oversight manual be produced. Jake
8
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
offered this brief historical perspective in case the attendees thought there was
"anything new under the sun," there was not.
At the recent OPTS meeting in Dallas, the panel on training and education met and
was chaired by Carlton Layne. The panel was charged with the task to enhance the
ability of the regions and states to get involved in training. The work group
panel identified the following training needs:
basic investigative techniques for case development;
training for programs and new initiatives;
public speaking;
quantifying pesticides regulations training course; and
tribal needs.
Although no conclusions were reached by the panel, the following action items
were formulated:
Develop a standing committee to coordinate the evaluation and
implementation of a national training program. Members should include
regions and states. There was discussion between OCM and pesticide
programs, and there is a proposal to reactivate the standing committee
on investigative training with regional, state, and headquarters people
involved. The committee will be responsible for a program training
outlining the registration and review process. Mike Wood (OCM) is in
charge of this activity. The work group panel needs response by March
15.
Provide traveling presentations on annual and biannual basis. Courses
would offer training in basic investigative techniques and case
development.
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Develop a speakers bureau.
Compile a bibliography of available programs.
At the University of California,at Davis, there will be two leadership courses
each offered for 9 days, one starting April 2 and the other starting on June 4.
These courses are for senior managers; there are still openings. Evaluations
were high from those who attended last year. The course would be especially
helpful for new program managers. In addition to the management courses, pilot
courses are being offered in production, exports, and ground water programs. In
1992, courses may be offered at sites other than UC-Davis; a list of possible
candidates is being developed. Regions IV, V, and VI are interested in working
on pesticide disposal and endangered species protection.
Jake has been charged by the steering committee to solicit input from states and
regions on training courses. Coordination is needed between OCM and OPP. OCM
does not have a point person. Programmatic and enforcement views must be
reflected in the training.
Update on Status of Developing Programs
John Leahy, Occupational Safety Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, reported
that the Worker Protection Standard is in Red Border review. Pending approval
by OMB, the Standard may possibly be out in August. The target audience would
include agricultural workers, handlers, and harvesters. The Standard would
consist of limiting exposures, decontamination techniques, and hazard education.
Guidance will continue to be developed and disseminated. To implement the
program, the guidance will identify the roles of headquarters, regions, and
states. States will implement the program with support and supervision from
headquarters. The outreach effort to the regulated community will consist of
manuals, press releases, brochures, and pamphlets. OPP will develop these
materials and put them into camera-ready form for the regions and states. This
is an ambitious agenda; however, compliance depends on people knowing what is
expected of them.
10
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
The materials on the Worker Protection Standard that are currently available from
headquarters include audio visual materials (slide sets), model training
programs, lists of training programs, references and training-the-trainer
materials. The regions requested a list of whatever revised training materials
are available, the stocks of these materials, and how long it takes to order and
receive the materials.
States considered the training program and materials to be input money. There
is concern that the funds will not be there next year. This makes the states
reticent to start training programs and develop materials. Headquarters
responded that they expect seed money to be available.
Therese Murtagh provided updates on other programs. Existing Certification and
Training programs are being updated. Headquarters is compiling a database so all
information will be available in a central location.
The Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy was sent to the regions for review. The
Generic Management Plan Support Documents and additional documents in monitoring
and evaluation will be sent to the states. The target date is May 8.
The Endangered Species Protection should be in a final, enforceable form in 1992.
Carlton Layne, Region IV, described the National Pilot Program which is planned
to look at a mechanism for distribution of interim county pamphlets. Some
options are direct mail, press releases, and working with associations.
There currently are two tracks in the Endangered Species Program. One track
involves negotiated state pilot programs to develop activities for implementing
an overall Endangered Species Program within a state. The second track involves
the National Pilot Program where states are asked to use as many mechanisms as
possible in order to have a statistically valid pilot. States are encouraged to
try different mechanisms and see what works best and to identify what kind of
guidance is required.
11
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Carlton discussed the steps in the process of distributing information:
1. Identify the audience.
2. Indicate the specific audience and the distribution mechanism to be
used.
3. Identify a tracking mechanism to confirm who actually receives the
information.
4. Develop a timetable for distribution from the receipt of information
from OPP to the receipt of information by the target audience.
Once the states have identified the distribution mechanism, the target audience,
and a method of getting back to people who receive the bulletin, then,
headquarters will provide states with a statistically valid method for followup
to individuals who receive the bulletin. Recipients will be asked to complete
a questionnaire. OPP is developing the questionnaire in order to provide states
with an evaluation of the program and the use of data in national databases. The
OPPE questionnaire project has two goals:
1. to evaluate which distribution mechanism works best; and
2. to assess how effective the information provided is and how well it was
understood.
A draft will be out by March 15. Headquarters hopes that rough spots can be
worked out by April 4.
Policy Updates
FIFRA Section 19 regulationprocedural rules concern the disposal, storage,
transportation, and recall of pesticides. The rules were initially contained in
one package; however, they were broken into two separate packages. The first
package is being developed by OCM. It is procedural and deals with disposal and
12
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
indemnification plans. The second package is being developed by OPP and includes
containers, storage, and transportation. The possibility exists that the package
will be broken into three parts, dealing with containers as a single element.
The OCH package is going well. There is an issue as to how to characterize a
product once it has been cancelled and suspended. Once it is recalled, it is
considered a waste under RCRA. Voluntary versus mandatory recall payments are
still at issue.
The Section 19(f) regulations prescribing procedures and standards for removing
pesticide residues from containers before disposal will not be promulgated by
December, 1991. The delay may necessitate developing an interim regulatory
program. The states will need to have good enforcement policies in place in
order to enforce the labeling recommendations.
FIFRA Section 6(g), instructs the Agency to require all persons who produce,
sell, distribute or commercially use a suspended or cancelled pesticide to notify
EPA and state/local officials of the quantities and locations of these
pesticides. This is a broad provision covering wholesalers, distributors, and
retailers. The regulatory package has been passed by OMB and Congress and is due
to go out for comment soon. The information received under the provisions of
Section 6(g) will be tabulated at headquarters and made available to lead
agencies and local planning groups (under EPCRA with OSVER). An automated data
system for this information is currently being developed.
Labeling issues remain unresolved, in particular the wording of environmental
hazards and the definitions of wetlands and to what areas these apply. The Army
Corps of Engineers has a wetlands definition that could be too broad and prohibit
use of pesticides in many areas. The human hazards statement is also unresolved.
The State Labeling Issues Committee (SLIC) , with members from regions, states,
and headquarters is scheduled to discuss the outstanding labeling issues again
on March 14. Regional input on the unresolved labeling issues is sought.
The major issue regarding bulk policy/establishaent inspections concerns the
repackaging of pesticides applying to bulk containers greater than 55 gallons and
110 pounds. The current repackaging provisions generate increased amounts of
13
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
garbage. The new proposal offered by the Association of American Pesticide
Control Officials (AAPCO) would allow refilling of containers to less than they
were designed to hold as long as they used the same active ingredients or were
cleaned according to specifications. This proposal would reduce the number of
smaller containers being used.
The export policy is back on track after having been severely criticized by GAO
and Congress. The compliance program revised policy was distributed last year.
The export policy has been put on hold while Congress is discussing action on
exports. The Agency work group is scheduled to meet with Linda Fisher on Friday
and resolve any outstanding issues. The final policy is scheduled for the fall.
The main issue is how to deal with exemptions that are similar to existing
registered products. Should similar products have a clear acknowledgement
statement? The primary question is: what is similar?
A general framework for a generic pesticides strategy has been developed so that
a new strategy does not have to be crafted for each pesticide. A work group has
been formed to deal with the specific issues. After a draft document is
completed, OPP will develop a way to handle the special review process.
There are no upcoaing strategies under development. However, when the Worker
Protection rule comes out, headquarters will try to get a compliance strategy to
the states as soon as possible.
In 1988, it was recommended that the books and records regulations be expanded.
The regulations originally applied only to producers. Work has been done to
expand the scope and to define which part of the regulations are important to
registrants and which to producers. The proposed regulations will be out in the
fall. Regional help is needed in drafting changes to the regulations.
III. NEGOTIATING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Nancy Frost opened by saying that the afternoon would focus on the negotiation
of a cooperative agreement and the various things that a PO needs to take into
14
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
consideration, the how's, what's, and where's. The panels would discuss issues
and problems facing the PO's.
Priority Setting Update
Carlton Layne, Region IV, discussed the efforts of a work group, which he is a
part of, to look at what is going on in the cooperative agreement programs with
regard to priority setting. The work group consists of representatives from EPA
headquarters, regions, and two states.
Carlton provided historical background on the mechanism recommended by
headquarters in 1981 for establishing priorities. He noted that it was a very
detailed process whereby, as inspections and enforcement actions were conducted
and taken, certain specific information was logged in about the inspections/
enforcement actions.
In the evolution of the cooperative agreement program, what was strongly
recommended is that EPA should ensure that there is a priority setting mechanism.
But, during grant negotiations, it is generally agreed that the state has a
priority setting mechanism without much discussion of what it actually is.
Responses to that question range from "we'll just adopt the national priorities"
to relying on the intuition of people involved in the programs. The result is
that when EPA wants to state its accomplishments and goals and try to determine
national priorities regarding enforcement, it lacks systematic, objective data
on which to base those decisions.
Carlton noted that a good priority setting mechanism can lead to very real and
valuable enforcement activities including inspections and targeting of particular
user groups. The 1981 priority setting mechanism flagged various enforcement
activities which lent to targeting activities for the following year and
ultimately solved the problems. Therefore, it is important to get information.
Currently national priorities seem to be determined by whatever issue is hot at
the moment, whether it is statistically valid or not. In addition, although PO's
know when priorities make sense for their states or regions, there is no way of
rebutting them because there is no state or regional database on which to do it.
15
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
The work group is trying to develop a mechanism that is far less onerous than the
1981 priority setting mechanism, but will at least open the door to establishing
a database for tracking pesticide enforcement trends. Carlton distributed an
exhibit of the mechanism that is under development. He noted that this is
something that EPA needs to ease into and build up to. The work group hopes to
tie the mechanism to the violations identified in the Enforcement Response Policy
and use some of the coding that is already part of FTTS.
Carlton noted that much of the burden for accomplishing this task will fall on
the PO's. He added that the work group hopes to cpme up with a system whereby
PO's working closely with the states will collect the information and forward it
to headquarters to collate, massage, and put together to send back to the regions
and states. The information and database will be available for use by the states
and regions, as well as headquarters, to establish valid priorities in a
legitimate manner.
Carlton discussed the type of information to be collected on enforcement
activities. A draft list of the type of information was distributed and
discussed. The notation codes on the list are based on the Enforcement Response
Policy. Other information included the type of enforcement action and the type
of misuse.
Carlton stated that they are going to send this draft mechanism out for comment
and are still refining how the final priority-setting mechanism will look. In
addition, it points out that a computerized tracking system which would link to
the Enforcement Response Policy is being headed.
Curtis Fox, Office of Compliance Monitoring, also a work group member, stated
that rather than sending copies of new forms to the states to fill out, EPA will
leave it up to the regions to develop a way to get the information from the
states. In response to a question on when headquarters would want this
information, he stated that the work group thought that they would set a one-year
period (perhaps the fiscal year) that states would start collecting this
information as part of the grant application and submit it to the regions. The
regions would then be responsible for systematically putting the information onto
16
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
a form, unless the state is willing to do it themselves. Carlton added that if
EPA can get a good handle on this information, it should help the other
initiatives EPA and the states are working on to make sense, such as uniform
reporting, case tracking, etc.
Curtis then discussed how EPA plans to sell this priority-setting mechanism to
the states. EPA will package it with a two-page memo describing the benefits of
the mechanism. The work group needs to convince the states and their inspectors
that this is interesting information that will benefit them by improving their
priority setting and the way they write state regulations. The regions will
benefit by having information on what is happening in the region, and
headquarters will benefit by knowing what violations are occurring in the field.
The suggestion was made that state people on the work group who helped to develop
the plan could help sell it to the other states.
Curtis added that if the plan is successful, EPA is going to ask states to begin
collecting information in FY 92 to submit as part of their priority setting for
FY 93. Once the region gets the data and passes it on to headquarters,
headquarters will analyze it and return it to the regions for use in the FY 94
priority setting process.
The comment was made that EPA should develop a generic state form in order to
ensure that it gets the information it needs. Carlton stressed that the process
of getting the information needs to be open-ended. EPA can come up with a form
or format for everyone to use, but it will not work because it is too static.
PO's do not want the work group to tell them how to get information from the
states. It is better for headquarters to tell the PO's what they need and let
the PO's obtain information as best they can.
Curtis concluded by saying that a draft priority setting plan, which is much
simpler than the 1981 one, will also be distributed. It highlights a basic
outline of what should be included in a priority-setting plan. It includes
recommendations and requirements about how to justify setting targets on a
priority basis.
17
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Balancing Priorities
Nancy Frost introduced the next panel which focused on how to deal with balancing
national priorities with all the other priorities.
Connie Goochee, Region IX, presented a PO's perception on the difficulties of
negotiating a grant. She stated that as a PO, she is aware of the
responsibilities that fall on PO's in terms of balancing priorities. She stated
that she feels the pressure to balance priorities most strongly when entering
into annual negotiations with the states. For negotiations, headquarters
provides the PO with a guidance document with the minimum requirements to be
included in the cooperative agreement. The PO must then go to the states and say
"this is the minimum you need to do and here is how much money we will give you,
let's talk about it." Some states understand the reasoning behind all the
minimum requirements, but some resist, and this can make a PO's job difficult.
The PO needs to convince them of the necessity of all the areas.
Another difficulty facing PO's is how to balance what EPA is asking the states
to do with the money that EPA is giving them. Some of the requirements are
difficult to attach a dollar amount to. Connie noted that it is hard to try to
figure out what to expect from a state in return for the money EPA is giving
them. She added that the computational work sheet can make it easier to
calculate the number of work hours for the inspections being done and provides
the PO a precise mechanism for calculating dollars for some activities. However,
there are other activities that are hard to assign a number of work hours to, and
consequently, it is difficult to calculate how much money it will cost.
A cooperative agreement is not an exact contract for exact services with exact
deliverables. EPA negotiates with the states for the states to perform certain
activities in exchange for a certain amount of money, but during the year, EPA
may also ask for X, Y, and Z activities which were not negotiated at the
beginning of the year. Connie noted that it is hard to manage a cooperative
agreement in a precise and exact fashion. However, she feels that there is some
expectation that it needs to be managed that way, especially when headquarters
18
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
guidance comes out with an ever-lengthening list of activities and very specific
requirements for what needs to be done.
Connie concluded by stating that there is a lot of variety among regions as to
the number of states and grants each PO manages. Therefore, there are a variety
of methods as to how each PO must approach the task of negotiating and managing
grants.
Carlton Layne, Region IV, compared being a PO to being a salesman, with the
product being EPA and the national objectives under FIFRA. He stated that to be
a successful salesman, you need to believe in your product; if you don't, it
won't sell, and you need to have a relationship with your client; you need to
understand their needs and convince them that they need your product to meet
their objectives. If a PO doesn't have belief in his product and a close
relationship with his client or something close to them, then he will have
trouble negotiating a grant.
Carlton stated that when negotiating priorities, a PO needs to give a little and
take a little. A PO needs to understand that the most important priorities in
EPA's program are cooperative agreements. EPA also needs to recognize that the
states do have their own priorities. But EPA wants the states to be able to
demonstrate that their priorities are indeed priorities; why it is important to
do an activity, and if it is agreed to be a priority, EPA can give a little in
negotiating a grant; EPA and the state need to build in a mechanism to adjust if
national priorities change during the year. Mid-year and end-year reviews are
supposed to be part of such a mechanism.
Jack Neylan compared the FIFRA grants program to the TSCA grants program. In
TSCA it takes a long time to get regulations out, so there are not a lot of
changes of direction and negotiations are simpler. This is unlike the FIFRA
program where at any time during the year a major action may take place, and take
place quickly, which requires an adjustment in the cooperative agreement.
Therefore, he stressed the need to be flexible.
19
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
The comment was made that states usually understand the need to change priorities
in order to deal with a compliance strategy for a cancelled pesticide, but they
don't like it when EPA changes directions and cannot sufficiently explain why to
the states. Carlton stated that EPA's inability to explain why certain
activities are priorities is due to the lack of data on what is happening. If
the states and EPA begin to generate data on where they are finding problems,
then in two to three years, EPA will be able to show that their priority setting
is being driven by statistically valid data.
Compliance Strategies
Jack Neylan stated that whenever OPP puts out a major regulatory activity, OCM
follows with a compliance strategy to explain in detail what the Rule or Order
is about and what EPA thinks is nationally important, and to provide information
on who the regulation affects and what the time frames are. When OCM issues a
compliance strategy, they expect to get feedback and information from the regions
on inspections, case development, etc.
OCM asked OPPE to look at compliance strategies and to do a study on how well
they are being implemented. OPPE found that there was spotty implementation of
compliance strategies. OCM was not getting much feedback as to whether or not
the compliance strategies are useful, and whether or not people are doing what
they are asked to do. OCM is now trying to grapple with some way of getting
feedback on compliance strategies. The Inspector General (IG) also told OCM that
they needed a better mechanism to obtain information on whether compliance
strategies are being followed and whether people are monitoring for compliance
with the regulatory action. In response to OPPE and IG's recommendations, the
Compliance Division put together papers to explain methods of getting feedback
and to help PO's know what is out there and what is expected from them.
John Mason, OCM, noted that in the past couple of years, headquarters has issued
compliance strategies on recent "hot" issues, such as dinoseb, mercury, and lawn
care. Parts of these strategies have contained a reporting element in which the
regions are to submit information to headquarters on the activities under the
compliance strategy. Often there is a lot of information for the regions to get
20
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
to headquarters and, unfortunately, headquarters has not done a stellar job in
tracking the information. Therefore, headquarters has developed a simple
tracking tool to tell who is doing what. John then shared the draft tracking
sheet (Attachment 3) with the group in hopes that, if they do not have their own
tracking system, they can consider developing something similar. John stated
that headquarters will be using the tracking tool to determine who has reported
the information requested in the compliance strategy. It will also allow the
regions to see what they are required to report and when.
John stated that when OCM goes through the review process to determine when and
if reports have been submitted, they will probably send out form letters
reminding the region that they have not submitted the information. In addition,
to facilitate things for the regions, OCM has considered sending out a reporting
form. A reporting form would ensure that the appropriate information is
reported.
The comment was made that this tool could serve two purposes: (1) to let
headquarters know who has or has not reported and (2) to let the regions know
when something is required from them on compliance issues and the due dates. In
addition, with a lot of compliance strategies coming out, it will provide PC's
with some way of taking a look at what the work load is and establishing a
priority setting process.
In response to a question on how often the tracking system will be updated, John
stated that it will obviously be updated for important due dates and as each new
compliance strategy with a repository requirement comes out. He added that under
each activity, there is a contact person who has the responsibility for tracking
receipt of the information and adding in new reporting requirements.
In closing, John stressed that the tracking tool is still draft and any comments
on it are welcome. John added that it will probably be sent out for comment.
21
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Coordination between State Agencies
Therese Murtagh stated that in the area of new initiatives, harmony between state
agencies is extremely important, especially in the areas of worker protection,
ground water protection, and endangered species protection.
AndyTriolo, Grants Coordinator and Project Officer, Region I, stated that, until
the advent of the three new initiatives, interagency coordination was only an
issue in the certification program. In that program, EPA dealt equally with the
state agriculture agency and the cooperative extension services, and that took
a long time to work through.
Andy noted that in the last year, Region I has had an interesting time dealing
with the various state agencies in the ground water protection program. The
regional pesticide program worked with the regional ground water program to set
up joint meetings with state pesticide and ground water programs to determine who
is supposed to do what in regard to the ground water protection strategy. The
first problem encountered was identifying the various roles, responsibilities,
and state authorities that EPA has to work through to reach any type of
coordinated action. The comment was made that it is also important to define
roles and responsibilities of the regional offices involved.
Andy stated that another big stumbling block was the lack of ground water
strategy guidance. Region I developed a Regional guidance to fill this void.
States in Region I have begun to develop their draft state management plans based
on this guidance. Andy noted that Region I has not yet perfected the joint
effort at the state level and a lot of work still remains. One of the problems
is resources and not being able to be on-site encouraging this type of joint
meeting.
In the Worker Protection Program, EPA has not been involved in much coordination
between state agencies. In Region I, there is an apparent conflict in one state
between the state lead agency and the state OSHA. There is disagreement as to
who has the authority to regulate agricultural workers and worker protection.
This will need to be ironed out, probably with EPA's help.
22
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
One of the tools that states have used successfully in clarifying roles is a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Andy stated that there are a number of things
that a PO has to look for when dealing with 2-3 state agencies:
Who takes the lead?
Do you utilize existing state lead agency system to award FIFRA funds?
Do you utilize system agencies through an MOU?
Do you channel the funds through the lead agency or do you seek some
other authority to find and direct agreements with other agencies?
On the national level, a principle concern is how do you get the FIFRA grant
dollars allocated.
Another problem encountered under the ground water protection program was
coordination with the Clean Water Act Section 106 set-aside funds allocated for
assisting in the development of ground water strategies. It is not clear within
Region I as to how the money should be awarded, which agency should receive it,
and what kind of work should be done with it to support the overall effort.
Andy noted that at this stage dealing with multiple state agencies is probably
new to all PO's. He asked the group what their experience has been and what
types of issues and problems PO's have encountered.
The comment was made that in the ground water protection program, invariably
there is a conflict between the Department of Environmental Resources, charged
with regulatory ground water quality, and the Department of Agriculture, charged
with pesticides and ground water programs. These two agencies are often at odds,
and although they are supposed to be cooperating, there can be problems with
attaining a good working relationship between them. EPA's responsibility is to
work with the Department of Agriculture (the state lead agency) to try to promote
ways of fostering a cooperative relationship. There was discussion that in some
states the money is allocated to the state lead agency (SLA) and not shared with
23
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
other agencies. The SLA may cooperate with other agencies on projects but not
pass through money, unless they are paying another agency for a service such as
laboratory analysis.
Andy asked the group if CWA Section 106 set-aside money was used to support the
ground water protection program and how the various regions have coordinated with
their own ground water office. The comment was made that in Region IX there is
a person in the pesticide program who works closely with the regional ground
water program. Last year when Region IX sent out the grant guidance on ground
water protection programs to the states, it was sent out jointly (both pesticides
and ground water) to the two state agencies, Department of Agriculture and
Department of Environmental Resources, addressing the ground water issue as a
whole unit in the state. This way EPA was speaking as one voice when it came to
allocating funds for ground water programs within the state.
Often it is not easy to get the two agencies to work together as they battle each
other for money. Region IX had to step in as a moderator in one of their states.
They identified common goals and allocated money to accomplish these goals. It
was decided to pass money through the SLA, the Department of Agriculture, to the
Department of Environmental Quality to accomplish the goals the state jointly
identified.
In Region VI, the Governor of Texas designated the Water Commission as the SLA,
and they are under mandate from the Texas legislature to develop a ground water
management plan. Region VI, therefore, has a separate grant, aside from what the
Department of Agriculture gets, that is given directly to the Water Commission.
The comment was made that the regions are still awaiting guidance from OPP on
whether or not the region can give FIFRA grant money directly to a state agency
other than the designated SLA. The suggestion was made that one way to handle
it would be by using some type of MOU with the lead agency until there is a
definitive answer from headquarters. The group was cautioned that when EPA goes
outside the SLA or against the wishes of the SLA there can be problems and
controversy.
24
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Some states do not like the pass-through situation and want headquarters to
decide that only the SLA can get the funds. On the other hand, some states
initiate the pass-through because they recognize that the expertise to do certain
activities is in a different agency. In general, SLAs do not want to be by-
passed. As long as there is a formal agreement or MOU in place between the SLA
and the other agency getting funded and there is state statutory authority to
enter into MOUs, EPA can give grants to other agencies.
However, since these are all new programs, this can all change. EPA has asked
the states to work together, but if it doesn't work in the future, the state
agencies say that they want the autonomy to have their own grants without having
to go through the SLA. This is not a settled issue. The regions need
clarification on the issue. FIFRA and the grant regulations require that a state
agency needs to have statutory authority to enter into cooperative agreements and
that a lead agency has to be designated.
Region IV found that, not only is it difficult to get all the different state
agencies coordinating and working together, but there also needs to be
coordination between the program and the laboratories. Therefore, Region IV has
tried to include laboratories in the coordination effort by setting up a
pesticides in ground water effort.
The question was asked whether both state agencies were present at the ground
water grant negotiation. Andy replied that in Region I both agencies were
present but they tried to keep the group to a manageable size. The comment was
made that having them together during negotiation may help foster coordination
and cooperation.
Coordination between States and Tribes
Curtis Fox, OCM, introduced the session by saying that the panel would discuss
the goal of the PO, the goal of tribal grants, and coordination between states
and tribes. Curtis noted that the issue of working with tribes is a "hot" issue.
Administrator Reilly has started to take tribes into consideration and to treat
tribal governments as EPA treats state governments.
25
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
In FY 90, OCM set aside $200,000 for tribes to come into the pesticide grants
program, but none took them up on it. In FY 91, OCM set aside the same amount
and 7 to 8 tribes have announced that they are interested in coming into the
grant program this year. This would almost double the number of tribal grants
this year.
The process is easy for OCM, who only has to set aside the money and send it out
to the appropriate regions, but additional tribal grants will mean a lot more
work for PC's. Tribal grants are not established programs like state grants, and
the PO's will essentially be creating the programs.
Curtis announced the Tribal Conference which is a yearly conference to discuss
tribal pesticide programs. This year the conference is being held in conjunction
with OPP and will be in Alberquerque, MM, April 2-5 for tribes already in the
grant program, tribes interested in coming into the grant program, and tribes
interested in developing pesticide enforcement certification and training
programs. As part of the conference, OCM is developing a tribal grants manual
to assist PO's in developing tribal grants. This manual will simplify EPA grants
guidance so that someone unfamiliar with the program will be able to understand
it. The manual will be released in draft form at the conference.
Curtis then introduced the panel: Ron Scheller is a Project Officer who manages
the grants with 2 to 3 South Dakota tribes, talked about his experience in
effectively tracking coordination with the tribes and states, and Jake Jacobson,
who is working with Nebraska tribes this year, talked about problems encountered
when dealing with tribes.
Ron noted that the State of South Dakota has good relations with the tribes and
that they work together, often conducting joint inspections and having state
inspectors assist in training tribal inspectors. He described his role as a
contact between the tribes and the state. The tribal grants cover certification
and training, enforcement, and the new initiatives. In the certification and
training program, the tribes need to work with the states so their certification
plan runs parallel to the state plan. In the area of enforcement, the South
Dakota Tribes like to work with the state if the applicator is from off the
26
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
reservation. As it makes it easier to track down violators to enforce the
-regulations.
Jake asked the group what types of problems PC's dealing with tribes have
encountered, especially problems encountered when dealing with a conflict between
states and tribes over jurisdictional issues.
One problem discussed arose from a situation in which a state government allowed
home-steading on reservation land. The farmers do not want to be regulated by
tribal rules even though they are on reservation land, and the tribal program is
afraid to enforce the regulations. The EPA PO was called in to help work things
out but is at a loss as to what to do. It was recommended that the PO talk to
the Council of Energy Resource Tribes. Officially the jurisdictional lines are
the reservation boundaries, and if a tribe wants to enforce FIFRA within their
tribal boundaries, they have the right to do so. Since this is a new and
developing program, it may be necessary to raise difficult issues to upper
management to resolve.
In Montana, there are cases where the tribe is willing to allow 'the state to come
into the reservation to enforce the regulations. States can agree to send state
inspectors onto the reservation or can rely on tribal inspectors. It is
necessary to have cooperation between the state and tribal programs. It was
suggested that one way to coordinate the state and tribal activities was through
an MOU.
The comment was made that the PO of the tribal grant needs to coordinate and work
with the PO of the state grant to ensure coordination and cooperation between the
state and tribe. The case of the Navaho Tribe, which covers a number of states
and three regions, was discussed. To deal with this, Regions VI, VIII, and IX
are trying to work out a joint memo of agreement with the Navahos on all the
different programs. In the certification program, the PO has recommended to the
Navahos that they not take on the program themselves, as they do not have the
resources, but has recommended that they enter into a formal agreement with the
state agencies to have the state train and certify the Navahos that want to be
certified. After these people are certified by the state agencies, they apply
27
-------
PIFRA/PO Meeting Report
for authorization to offer services on the reservation from the Navaho pesticide
regulatory program.
Curtis noted that a tribe can say they will accept some state certification on
their reservation provided that the applicator applies for a special tribal
certification involving no exam and only a small fee. This gives the tribe the
power to revoke that tribal certification whenever there is a violation.
The difficulty of dealing with U.S. territories was also discussed, especially
in dealing with multimedia cooperative agreements and, because of the distances,
not being able to deal directly with the program people in the territories.
Multimedia cooperative agreements were put into place due to the costs of dealing
with the territories, but they make the program-specific components of the
agreements difficult to manage. Some tribes have expressed interest in having
multimedia grants.
In Region IX, the PO works with the Inter-Tribal Council. The Council deals with
the administrative parts of the grants for all the tribes involved and passes
money through to the individual tribes to conduct activities. This arrangement
makes it easier on both the PO and the tribes.
The comment was made that if OCM is really going to increase the number of tribal
grants, that some of the regions will need assistance in administering these
programs, and it is worth considering these programs and making resources
available, particularly staff and travel, because there is a variety of needs
among tribes. Curtis responded that OCM has heard repeatedly that the regions
will need more resources to take on tribal grants. One reason many regions have
not taken on tribal grants is that they do not have the FTEs to do it. Curtis
stated that lack of FTEs is certainly something that headquarters will have to
address.
Another problem encountered is that usually *hen a tribal inspector leaves, there
is no back-up as there is in state programs; the whole program is gone and must
start over. The PO needs to be able to get out to the tribe and work with them.
If a tribal program has a question, 9 times out of 10 they will call the regional
28
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
office, then the PO, to ask for help. If this grant program expands, EPA and the
tribes will need to be able to show that some progress was made.
The comment was made that someone new to working with the tribes may find it
useful to look at the model ordinance, model programs, model quality assessment,
and model priority setting that were distributed last year. In addition, call
upon other PC's; there is a lot of information available that can help save the
PO and tribes time.
The question was asked as to who provides training for new tribal inspectors.
In Region IX, either the state, another tribe, or someone from the Inter-Tribal
Council usually provides the immediate training. Often the tribal inspector will
accompany a state inspector on inspections either on tribal lands or state lands.
Sometimes the region will provide training. Region VIII is going to conduct
training for tribes, and Region VII probably also will participate. In addition,
the Tribal Conference will include 1 1/2 days of inspector training. There are
a variety of avenues to use to train tribal inspectors.
When asked about money for FY 92, Curtis and Linda Flick stated they believe
there will be another set aside for FY 92. Both the FY 91 and FY 92 money is on
a first come first serve basis, but with the average tribe asking for
approximately $30,000, the $200,000 available in FY 91 can accommodate quite a
few tribes.
In closing, Curtis recognized that tribal grants are tougher to oversee than
state grants because the states are familiar with the program and tribes are not,
and PO's need to start from scratch. It was suggested that one way to alleviate
the need for a lot of regional travel money is to bring the tribal
representatives into the region on a quarterly basis as part of their grant.
Curtis pointed out the importance of networking with other PO's on issues that
arise from dealing with tribal grants and encouraged PO's to attend the Tribal
Conference.
29
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Laboratory Support for Grant Activities
Tim Crawford, OCM, discussed issues related to laboratory support for pesticide
grant activities. As part of the grant process, PO's ask their states to submit
lab profiles describing what equipment the labs have, its age, what percentage
of use it received, and the number of samples. From the regions, OCM has
received repeated state complaints that labs are starting to deteriorate and
equipment is breaking down. In the past, OCM has asked OPTS for monies
specifically to be set aside and has been able to fund some improvements
gradually, small items within the regional cooperative agreement, but no large
dedication of money was made available. This year, OCM has $500,000 for lab
equipment replacement and repair, and purchase of new equipment for labs to
conduct enforcement analytical activities under the pesticide cooperative
agreement.
Three panels were formed to review: what the labs were proposing in their
profiles; who needs what; how to award the monies. The panels are made up of
regional quality assessment directors, state lab directors, SLA representatives,
regional representatives, and NEIC representatives. The Northern Panel has
approximately $184,500, the Southern Panel, Regions IV and VI, has approximately
$137,000, and the Western Panel has approximately $178,500 to allocate. The
decisions are made based on a basic list of what any lab would need to conduct
residue- or formulation-type analytical activities.
Tim stated that he does not know whether money will be available next year but
feels it is unlikely. However, there is $500,000 this year to show that EPA
cares.
Costing Out State Activities
Tim Crawford, OCM, discussed the computational work sheet, which is part of the
regional review package. This work sheet is a tool to help PO's determine
whether the work years in the grant application are justified by the amount of
activities the state is proposing to do. Completion of the work sheet is not
required, but recommended.
30
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Tim discussed the new item in the revised 1990 version. On export inspections,
there is a variable time factor, 10-15 hours. It is the only variable time
factor on the form. It was developed by a time-factor work group, and since this
is a new type of inspection, the work group did not know how long it would take
so they gave a range. Tim advised PO's to be consistent within their region on
what time factor they assign. The section on formulation and residue sample
collection has a different time factor allotted to it.
Tim noted that there is no absolute guidance on how to fill out the work sheet.
It is important to get a sense of how the regions are using it. Perhaps
headquarters will request comments on the work sheet to get an idea of how it is
being used in the different regions.
Tim concluded by saying that there is no connection between the number of work
years proposed and the amount of money allocated. The work sheet is strictly a
tool for evaluating the amount of time a state is willing to dedicate to the
program in order to assess whether EPA is getting a reasonable work product from
them.
V. PROJECT OFFICERS ROLE IH OVERSIGHT OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
The following sessions focus on the topic of the Project Officer's role in
oversight of a cooperative agreement. Linda Flick, moderator for the sessions,
opened by saying that many things were happening that touch on the oversight
role. She encouraged participants to share concerns and insights that come from
working with the state oversight programs and to identify problems and how to
deal with them.
Required Reporting
Tim Crawford, Office of Compliance Monitoring, discussed state enforcement
numbers. Tim distributed Form 5700-33H, Pesticides Enforcement and Applicator
Certification Agreement Output Projections. A copy of the form is provided in
Attachment 4. New additions to the form are indicated by arrows and include:
31
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
(1) notation of federal Facility Inspection; (2) expanded export inspection; (3)
worker protection reporting; and (4) labeling for endangered species. Tim
emphasized that the form requests that only physical samples be projected and
that certification and training information is on a separate sheet in case
different people are responsible for filling it out.
On the form, it indicates that information is to be supplied for only one
quarter; however, the form is requested to be included with the end-of-year
report. The difference in reporting periods, when the state fiscal year differs
from the federal fiscal year, surfaced as a problem. In many instances, the end
of the state's fiscal year is only the end of the third quarter in the federal
fiscal year. PO's said it was difficult to report specific accomplishments when
their time frames differed from those of headquarters. There was concern that
states might look at if they missed meeting their commitments. Headquarters
responded that the states' reporting does not have to conform to the headquarters
year, but that they need a 12-month accounting period.
Linda Flick introduced the problem that states have consistently reported results
that are significantly over projections. The over-target results raise more "red
flags" at headquarters than under-target results would. She asked what is
causing this discrepancy between projections and performance. PO's said that
many states underestimate because it is difficult to predict what will be
accomplished, and they are afraid they will be penalized for not meeting their
projections. Over-targeting usually occurs when federal and state activities are
totalled and reported together. These situations make it difficult to assess
performance and to translate results into 100 percent accomplishment. The
regions reported that, since the states tend to give conservative estimates, it
is difficult to get a realistic picture of state accomplishments. States may
often have different requirements to fulfill. There was general agreement that
there are different information needs by the states and the federal government,
and sometimes it is difficult to separate federal and non-federal activities when
fulfilling funding reporting requirements. If the numbers are meant to measure
productivity, then it may be more important and useful to link quantity with a
qualitative standard to ensure the job is being done. The combined reporting
of federal and non-federal inspections may necessitate use of two separate forms.
32
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Region IX suggested that the form works against reporting on the total program.
In many instances, the state is doing more than its commitment under the
cooperative agreement. Linda Flick observed that what is being reported seems
like a "mixed bag." There are some non-federal inspections being reported, and
for now, management would have to accept the over target reporting and translate
the results into 100 percent accomplishment.
Guidelines for Using EPA Form 5700-33H, also provided in Attachment 4, separate
reporting categories into Cooperative Agreement and State Activities. Output
Projections, as outlined on page 2, do not include additional state inspections
not negotiated and conducted under the agreement. On page 6, the definition on
Export Inspections has been expanded. The new section on page 7, Comprehensive
Inspections, raised a question as to the total number of inspections to be
reported. PC's were uncertain if states are given credit for checking the label
whether or not the language was present. If the goal is to inform Congress that
states are checking, then it is necessary for the information to be provided by
the state in narrative form. If the option is to have the number of inspections
in the program equal the number of inspections in use, then, let the states know
what you want, and they can report it that way. Currently, states are reporting
differently, so clarification is needed. On page 8, Sample Definitions refer to
physical and documentary samples. Physical samples are to be supplied on the
form; documentary samples are to be reported in narrative form. The correction
on page 10 under Inspections Conducted changes the number of standard inspection
categories from 10 to 11.
Therese Murtagh reported the status on new initiative programs. Since the new
initiative programs are not final, reports on initial activities in the states
tend to be short. Present reporting requirements have not produced sufficient
information in the end-of-year reports. PC's said that information requirements
need to be included in the protocol. Headquarters has to be explicit about the
type and detail of information needed. States are required to report on new
initiatives; regions then summarize the information but do not rewrite it into
their reports. Perhaps, regions could attach the state report.
33
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
The areas of ground water protection, endangered species protection, and worker
safety have gotten the programs off to a slow start.
Therese said that since programs are still developing, information is extremely
valuable. She urged PO's to be generous in their mid- and end-of-year report
writing. Direct calls could be made to PO's in order to ask specific questions
about the programs. As the programs develop, headquarters also will have a
better idea of what information is necessary.
Summary of Inspector General Reports
Mary Ellen Podniesinski, Office of Compliance Monitoring, presented the
objectives and findings of the Inspector General Audit. She stated that the
audit was conducted in three regions to determine the adequacy of:
State enforcement of pesticide laws;
Regional enforcement of cases referred by the states;
Regional tracking of significant referrals made to the states; and
Regional monitoring of the state programs and follow-up.
The areas found needing improvement in the three regions reviewed
are as follows:
1. State Enforcement. The state FIFRA enforcement program needs to be
strengthened. A majority of states have less stringent maximum
monetary penalties authorized than those permitted by FIFRA. Many were
not taking appropriate enforcement actions and some were not timely in
their enforcement actions on FIFRA violations.
2. Regional Enforcement. Regions repeatedly reduced civil penalties
without adequate justification or documentation. In some instances
civil penalties were reduced below those allowed by national guidance.
34
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
The regions were found not to be timely in their enforcement of cases
referred to them by the states. They did not follow the timelines
established for the states.
3. Regional Tracking. Minimal requirements for tracking FIFRA cases were
not followed by the states. The regions did not adequately track the
cases they referred to the states and as a result they did not know the
status of the referred cases or whether timely and appropriate
enforcement action had been taken. Although there is no specific
requirement to do so, the Inspector General Report noted that the
regions did not adequately track the cases the states had referred to
them.
4. Monitoring. Documentation was not available to support the methodology
used to select cases for review or on the scope and results of the
reviews. Without appropriate documentation the regions can not support
their conclusions or demonstrate that they conduct the evaluations in
accordance with the annual guidance. Additionally, the regions were
late in releasing mid- and end-of-year evaluation reports to the states
and did not always identify weaknesses in state programs. In many
cases regions were repeatedly reporting the same problems in mid-year
and end-of-year reviews.
Qualitative Assessment Reports
Curtis Fox, Office of Compliance Monitoring, reported on the new approach taken
this year to the National Qualitative Assessment Report. Based on the '89 end-
of-year reviews submitted by the regions, a draft report was compiled and sent
out for comments in December. Very few responses from the regions have been
received.
Curtis summarized how the report was put together and highlighted some of the
information it contains. The Grants and Evaluation Branch took the '89 reviews
and divided the narratives into sections such as management and program,
coordination with state agencies, and quality of inspections. The data were
35
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
computerized by categories. Each state was identified with background
information and results represented a compilation of broad data. From the
results, a generalized report with no citing of any states or regions was
written.
Areas highlighted in the report include:
Success of meeting inspection projections. Many states failed to meet
projections in certain categories, especially "use" inspections.
Although there were no elaborate explanations, problems impacting
performance were understaffing and other, more pressing, state
priorities.
Quality of inspections for case development. In many instances,
investigations were not properly completed, and there were weaknesses in
the documentation.
Quality of enforcement actions. Not much information was available, and
most was positive. However, a third of the reports mentioned problems,
such as, the unavailability of attorneys and the inconsistency of
penalties with state application policies.
Review of EPA performance. Primary shortcoming was in the area of
communications with the states and between the states and the regions.
Some areas requiring more attention were identified. Regions are not addressing
all areas in the evaluation guidance. In conjunction with this, all significant
problems identified by states need a recommendation. Overall, more detailed
information is needed on state priorities and how they are being addressed.
There was a question as to how many reports were used as a basis for the survey
and the report. There were 51 reports used. The states will receive the generic
report. The report is being used to plug into the new protocol for end-of-year
reviews.
36
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Revised Protocol for End-of-Year Evaluations of State Programs
Curtis Fox distributed a draft End-of-Year Evaluations document. The document
is provided as Attachment 5. The draft is very rough. The requirements are
being revised with the Qualitative Assessment (QA) in mind. The protocol is
designed to get information to headquarters in order to more accurately assess
program activities.
Many of the regions did not want the end-of-year reviews used in quality
assessment reports. While there might be weaknesses in the programs, these
weaknesses could be translated inaccurately as serious problems. The regions
felt it was impossible to do a comparative review by looking at reviews. To get
an accurate national picture, the following was needed:
Definition of what an adequate state program is;
How the program can be best reported to headquarters;
Assistance with end-of-year reviews; and
Developing and adhering to a protocol.
A suggestion was made that 10 percent of the case files be selected for
reporting. Headquarters could improve oversight by working with Project
Officers, and perhaps by going to states that have problems. Headquarters is
trying to develop a guidance document for end-of-year reports, reduce redundancy
in report requirements, and consider the time it takes to complete reporting
requirements.
Oversight Manual
David Ramsey is the chairman of the committee to develop an oversight manual with
guidance for both experienced and new PO's. At present, a manual similar to the
Pesticides Inspection Manual is envisioned. Ways to keep the manual current and
to provide a mechanism for training will be explored. A committee was formed;
37
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
members are Carlton Layne, Mary Ellen Podniesinski, Pam Ringhoff, and Richard
Parkin. The committee will contact Dallas Miller to ask if he is willing to work
on the manual. It was suggested that state input into the manual would be
valuable; it was also suggested that SFIREG could be used as a review mechanism
for comments.
The challenge is to create a manual that is both generic and meaningful. Since
regions vary in the way they manage states, the minimum elements and basics of
cooperative agreement management need to be outlined. Regions may be able to
provide materials that can be used in the document and in training. There is
money set aside for the final manual. The time frame for completing the manual
is September 30, 1991.
General Definition of Oversight Responsibility of Project Officer with Regard to
Cooperative Agreements and Grants
The panel presented different perspectives on Project Officers' oversight
responsibilities. Jack Neylan said that the regions-and headquarters will meet
the first week in April to work out Pesticides Program short- and long-range
goals. One goal of this meeting is to specify items that need to be addressed.
Action items identified at this meeting and support needed on the division
director and branch chief level can be presented at the April meeting.
The National quality assessment Review is needed to present information and
identify problems. It is important to stress effective portions of the programs
and select good programs as pilot examples. A review mechanism is required to
receive continual feedback and to address local and national problems. An
oversight manual for PO's will be valuable. The issue of whether a State
Inspector Training Program is needed requires consideration and follow-up by
headquarters.
Ron Beeler, Inspector General's (IG) Office, Region IX, gave a presentation on
the organization of the IG and the auditing process. His remarks were generic
in nature since the Inspector General's Office has not focused on the smaller
programs such as Pesticides. In the last 20 years, Ron has not done a single
38
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
audit of the pesticide program in Region IX. The emphasis has been fiscal,
focusing on programs for Water and Superfund that involve large amounts of money
and large numbers of people.
The Inspector General's Office is a part of EPA; however the staff reports
directly to the IG, who is appointed by the President. The IG serves both the
President and Congress by reporting on both EPA's programs and the internal
operation of EPA, i.e., how states manage their programs and how EPA administers
state grants. Audit reports are directed to the regional Administrator and also
help alert Congress as to how well and efficiently a program is operating.
To differentiate between the IG and GAO, Ron stated that the IG is under EPA
jurisdiction, while the GAO is under Congress and can go wherever Congress
directs. Within EPA jurisdiction, the Inspector General's Office has broad
authority to go anywhere, or it may act upon appropriate requests. Approximately
400 auditors are available nationwide. The audit process consists of the
following steps:
1. Determining whether to do an audit.
2. Letting it be known that the audit will be performed.
3. Performing the audit.
4. Conducting the exit conference.
5. Drafting report for review.
6. Conducting possible second exit conference.
7. Issuing final audit report.
Every region has an audit follow-up. Recommendations made in the report, such
as corrective action, must be properly expedited. The process allows for
disagreement, though these are rare and mostly monetary.
39
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
A single audit is required for every recipient of a cooperative grant. The audit
must be arranged by the grantee and is handled by either state auditors or an
independent CPA firm. The audit requires financial statements, review of
internal controls of the organization, and assurance that the money has been
spent in accordance with the cooperative grant to carry out its mission. This
third party inspection usually does not specifically address pesticide programs,
since they are relatively small, but Ron urged that Project Officers take a look
at these audits to gain some insight into how the whole program operates. He
encouraged regular contact with the IG's office to share information and
experience and provide the IG with the broader picture. If there is a possible
misuse of federal funds, the auditor is required to contact the Office of
Investigations.
Concern was expressed about the release of audits. All audit reports are public
information except draft reports and work papers. The auditee is the region, but
the IG may go to the states to see whether money has been spent correctly. A
recently audited region suggested that all questions be kept track of and an exit
conference take place.
Bob Kaneshiro, Project Officer, Region IX, manages the FIFRA cooperative
agreement program with the State of Hawaii. Oversight takes place primarily from
the regional office. The region reviews the commercial audit for the state; the
state is responsible for making any corrections of deficiencies identified in the
audit. The region communicates with the state through letters and annual visits
to assess whether the program follows protocol and any violations are apparent.
In Hawaii, Bob visits the lab, talks with chemists to see how the chain of
custody is followed, and explores whether adequate sample sizes are being
collected. Ultimately, he must rely on the grant management program. A regional
memo was issued that listed grants management responsibilities. Region IX does
not do oversight of the state inspectors but relies primarily on inspection
reports. The question was asked whether, in defining oversight responsibilities,
have the regions given states an opportunity for feedback and identification of
problems. Bob answered that Region IX is not attempting to tell the states what
to do; they are looking for the states to tell the region what needs to be done.
The ways that information and problems were addressed reflects the individuality
40
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
of each region and their states. Region VI has a division director with
expertise in air so there is a lot of toxics input and focus. In Region X,
public participation in the pesticide program is encouraged through program
briefings. Region III expressed support for the regions taking responsibility
to help train inspectors. The question was raised that if you don't go out to
the states, how can you provide training in the state. Bob said that Region IX
held an annual workshop. Currently, only one regional staff holds inspector
credentials. The requirements are restrictive.
Programmatic Activities
Some of the day-to-day activities and problems encountered by grant managers were
illustrated in two skits prepared by David Ramsey. The first skit examined the
cooperative agreement within the broader state pesticide program and the second
skit looked at monitoring the state program and problem solving. Both dialogues
focused on keeping an "open door" policy for problem solving. The skits
generated the following comments.
EPA loses sight of the fact that managing state grants is a small part of what
states must do. This is especially true of EPA headquarters. It is difficult
to balance the demands of fulfilling both state and EPA requirements. The
Project Officer must understand the broader program goals and requirements.
Tradeoffs may need to be negotiated before annual commitments are made. For
example, some states do not consider quality assessment/quality control
requirements a priority and regions find themselves having to "browbeat" the
states into doing the quality assessment/quality control. In striking a balance
through negotiation, it is clear to the states that their priorities are
respected. Avoiding rigidity and remaining flexible promotes good relationships
with the states. Successful programs are based on mutual trust. Nancy Frost
raised the issue of state programs versus cooperative agreement issues and
commitments. There can be overlap and conflict between what a state program
requires and what a state is doing under a cooperative agreement. The question
was asked whether entire state programs should be evaluations instead of grant
only reviews. By taking the broader view, reviewing and monitoring the entire
program treads on state primacy issues and problems with assigning responsibility
41
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
for inadequate programs. EPA needs to look at the entire program in-depth to
assess performance and progress on a larger scale. The Project Officers feel
that headquarters is too focused on the cooperative grant agreements. PO's need
assistance in helping the states execute changes suggested by the PO's. Some
issues should be elevated to higher levels for resolution.
SFIRE6 may be a good tool for affecting change. Potential audits may be used for
negotiation leverage.
Evaluations
Developing an evaluation plan that will be acceptable to EPA and the states and
tribes was the focus of this section. The goal of the evaluation process is to
identify strengths and problems of the program, design a corrective action plan
as necessary, and recommend follow-up activities. All these are aimed at
upgrading the quality of the programs.
Evaluations are aimed at identifying needs in order to upgrade the quality of
what the states are doing. Information requested has to address what constitutes
adequate performance and evaluation, what information is necessary to write an
evaluation report without becoming overly sensitive to language or too diplomatic
or soft. There will be many different audiences receiving the evaluation report;
therefore, the primary audience for the report needs to be identified. PO's do
not have the luxury of tailoring the evaluation report; they need to clearly
present the required information so that the report is accurate and stands on its
own. Nancy Frost stressed the need to use specific facts and not generalities;
point out both strengths and weaknesses; and be sure to specify what you want
done and when. If your audience becomes too broad, you have to start explaining
too much. Connie Goochee commented that an executive summary is helpful for
people who are familiar with the program. In order to provide sufficient
explanation for a broader audience, a third of the report is usually narrative.
Region VIII suggested that an evaluation with an outline format that calls for
information provided in bullets would be more efficient. Time to write detailed
narratives is limited; it was pointed out that PO's do not have the time to write
42
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
pages of comment, so perhaps, headquarters could develop an outline format with
points presented as bulleted information. Curtis Fox suggested that headquarters
could develop a more readable format.
Armando Aparicio, Region IX, discussed the different issues that arise working
with tribes under cooperative agreements. Tribes tend to be independent in
establishing their operation and use of their limited funds. Armando has
suggested ways to deal with problems in the budget and ways for tribes to deal
effectively with enforcement. He experienced a lack of leverage in controlling
tribal programs. Tribes usually are lax in enforcing violations and do not seem
to be consistent with penalty policy. Jack Neylan suggested withdrawing
financial support from the tribes as a leverage mechanism. Ken Clark suggested
persuading tribes to take responsibility by documenting problems in writing.
This allows the PO to identify problems, as opposed to the exceptional deviation
from the norm, and to deal with them. Whether the cooperative agreement is
tribal or non-tribal, it is an agreement between one law enforcement agency and
another.
Linda Flick brought up the issue of how to approach the final review process.
Nancy raised the question of whether the revised protocol for the end-of-year
review covers all the IG and evaluation review requirements. The documents need
to be cross-checked to be sure that the protocol is inclusive. Region I was
concerned about how to identify and document cases used in the review and how
long to keep these records.
Region VII developed an evaluation form with a timetable, narrative report, lab
analysis, and sample and photograph checklist. This can help support the
comments in their cases. These sheets are attached to the end-of-year report.
Each region has different ways of handling the end-of-year evaluation process.
Headquarters needs to identify a generic method and specific procedures for
assessing programs. An acceptable level of feedback must be outlined and
established. Region III requested that the oversight manual allow discretion in
limiting the number of files and documentation required.
43
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
The need for an evaluation examination for certification and training was
discussed. Region VII has strict criteria, requiring a high level of competency
and achievement of specified standards on exams. Region VII wants to work with
the states to integrate these standards into their C&T evaluations. Some
guidance on certification and training is needed to comply with the IG on
compliance grants. EPA also needs uniformity with states on recertification
programs. The Federal Register notice on recertification does not include the
new initiatives.
Region IV discussed problems associated with negotiating commitments with the
states when EPA does not meet the statutory deadlines for developing regulations.
The state is still bound to commitments made, unless there is a waiver. Once the
''92 grants are committed, then EPA can adjust. Especially in reference to
Section 19(f) regulation, the states want to be absolved of requirements to
commit prior to statutory deadlines. Perhaps EPA could go to Congress and have
them introduce other language into the requirement. Nancy Frost suggested that
the PO negotiate a commitment with the state that could be made final a specified
number of days after the regulations were established. It is unlikely that EPA
will have a proposed regulation before December 1991.
VI. OUTSTANDING ISSUES
The attendees formed four discussion groups to discuss tribal issues, ground
water issues, oversight issues, and worker protection issues.
Before the groups began their discussions Linda Flick announced an update on the
Lawncare Initiative to be made part of the '92 guidance. In response to the GAO
report on lawncare problems, the states will be asked to review literature,
advertisements, and report on violations and inspections they have in connection
with these lawncare products. Regions are being asked to comment by mid-March
on proposed guidance language.
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
SFIREG Presentation
Tobi Jones, SFIREG member, California, gave attendees a handout providing a brief
history of the State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG), its
general function and organization, and the roles and responsibilities of its
members. Tobi emphasized that SFIREG plays a valuable role in the communication
of information between individual states and the Agency. SFIREG identifies,
analyzes, and recommends courses of action to the Office of Pesticide Programs
on pesticide registration, enforcement, training and certification, ground water
protection, disposal, and other areas of environmental concern.
SFIREG is funded through a cooperative agreement between EPA and the Association
of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO); it provides a forum for states
to raise issues. The group came together in 1978, but a rift in the early 1980's
caused the regional offices to withdraw until 1985. SFIREG holds national
meetings in July and September, and regional issues are discussed. Issue papers
are developed and solutions explored in the working committees of SFIREG. The
working groups offer a mechanism for branch chief involvement. Each region is
allowed to have a branch chief and one backup participate in the work group. (A
detailed description of the organization of SFIREG is included in Attachment 6.)
Communications and communication transfer are essential to the success of SFIREG.
PO's are knowledgeable about cooperative agreements and the growing problems
within the states. As such, they are a valuable resource.
SFIREG was instrumental in facilitating the mutual action of State and EPA to
resolve a California air pollution problem. Emissions were being released into
the air that were dangerous to the ozone layer. California promulgated
regulations on architectural codes which involved pesticides and the labeling of
paint cans. FIFRA and the Air District regulations were in conflict. SFIREG
brought the regional and state representatives together and got an understanding
of the problems. Information was advanced to EPA Headquarters concerning the VOC
problems that indicated that Air and Pesticides needed to work together to come
up with a unified approach. This was done to avoid statutory conflicts. Air
became the Air and Toxics Division. California was also beginning to develop an
45
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
inerts database; it requires full-use reporting on how VOCs contribute to
emissions and air pollution.
Curtis Fox asked how tribes could become involved in SFIREG. SFIREG
representatives are elected by the state, and tribal people have not been active.
However, at the state level, everyone has the opportunity to attend the meetings.
All committee chairs are appointed by the SFIREG chair. The same names are seen
repeatedly because those are the people who have been willing to work over an
extended period of time.
Action Items
The discussion groups reconvened and summarized the major points made by their
groups. The following are the needs and action items identified by the
discussion groups:
Oversight Work Group
Obtain list of all concurrent compliance strategies.
Develop time frame for reviewing grant guidance by regions and states
and a final date for final guidance.
Develop uniform guidance for examination evaluations and program
recertification evaluations.
Develop formal mechanisms for tracking interregional referrals and
enforcement actions (possible tie in with FTTS).
Disseminate region-initiated policy issues/decisions (Check on
headquarters completion of compiled revised policy compendium).
Grant monies from certified applicators to support non-certified
applicators. Possible change in current policy.
46
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Develop tracking system for Sections 26/27 referrals. (Possible
coordination with FTTS system).
Resolve appropriate procedures to give grant monies to Agency other than
through designated State Lead Agency.
Provide state endangered species plans, with comments, to regions
(headquarters).
Provide copies of Landowner Agreements submitted. (Are these legal and
enforceable?)
Worker Protection Work Group
Develop support materials for worker protection.
Obtain information on federal programs and how they are handling
outreach and communication.
Develop outreach packages.
Develop system for coordinating translation of information materials
into different languages.
Identify mechanisms for regional outreach for both headquarters and
regions to perform.
Identify states' concerns related to implementation.
Establish dialogue with worker advpcacy groups to establish rapport and
enlist their support in outreach and communication.
Tribal Work Group
Provide FTEs to oversee tribal grants.
47
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Prepare list of players involved with tribal grants.
Provide information on multimedia grants vis-a-vis tribal grants.
Develop formal training program for Project Officers by September (to go
with oversight manual).
Provide training for state personnel in grants administration.
Ground Water Work Group
Coordinate information on status of state ground water programs
providing information on legislation, designation of state agencies, and
status of implementation (headquarters).
Additional action items from previous days' discussions.
Connie wanted clarification on Form 5700-33H. What numbers go into boxes under
"Categories Under Investigation."
Linda then recapped items of interest to relay to headquarters.
PO's want to receive John Mason's log sheets.
Look at outputs work sheets and how they affect long-term projections
and over- and under-targeting.
Find out if export targets are shipped to regions.
Include Certification and Training portions in protocol and update new
programs.
Identify who receives reports on program activities.
Discuss what is the scope of the state programs the PO's oversee.
48
-------
FIFRA/PO Meeting Report
Identify the site for next year's meeting. Region X volunteered to host
the next FIFRA Cooperative Agreement and Project Officer Meeting.
Region III tentatively volunteered to have the next meeting in
Philadelphia; confirmation must come from regional headquarters.
49
-------
Attachments
-------
AGENDA
1991 FIFRA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT and PROJECT OFFICERS MEETING
February 26, 27, and 28, 1991
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 26
Facilitator: Nancy Frost
8:00 - 8:30
8:30 - 9:00
9:00 - 10:30
10:30 - 10:45
10:45 - 12:15
Registration/Sign-in
Welcome/Group Introductions - David Howekamp
Opening Address: EPA and FIFRA goals, primacy, and
timeframes. How FIFRA Cooperative Agreements help to attain
these goals. - John J. Neylan ffl
Meeting Objective: Define OVERSIGHT roles and
responsibilities of FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Project Officers.
- John J. Neylan in and Nancy Frost
Headquarters Updates - General
FIFRA FY 92 Guidance: review/summary of final grant
guidance - Linda Flick and Therese Murtagh
National Inspector Training - Jake Mackenzie
Update on Status of Developing Programs - Therese Murtagh and
John Leahy
Worker Protection Program
Endangered Species Protection Program
Groundwater Protection Program
Certification and Training
BREAK
Policy Updates (update/description) - John J. Neylan m and Therese
Murtagh
Section 19 Regulations - Procedural Rules
Implementation of 19f Provisions
Labeling issues/SLIC
Bulk Policy/Establishment Inspections
Export
Generic Pesticides Strategy
Drift
Recalls - State/Regional Role
Upcoming Strategies
ATTACHMENT 1 (1)
-------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26 (continued)
12:15-1:30 ""LUNCH**
The following sessions will focus on the Project Officer's Role in
Negotiating a Cooperative Agreement.
1:30-3:00 Priority Setting Update - Carlton Layne
Balancing Priorities - John J. Neylan HI, Carlton Layne, Connie
Goochee, and John Mason
National
Regional
State
Compliance Strategies
Feedback on results of Inspections/Case Development
Closeout on Strategies
National Consistency
3:00-3:15 BREAK
3:15 - 5:00 Coordination between State Agencies - Therese Murtagh and Andrew
Triolo
Coordination between States and Tribes - Ronald Schiller and Richard
Jacobson
including how to develop a tribal grant
Laboratory Support for Grant Activities - Tim Crawford and Mary
Ellen Podniesinski
HQ Decision: $500K for State Lab Equipment
Costing Out State Activities - Tim Crawford
Computation Worksheet
ATTACHMENT 1 (2)
-------
AGENDA (continued)
1991 FIFRA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT and PROJECT OFFICERS MEETING
February 26, 27, and 23, 1991
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 27
Facilitator: Linda Flick
The following sessions will focus on the topic of the Project
Officer's Role in Oversight of a Cooperative Agreement.
8:00- 10:15
10:15- 10:30
Required Reporting - Tim Crawford and Therese Murtagh
State Enforcement Numbers (form 5700-33H)
Status on Initiative Programs
Summaries of Inspector General and Qualitative Assessment
Reports - Curtis Fox and Mary Ellen Podnlesinski
Describe common findings among these reports and how some
are also of concern to the Project Officer.
Revised Protocol for End-of-Year Evaluations of State Programs -
Curtis Fox
Oversight Manual - David Ramsey and Mary Ellen Podniesinski
What is it?
What is its purpose?
BREAK
10:30 - NOON
General Definition of Oversight Responsibility of Project Officer
with Regard to Cooperative Agreements and Grants - John J. Neylan
HI, Therese Murtagh, Robert Kaneshiro, and Region 9 Grants
Representative
Project Officer's Oversight Responsibilities
Legal
Fiscal
NOON- 1:15
""LUNCH**
ATTACHMENT 1 (3)
-------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27 (continued)
1:15 - 2:45 Programmatic - Linda Flick, Therese Murtagh, David Ramsey, and David
Wilcox
Monitoring the State Program
- How to prevent problems
- Overviewing Cooperative Agreement vs. the broader State
pesticide program
- How to best overview outputs in the initiatives programs
- When to renegotiate: Commitments not met, HQ rule
required for activity delayed (i.e., Worker Protection
Standards)
2:45 - 3:00 BREAK
3:00-5:00 Evaluations - John J. Neylan m, Therese Murtagh, Connie Goochee, and
David Star
Conducting the Oversight Review
- Role play
What constitutes adequate enforcement by the State?
Evaluating quality vs. quantity
Writing the Evaluation Report
- Who is the intended audience of the report?
Resolving Project Officer problems EPA channels/procedures.
ATTACHMENT 1 (4)
-------
AGENDA (continued)
1991 FBFRA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT and PROJECT OFFICERS MEETING
February 26, 27, and 28, 1991
THURSDAY FEBRUARY 28
Faciliator: Therese Murtagh
During this session, any outstanding issues will be addressed.
8:00 - 10:00 Communication Transfer
SFIREG's* contribution in identifying and resolving state problems
with implementing pesticide regulatory programs: mechanism for
sharing this information with Project Officers. - Therese Murtagh
and David Star
10:00-10:15 BREAK
10:15 - NOON Communication Transfer (continued)
Summary and Closeout - John J. Neylan m and Nancy Frost
* State FIFRA Issue Research and Evaluation Group
ATTACHMENT 1 (5)
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 (6)
-------
REGISTRATION LIST
for
1991 FTFRA Cooperative Agreement and Project Officer Meeting
HOLIDAY INN UNION SQUARE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
February 26-28. 1991
Armando Aparicio
EPA Region IX
Pesticides Program
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA
(415) 744-1098
Deewitt M. Baulch
EPA Region VIE
Pesticide Program (8AT-TS)
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 293-1738
Kenneth Buchholz
EPA Region Vn
Lincoln Field Office
100 Centennial Mall North, Room 289
Lincoln, NE 68508
(402) 437-5080
Linda Raye Chapman
EPA Region VI
MailCode 6T-PP
1445 Ross, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-7239
Ken Clark
EPA Region IV
Pesticides Section
Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3222
ATTACHMENT 2 (1)
-------
1991 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement and
Project Officer Meeting - Registration List
Page 2
Tim Crawford
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Compliance Monitoring (EN-342)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-7008
Linda Flick
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Compliance Monitoring (EN-342)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7841
Curtis Fox
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Compliance Monitoring (EN-342)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-8318
Nancy Frost
EPA Region EX
Pesticides Program
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA
(415) 744-1098
Connie Goochee
EPA Region EX
Pesticides Program
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA
(415) 744-1098
Mary Grisier
EPA Region DC
Pesticides Program
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA
(415) 744-1098
ATTACHMENT 2 (2)
-------
1991 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement and
Project Officer Meeting - Registration List
Page 3
Gina Hargett-Freed
EPA Region Vm
8AT-TS
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1744
Daniel Heister
EPA Region X
Oregon Operations Office
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 326-6869
Sanda Spencer Rowland
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Case Support Branch (EN-342)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-4844
Richard Jacobson
EPA Region VH
Lincoln Field Office
100 Centennial Mall North, Room 289
Lincoln, NE 68508
(402) 437-5080
Bob Kaneshiro
EPA Region K
Pesticides Program
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA
(415) 744-1098
Susan E. Kavanaugh
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Compliance Monitoring (EN-342)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-9438
ATTACHMENT 2 (3)
-------
1991 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement and
Project Officer Meeting - Registration List
Page 4
Lila Koroma
EPA Region IV
Pesticides Section
345 Courtland Street, S.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3222
Carlton Layne
EPA Region IV
Toxics and Pesticides Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3222
John Leahy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Occupational Safety Branch (H7506-C)
CM-2 1009
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC
(703) 557-7666
John Mason
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
. Office of Compliance Monitoring (EN-342)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-2301
Gary McRae
EPA Region X
Idaho Operations Office
422 W. Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702
(208) 334-9556
Gordon E. Moore
EPA Region ffl
Pesticide Section (3AT32)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9869
ATTACHMENT 2 (4)
-------
1991 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement and
Project Officer Meeting - Registration List
PageS
Therese Murtagh
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Field Operations Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 557-7371
John J. Neylan, HI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Compliance Monitoring (EN-342)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7825
Richard Parkin
EPA Region X
Pesticides Section
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-8574
Mary Ellen Podniesinski
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Compliance Monitoring (EN-342)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7422
Richard Pont
EPA Region IV
Pesticides Section
345 Courtland Avenue, S.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3222
David Ramsey
EPA Region VH
Jefferson City Field Office
P.O. Box 104224
Jefferson City, MO 65110
(314) 636-5223
ATTACHMENT 2 (5)
-------
1991 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement and
Project Officer Meeting Registration List
Page 6
Ronald Schiller
EPA Region VTO
8AT-TS
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1733
Glenn Shannon
EPA Region X
Pesticides & Toxic Substances Branch
(AT-083)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-4232
Jay M. Sinnott
EPA Region X
Montana Office
301 S. Park Avenue, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626
(406) 449-5414
David Star
EPA Region V
Pesticides Section
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-6009
Wayne R. Toland
EPA Region I
Pesticide Section
Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Substances Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3241
ATTACHMENT 2 (6)
-------
1991 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement and
Project Officer Meeting - Registration List
Page?
Andrew C. Triolo
EPA Region I
Pesticide Section
Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Substances Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3954
David Wilcox
EPA Region VH
Des Moines Field Office
210 Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA 50309
(515) 284-4606
Ben Woods
EPA Region IV
Pesticides Section
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3222
ATTACHMENT 2 (7)
-------
ATTACHMENT 2 (8)
-------
COMPLIANCE BRANCH (CB) TRACKING SHEET
Followup on Requests Sent to Regions
(e.g. OCM Compliance strategies, Inspection Initiatives,
document comments, etc.)
CB Staff - Indicate whether or not requested
info was received from Regions.
Issue/Activity
(OCM contact)
1. dinoseb inspection -activities
(Mason)
April 1
July 1
- -* . ^ _ . ._ ._ .
Seotember 30
2. identify dinoseb targets
(Mason)
April 15
July 15
October 14
3. PMA in paint user/f ormulator
inspections
(Calhoun)
. Feb. 20
August 28
4. 2,4,5-T/Silvex I/Rs
(Calhoun)
_ December 30,199])
5. EDB I/Rs
(Mason)
"_LASAP.__
REGIONS
123456789 10
- --
. . _
-
-
-
- -
.
- -
_ ... ___
- - --
- -
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
^^^^^^ United States Environmental Protection Agency
J^| ^^^^^.fV Washington. DC 20460
*S& ""HCX Pesticides Enforcement and Applicator Certification
^^ *\ Cooperative Agreement Quarterly Accomplishment Report
Fom» Approved
OMB No. 20700113
Expires 2-29-93
Public reporting burden lor this collection ol inlornmliori is estimated to nvornge 6.3 hours per response. Including time lor reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data noooV'l. MM
completing and reviewing the collection ol information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect ol this collection ol Information, including suggestions tor reducing this burden, to Chief. Information I'olii .
Branch. PM 223. US Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M SI . S W.. Wnshington, O.C. 20460; and to Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (2070-Ot 13), Washington. D.C. 20503.
State
Fiscal Year
Enforcement Accomplishments
This Quarter
Total Inspections Conducted
Federal Facililics
How many addressed the following *
a) Worker Protection
b) Ground Water
c) Endangered Species
d) CancellHlions/Siisporisions
Samples Collected
Physical
Documentary
Civil Complaints Issued
Criminal Actions Relerrod
Administrative Homings Conducted
License/Certilicnte Suspension
License/Certificate Revocation
License/Certificate Conditioning or Modification "
Number of Warnings Issued
Slop-Sale. Seizure. Ounrantine. or Emtmrgo
Cnses forwarded to EPA lor Action
Otlioi Enforcement Actions
jMnil»t»i of Cnsos Assessed 1 ittos
Reporting Period
Agricultural
Use
Followup
Nonagricultural
Use
Followup
1 1 Cooperative Agreement Only I 1 State Activities Only
Experi-
mental
Use
Producing
Eslab
lishment
Market-
place
Imports
*
Export
/
/
/
CertHied
Applicator
Records
/
/
/
/
Use
Restricted
Pesticide
Dealers
Total
i
- -
orm 5700-33H (Rev. 9-90) Previous editions are obsolete.
* Comprehensive inspections shnll bo conducted. CM the "inspections conducted" which are reported on the first line, please
verity how many addressed the elements listed above as a-d.
I It is expected that nationally elements a-d would not be routinely addressed for export and record inspections only.
However, if a state finds it necessary to report compliance monitoring for these elements under these inspections, they can
do so in the blocks indicated above.
-------
United Stales Environmental Protection Agency
^^ IBBiBJk Jft Washington, DC 20460
^2"5lf ""^F\ Pesticides Enforcement and Applicator Certification
^^ " » » Cooperative Agreement Output Projections
Form to be completed by State agency and submitted with application (or Cooperative Agreement
Stale
Enforcement Projections
Inspections
Projected Per Quarter
1
2
3
4
Inspections Projected for Fiscal Year
~^ Physical
Samples
Projected Per Quarter
1
2
3
4
Samples Projected for Fiscal Year
Agricultural
Use
Followup
Nonagrjcultural
Use
t
Project Period
Followup
Experi-
mental
Use
Producer
Estab-
lishment
Market-
place
Imports
Form Approved
OMB No. 2070-OM3
Expires 22*93
Export
Certified
Applicator
Records
Restricted
Use
Pesticide
Dealers
Total
*
(N
t
j|
|
*
'
i
EPA Form 5700-33H (Rev. 9-90) Previous editions are obsolete
-------
ANNUAL CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING PROJECTIONS
Certification Projections
(Annual)
Trnining Sessions To Be
Pnrlicipnlcd in or Monitored
Applicators To Be Certified
' replicators To Be Recertified
Private
Applicator*
Commercial
Applicators
Agricultural
Plant
-
*/ *
Animal
^ >
*J A s :
. '! > <"
Forest
>
fSff*^-
Orna-
menlal
and
Turf
ss '
'x '' ^
. \ \
A.fe~.«x
Treat-
ment
V +
' i - '
s ^ s
, > ' !
Aquatic
- %
> *
Right
of
Way
% ,
Industrial,
Institu-
tional,
Structural,
Health
'" v ';
. \ "s
.j^.;?.!^....
Public
Health
s
0 '%
Regula-
torv
-
%-^
Demon-
stration
and
Research
.^......i.*..}...
Other
i
i
" ' i
CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING ACCOMPLISHMENTS
THIS QUARTER
Certification
Accomplishments
This Quarter
liaining Sessions Participated in
or Monitored
i Applicators Certified
i
i
i Applicators Recertified
Private
Applicators
Commercial
Applicators
Agricultural
Plant
Animal
, I'll- Mrpoti ihe Information below only wHh lh« End-o< Ye«r Report
j 1 nlnl Applicators Holding a Valid Cer-
tificntion ns of September 30th
Recertifi^^^n Period (in years)
1^
Forest
Orna-
mental
and
Turf
Seed
Treat
men!
Aquatic
Right
of
Way
Industrial,
Institu-
tional,
Structural.
Health
Public
Health
Regula-
tory
Demon-
sir nlion
and
Research
Other
tPA Form S^^^P (Rev. 9-90) Previous editions are obsolete.
-------
ATTACHMENT 4 (4)
-------
Appendix XI
(Revised February 1991)
Guidelines for Using EPA Form 570Q-33H
Reporting Requirements for the Pesticides Enforcement Component Output Projections
and Quarterly Accomplishment Report
EPA form 5700-33H must be used by States/Tribes participating in the FIFRA cooperative
agreement program for reporting output projections and accomplishments in the
enforcement program. There are three sides to form 5700-33H: Output Projections and
Quarterly Accomplishment Report. The Quarterly Accomplishment Report should be
accompanied by a narrative portion as described in these guidelines.
To insure uniform reporting, these guidelines and definitions must be followed when
completing this form.
A. Reporting Categories
The EPA Form 5700-33H provides the State/Tribe two categories for reporting pesticide
enforcement activities: (1) Cooperative Agreement Only and (2) State Activities Only.
States/Tribes are encouraged to include all of their pesticide enforcement activities under
the cooperative agreement program. If a State/Tribe decides to include only a portion of
its program in the cooperative agreement (at least 15 percent of the total costs), this form
provides the State/Tribe the opportunity to report activities outside of the cooperative
agreement by checking the "State Activities Only" block on a separate copy of the form.
1. Cooperative Agreement Only
"Cooperative Agreement Only" includes all activities conducted under the
cooperative agreement.
2. State Activities Only
"State Activities Only" includes all activities conducted outside of the cooperative
agreement program. Reporting of these activities is voluntary. EPA encourages
States/Tribes with pesticide enforcement activities outside of the cooperative
agreement program to report these activities on a separate copy of the form with
the "State Activities Only" block checked. This will give EPA and other concerned
parties a complete picture of all pesticide compliance activities being conducted
by the State/Tribe.
1
ATTACHMENT 4 (5)
-------
B. Output Projections
The Output Projections side of the form must be completed for all four quarters and
submitted with the cooperative agreement application. These numbers represent the
State's/Tribe's quarterly commitments under the cooperative agreement.
As stated in the FY92 guidance, the states will negotiate with their Regional office and
commit to conducting an agreed-upon number of federal facility inspections. These would
fall under the other categories of inspections listed on the form reporting form, but would
be conducted at federal facilities. The number of inspections to be conducted at federal
facilities must be negotiated and included in cooperative agreement applications.
States/Tribes are not required to make projections for activities to be conducted outside
of the cooperative agreement program.
C. Quarterly Accomplishments
States/Tribes are required to report all pesticide inspectional and enforcement
accomplishments performed under the cooperative agreement program on EPA Form
5700-33H, with the block "Cooperative Agreement Only" checked.
The Quarterly Accomplishments side of the form must be completed for each quarter.
The accomplishments to be reported include inspections conducted, samples collected,
and enforcement actions taken. Quarterly reports must be submitted to the Regional
Office by the State/Tribes within thirty calendar days following the completion of each
Federal fiscal-year quarter. Quarterly reports are due by January 30, April 30, July 30,
and October 30 of each year.
The following are uniform reporting requirements for reporting accomplishments:
o Inspections should only be reported if an appropriate inspection report is
completed.
o Inspections should be reported during the quarter that they are completed.
o The initial reason for the inspection determines the appropriate inspection
category for reporting.
o If more than one type of inspection (of the eleven standard inspection
categories) is conducted for the same visit, and each inspection is completely
documented, then each inspection can be counted as a separate inspection.
2
ATTACHMENT 4 (6)
-------
o Ail State.Tnoul enforcement actions resulting rrom inspections conducted
under the cooperative agreement are to be reported on Form 5TQO-33H.
This includes enforcement actions for both Federal and State/Tribal
violations.
o Enforcement actions should be reported for the quarter in which they are
issued, regardless of when the inspection was conducted.
o Enforcement actions are to be reported under the inspection category-
heading for the initial inspection which led to the enforcement action.
o Enforcement actions which are not the result of inspections in the field are
to be reported in the narrative portion of the report.
See section E. Inspection Category Definitions for additional uniform reporting
requirements for use and followup inspections.
For inspection, sample and enforcement action accomplishments performed outside of
the cooperative agreement, EPA encourages States/Tribes to report these activities on a
separate copy of the form with the "State Activities Only" block checked. Use the same
instructions as described above for reporting accomplishments. This will give a complete
picture of the total pesticides compliance activities being conducted.
D. Total Applicators Holding a Valid Certification as of September 30th
The Office of Compliance Monitoring uses the number of certified private applicators
and commercial applicators as of September 30th as pan of the formula for allotting
enforcement cooperative agreement funds. It is important that each State participating
in the enforcement cooperative agreement program report this information along with
their fourth quarter report.
E. Inspection Category Definitions
It is understood that many States/Tribes conduct inspections which are not specified as
separate inspection categories on Form 5700-33H or defined in these guidelines. The
State/Tribe should consult with their Regional Office to determine which inspection
categories most closely match such inspections. Inspections which do not fall within one
of the eleven standard inspection categories of the form should be reported in the
narrative portion of the quarterly report.
The eleven standard inspection categories listed on EPA Form 5700-33H are defined, for
uniform reporting purposes, as follows:
3
ATTACHMENT 4 (7)
-------
[_;
-------
2. Non-agricultural L'.se Inspections
Non-agricultural Use Inspections include the inspection of non-agricultural pesticide
applications.
Followup Inspections
A followup inspection is usually initiated in response to a complaint, damage report,
referral, tip. etc. following a pesticide application. Section 18 and 24(c) followup
inspections will be included in this category for reporting purposes.
Uniform reporting requirements are:
o Followup inspections are differentiated from use inspections by the initial
reason for the inspection.
o Followup inspections are initiated when there is reason to believe that a
violation has occurred or is occurring.
o Followup inspections remain followup inspections even if a violation is not
detected.
3. Agricultural Followup Inspections
Agricultural followup inspections are inspections of a suspected misuse of pesticides
in conjunction with the production of agricultural commodities as defined in 40 CFR
part I71.2(e).
4. Non-agricultural Followup Inspections
Non-agricultural followup inspections are inspections of suspected misuse of
pesticides in all categories of non-agricultural applications.
5. Experimental-Use Inspections
An experimental-use inspection may be an actual observation of an application or
a followup inspection of records to determine compliance with the experimental-
use permit. All inspections must be conducted on site; telephone calls or
correspondence reviews will not be counted as inspections.
5
ATTACHMENT 4 (9)
-------
6. Producer Establishment Inspections
A producer establishment inspection is an inspection of an establishment where
pesticides or devices are produced and held for distribution or sale, for the purpose
of inspection the facility's products and obtaining samples. While conducting
producer establishment inspections, product labels, containers, and records should
be examined for compliance. Inspection of the books and records required by
section 8 are also part of these inspections.
7. Marketplace, Inspections
A marketplace inspection is an inspection conducted at the retail, distribution.
wholesale, or user level for the purpose of determining product registration status.
proper storage and display, any labeling violations, any product decomposition, and
for collecting official samples. To be counted as an output, the marketplace
inspection must be documented in accordance with the provisions set forth in the
EPA Pesticides Inspection Manual.
8. Import Inspections
An import inspection is an actual inspection of a product being imported into the
United States to determine whether the product is in compliance with FIFRA.
Telephone calls and review of import papers in the inspector's office will not be
counted as inspections.
9. Export Inspections
Export inspections are considered to be intensive section 8 books and records
inspections that will involve the review and collection of a large number of
documents and several affidavit statements by regional/state inspector(s) from
responsible company officials. Inspection activities will consist of three (3) parts:
pre-inspection document collection and review at the Regional office; on-site
inspection activities to review and obtain additional documents; and inspection
report writing and organization of inspection documents.
An export inspection is an inspection directed toward those pesticides that are
intended for export to determine whether they are prepared and packaged in
accordance with the specifications and directions of the applicable foreign
purchaser and consistent with the EPA Statement of Policy on the Labeling
Requirements for Exported Pesticides, Devices, and Pesticide Active Ingredients
and the Procedures for Exporting Unregistered Pesticides.
ATTACHMENT 4 (10)
-------
10. Ceri:r:.tJ ArrMirntnr License and R fjords Inspections
This type on inspection is normally conducted at a pesticide applicator's place of
business. The purpose of the inspection is to determine if: (1) the applicator is
properly certified and/or licensed, (2) the required records are being maintained.
(3) the applicator is applying pesticides only in those areas for which certification
has been issued, and (4) the records indicate that all applications have been made
in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Inspections of non-certified applicators, pest control operators, etc., for the purposes
described above should 'also be reported in this category.
11. Restricted-Use Pesticide Dealer Records Inspections
This type of inspection is conducted on-site at dealers who sell restricted-use
pesticides. The purpose of the inspection is to determine if: (1) the dealer is
properly licensed or certified (if required) and maintaining the required records,
and (2) restricted-use pesticides are being sold only to certified applicators or other
properly authorized persons by reviewing the dealer's records.
Comprehensive Inspections
Comprehensive inspections, covering all pertinent elements of each type of
inspection, as explained in the inspector's manual, shall be conducted.
We have highlighted the importance of just a few of these elements on the
reporting form. Of the inspections reported under each type of inspection, please
verify how many included compliance monitoring for: a) worker protection; b)
ground water; c) endangered species; and d) cancellations/suspensions.
(Nationally, it is expected that each of these elements (a-d) would be routinely
addressed under each type of inspection, with the possible exception of export and
certified applicator record checks, as indicated in the footnote on the reporting
form. However, if a state finds it necessary to report compliance monitoring for
these elements under these two types of inspections, they can do so on the
reporting form.)
Federal Facilities
Inspections at federal facilities shall be conducted. They would be reported under
the applicable inspection category on the reporting form. According to the Office
New sections.
7
ATTACHMENT 4 (11)
-------
of Management and Budget Circular No. A-106. dated December 31. L9~-i. and the
EPA Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy dated November 19S8. federal facilities
are defined as; "buildings, installations, structures, land public works equipment.
aircraft, vessels, and other vehicles and property, owned by or constructed or
manufactured and so leased to, the Federal Government."
F. Sample Definitions
Physical samples refer to extracted volumes taken for analysis in determining
product formulation, use dilution and residue concentrations. Documentary or
non-physical samples may include such items as product labels, photos or copies of
sales receipts which may be needed as evidence in properly conducting inspection
reports and case development activities. Many documentary samples result in
enforcement actions and are significant functions. However, since the number of
samples is also used for determining laboratory workload and productivity,
documentary or non-physical samples should be differentiated so as not to be
reported as sample projections on EPA Form 5700-33H. Documentary samples
may be projected in the narrative portion to accompany EPA Form 5700-33H. if
a state would like to do so. However, as stated above, only physical samples are
required to be projected.
G. Sample Accomplishments
With respect to samples collected, both physical and documentary samples shall
be reported.
H. Enforcement Action Category Definitions
Only those enforcement actions initiated as a result of an inspection should be reported
on EPA Form 5700-33H.
It is understood that many States initiate enforcement actions which are not specified as
one of the standard categories for enforcement action on EPA Form 5700-33H or defined
in these guidelines. The State/Tribe should consult with their Regional Office to
determine which reporting categories most closely match such enforcement actions.
Enforcement actions not readily falling within one of the ten standard categories on the
form should be reported in the in the enforcement action category "Other Enforcement
Actions" and described in the narrative portion of the quarterly report.
The eleven standard categories of enforcement actions listed on EPA Form 5700-33H
are defined, for uniform reporting purposes, as follows:
8
ATTACHMENT 4 (12)
-------
1. Civil Complaints Issues
Civil Complaints include any written notice proposing a monetary penalty t'or a
violation(s). These actions should be reported during the quarter in which they
are issued to the respondent.
2. Criminal Actions Referred
Criminal Actions are those legal actions pursued in a court of law. These actions
should be reported during the quarter in which the case is referred to the judicial
system (e.g.. State Attorney General, District Attorney, or County Prosecutor).
3. Administrative Hearings Conducted
An Administrative Hearing is when an alleged violator is required to appear before
a State. Tribal or Federal Hearing Officer to explain why the violation occurred.
These actions should be reported during the quarter in which the hearing is
conducted.
4. License/Certificate Suspension
5. License/Certificate Revocation
6. License/Certificate Conditioning or Modification
These are usually administrative actions taken to further restrict the use of
restricted-use pesticides by certified applicators by suspending, revoking or modifying
the terms of the applicator's license or certification.
7. Number of Warnings Issued
To be counted, warnings must be a written notification pointing out the violation(s)
and placing the recipient on notice that further violation may result in additional
enforcement action. Warnings should be reported during the quarter in which the
warning was issued.
8. Stop-Sale. Seizure. Quarantine, or Embargo
All official written orders for removing products in violation from sale or use should
be reported in this category.
9. Cases Forwarded to EPA For Action
This includes all inspectional files which document violations of FIFRA and are
forwarded to EPA for enforcement action.
9
ATTACHMENT 4 (13)
-------
K). Other Enforcement Actions
Any other written, verifiable enforcement action initiated by the State, Tribe, or
Federal Agency that is not comparable to one of the above enforcement action
categories.
11. Number of Cases Assessed Fines
Indicates the number of enforcement cases resulting in the assessment of a
monetary fine (e.g.. civil complaint settlements, criminal court actions, or
administrative hearing orders).
I. Narrative
The Quarterly Accomplishment Report should be accompanied by a narrative portion as
described below:
1. Inspections Conducted
Inspections which do not fall within one of the ten standard inspection categories
should be reported in the narrative.
Worker Protection Enforcement
Once the compliance dates for the revised worker protection rule have passed,
the State/Tribe's pesticide inspection activities will need to include monitoring for
compliance with the new worker protection requirements. Monitoring for
compliance with worker protection requirements shall be another element of
comprehensive inspections.
On the reporting form, the grantee must document that compliance monitoring
for the revised worker protection requirements was indeed a component oe each
of their inspections (as discussed on the reporting form). (It is expected that
nationally compliance monitoring for worker protection would not be routinely
addressed during export and certified applicator record checks only. However, if
a state finds it necessary to report compliance monitoring for worker protection
under these inspections, they can do so in the appropriate blocks on the reporting
form.)
If monitoring for worker protection was not included as par of every inspection,
the grantee must explain why in the narrative section of the quarterly report.
10
ATTACHMENT 4 (15)
-------
Ground Water-Endangered Species.Cancellations/Suspensions
On the reporting form, the grantee must document that compliance monitoring
for the labeling and other requirements associated with ground water, endangered
species, and cancellations/suspensions was indeed a component of each of their
inspections (as discussed on the reporting form). (It is expected that nationally
compliance monitoring for ground water and endangered species related
requirements would not be routinely addressed during export and certified
applicator record checks only. However, if a state finds it necessary to report
compliance monitoring for worker protection under these inspections, they can do
so in the appropriate blocks on the reporting form.)
If monitoring for ground water, endangered species, and cancellations/suspensions
was not included as part of every inspection, the grantee must explain why in the
narrative section of the quarterly report.
2. Enforcement Accomplishments
Enforcement actions not readily falling within one of the eleven standard categories
on the form should be reported in the in the enforcement action category "Other
Enforcement Actions" and described in the narrative portion.
Enforcement actions which are not the result of inspections in the field may be
reported in the narrative.
Some examples of what would be included under "other enforcement actions"
include the following; advisory letters, agreements on remedial action, notices of
intent to sue, consent agreements, reports of substandard treatments, treatment
correction notices, and stop work order notices.
A "field notice" would be included under the category of "other enforcement
actions" (as opposed to the "warning" category) only if it does not meet the
definition of a "warning" as described on page 9 (under item #7).
11
ATTACHMENT 4 (16)
-------
MINIMUM CONTENT
FOR END-OF-YEAR EVALUATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Brief description of State/Tribal Program
Identification of departments/individuals within S1A or
Tribe responsible for enforcement and of their associated
roles and responsibilities
- Brief history of pesticide enforcement cooperative
agreement
- Date of grant award and any amendments
B. Evaluation Protocol and Participants
- Date of evaluation, project period which evaluation
covers, evaluation participants, and summary of end-of-
year evaluation activities
II. MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAM
A. Status of Previous Recommendations
1. List of formal recommendations from the previous
recommendation
2. Discussion of actions taken in follow-up to each
recommendation. If progress has not been made, an
explanation must should be provided.
3. Discussion of the next action(s) necessary, if any,
to resolve continuing problems and implement the
recommendation.
NOTE: If a problem/recommendation has not been addressed,
then a plan should be developed to address these issues
and included in the current evaluation report. The plan
should be negotiated between the State/Tribe and the
Regional Office prior to or as part of the evaluation.
It is also recommended that if there has been no effort
to address a significant problem or recommendation on
either the State's, the Tribe's, or EPA's part, the
Federal program manager and a State/Tribal program
manager meet to discuss a remedy and outline a course of
action to resolve the matter.
B. Program Coordination
1. Brief description of the relationship between the
pesticide enforcement program and the certification
and training program; other activities coordinated
with other state agencies.
2. Discussion of coordination or problems encountered
1
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
with other governmental entities, such as states,
Indian tribes (jurisdictional problems), or federal
agencies. Description of any formal arrangements
in place such as Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).
C. Priorities
1. Reference of most recent priority-setting plan.
2. List of each of the State/Tribe's objectives and
priorities described in the workprogram.
Description of the state/tribal efforts in support
of each priority, and whether or not resources given
to each priority were sufficient.
3. Actions undertaken in support of each of the
national priorities.
a. Pesticide Cancellations, Suspensions and other
Regulatory Actions
This section of the review should address the state
or tribe's activities in response to: 1) major
cancellation actions; 2) all suspensions under FIFRA
Section 6; 3) FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(B) suspensions;
and 4) other major pesticide regulatory actions.
(1) Number of inspections and a description
of all other activities undertaken to
assure compliance with each o£ these
areas.
(2) Statement on the quality of the tracking
system and narrative reports required as
part of the state or tribe's cooperative
agreement to track the inspections,
violations found and enforcement actions
taken in followup to cancellations and
suspensions.
(3) General discussion of quality of
state/tribal implementation of National
Compliance Monitoring Strategies.
b. Worker Protection
Discuss the work the State/Tribe has conducted for
each of the agreed upon worker protection
enforcement workprogram activities, the work which
remains to be done and the associated timeframes.
The distinct workprogram activities which must be
addressed in the end-of-year review include:
(1) Notification to prospective constituents
and monitoring for current worker
protection requirements.
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
(2) Development and implementation of the
Worker Protection Compliance Monitoring
Strategy. (Note: the Compliance
Monitoring Strategy must include a
targeting scheme, documentation of inter-
agency coordination, and a compliance
communication strategy.
(3) Monitoring of the worker protection
requirements as an element of
comprehensive inspections. Quarterly
accomplishment reports documenting this
'activity.
(4) Targeting and committing to conduct a
specific number of use inspections to
ensure compliance with the worker
protection requirements during the
application of a pesticide.
(5) Worker protection investigations being
conducted in response to tips and
complaints and the tracking of such
investigations.
D. Non-inspectional Activities
Describe the implementation of any non-inspectional activities
agreed upon in the workprogram. (Such activities may include,
for example, coordinating market place sampling, following-
up on recalls, etc.)
E. Files and Tracking
1. Discuss whether the state or tribe's method of
filing and tracking enforcement cases is sufficient,
so that a particular file is easy to locate and the
disposition of a particular case is easy to
determine
2. State whether or not the tracking system is
computerized.
3. Discuss whether Section 26 and 27 referrals were
handled according to established protocol with the
Region. Identify any problems or deficiencies.
III. QUALITY OP INSPECTIONS, CASE REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
A. Inspection and Sample Outputs
Based on a review of commitments and accomplishments,
compare:
1. the projected number of inspections in each
inspectional category with the number of inspections
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
actually conducted. Describe discrepancies, if any,
in each inspectional category. Mention any
explanation given by state or tribe for shortfalls
for each of the affected inspectional categories.
2. the total number of physical samples projected to
the number of physical samples actually collected.
Describe discrepancies, if any, for each
inspectional category. Mention any explanation
given by state or tribe for shortfalls for each of
the affected inspectional categories.
3. the total number of documentary samples projected
(projectio'h of documentary samples was optional in
FY 91) to the number of physical samples actually
collected. Describe discrepancies, if any, for each
inspectional category. Mention any explanation
given by state or tribe for shortfalls for each of
the affected inspectional categories.
B. Inspection reports/documentation
A minimum of 10% of the case files or 25 case files, whichever
is the greater number, comprising all categories of inspectional
activity performed by the state or tribe. and a representative
cross-section of sample collection and analysis documents and
enforcement cases (both pending and complete) should be examined
to determine if EPA protocol and guidance has been followed and to
determine the appropriateness of the enforcement actions taken.
The End-of-Year report should state how may cases were reviewed and
in what inspectional category, ex: four producer establishment, six
agricultural use, one experimental use, etc. (The Region may want
to include as an attachment to the end-of-year a summary of each
of the case files and other documents reviewed.)
Based on the review of case files, the End-of-Year Review
should:
1. Indicate if the state or tribe responded in a timely
manner to tips and complaints, providing an average
response time for all tips/complaints in the case
files reviewed. (Ex: 4.5 days)
2. Indicate if inspection reports were completed within
the timeline listed in the workplan, and explain any
delays.
3. Describe in detail the nature of any deficiencies
in the quality of inspection reports and
documentation (ex: poor or missing photos, no labels
taken, poor documentation of chain-of-custody for
samples taken, etc.) and, if possible, the number
of cases in which these deficiencies were noted.
4. Discuss whether minimum standards for inspectional
activities outlined in the state or tribe's
workprogram were met or exceeded.
4
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
C. Enforcement Actions
1. Identify and explain any backlog of cases and if the
time period to determine an appropriate enforcement
action is being met.
2. Discuss whether appropriate enforcement response
actions are taken or initiated in accordance with
the state or tribe's Enforcement Response Policy.
3. Discuss whether enforcement actions were initiated
in a timely manner.
4. If the rfumber of inspections resulting in an.
enforcement action in any inspectional category were
unusually low or unusually high (less than 5% or
greater than 40%), the End-of-Year Review should
provide an explanation, if possible.
IV. ANALYTICAL ACTIVITIES
A. Brief description of Lab
1. The relationship between the S1A and the state
lab(s)
a. the financial arrangement between SlA and
lab(s).
b. any agreement between lab(s) and SlA; include
as an attachment, if applicable.
c. any recent lab review(s) conducted by NEIC or
the Region
B. Describe any discrepancy between the number of (physical)
samples projected and the number acutally performed, for
both formulation and residue samples
C. Timeliness of sample analyses, for both formulation and
residue samples. Note if a sample backlog was found, and
estimate the number of days of the backlog. Estimate in
days the average turn around time for sample analysis.
D. Completeness of Laboratory Reports.
E. Whether Minimal Standards, agreed to in the workplan or
in the QA plan, were adequately met, noting in detail any
deficiencies.
F. Laboratory needs (equipment, additional personnel,
training, etc.)
V. FISCAL REVIEW
A. Current Balance: statement of the current balance of
unexpended funds, if any, and Attachment of current
budget broken down by Federal and State shares.
B. Identification any major equipment purchases made during
grant period
C. Verification that the financial recordkeeping is in place
D. Identification of any fiscal accounting and/or expenditure
5
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
problems related to the cooperative agreement
VI. LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
A. Description of any changes in pesticide laws, regulations
or procedures during the project period, and discuss what
effect these changes will have on the state or tribe's
pesticide program. If no changes have been made, the
review should state so.
B. Description of any changes in pesticide laws, regulations
or procedures that have been proposed or are being
considered.
C. Determination if there is a need for additional
legislation, regulations or procedural changes in the
state or tribe.
VII. STATE/TRIBAL PROGRAM NEEDS
Discuss areas in which the State has expressed a specific need
for additional support and which EPA may be able to provide,
i.e., training on how to conduct effective interviews, write
streamlined inspection reports; additional funding; procedural
changes.
VIII. REVIEW OP EPA'S PERFORMANCE
A review of EPA's performance should be documented in this
section.
IX. SUMMARY
A. Program Highlights/Accomplishments
B. Problem Areas and Recommendations
- Summarize the findings of the review and make
recommendations, identifying the lead and others
involved, i.e., EPA program manager, State program
manager, EPA Project Officer, State Inspectors.
- Each deficiency noted in the evaluation should have an
accompanying recommendation for improvement or
resolution.
- Each recommendation should have an accompanying timeline
or schedule for resolving the problem.
- Problem areas discovered during the evaluation process
should be discussed during the review process.
When a problem identified during the previous review has not
been resolved, a plan (including timeframes) for correcting
any deficiencies should be negotiated between EPA and the
State. This plan will become part of the evaluation report.
6
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
ORGANIZATION
cooperative
agreement
AAPCO
SFIREG
VOTING MEMBERS
Chair
10 Members -
representing states
within each EPA
region
NON-VOTING MEMBERS
Executive Secretary
ASTHO representative
ASPCRO representative
Extension representative
Fish and Game representative
OPP Intergovernmental Liaison
OCM SFIREG Liaison
EPA regions
WORKING COMMITTEE
ENFORCEMENT &
CERTIFICATION
WORKING COMMITTEE
REGISTRATION &
CLASSIFICATION
WORKING COMMITTEE
GROUND WATER &
DISPOSAL
voting members
non-voting members
voting members
non-voting members
voting members
non-voting members
Chair
7-8 states
Executive Sec.
OPP Liaison
OCM Liaison
EPA Region
Chair
7-8 states
Executive Sec.
OPP Liaison
OCM Liaison
EPA Region
Chair
7-8 states
Executive Sec.
OPP Liaison
OCM Liaison
EPA Region
ATTACHMENT 6
------- |