-------
                             JUL 3 I  IScO
3UBJECT:   Request  tn  Stop Collection of 3oa?le
           Requests for  T«i3tir.^ at iJeltsville

lOt        Snforceaent Division Directors
           Pesticide Sranch Chicfa


     .t*c arc  in  f.ne prr»c*;s3 of evaluatini  the  A^»:ncy's Disinfectant
lonitocin^ ?rr»^ra«.  Tne  objective of our  review is to establish  an
c!Ct-ctivc  monitor iny  system for t;ie purpose of  irrorovin^ teat pro-
ccJur'.-j and  data  flow bctwcun Ucacquarturs, tn«* notions, an.1
3clt3villc.
     Until  further  notice,  appropriatr; 3»!3sure3 should fc«.«
   stn-j collection  of  all  octstanding s-a.-n?!*^  requ^ats int«-.n-.ied
    ttr-wtinq  at  the  Che.-aica!  a.nJ Siolo.-jirai  Invtstijations Jronch,
j^ltsvillo,  .-!J.

          cooperation  in tais matter is aooreciatr-3.
                                A. 2. Conroy  II?  director
                             Pesticides anJ Touic 3ubs
                                  Znforcca»»nt Division

-------
Tuesday
March 3, 1931
Part III



Environmental

Protection Agency

Pesticide Registration, Reregistration, and
Classification Procedures; Clarification of
Policies on Special Packaging

-------
 .5104
Fcdrr=I Register  /  Vol. 46. No. 41  /  Tuesday. Mnrcn 3. 1981 / Rules ana Kesuiaucns
 :NVIRCNVENTAL PROTECTION
 ;G£.\CY   .

 OC-rRPart 1E2
                   2500118]

     ,ide Registration, Registration,
 nd Classification Procedure;
 :iarific2tion of Pciicy Issues en
 :pec:al Packaging

 .SSNCY: Environmental Protection
 vje.-.cy (EPA).
 ,CTION: Rule rsiated notice.

 .•JMMARY: This interpretation of the
 hiiu-resistant packaging regulation (-JO
 15?. 152.15) provides clarification on
 everal aspects of the regulation. This
 nterpretation becarr.e necessary
 •ecause the pesticide industry had
 uised a number of questions which the
 cency fasis can best be resolved by
 -is publication. It is intended  that
 hrcu§h these clarifications the affected
 esticide registrants will be in a  better
 osition to comply with the regulation
 y March 9, 1981. when it becomes
 ffective.
 Oft RJRTHSa INFORMATION CONTACT:
 '.csaii.-.a L Gross. Registration Division
 TS-rerQ. Office of-Pesticide Programs.
 Ir.vironmental Protection Agency. Rra.
 C7. CM=2. 1321 Jefferson Davis
 Highway. Arlington, VA 22202. (703-
 5-   ••'51).
      MENTAL INFORMATION: On
 •f.-j...; 9. 1379. the  Environmental
 roteciion Agency (EPA) issued final
 ^sulaticns which  require certain toxic
 esticides to be in  special, i.e., child-
 2s;stsnt. packaging aftar March  9, 1931.
 "he regulations are now contained in 40
 IFR 162.15. Because so many registrants
 .ave had questions about the
 T.piemer.iaticn of these regulations,
 !?A has decided to publish this Notice.
 c answer those questions and to clarify
 he regulations in areas where they
 night be unclear. These clarifications
•an be used immediately in order to
.mer.d registrations with respect to
:hi!d-resis£ant packaging. Where EPA
:roposes to amend the regulations.
hose amendments will of course-
-eceme effective after full notice and
^eminent ralemaking.
\. Eye and Skin Im'atioa Criteria
 Mar.y questions  were received
:oncerning the conduct and
r.terpretation  of eye and skin irritation
.f-idies. As indicated in the preamble to
he final regulations (-M FR 13021),
estina for a pesticide's eye and skin
rritation effects should be done in
• c'    -nee with the National Academy
                         of Science/National Research Council
                         Publication 1133 protocols.
                         B. "Inherently Child-Resistant" Products
                           A number of registrants have
                         questioned whether their products need
                         to be tested for child-resistant
                         effectiveness, contending that they are
                         "inherently" child-resistant. These
                         products fail into two main categories:
                         (1) those where it is claimed that the
                         package is intrinsically ur.oper.able by
                         children, and therefore "inherently"
                         child-resistant, and (2) those where it is
                         admitted that the product is toxic and
                         accessible to children, but where it is
                         contended that it would not be possible
                         for a child to consume or be exposed to
                         a sufficiently large amount of the toxic
                         pesticide to cause him harm.
                           It is the agency's position that neither
                         of these classes of products is
                         "inherently child-resistant." In the first
                         case, where product design is the basis
                         for the "inherently child-resistant "
                         claim, it will be necessary for that
                         package to be tested, like all other
                         pesticide packages, in accordance with
                         the Consumer Product Safety
                         Commission protocols, as discussed  in
                        ' the regulations and clarified below. In
                         the second case, it is open to the
                         registrant to attempt to show that its
                         product  fails within the exemption
                         category of 40 CFR 162.16(c)(3). on the
                         ground that despite the pesticide's
                         meeting  of one or more of the loxicity
                         criteria,  it is not hazardous to man. The
                         registrant must show that a child could
                         not be exposed to a toxic or harmful
                         amount of the pesticide. The fact that a
                         pesticide has not been implicated in  a
                         large number of accidents involving
                         children is not in itself sufficient-
                         grounds  for exemption. Product specific
                         test data and an appropriate scientific
                         rationale must be submitted in support
                         of an exemption request.

                         C. Distinction Between "Exempt From
                         Special Packaging" and "Not Being
                         Subject to Special Packaging"
                           Many  registrants are requesting
                         exemptions for products, when in
                         actuality they are asking if their product
                         is subject to the regulation. An exempt
                         ia only appropriate for a product which
                         is subject to the regulation.
                           A product whose label does not allow
                         for residential use. is classified for
                         restricted use. or does not meet the
                         toxicity criteria, is generally not subject
                         to the special packaging regulations.  A
                         product "allows for residential use" if its
                         label either directly recommends
                         residential use or reasonably can be
                         interpreted to permit residential use.
                           Determining the potential for
                         residential use from the label directions
 may be difficult. Many ornamental
 plants and garden vegetables, for
 example, arc grown by the individual
 homeowner and. there!"jre. a  label
 which lists them can be interpreted 23
 permitting residential use. Residential
 use thus may not be automatically
 excluded for a relatively large number of
 products. In fact. th'e'sa.T.e formuiaticn
 may be used, for example, by the
 commercial vegetable grower as well as
 the home gardener raising the same
 crop. The registrant of a product is best
 aware of the actual use area/user group
 of the pesticide. The registrant is
 therefore in a position to either choose
 proper labeling (see I below) for those
 products not intended to be used by the
 homeowner or to choose child-resistant
 packaging for those products  used and
 stored in residential areas. For those
 products which will not enter the
 residential area even by use of a
 serviceperson (see I below) the agency
 will continue to follow its  customary
 distinction between pesticides products
 entering the home  market  and those
 which are intended for commercial
 production of food crops and
 ornamental plants. This distinction has
 over the years been accomplished by a
 number of means, for example", use
 directions and size limitations. On a  .
 case-by-case basis, and in case of
 'uncertainties, the agency has  also  '
 allowed or requested label language
 such as "for agricultural use orJy." or
 "not for use in or around the home."
   The regulations provide  for
 exemptions under two circumstarrces:
 (1) technical infeasibility or (2) where a
 product's meeting of the toxicity criteria
 is not indicative of a genuine hazard to
 man.
   Technically feasible means  that the
 technology exists to produce special
• packaging for a  particular pesticide. The
 agency is not required to find  either that
 the packing is readily available or that it
 will lend itself conveniently Jo the
 existing packages or packaging  •
 equipment of the registrant. EPA
 considers practicability and
 appropriateness to be components of
 technical feasibility. In EPA'a  view.
 packaging is practicable if it is
 susceptible to modern mass production
 and assembly line techniques  and
. appropriate if it is chemically
 compatible with the pesticide  contained
 in the package.1
   This definition is consistent with thai of the
 Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
 published in the Federal Register 01 February-15k
 19,-: (37 FR 1427).

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 46.  No. 41  / Tuesday, March 3.  1S31 /  Rules and Regulations       ISlC-i
 •D. "Dormant" Pesticide Registrations

   A pesticide whose registration is '
 "dorrr.ar.t" is cni which is vniicly
 registered with EPA but is net currently
 in production. Obviously, the registrant
 of a "dormant" product subject to the
 chi'd-resistar.t packaging regulations
 must ccmpiy'with these regulations
 when it either begins cr renews
 production after March 9.1931.

 E. Voluntary Child-Resistant Packaging

 •  A auaber of registrants whose
 products are not required to be in child-
 resistant packaging have asked whether
 they may nonetheless use it. The anwer
 'is yes. However, once a registrant
 chooses to use child-resistant packaging.
 the registrant must comply in all
 respects with the child-resistant
 packaging regulations. It would be
 misleading to the public to have two
 types of child-resistant packaging—
 voluntary and compulsory—which were
 nat of equal safety or effectiveness.

 F. Product To.xicity and Child-Resistant
 Packaging
   A pesticide product's toxicity places it
 in one of three categories in regard to
 child-resistant packaging. These are:
   1. Those products which clearly meet
 or exceed the toxidty  criteria in 40 CFR
 162.16(c)(2). These products must be in
 child-resistant packaging unless the-
 registrant can demonstrate grounds for
 an exemption under 40 CFR 162.16(cj(3).
   2. Those products for which the
 existing toxicity data are not precise
 enough to indicate whether the product
.meets or exceeds the tcxidty criteria of
 40 CFR 162.:S(c](2). The registrants of
 these products may either do further
 testing to determine the precise toxicity
 of their products, cr they may concede
 that their products are sufficiently toxic
 to be Li child-resistant packaging, and
 ccmp'.y with the chiid-resistar.t
 packaging regulations. This second
 situation does  not constitute voluntary
 child-resistant packaging. There are
 three notable situations where this may
 occur.
   (i) For purposes of precautionary
 labeling the agency may have
 considered oraUoxicity data sufficient
 to show that the" product was in toxicity
 category  III (LD»« of from 500 through
 5,000 mg/kg). but not specific enough to
 determine whether the product has an
 LD»of 1.5 g/kg or less.
   (ii) Eye irritation studies may have
 been submitted which showed corneal
 effects past day 7. and the study may
 have been terminated without
 determining whether the effects were
 reversible in 21 days. Such a study was
 sufficient for purposes of precautionary
 Inbeiin? (category 1) but is no longer
 adequate to determine whether or not
 child-resistant packaging (CH?) is
 needed.
   (iii) The third situation applies to skin
 irritation studies using an exposure
 period of 24 hours. These studies would
 not necessarily allow a conclusion.as to
 whether the criteria for CRP have been
 exceeded.
   3. Those products which clearly do
 not meet the toxicity criteria in 40 CFR
 162.16(c](2). These products are not  '
 required to be in child-resistant
 packaging, although a registrant may
 choose  to use child-resistant packaging
 voluntarily, in accordance with £ above.
 G. Released for Shipment
   The phrase "released for shipment" is
 defined as follows: "A product is
 released for shipment by a producing
 establishment when it is the intent of the
 producer to introduce the product into
 commerce." Products at the distributor
 and  retail levels are considered to have
 been previously released for shipment
 by the producing establishment
 H. Testing Procedure for ChUd-Resistant
 Packaging Which Requires a Tool for
 Opening
   As the regulations indicate, the
 protocol testing procedures of the
 Consumer Product Safety Commission  '
 (CPSC) 16 CFR 1700.20) are to be  '
 followed in testing the child-resistant
 packaging of pesticides. The CPSC
 policy for testing child-resistant
 packaging which requires a tool to open
 the packaging, published in the Federal
 Register of October 13.1972 (37 FR
 21632). will also be followed The test
 policy is that
   1. children need not be given the tool
 during the test unless the tool and
 product are marketed together, and
   2. adults will be given the tool for
 testing.

 L Limited Exception for Products Sold
 to, and Used by, Servicepersons
  EPA has  determined, based on
comments submitted by various industry
groups, that pesticides which are used in
 residential areas by janitors,
 professional pest control applicators,
 exterminators, swimming pool
 operators, lawncare and landscaping
 personnel, and other similar people need
not be in child-resistant packaging. This
is because the storage and usage
patterns generally employed by these
people are such that a significant hazard
to  young children is not apparent.
  Therefore. EPA plans to propose to  .
amend the present child-resistant
packaging regulations to provide that
pesticides applied and used by
 Servicepersons. as defined below, will
 not be within the scope of the
 regulations. EPA's proposed
 amendments to the regulations •.•.•::! b?
 published shortly, and will be subject to
 public comment. In the meantime. EPA
 will exercise its prosecutional discre:::.-
 not to enforca the child-resistant
 packaging regulations against these
 manufacturers who comply with these
 restrictive measures enumerated beio-.v.
   EPA now plans to propose
 amendments which are substantially as
 follows:
   1. Serviceperscn. As used in the child-
 resistant packaging regulations, a
 serviceperson is defined as one who
 provides a sen-ice cf controlling pests
 without delivering any unapplied'
 pesticide  to any person so served. The
 term "serviceperscn" includes, but is no
 limited to, a janitor, pest control
 operator,  maintenance person, la%vncare
 and landscaping personnel
 "Serviceperson" does not  include a
 household servant such as maid.
 housekeeper, or private gardener.
   2. A pesticide which meets the criteria
 for child-resistant packaging and is
 distributed only to Servicepersons cay
 be marketed without child-resistant
 packaging if the registrant labels its
 product (either by conventional or
 sticker label), "Cr.ly for Sale to. Use.
 and Storage by Servicepersons." This
 statement must be in type  at least as
 large as the  child hazard warning
 statement. Sale or other distribution of a
 pesticide labeled in this way to a person
 other than a serviceperscn will violate
 FTFRA section 12(a)(2)(F), once the
 restriction is imposed by regulation. Use
 of a pesticide labeled in this way by
 anyone other than a serviceperson will
 be a violation of FIFRA section
J. Testing Each Size of a Design

  The regulations provide that.
"Standards for special packaging shall
be evaluated for each size of a design
used' pursuant to the Consumer Product
Safety Commission protocols  specified
in 16 CFR 1700.20 ..... 40 CFR
162.16(d](3). In explaining the  necessity
for testing each size of a design, the
Preamble to the final regulations stated
that:
  Tests do not have to be run on each
pesticide product, only en each special
packaging design f * *. However, in
5 102.16(d)(3) a requirement has been added
to test- each size of a closure disitn used. !n
discussions with the Consumer Product
Safely Commission. EPA was advised that
changing the size of a design often reduces
the child-resistant effectiveness. RequiriT'j
each closure sizs to be tested wi:i «ii— .::::; :c

-------
 13105
Federal  Register / Vol.  46.  No. 41  / Tuesday.  March 3. 1921  / Rules and Reflations
 :r.e pos$:«:-.!v of an ineffective packase being
 -s.-^e'.ed ,-i-i rS ::o:3).
   E.-A reccgr.izss that this preambia
 lanausr-e is somewhat arr.bisuous.
 brssuse it refers both to the testing of
 :'• " -*t;r8 special packaging design and
       testing of the closure size aione.
 ,.  .i it was the intent cf the drafters of
 the resuiaticr.s to require that the entire
 special package be  tested for its child-
 resistant effectiveness.5 the preamble
 '.a.-.ruage apparently prompted same
 ret:srants to test only the closure size
 which thsy intended to use on their
 pesticide product.
   In view of the closeness cf the March
 9. 193*. deadlir.e for compliance with the
 special packaging regulations. EPA is
 now prepared to resolve this possible
 ambiguity by permitting pesticide
 registrants to certify that their pesticides
 packages are in  compliance with the
 regulations based solely on the testing
 of each closure size. EPA will then
 propose amended regulations, to be
 open for public comment, which will
 -ake it clear that the phrase "each size
 of a design" means  the entire package.
 The entire  package  will be denned to
 consist of the following elements:
 belonging to a specific AS7M (American
 Sociery for Testing and Materials)
 classification of packages; being made
 by a particular packaging manufacturer.
 having a specific trade name: being a
 specific model/style number; having a
 p?—'— ilar shape; having a particular size
 {      ; capacity) container/package;
 h.   J a particular size closure (if
 applicable): having a specific liner (if   •
 applicable); and having the container/
 closure or package being constructed of
 a particular material.
  EPA recognizes that  the time and
 expense necessary to test each specific
 package cf each  product requiring
 regis'-ration would be considerable.
 Accordingly, to lessen  the impact which
 wculd occur if such testing were
 required. EPA will offer manufacturers
 an alternative method by which the
 packaging of products can be certified.'
 1: is ceiievad that this scheme provides
 a reasonable degree of assurance that a
 package not tested -will still meet the
 effectiveness specifications for special
 packaging.
  : As eariy as the 1377 proposed regulations. EPA
s'3!td that. "lUJr.cer 'J-.:3 regulation it is intended
'--.a: '.he entire package be tested. Containers which.
'.cf exa.T.cie. use sat'e'.y ciosures which are not
corr.pa!-.;:« with the container body are not
acceptable" (*Z TH i323S).
  1 However, should a pesticide package be tested
arc four.d not to estr.?!y with the child-resistant
e.'fK-.iveresi standards of 16 CFR 1700.23. it will not
I* a defer.!* !h«ii the similar product on which the
rc::s'.-ar.t rsi:ed d.d meet :huw standards.
L'.:.-.i.:ely. each spec:al paciage must be evalaaled
03     ' raer.t*.
                              EPA's proposal is set forth 'below, in
                           the hope that some manufacturers will
                           voluntarily comply with it before it
                           becomes effective.

                           Proposed Tsstirg Scheme

                              If a registrant uses a package other
                           than she exact package system for which
                           the protocol test data are available. EPA
                           will accept certification if the package
                           used meets the following criteria:
                              (1) Package shape: The package for
                           which protocol data are available must
                           be a conventional shape, e.g.,
                           cylindrical, rectangular, square, and the
                           package for which certification is
                           sought,  even if different from the shape
                           of the package tested, must also be
                           conventional in shape. If an "F* style
                           metal can or a conical metal can are
                           involved, the shape used must be the
                           same as the shape tested. Ail
                           npnconventional package shapes, e.g.,
                           hourglass configuration, triangular
                           packages, must be tested individually.
                             (2) Container/package material: The
                           material of the package/container for
                           which certification is sought'must be
                           genetically equivalent and have the
                           same physical/chemical properties (e.g.,
                           bursting strength, tear strength, etc.) as
                           the material of the package for which
                           protocol data are available.  Different
                           materials include polypropylene, low
                           density  polyethylene (LDFE), high
                           density  polyethylene (HOPE), glass, tin
                           plate (steel), aluminum, etc.  If data are  •
                           available for a glass package and an
                           LDPE package is used, it must be tested.
                             (3) Volume of the package: For
                           certification on the basis of data      •  '
                           involving a package other than the exact
                           one used by the registrant, the protocol
                           test data must demonstrate that the
                           package tested has a child-resistant
                           effectiveness of 38 percent of more after
                           demonstration. The size of the package
                           used must fall within the limits set forth"
                           below. The 88 percent figure was
                           chosen,  based on statistical  analysis, to
                           ensure that a  package similar but not  .
                           identical to the one  tested would mset
                           the 30 percent and 35 percent
                           effectiveness  testing requirements of the
                           CPSC protocols. See 16 CFR 1700.20. If a
                           registrant wants to certify that its
                           package is child-resistant on the basis of
                           testing the package actually  used, a
                           minimum of 30 percent child-resistant
                           effectiveness  after a demonstration is
                           proper.
                             1. To use test data from a package
                           which contains 0 to 8 fL oz~,4 the
                             • Volumes measured in cubic inches can be
                           converted to P.yid ounces ustna the rule that 1 fl.
                           oz. = 1.3 cu. in. Numbers should be rounded to the
                           sext highest whole number.
 registrant's package must be the exact
 size of the package Vested.
   2. To use test data from a package
 which contains 3-54 fl. oz.,4 the
 registrant's package can be equal to or
 as much as twice the size of the package
 test. For example, if an 3 fl. oz. package
 has been tested, its data (assuming that
 all other factors were equal) cculd be
 used for a package frora 3 to 16 fi. oz.
   3. To use data from a package which
 is larger than 54 fl. oz..4 the registrant's
 package can be equal to or as much as
 1.5 times the volume of the package
 tested.
   4. Closure/package: The closure/
 package used must be the same ASTM
 classification, the same model/style, the
 same model/style number.
 manufacturer, and trade name as the
 package tested.
   5. Closure size: For certification on the
 basis of data involving a closure other
 than the exact  one used by the
 registrant, the protocol test data must
 demonstrate that the closure tested has
 a child-resistant effectiveness of 38
 percent or more after demonstration
 (see (3) above)/The size of the closure
 used must fall within the limits set forth
 below:
   a. To use data from a closure with a
 diameter less than 20 mm or greater
 than 45 mm, the registrant's closure
 must be the exact size of the closure
 tested
  b. If the registrant wishes to rely on
 data from one other closure, which is
 between 20 and 45 mm in diameter.
 inclusive, he may do so, provided that
 the diameter of the registrant's closure is
 in the size range between 20 and 45 nun
 inclusive and is between 1 and 1.15
 times that of the closure tested.
 (Numbers should be.rounded to the next
 highest whole number). For example, a
 registrant with  a 28 sim closure could
 rely on test data for a 24 mm closure.
  c. If the registrant wishes to rely on
 test data for two closures, which are
 between 20 and 45 mm in diameter,
 inclusive, and within 10 mm of each
 other, he may rely on  that data for any
 closure which fails between the two
 tested. For example, if a 24 mm and a 33..
mm closure of the same design were
 tested, the registrant could certify to the
 child-resistant effectiveness of its
similar closures which were 28. 28. and
30 mm in diameter.             .  -
  6. Closure material: The material of
 the closure used must be genetically
equivalent and  have the same physical/
chemical properties, i.e., bursting
strength, tear strength, etc.. as the
closure material for which protocol data
are available.

-------
               Federal Resister  /  Vol. 46. Xc.  41 / Tuesdav. March 3,  1981  /  Rules  and  Reflations
                                                                           131C
    7. Liners: The materials cf the
  registrant's liner and the Sir.er on whose
  test data the resistrar.t wishes to rely
  must be identical. This is because, in :h3
  experience of the Consumer Product
  Safety Commission, the cicsure liner is
  an integral cart of the child-resistant
  package, ar.d char.str.g the liner may
  impair or eliminate ths child-resistant
 . effectiveness of a closure or packaging
  design.' In the situation where test data
  exist for a closure-liner system that
  differs from the cicsure-liner system
  used or.ly in terms of closure diameter
  (>20 mm and <45 mm) certification is
  permissible if:
    a. closure diameter used is greater   .
  than the diameter tested but is within
  the permissible range (size used is equal
  to or greater than the size tested and
  equal to or less than 1.15 times the size.
  tested), then the closure to be used need
  not be tested if scientific data exist to
  demonstrate that the mechanical
  properties of the closure-liner system
  used ars comparable to that tested. An
.  example is if a 24 mm closure with a
  PVC liner is tested, then its data maybe
  used for certification of a 28 nun version
  of the same closure with a PVC liner,
  provided there is scientific evidence that
  the 23 mm closure-liner system has
  mechanical properties similar to the 24
  mm closure-liner system or
   b. test data exist for two closure sizes
 with a difference equal to or 'ess thaa 10
 mm. .the liner used in the two closure
 sizes for which data exist must be the
 same as the liner in the size used, then
 the closure to be used need not be
 tested. An example would be the test'
 data for a 24 mm and 23 mm cicsure.
 both with a vinyl pulp backed liner.
 These data can  be used for the
 certification cf a 23 mm closure with a
 vinyl pulp backed liner.
   The agency acknowledges that only a
 limited amount of data are available on
 large size packages. Consequently,
 exceptions will be considered in those
 cases where a registrant has submitted
 appropriate sciar.tific and technical
 data.

 X. Label Language

   The particular wording of the label
 giving directions for child-resistant
 packaging opening and closing
 instructions is at the discretion of the
 registrant, so long as it clearly explains
 to the adult user how to use the
 package.
  'This is why evan an 3??a:s:i:!y minor
 mndificjiian in the liner, such as idJirt an insert
 for promotional purposes, may r«?uire retcsti.-.q !o
 «nsii« ihar ihe chili-,-?sis:ani e:'fec:ivere« of she
 cicju.t or pocxa-je ha» noi b«n imp.nred.
 L Certification of Child-Resistant
 Effectiveness
    Ac=sri'.-.g '.o 40 C7R ;52.15{e). the
 arr.cr.iJrtvj.-.ti fsr child-resistant
 packaging shall include a certification
 by the registrant that the package meets
 the standards of § 152.15fd).
   The registrant is furthermore required
 to maintain records concerning the
 package (§ 152.1S(fj) which include a.
 complete copy of the data resulting from
 the tests conducted in accordance with
 § 152.l6(d). As indicated under J, above.
 the agency realizes  that it was net made
 entirely clear whether certification as to
 the child-resistant effectiveness of a
 particular package should be based on
 protocol tests  carried out on the entire
 package or merely the closure.
 Therefore, by March 9,1S81, the agency
 is allowing two types of certifications,
 both of which  will equally serve to
 comply with the regulation. After the
 agency has formally proposed and
 published a final regulation concerning
 the testing of package designs (see J,
 above) certain packages may have to be
 retested and recertified.
   (a) Certification of effectiveness
 based on testing.scheme listed under J
 above. If the protocol test data in the
 registrant's files show that either the
 exact package or a package meeting the
 criteria enumerated under J, above, has
 been tested, the registrant shall certify
 that the package meets the effectiveness
 criteria for child-resistance. The
 certification statement must include the
 registration number of ths product, the
 registered product name, the registrant's
 name and address, date, the name, tide,
 and signature of the company official.
 The certification, which should be
 submitted in triplicate, should include at
 a minimum the following statement
  1 hereby certify that the special package*
 for this product and all applicable
 supplementary registered distributor
 products have been tested and found to meet
 the requirements of 40 CFR 162.:6(d).
 Standards cf Special Packaging.
  I understand that 1 am recviired !o retain
 the records described in 40 C5R l£2.:5(f](i).
 (2), and (3) for as long as the registration is
 valid. These records shall be available upon
 request, for inspection or copying purposes or
 for submission to EPA. funhermore. I certify
 that should the scecai  packaging for £is
 product be changed, I will update this
 certification statement.
  Additionally, if the product  is  sold in
 several sizes of packages all the size?
 which this certification applies must be-
 listed.
  (b) Certification of effectiveness
based on testing the  package closure
only. If the protocol test data in the
registrant's files show that the closure
used has been tested for effectiveness
  but it was actually tested on a ccr.tair.r.:
  (package) other than the one used or
  outside the limitations of '.he scheme
  listed under J, above, he  shsl! certify :hs
  effectiveness on the basis of th= exact
  size closure. The certification staterr.sr.:.
  which should be submitted in triplicate,
  shall include the information listed
  under (a) above and snail include af a
  minimum the following statement:
    I hereby certify that the exact c:csu:2  us si
  on ths package of this product  ar.d d'.i
  applicable suppie.T.entaily rsw's:e.'=:i
  distributor-products have beer. ;=s:2d ar.d
  found to tneet the requirements of 40 C7R
  162.IG(d). Standards for Special Packaging.
    I understand that I am required :o retain
  the records described in 40 CFR ;C-;.:5ii];:J.
  (2), and (3) for as long as the registration is
  valid. Thess records shall be available upon
  request, for inspection and copying purposes
  or for submission to EPA. Furtherr.ore. I
  certify that should the special packaging for
  this product be changed. I will update this
  certification statement
    If a product is sold in a line of several
  size packages, some of these packages
  may be certifiable under method (a) and
  some under (b). In, this case two
  certification statements are required.
  one for those packages meeting  the
  specifications of (a) and one for those
  which meet the specifications of (b).
    (c) Information concerning the
  package/closure used. The child-
  resistant packaging regulation does not
 _require the registrant to submit
 "information concerning the type and
  make of child-resistant packaging used.
_ although this information is  part cf these
  records which must be kept, and which
  must be available for inspection and
  submission upon request by EPA. The
  agency at this time, however/requests
  the cooperation of registrants to supply
  this information voluntarily  as an
  addendum to the certification statement
 This request is made for purposes of
 gathering in/cr.r.u'.:;.- on the variety  of
 packages and/or closures which have
 undergone extensive testing to allow
 certification by (a) above, for example.
 The agency feels that this information
 will be extremely helpful in providing
 data which may permit it to  propose  a
 more liberal testing scheme than the cnc
 listed under J. The information
 requested is as follows: Product sizest
 name of special packaging
 manufacturer, name of special
 packaging and model/style: (ASTM
 classification); closure sizes, and liners
 used.

 M. Amended Product Registrations for
 Child-Resistant Packaging (CRP)
   There are basically three types of
 amended registration applications that
 may  be submitted in conjunction with

-------
             Federal
Register /  Vcl.  45.  No. 41  /  Tuesc.iy. March  3,  1931 / Rules and
  :?. 5^cc.ji ?uckdg:r.'i; Rcgulaticns. An
  mer.d.T.erfl may be filed to indicate the
  se c: special packaging and :o submit
  •5 asjc.c'.stac certification statement:
  .-: amendment may be filed to revise
  " '''-n? to remove a package from the
      ':: the special packaging
     j::;.-.s: cr an amendment may be
  '.ed ;.o change the product formulation
  : submit  new :o.x:c;ty data to remove a
  esticide frcm :he sccpe o:  the special  •
  ackagir.g regulations. The  registrant
  -.us: ind:cate the use of special
  ackagi." en Form 8570-11 and must
  esigr.ate  CR Package ia Box 5 under
  type of amendment."
  1. Amendments for child-resistant
  ackaging certification: The registrant
  :ust submit the required certification
  :atement (original and two copies)
  long with the amended application. If
  hilc-resistar.t packaging instructions
  :r opening and resecuring such
  ackaging appear on the product label
  : on an accompanying circular, then
  -.e label or circular must be submitted.
 :' uie instructions are on the container
  r closure, only a  copy of the
 is ructions should be submitted.
  ' 2. Labeling amendments: Registrants  '
 -.us: file an amended application to
 3v:;e ;'neir labeling to indicate specific
 .onresidential use areas, or restricted
 :se. i.e.. the elected restriction of
 •urchasa.  storage, and use only by a
 erviceperson; see section I. Registrants
     xish  lo amend their registrations to
      .fferent labels for the same
  :.,_-ct may do so. The same product
 .-.ay be packaged in child-resistant
  acsag:ns and non-child-resistant
  ackaging in accordance with sections
 '•. through  L of this Notice. The revised
 ibeling must be submitted to and
 eviewed by EPA  to determine if it
 :orr.p!ies with the special packaging
 sg'jia'.icns. If sticker labels are used on
 .n interim basis che sticker must be
 ubrnitted  with the amendment.
  3. Revisions to registrations to submit
 ;e\v toxicity data  and/or to change
 crmulaticns: A product may be less
 oxic than is currently  indicated by its
 sgistration and precautionary labeling.
 :ome registrants may subject their
 .voduct to additional testing to
 ieterrr.ine  its prscise toxicity. or they
 nay reformulate their products so  that
 hey do not meet the toxicity criteria
 incer 40 CFR 162.16{cj(2) (see F. 2
 above). If a product  is reformulated an
 3pp!ica!ion for amended or new
 •°2istration must be filed as for any
 other formulation  change. If the
registrant's retesting indicates that the
rrcdvjct is  more toxic than previously
.ndicated.  the registrant must submit
'>    ew test data  to  EPA. pursuant to
                  F1FRA section 6(a](:). If this toxicity
                  testing also indicates that the
                  registrant's product should be placed in
                  a new (either higher or lower) toxicity
                  category for labeling prupcsss under 40
                  CFR~lG2.10(h)(l). the registrant must file
                  an application for amended registration.
                  If the new toxicity testing indicates that
                  the registrant's product is less tcxic than
                  previously known, so that child-resistant
                  packaging is not required but does not
                  require that the product be placed into a
                  different category, the registrant is not
                  required, to bring this information to
                  EPA's attention. However, it would be
                  helpful for him to do so, in order to-
                  avoid unnecessary enforcement actions
                  in regard to the child-resistant
                  packaging regulations.

                  NT. Child-Resistant Packaging
                  Certification for Registration of a New
                  Pesticide Product Which Meets the
                  Criteria
                    1. Fsrsts. An applicant  for the
                  registration of a new pesticide product
                  must indicate the use of special
                  packaging on Form 3570-01 but a sample
                  of the packaging need not be submitted.
                  The applicant must submit the required
                  certification  statement (original  and  two
                  copies).
                    2. When csrtificciion Is required.
                  Applicants may initiate registration
                  procedures for new products before they
                 • obtain the child-resistant packaging
                 'data for certification. However,  the
                  child-resistant effectiveness certification
                  must be submitted before any new
                  product registration is issued after
                  March 9,1SS1.
                    3. Labeling. Instructions for opening
                  and resecuring child-resistant packaging
                  may appear en either the  product label.
                  accompanying labeling or circular, the
                  container itself, or the closure.
                  Instructions for special  packaging on the
                  label or circular will normally be
                  submitted, as labeling is required for a
                  new registration. If such instructions
                  appear on the container or closure, then
                  a copy of the instructions should be
                  submitted. The container  or closure
                  should not be submitted.
                  O. Requesting Exemptions
                    The Special Packaging Regulations
                  allow for exemption from chiid-resistant
                  packaging of those products which meet
                  the criteria for required special
                  packaging only on the basis of technical
                  infeasibiiity or on  the basis .that  the
                  hazards indicated by the toxicity criteria
                  are not indicative of hazard to man.
                    An exemption should be mailed or
                  delivered to Ms. D. Jean Jenkins. Special
                  Packaging Coordinator. Registration     .
                  Division (TS-767). Office of Pesticide
                  Programs. Environmental  Protection
 Acency. Rm. E-317, 401 M St. SW.,
 Washington. D.C. 20460. (202-7S3-3930).
   The regulation states that in order fur
 an exemption to be jrantcd it must be
 based on sufficient data which
 accompany the request, to support the
 decision. Additionally, it provides that
 any such decision  snail be published in
 the Federal Register-and shall be
 applicable  to any product with identical
 or substantially similar composition and
 intended uses.
   Initially,  the procedures and data
 necessary to consider an exemption
 request will be  determined en an
 individual basis. However, this
 document recommends certain
 procedures and data to help the agency
 in its consideration of requests for
 exemption. The agency requests but
 does not require that an exemption:
   1. Be written in the English language.
   2. Contain the name, address, and
 telephone number  of the registrant
   3. Contain the Pesticide Registration
 Number and name of the Pesticide
 Product Manager.
   4. Contain an explicit request for
 exemption  from special packaging
 requirements.                     •  "
   5. Identify the particular product for
 which the exemption is sought
   6. Describe the package size of the
 product for which the .exemption is
 sought
   7. Be typewritten.  •
   8. Be accompanied by at least two
 copies of the request
   9. Explain the reason for the
• exemption based on one or more of the
 following grounds:
   a. If the justification is based on the
 hazard indicated by the toxicity criteria
 in 40 CFR 162.16(c)(2) not being
 indicative of the risk to man. the
 justification shall state how the lack of.
 human exposure, certain
 pharmacological mechanisms,  or other
 human experience  evidence6 for the
 product clearly  support granting of the
 exemption.
   b. If the exemption is requested
 because special packaging is not
 technologically feasible (which includes
 compatible, practicable, or appropriate
 for the product), the justification shall
 explain why. '
   c. Where  the exemption request is
 based upon an allegation that special
 packaging is incompatible with the
 particular product or would seriously
 and adversely compromise the utility or
 stability of a product, the registrant shall
  'Human experience data, indicating the lack of
 acc:der.:s, are considered helpful but not primary
 evidence for an e.vompnon.

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 46.  No. 41  / Tuesday.  Nfarch 3. 1931  /  Rules  and  Reauistions


. submit adequate evidence :o support the
 allegation.
   d. If the allegation of incompatibility             '                      "'    .
 is based upon "the fact that the shelf-life
 of the product Units package choice, the
 exemption shall outline the particular
 limitation and snail include a  time
 schedule /or the registrant to reestablish
 sheif-iifs data.
   Granting exemptions: Where the                      "                                   •
 agency deternir.es that reasonable
 grounds for an exemption are  presented.
 the  acer.cy shall publish that decision in            "
 the  Federal Register, and it shall be
 applicable to any product with identical
 or substantially similar composition and
 intended uses.                                _  •
   "Reasonable grounds" for granting an                                            •
 exemption are information and data
 sufficient to support the.conclusion that:                '                   '
   (a) The hazard indicated by the                         .
 toxicity criteria  in 40 CFR 162.16(c)(2]                •"                 ..      "     .
 are  not indicative of the risk to man. .                      '•
   (b) Special packaging is not
 technically feasible, which includes                           -              •
 compatible, practicable, or appropriate                             '
 for the product
   Denying exemptions: Where the                    '
 agency determines that reasonable
 grounds  for an exemption are not
 presented, the exemption shall be
 denied, and the  registrant notified  in
 writing of the denial, including a brief
 statement of the reasons therefor.
   Effect  of filing an exemption: The      .                    .         .         .
 filing of an exemption shall not have the           •'       •    '  .     '
 effect of staying the regulation from
 which the exemption is sought
 Therefore, products subject to  special
 packaging shall  be considered to be in
 violation of the law unless packaged in
 special packaging during the agency's              •                 •                  -
 consideration of the exemption request
 after March 9.1S31.P.                                        .  '
 Data Compensation                  .           -
   In accordance with the data
 compensation regulations contained in
.40 CFR 162.9-1. and particularly
 paragraph (b)(17) thereof, all
 amendments  to registration which  are
 made solely to achieve compliance with
 the special packaging regulations and
 which do not require EPA to review
 scientific data before deciding  whether
 to permit the  amended registration, will
 not be subject to the data compensation
 provisions of FIFRA sections 3(c)(l)(D]
 and  3(c)(2)(B).
 (Sec. 25(c](3) as amended (Pub. L 92-316. 88
 Slat.  983: P-jb. L 94-140. 39 Stat. 735: Pub. L
 95-396. 9: Stat. 619: 7 U.S.C. 136 et aeq.))
  Dated: Jjnuary ZS. 1981.
 Edwin L Johnson.
 Deputy Assi'aaat Administrator for Pesticide
 Programs.
 iFS Due. 81-6718 F-.k-J 3-J-rt: 143 jm|
 EILUNO CCOE ISoO-H-U

-------
                STRATEGY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT
              OF THE CHILD RESISTANT PACKAGING
                   REGULATION UNDER FIFRA
OVERVIEW

REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULE

     Appli cabi1i ty
     Exceptions
     Exemptions
     Specific Requirements

REGULATED  INDUSTRY
ENFORCEMENT

     Objectives
     Voluntary  Compliance
     Violations
     Inspection Scheme
     Violation  Detection Priorities

ADMINISTRATIVE  CONSIDERATIONS

     Program Management and Allocation of Responsibilities
     Program Integration

-------
S t r a t_* g_y_ fqr_the Enforc em_e n t of the Child R_e s i s t a n t
fV? k\gj 'n g_R~e g uT_aYi^n^l)~ri"d_e r~ JFTF_R_A^ "  "	    " ~	

Overvi ew
    On March 9, 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency
published a final  rule at 44 Federal Rsgjster  13019  (40
CFR 152.15) which requires c h~i 1 d "re's i VtYn t packaging  (CRP)
of certain pesticides labeled for residential  use.   The
intent of the rule is to reduce the number of  accidental
exposures by children to pesticides.
                                  resistant packaging  for
    The rule also requires affected registrants to submit
applications for amended registration and maintain records on_
child resistant test data.

    Possible violations include misbranding, failure to keep
records, failure to file reports, and falsification of data.

    It is anticipated that states operating under grants will
have major responsibility for conducting inspections concerning
the CRP requirements.  The Regions will handle the casework since
these types of violations would not be in violation of many
State statutes.  Concurrence from PTSED is required for enforce-
ment actions resulting from violations of the CRP regulation.
Headquarters support will be available for data review and to
answer questions on whether or not a product meets the criteria
that trigger the requirement for child resistant packaging.
In addition, PTSED will  provide inspection targeting information.

Requirements of the Rule
App1i cabi1i ty

    As indicated in the overview, child resistant packaging  is
required for any pesticide product released for shipment after
March 9, 1981, if (1) its labeling allows for residential use,

-------
                           -2-


(2) it has not been classified for restricted  use,  and  (3)  it
meets  certain toxicity  criteria.   In  addition,  registrants  with
products subject to the rule must  amend  their  registrations to
reflect changes  in  packaging and  certify  that  the  packaging
complies with the CRP regulation.

    For your information  certain  terms  used  in  the  Strategy have
been defined below:

    3   "Released for shipment" is  defined as  that  point  in  time
        when it  is  the  intent of  the  producer  to  introduce  the
        product  into commerce.  Intent  exists  in  any  of  the
        fol1owi ng situations:

        (1)  a producer  asserts that  what  is  being  sampled  is
            representative  of what is actually  sold;

        (2)  a product is  stored in an area  where  finished
            products are  held for  shipment  in  the  ordinary
            course  of business (warehouses,  loadino  docks,
            etc.);

        (3)  the  custom  of the pesticide  chemical  industry
            indicates that  similarly  situated  products are
            intendedforrelease;or

        (4)  the  custom  of the particular  producer  indicates that
            similarly situated products  have  been  intended  for
            release in  the  past.


    0    "Residential use" - A pesticide  meets  this  criterion  if
        it is applied (other than  by  a  commercial  applicator)
        directly to humans  or pets or is  applied  in,  on  or
        around all  structures, vehicles,  or  areas  associated with
        the  household or  homelife  or  noncommercial  areas where
        children spend  time, including,  but  not  limited  to  gardens,
        houses,  yards,  patios, mobile homes,  campers  and
        recreational vehicles, noncommercial  campsites,  home
        swimming pools, educational,  lounging,  and  recreational
        areas of preschools, nurseries,  and  day  camps, etc.
        Furthermore, residential  use  is  determined  by whether
        a product has a use on the label  which  is within the
        meaning  of  residential use.   A  registrant  may have  a
        product  that is not really intended  for  residential
        use, but the labeling is  either  vague  concerning use
        areas, or use areas are actually  omitted.   Such  a
        product  is  subject  to the  child  resistant  requirements
        unless its  registration and  label  are  amended to indicate
        a strictly  non-residential or agricultural  application.

-------
                              -3-
        "Toxicity  criteria"  are  defined  in  44  Federal  Register
        13019 (March  9,  1979)  and  at  40  CFR 1 62. i 6 (C) ( ?•)•.
Exceptions  to  CRP
        "Dormant"  Product  Registration

        A  dormant  product  registration-  is  defined  as  a  product
        which  is  not  currently  in  production  but  retains  valid
        EPA registration.   For  a product  not  in production  and
        which  is  not  scheduled  to  be  released for  shipment  on
        or after  March  9,  1981,  an  amended  registration,
        special  packaging  certification  and other  related
        forms  need  not  be  submitted at  this time.   However,  at
        any time  after  March  9,  1981,  if  the  product  is  put  back
        into production, an  amended registration,  child  resistant
        certification,  etc.,  must  be  submitted  before  the
        product  is  released  for  shipment  if it  meets  the
        criteria  for  special  packaging.

        Toxicity  Data

        If the toxicity of a  product  is  not known  to  the  level  of
        specificity necessary to determine  whether or  not the
        toxicity  criteria  are met  (e.g.,  the  information  on  file
        with EPA  is extrapolated data),  the registrant  may  perform
        additional  testing.   If  testing  indicates  that  the  toxicity
        criteria  are  not met, the  product  is  not  required to
        have child  resistant  packaging.   However,  if  the  regis-
        trant  does  not  conduct  further  testing  when the  toxicity
        is not known  to the  necessary  level  of  specificity,
        child  resistant packaging  is  required.

        Products  for  Residential Use  by  a  Serviceperson

        The Agency  has  decided  to  remove  from the  scope  of  CRP
        requirements  certain  products  which meet  the  criteria
        for special packaging but  are  not  normally stored in
        areas  where children  could  likely  have  access  to  them.
        Examples  include products  used  by  janitors in  nurseries
        or daycare  centers and  products  used  by exterminators or
        lawncare  servicepersons .   To  accomplish this,  EPA will
        allow  products  such  as  those  listed above  to  be  sold and
        distributed without  child  resistant packaging  if  such
        products  bear a statement  restricting the  sale,  use, and
        storage  to  servicepersons.

-------
                             -4-
        T'nis provision has been communicated to producers
        through a Federal  Register Notice issued March 3, 1931;
        it will also appear in proposed revisions to Section 3
        Registration regulations.   Until  it appears in final
        regulations, EPA will  use  prosecutorial discretion and
        not take enforcement action if a. subject product is
       • not specially packaged but is  labeled or sticker-labeled
        with a statement restricting the product's sale, use,
        and storage to servicepersons, e.g., "Only for Sale
        to, Use, and Storage by Servicepersons."  The statement
        must appear in type size at least as large as the
        child hazard warning statement.  Labels need not be
        submitted to the Agency for approval but must be submitted
        for the official label file used to determine compliance
        with FIFRA.

    0   A registrant may amend his/her registration so that
        the new label does not allow for residential uses.
        In such a case the product bearing the new approved
        label would no longer  be subject to the special  packag-
        i ng requ i rement.

Exemptions to CRP

    Exemptions may be granted  by the Director of the Regis-
tration Division for products  for  which special packaging is
not technically feasible or where  the  toxicity criteria  are
not indicative of hazard to humans.

    Nota that only the- Agency  may  grant an exemption.  It is
not up to the registrant to decide if  he or she is exempt
or— not, based on the two factors listed in the above paragraph.

Specific Requirements for  Registrants  of
Products Subject to the Special  Packaging Requirement

    0   Develop and test special packaging

        "Special packaging" refers to  packaging that is  designed
        and constructed to be  significantly difficult for
        children under five years  old  to  open or obtain  a
        toxic or harmful  amount of the substance contained
        therein within a reasonable time.  In addition,  it
        should not be difficult for normal  adults  to use pro-
        perly.  Effectiveness  testing  procedures which must
        be used are those  specified by the Consumer Product
        Safety Commission  (CPSC) at 16 CFR 1700.20(a), (b),
        and (-c).  Effectiveness specifications and standards
        for special  packaging  are  delineated in 40 CFR 162.16.

    0   Amend registration - Certification

        Prior to changing  a product's  packaging, the registrant
        must submit an application for an amended  registration
        and have it approved by EPA.   Instead of submitting

-------
                       -5-
detailed information demonstrating that the packaging
meets the requirements,  the registrant shall  include
with his application a certification that the package
meets the standards of §162.16(d).  An applicant for
a new registration shall  also submit a certification
statement that the package meets  the standards.

Utilize special packaging

Products subject to the  requirement must be in child
resistant packaging if released  for shipment  after
March 9, 1981 .

Recordkeeping

Certain records must be  retained  by the applicant or
registrant  for as  long as the registration  is valid.
These records  shall be available, upon request,  for
inspection  and copying purposes  or for submission
to EPA.  The records which must  be kept are:

(1)  A full  description of the package  including:

    (i)  A  full description of the container  including

         (A)  Itsdimensions,and
         (B)  Its  composition; and

   (ii)  A  full description of the closure  or special
         package,  if appropriate, including:

         (A)  The  name of its manufacturer,

         (B)  The  manufacturer's  designation  (title)
              for  the  special  packaging closure  or
              the  physical working of  the special
              packaging  mechanism, and

         (C)  The  explicit directions  for proper use
              of the closure or  special  packaging
              and  the  placement  of these directions
              on the package;

(2)   A complete copy of  the data  resulting  from  the
     tests  conducted in  accordance with §162.16(d);
     and

(3)   Data demonstrating  the compatibility of  the
     pesticide formulation with  the entire  package to
     determine that the  chemical  and physical charac-
     teristics of  the  substance  will  not interfere
     with the  safety and  efficacy of the pesticide
     and functioning of  the special  package.

-------
                             -6-
Note: The registrant may not have actual  data on file if the
      company did not perform the testing but, instead, relied
      en verification from others such as the company which
      produces the packaging.  The registrant should hav's a
      letter or literature verifying  that the packaging has
      been tested and met the CRP standards.

Regulated Industry
    The regulated community consists of registrants of those
products subject to these regulations.   Estimates suggest that
approximately 9000 products may be involved.

    The Registration Division of EPA has prepared a pre-
liminary list of types of products which are expected to be
covered by the CRP regulations if used  and stored in and around
residential areas.  (See attachment.)   A second, more complete
list will  be developed and forwarded as soon as  it is available

    A company may remove its product from these  requirements by
amending the label to  remove residential uses,  stickering or
amending the label so  that sale, use and storage is restricted.
to a serviceperson, or by receiving an  exemption.

Enforcement
Objectives

    The objective- is to-assure compliance with this regulation
so as to minimize or eliminate accidental  exposures to highly
poisonous pesticides used in and around residential areas.

Outreach

    Registrants should be aware of the regulation through its
publication in the Federal  Regi ster.    In .addition, the Glass
Packaging Institute prepared and distributed,  with EPA's
concurrence,  a pamphlet entitled,  "Pesticides  and Protective
Packaging."  Personnel in the Registration Division are generally
available to  answer any questions  and  clarify  the requirements
for registrants.

Violations

        Misbranding - §12(a)(1)(E) of  FIFRA

-------
                   -7-
to §25(c){3)."  Failure to h a v a special packaging
for those products released for shipment after March,
9, 1981, would make the product misbranded if it is
subject to the special  packaging requirement.

    There are three variations of this violation:

         (1)   No special  packaging,  although required.

         (2)  Company's new toxicity test data indicate
              that such packaging is not required,  but
              the Agency does not agree that the
              toxicity  data support  their conclusion
              (e.g., improperly conducted toxicity
              tests or  incorrect toxicity tests
              uti1i zed).

         (3)   Company changes packaging, but it  does
              not meet  the child resistant requirements
              because tests were incorrectly done or the
              tests were  conducted  on the incorrect
              container size.


Failure to File Reports Required -  §12(a)(2)(N)  of  FIFRA

    It is unlawful for  a  person who  is a registrant to
fail  to file  reports required by this Act.  Prior to
changing a pesticide's  packaging, the registrant
must  submit  an application for amended registration to
EPA.   Failure  to do so  prior to distributing the product
in new packaging would  be  in violation of this section.

    In addition, the registrant is  required to
submit a certification  statement with the amended
registration  application.

Failure to Maintain Reports Required - §12(a)(2)(3) of FIFRA

    It is unlawful for  a  registrant  to fail  to maintain
reports required, by FIFRA.  The regulation requires
the registrant to submit  a certification that the
product is in  compliance  as opposed  to detailed   data
supporting this.  However, it is required that the
detailed data  be maintained and be  subject to Agency
inspection or  request for  submission.  The registrant
is not required to have such data on file if the firm
relied on testing conducted by others such as the package
supplier.  In  lieu of such data he  or she must have
some  verification on file  that the  product is in compliance.

-------
                            -8-


            In  some  cases,  the  company  may  claim  that  the  parent
        company/company  headquarters  has  the  data.   This  should
        be noted on  the  inspection  report and sent  to  the
        appropriate  region.   The  regional  office  should  forward
        this  to PTSED so that a  request for the  data ca-n. be  sent  to
        the  company's headquarters  by  OPP.

    '    Falsification of Application/Report or of Records
        Maintained  or of Exemption  Request  -  §12(a)(2)(M)  of
        FIFRA or Title 13 of.the  U.S.  Code.

            It  is  unlawful  to falsify  all  or  part of any  appli-
        cation  for  registration,  any  records  required  to  be
        maintained  pursuant  to  §8,  or  any report  filed  under
        this  Act.   Thus, falsification  of an  application  for
        amended registration, the certification,  or data  such  as
        test  protocol and results would be  in violation  of FIFRA.
        Title 13 of  the  U.S.  Code also  makes  this type  of  activity
        i11egal .

INSPECTION SCHEME

    Inspections to  determine  compliance with  these  special packaging
requirements  should  be incorporated into  a  state/region's  existing
inspection program,  which should  be based on  a Neutral  Administra-
tive Inspection Scheme.   Generally, only  producer establishments
will be inspected  for compliance  with  the CRP regulation.   Prior
to inspecting a pesticide producing establishment,  the  appropriate
personnel  (inspector or  whomever  is designated to do this)
should determine if  the  company  produces  any  of  the products
on the attached list prepared by  the  Registration Division.
If so, the inspector should  check for  compliance  with
the child  resistant  requirements.

    Reports  from inspections  involving  possible  violations of
these  requirements  should be  forwarded  to the regional  office
for case review and  appropriate  enforcement action.

Violation  Detection  Priorities

    During an inspection, it  is  helpful to  establish priorities
for detecting violations.  The  following  table gives the  general
priority ranking for violation  detection.  The following  is
meant  only as a guide to decision making  and  is  not a  rigid  OE
poli cy.

Priority 1 -  Misbranding

    Failure  to  utilize Child  Resistant  Packaging  where  required.
This will  probably  be the most  common  violation  found  initially.

-------
                               -9-
 Priority  2  -  Failure  to  Maintain  Records

     Such  records  may  be  necessary to  verify  compliance  with  the
 regulations.   This  includes  test  data  which  either  (a)  show  the
 package  meets  the child  resistant requirement  (CPSC  test  results)
 or  (b) show the product's  actual  toxicity  does  not meet the
 criteria.

 Priority  3  -  Failure  to  File Reports

     This  refers to  a  company's  failure  to  amend  the  registration
 prior  to  a  packaging  change.  This  should  not  be a  frequent  viola-
 tion but  is easy  to determine.

 Priority  4  -  Falsification  of Data

     While this  is  one  of  the most serious  violations, it  should
 not  be encountered  frequently.   Child  Resistant  Tests are
 expensive (approximately  $3000)  and may be conducted under
 contract  if a  company's  test results  are  suspect.

 ADMINISTRATIVE  CONSIDERATIONS
 PROGRAM  MANAGEMENT  AND  ALLOCATION  OF  RESPONSIBILITIES

     State  and  regional"  personnel  if  appropriate  will  be  responsi-
ble  for  conducting  inspections  and documenting cases.

     With  regard  to  actual  casework,  issuing  penalties, notices  of
 warning,  etc., the  regions  will  have  primary  responsibility  but  •
 must  request and  receive  concurrence  from  PTSED.
 This  is  necessary for 3  reasons:

     1)   A  violation  of  the  child  resistant  requirement
         is  not a  violation  of many state laws.

     2)   Some companies  may  have  received exemptions  or
         the product  may  not  be  subject  based  on  toxicity  data
         onfilewithEPA.

     3)   The Registration  Division  may consider cancellation
         action for  those  products  which remain in  violation.

     PTSED's Case  Development  and  Legal  Branch will  be  respon-
 sible  for  resolving  questionable  cases, i.e., those  for
 which  there is some  doubt.or  question as to  the  product's

-------
                            -ID-
status or the validity of the data, and reviewing concurrence
requests .

Program In t_e_g_r a t i on

    The Case Development and Legal Branch, PTSEO, will coordinate
with the Regions and the Registration Division to resolve any
questions regarding the child resistant packaging requirement  •
and the status of  products covered.

    The Regions will coordinate with the States regarding the
enforcement of the special packaging requirements.

-------
             ;;!!TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
«• --*«V-
                                                           PESTICIDES AN 3 ToVTc
  SU3JECT:   Enforcement  Strategy  Concerning  C'.iild-Resistant Packaging of
            Pesticide  Products.
 TO:
          Jack Neylan
          Pesticide Toxic Substances
          Enforcement Division  (EN-342)
 As  a  follow-up  to our  recent  meeting  concerning  an enforcement strategy
 on  cccr.pliance with CRP regulations we are  providing to you a list of
 generic products for which  an unqualified  assumption can be made that
 they  need  to be  in CRP if used and stored  in the household.  This is con-
 sidered phase I of the strategy.  Phase  II will  consist of a more refined
 list  which will be based on the actual CRP amendments we receive.
  1.  Disinfectants

  Product

  1.  Calcium
     hypochlorite
                    Concentration
                         65%
 2.
6.

7.

3.

9.
Lithium
hyprochlorite       35%

Sodium dichloro
s- triazine trione
and Trichloro-s
triazine trione     98-1001

Mono (Trichloro
tetra (monopotassium
dichloro) penta-s-
triazinetrione      99*

Hydrochloric acid   3%

Phosphroric acid    17%

Chlorophenolics     6!>

Sulfamic Acid       20%

Quaternary Ammonium
Compounds           10 S
 10..  Parafomaldehyde     953

 11.  Formaldehyde        37%
                                        Use
                                        swimming pool
                                               Swimming  pool

                                               Toilet  bowl

                                               n        M

                                               Disinfectant

                                               Toilet  bowl


                                               General disinfectant

-------
2.    Insecticide and Rodenticide
Pesticide Chs~ical

1. Carbophenothion


2. Chlordane


3. Chlorpyrifos  (Dursba'n)


4. Cryolite

5. Diazinon



6. Dimethoate  (Cygon)

7. Disulfoton  (Disystox)



8. Dyfonate

9. Ethion


10.Imidan

11.Lindane


12. Metaidenyde


13. Mexacarbate  (Zectran)


14. Naled

15. Propoxur (Baygon)

16. Phosphorus (white)
At and Above Requiring CR?

        1.4


        2S.O


        9.0


        15.0

        7.0



        17.0

        0.4



        1.2

        3.5


        10.0

        6.5


        20.0


        2.0


        18.0

        6.2

        1.1
                                                            Remarks

                                                       Some lawn use
                                                       products

                                                       Termite control
                                                       products

                                                       Sprays for outdoor
                                                       Ornamentals

                                                       Plant dusts

                                                       Many plants and garden
                                                       sprays; encapsulated
                                                       diazinon does not require CR?
                                                       Systemic insecticides
                                                       for indoor and outdoors
                                                       plants
                                                       Some combinations with
                                                       lawn fertilizer
                                                       Borer sprays, dog
                                                       di-ps

                                                       Slug and snail
                                                       control

                                                       Insect, slug and
                                                       Snail control
                                                       Rodenticide

-------
3. Herbicides and Funcicides
Chemical                 Formulation / % A.I,

Bis  (tributyltir.) oxide       Above 0.5%
Paraquat

Pentachlorophenol

Chlorothaionil

Copper-8-quinolinolate
any %

above 88%

above 40%

above 5%
       I/-/
Refco Engler, Gnief//
Disinfectants Branch
Registration Division (TS-767)
cc:  D. Campt
R. Gross
J. Jenkins
H. Harrison
J. Akerman
     Use

V.'ood Presenva'tive

Homeowner herbicide

Wood preservative

Homeowner fungicide

Wood preservative

-------
General Compliance Strategy for Products Subject to the FIFRA
                  Label Improvement Program

0 vervi ew
     On June 5, 1980 EPA published in the Federal Register (45 FR
37884) a notice initiating a program to improve pesticide labeling.
The Label Improvement Program (LIP) was initiated to upgrade pro-
duct labeling in an attempt to better protect health and the environ-
ment as well as further defining legal  use of a product.  This program
was designed to work in conjunction with currently existing registra-
tion programs and to respond rapidly to labeling needs identified by
the Agency.   To date, four major label  improvement program notices
have been issued and are in effect.  Two additional  label  improvement
program notices have been  recently issued but are not yet in effect.

Regulated Industry	
     Some label improvement rules  affect all  registrants, while
others affect only registrants of  certain products.

Requirements of the Rule
Submission of Applications	
     The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),  Registration.Oivisi on
(RD) will notify each registrant of an  affected product  by  certified
letter or a  certified mail  copy of a PR Notice that  his  product is
subject to specific requirements under  that label improvement program
revision.  For each affected product, the registrant is  required  to
submit the following to EPA:
     1) An application  for amended registration (EPA Form 8570-11).
     2) Five copies of  draft labeling incorporating  required  changes.

-------
                                - 2 -
     3) If necessary,  a Statement of Confidential  Formula (EPA Form
        8570-4).
     Registrants must  normally submit applications within 60
calendar days of receipt of the LIP Notice.   The Agency will state
any deviation from this deadline in the LIP  Notice.
     Products for which the Agency has not received an application
for amended registration within the stated deadline will  be  subject
to cancellation.  The  Agency will issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel
for any such product,  effective 30 days from its receipt, unless
within that time the registrant or an interested party with  the
consent of the registrant,  either applies for amended registration
or requests a hearing  under section 6 of FIFRA.
Exemption from Compensation Requirements	
   •  In many cases an  amended registration to meet the requirements
of a Label Improvement Program Notice will not  be  subject to com-
pensation requirements.  If this is the case, the  Offer to Pay or
Certification Statement will not be required.to  be submitted to RO
and approval of labeling submitted will not  convert registrations
to conditional status.  Each notice will address the compensation
status of applications submitted in response to  the LIP Notice.
Processing of Applications	
     Generally, the Registration Division will  review labels
for compliance with the requirements of the  LIP  Notice.  A regis-
tration amendment submitted in response to a LIP Notice is not
complete until the amended  labeling is submitted and accepted by
RD.  If draft labeling is  not acceptable, RD will  notify  the
registrant of the deficiencies by letter and give  the registrant
75 calendar days to submit  amended labeling. Amended labeling

-------
                              - 3 -
must be limited to changes required by the letter in order to
maintain the exemption from compensation requirements.
Combined Application in Response to Multiple Label Improvement
Notices
     Applicants receiving multiple notices requiring LIP labeling
amendments for the same product may combine responses into one
application for amended registration provided the relevant LIP
Notices are clearly referenced.  Applications that are non-compen-
sable under FIFRA section 3(c)(1)(0) may not be combined with
     /
applications that are compensable.  The submission deadline for
combined applications for amended registration is the later of
the deadlines established in the LIP Notices.
Time Frames for Compliance	
     Any product released for shipment 180 calendar days after the
registrant receives RO's acceptance of amended labeling must bear
that accepted label.  Registrants are responsible for compliance
by their sub-registrants (distributors).
     Products that have been released for shipment and are in
retail  channels of trade prior to the 180 day deadline may continue
to be distributed in commerce, sold and used until supplies are
exhausted.
Enforcement Objectives

     The objective of LIP compliance program is to ensure that
product labeling is in compliance with the requirements of the
various Label Improvement Program Notices.  This  will  be accom-
plished through producer establishment inspections.

-------
                                - 4 -


Types of Violations
     Producers not complying with the requirements of..the notices

issued under the Label  Improvement Program are in violation of

of FIFRA section 12(a)(l)(E) in that their products are misbranded

under sections 2(q)(l)(F) and (G).  Products being sold in violation

of a cancellation order are in violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(L)

and subject to the penalties thereunder. "

            X

Administrative Considerations

     The Office of Pesticide Programs has issued four major label

improvement notices (See Attachments) which are currently in effect

with two more LIP Notices issued but not yet in.effect.  The four

existing LIP Notices are listed below in order of inspectional

targetting priority according to their potential  hazard.

     1) Fumigants - Issued 12-4-80 - This LIP Notice requires

registrants of products containing certain active ingredients to

add additional precautionary. 1abeling , misuse statements  and storage

anddisposalstatements.

     2) Termiti ci des -  Issued 11-7-81 - This LIP  Notice requires

registrants of termiticide products  containing one of the active

ingredients listed in  the LIP Notice to revise use directions of

their product, use the  appropriate storage and disposal statements,

add a misuse statement, and reformat their labels.
                               \
     3) Anti foul ing Paints - Issued  3-9-82 - This LIP Notice required

registrants of all  antifouling paints to make extensive revision

of their product's  labeling.

-------
                               - 3 -

     4) Salt Water Ernes is - Issued 11-30-80 - This LIP Notice
requires all registrants to delete salt water emesis statements
from their labeling.  Since the revision was a -simple-deletion,
registrants were not required to submit amended labeling for review
     Two more LIP Notices have been recently issued dealing with
worker reentry intervals and disposal requirements.  As they become
effective they will be included for targetting in the inspectional
program.
Targetting Inspections	

     The Registration Division, OPP is responsible for compiling
lists for each LIP Notice consisting of:
     1) The name and address of each registrant affected;
     2) The name and registration number of each product affected;
     3) The registration status of each product affected, i.e.,
        compliance, pending, or subject to cancellation; and
     4) The date of acceptance of the amended labeling if the
        product is in compliance.
These lists, which the Compliance Monitoring Staff will  forward to
the Regions, will be a basis for the States' or Regions' inspection
targetting.
      States should target inspections* based on the priority as-
signed to each LIP Notice in this document and on the current
registration status of products regulated under each Notice. .
To identify inspection targets, States should first list under
each LIP Notice the registrants and the number of their products
whose: a) product labels are subject to cancellation for failure
A0nlyproducer establishmentsshouldbe targettedforinspection
under this guidance.  Marketplace inspections  are not appropriate
for determining compliance with this rule.   Products  in  the  channels
of trade prior to the date when amended final  printed labeling
must appear on a product may continue to be sold.  Therefore,  it
would not be an effective use of resources  to  determine  the  existence
of violations based on marketplace samples.

-------
                                -u-
to respond to the.LIP Notice;  and b) label  amendments RO has
approved.  Inspection priorities will  not include registrants
whose products have label  amendments pending with RO. -Priority
for inspection should then be  as'signed on the following basis:
     1) Registrants of products subject to  cancellation for failure
        to respond to the  LIP  Notice.   These registrants should
        be ranked based on the number  of their products subject to
        the LIP Notices in the following order:  Fumigants,  Termi-
        ticides, Antifouling Paints and Salt Water Emesis.
     2) Registrants with the most number of products with accepted
        amended labels subject to any  LIP Notices in the following
        order: Fumigants,  Termiticides, Antifouling Paints  and
        Salt Water Emesis.
     After determining inspectional priorities for the LIP, the
States should integrate these  priorities with the criteria  listed
in the FY 84 Cooperative Agreement Guidance for  scheduling
producer establishment inspections (past violative history, products
subject to Label Improvement Program,  products subject to Child
Resistant Packaging (CRP)  regulations, and  Restricted Use Pesticides)
The highest priority in scheduling inspections should be given  to
those producers which meet the largest number of these criteria.

Inspections	
     Inspectors will examine products  released for shipment at
the producer establishment to  determine compliance with the terms
of the LIP Notice.   Registrants have 180 calendar days following
acceptance of amended labeling to bring the product into compliance .
Any product released for shipment after this 180 calendar day period
must bear accepted  amended labeling.
     Registrants with products not in  compliance with  any LIP
Notice will be issued a Stop Sale Use  or Removal Order (SSURO)  by

-------
                                -• 7 -
the State or EPA in addition to any enforcement action taken by
the State or EPA.  The SSURO will  be removed only "after the registrant
brings the product into compliance.  SSURO's will not'be lifted for
cancelled products sold in violation of a cancellation order.
Issuance of a SSURO is an appropriate response to non-compliance
as the LIP is designed to mitigate the risks of handling pesticides
through labeling changes and the registrant is given ample time
to make and incorporate these changes on the label.
Allocation of Responsibilities
Headquarters Responsibility	
a) Provide Regions with a compliance strategy for Label
   Improvement Program,
b) Provide Regions with copies of  each LIP Notice,
c) Provide list of registrants affected by a Notice,
   status of the products affected and date of accep-
   tance of final printed labeling for each product
   in compliance.
Regional Responsibility	
a) Provide copies of all pertinent materials to the States.
b) Provide guidance and assistance for State enforcement
   efforts.
c) Assist in issuance of SSURO's.

State Responsibility	
a) Schedule and conduct inspections of affected registrants.
b) Issue SSURO's to non-complying  registrants.
c) Take enforcement actions where  appropriate.

-------
I t\r/7 ?     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                     3TON. D.C.  2

                                     JAM 12/3
V  ..ej?                       WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460


                                           
-------
-------
                                  -2-

A.  Primary Enforcement Responsibility -

    1.  ' What is it?      ..  ..     ..; '   '   .   ;      .

             When a governiiEnt entity, be  it  EPA or State,  has prinary
        enforcement responsibility,  it has the first (or primary)  option
        for investigating and taking appropriate enforcement action
        against pesticide'use violations.

    2.   How does a State get  it?

             In brief,  there  are three ways by which a State shall have
        primary responsibility for pesticide  use enforcement:

        a.   A State will have the primary  responsibility for pesticide
            use enforcement if, upon request  by the State,  EPA has
            determined  .that 1) the State has  adequate pesticide use
            laws and regulations, 2) the State has  adequate procedures
            for implementing  these laws and regulations,  and 3)  the
            State will  keep records and make  reports shaving conpliance
            with 1) and 2)  above.

        b.   Notwithstanding this, any State with a  cooperative agreement
            with EPA to cooperate in the enforcement of FIFRA, pursuant
            to Section  23,  shall immediately  upon imp lensntation of that
            agreement,  have primary responsibility  for pesticide use .
            enforcement within its borders.

        c.   A State may also  receive primary  responsibility for use en-
            forcers nt if EPA  determines that  the State has  an approved
            plan under  section 4 for certifying applicators and the plan
         •   msets the criteria of a.  above.

             If at any tins  after September 30,  1978,  a State asks  for  and
        receives a determination that it meets the  test of  adequate laws,
        regulations,  and procedures  under  a.  above,  implements a coopera-
        tive enforcement agreement with EPA or,  upon final  approval of its
        section 4 Plan,  receives a determination that the plan meets the
        criteria of a.  above, that State shall have primary enforcement
        responsibility  for  use violations  within that State.
                 x
             If a State with  a cooperative enforcement agreement chooses to
        withdraw from that  agreement,  the  State will lose- their primary
        enforcement responsibility upon the date of termination of the co-
        operative agreement.   Should that  same'state have an approved  State
-------
                            -3-
    Plan under section b, EPA will review that plan for enforcement ade-.
    quacy as soon as practical to determine whether the State can regairj
    use enforcement prinacy.

3.  Who has it?

         The following States,  as of the date of this memorandum, have
    primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations:
    Region I               Region IV              Region VIII

    Connecticut            Kentucky               Montana
    Ne.tf Hampshire          Mississippi            North Dakota
    Vermont                North Carolina         South Dakota
                           Tennessee

    Region II              Region V               Region IX
                                                         \J
    New Jersey             Indiana   '             Arizona
    New York               Michigan               California
    Puerto Rico     '       Minnesota              Guam
    Virgin Islands                                Hawaii

    Region III             Region VI              Region X

    D. C. _,                Arkansas               Idaho
    Dela/are               Louisiana              Oregon
    Maryland               lies Mexico             Washington
    Pennsylvania           Oklahoma
    Virginia               Texas
    West Virginia
                           Region VTI
                           Iowa
                           Kansas
 I/
 Arizona divides responsibility for use' enforcement between the
 structural Pest Control Board and the Arizona Board of Pesticide
 Control (Agriculture).  EPA has a cooperative enforcernant agree-
 ment with the former, not the latter.  Therefore,  Arizona has
 primary use enforcement responsibility for pesticide use viola-
 tions that come within the jurisdiction of the Structural Pest
 Control Board; EPA has responsibility for all other use enforce-
 ment activities.  If there are other instances of very distin-
 guishable separation of use enforcemsnt authority within a State
 and EPA has a cooperative enforcement agreement with only one of
 the authorities,  the region should bring this to the attention
 of PTSED.
-------
    Who does not have it?

         The following States, as of the date of this..memorandum,  do
    not have prirrsry enforcenEnt responsibility for pesticide use
    violations; EPA continues to have primary responsibility.

    Pegion I                    Region VII          Region  X

    Maine*                      Missouri*     ,      Alaska*
    Massachusetts               Nebraska
    Rhode Island*

    Region IV            .       Region VIII

    Alabama*                    Colorado*
    Florida*                    Utah*
    Georgia                     Wyoming*
    South Carolina*

    Region V                    Region IX

    Illinois*                   Trust Territories
    Ohio*                       Samoa
    Wisconsin*
       * EPA will be conducting a rapid evaluation (to be conpleted
         within 6 months of the date of enactment of this law)  of
         these State's §4 Plans in order to determine the enforce-
         ment adequacy of the State's pesticide use laws, regulations,
         and procedures.

5.  What is EPA's role in pesticide use enforcensnt?

         In States that do not have primary use enforcement  responsi-
    bility, EPA will have the prinHry responsibility.  In those States
    where EPA has the primary responsibility for pesticide use  enforce-
    ment,  Congress has affirmatively provided that the Agency my
    inspect the books and records and work  establishments of commer-
    cial applicators and "for hire" applicators.   Also,  saaples nny
    be taken of pesticides or use dilutions of pesticides held  by
    those applicators.  "For hire" applicators are those applicators
    that are in the business of applying pesticides.   Exsroies  of
    "for hire" applicators,  for whom controlling pests is all or  part
    of their occupation,  are structural pest control operators, aerial
    applicators,  arborists,  lawn maintenance workers,  and janitorial
    service workers.  Nothing in this Act precludes the Agency  from '
-------
                              -5-

    continuing routine use surveillance,  (i.e.  use observations where
    there is no prior evidence of misuse) whether or not that surveil-
    lance takes place in a State that has primary use enforcement
    responsibility.  However, in those States having primary use
    enforcement responsibility, the Agency nay  not include within that
    routine surveillance visits to commercial or "for hire" applicator
    establishments for purposes of sampling or reviewing bodes and
    records.  In those States, routine use surveillance shall be con-
    fined to application sites where entry has  been gained by consent
    of the owner.  Any information or evidence that points to a signi-
    ficant violation of FIFRA (i.e. one which we would deem worthy of
    further investigation) shall be referred to the State if that State
    State has primary enforcement responsibility.

6.  How will the referral of complaints or infcreation indicating
    use violations of FIFRA work?

         Section 27(a) of the amended FIFRA requires that EPA refer
    any complaints or other information alleging or indicating a
    significant violation of the pesticide use  provisions of FIFRA
    to the appropriate State officials for their investigation.   Of
    course,  such referral need only be made when the State has pri-  •
    raary use enforcement responsibility.   Further, if the State dees
    not commence appropriate enforcement action within thirty 'days,
    EPA may act upon the complaint or information.

         If any information or complaint,  indicating or alleging a
    significant violation of FIFRA, is received after September  30,
    1978, and the alleged violation took  place  in a State with pri-
    mary use enforcement responsibility,  such information or com-
    plaint shall imcnediately be referred  to the appropriate official
    in that State.  Any such information  or complaint received in
    EPA headquarters shall be referred to the State via the appropri-
    ate regional office.  Regions will be responsible for immediately
    establishing working relationships with States for the orderly
    flow of information on enforcement activities and for determining
    who the appropriate State officials for handling such information
    are.  The State will have thirty days to initiate appropriate
    enforcement action upon making a determination that a possible
    violation of either FIFRA or the State pesticide law has occurred.
    It is expected that appropriate enforcement action will be t • .en
    by the State under that State's pesticide law in cases where  the  -
    evidence indicates either, a violation of only the-State law or
    both the State law and FIFRA.
-------
                            -6-

     At the conclusion of the thirty day time period, the regional
office shall request information on the status of the particular
investigation.  Obviously, in some cases States may.be unable to
investigate and commence appropriate enforcement action, particular-
ly in complicated cases, within the thirty day tine frane referred
to in the amended FIFRA.  Regions should use their discretion when *•
determining whether to extend the time period for a State to com-
mence appropriate enforcement action or to request return of the
case file.  It is expected that States will forward all evidence
obtained in an investigation to the EPA regional office: 1) where
no enforcement proceedings have been initiated within thirty days
of a determination of a possible violation of State law and FIFRA,
2) where the investigation determines that a possible violation
of only FIFRA occurred, (not State law), or 3) where EPA deter-
mines that the enforcement action taken by the State is not
appropriate to the alleged violation.  Until regulations are
in place for rescinding primary enforcement responsibility
for failure by the State to assure enforcement of State           ;
pesticide use regulations,  a region shall request concurrence     '
from their PTSED regional coordinator before overriding any
State enforcement action.

     Complete and thorough documentation must be kept of all
referrals to States of complaints or information on alleged
use violations and subsequent follow-up actions by States.  A
draft complaint referral form is attached for use by those
regions without any current referral form (Appendix B).  Two
copies of this form, with additional attached information,
where appropriate, shall be completed and forwarded to the
appropriate State official immediately upon receipt of any
complaint or information about a use violation.   Within thirty
days (or longer, if extended), the State should be instructed
to return one copy of the State form with a brief description
of the disposition of the case, i.e. either a notation of the
kind of enforcement action taken (e.g.  2 month suspension of
applicator's license) or an explanation as to why no enforce-
ment action was taken (e.g.  not-a violation of State la/).  If
no report on the disposition of a case is received within a
suitable period of tine, the region shall follow-up with either
a written or telephonic request for such information.  Such
records will be necessary for future determinations as to
whether States are properly discharging their enforcement res- -
ponsibilities in the pesticide use area.
-------
                                -7-
    7.  Hew should emergencies arising cut of the use of pesticides be
        handled?

             When the region becomes aware of emergency conditions arising
        out of the use of pesticides, they should immediately inform the
        appropriate State officials.   State officials are to be requested
        to respond to the emergency;  the region should offer whatever
        assistance they can.  If State officials indicate that they are
        unwilling or unable to adequately respond to the emergency, the
        region should respond to the fullest extent possible.

     Should you have any questions concerning this interim policy, please
contact your PTSED regional coordinator or Jack Ne/lan (755-0997).
                                  A.  E.  Conroy II, (Director
                               Pesticides and ToxicNauis tances
                                     Enforcement Division
Attachments
-------
    •SEC. :s. STATE PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY.
      "(a)  For the purposes of thi.i Act. a State ihall have primary en-
    forcement responsibility for pt-iticide use violations during any period
    for which the Administrator determines that such State—
          "(J)  has adopted adequate pesticide use laics and regulations.:
        Provided, That the Administrator may not require, a State to have
        pesticide use laws that are mor<> stringent than this Act}
          u(5)  has adopted and ii implementing adeuuate procedures for
        the enforcement of such State laics and regulations,' and
          u(3)  wilt keep -ruch records and make such reports showing
        compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2} of this subsection as the
        Administrator may require by regulation,
      "(b)  Notwithstanding the  provisions of subsection (a) of this sec'
    tion, any State that enters into a cooperative agreement \oith, the Ad-
    minis trat or under -section 23 of this Act for the enforcement of vesti'
    cide use restrictions shall have the primary enforcement responsibility
    for pesticide use violations. Any State thai has a, plan approved by the
    Administrator in accordance with the requirements of section 4 of this
    Act that the Administrator determines meets the criteria set out in sub-
    section (a) of this  section shall  have the primary enforcement respon-
    sibility for pesticide use violations. The^Administrator^hail make, such
    determinations i.cith respect to State plan-i under section 4 of this Act
    in effect on the  d-zte of enactment of the Federal Pesticide Act of 1978
    not Inter than -rix month,* after  that date.
     "(c) The Administrator'thall have primary enforcement responsi-
   bility for those. State* that do not have primary enforcement rf.sponsi-
   bilify under thin Act. Notwithstanding the provisions  of section -2(e\
    (J)'(if this Act* during any period when the Administrator ha-1 such.
   enforcement responsibility, section X(b] of this Act shall apply to the
                                                             suc.
                                                              the
boohs and records of commercial applied-tors and to any applicator who
holds or applies -pes'timd**. or use dilutio-ru of pesticides, only to provide
a. service of controlling pests without delivering any unapplied pesti-
   -        -
   cide- to any -person so served, and section 0(a} of thii Act shall apply to
   the p.stabli-ihmenf. or other place where pesticide* or devices are held for
   application by such persons with, respect to pesticide or devices held
   for such, application^

  ' "SEC. 17. FAILURE  BY THE STATE  TO  ASSURE ENFORCEMENT  OF
             STATE PESTICIDE USE  REGULATIONS.

     " (a)  Upon -receipt of any complaint or other information alleging or
   indicating a sigrdncznt violation of the pesticide ^se provisions of this
   Act. the Administrator shall refer the matter to the ippro-priate 'State
   Officials for their investigation of the matter co^n-iistent icith the  rv-
   quirements  of thin Act. If. icithin thirty days, the State hns not com.-
   menced appropriate enforcement action, the Administrator may  act
   upon the complaint or information to the extent authorized under thin
 •  Act.
     "(5)  Whenever the Admini.ttnzf.or determines that a. Stale having
<•   primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide u*e it'oMtiona i-s not .
   camiing out^ (or cannot carry out due to the lack of adequate legal au-
   thority) such. re.rpor).ribilit.y. the Administrator shall notify the State.
   Such notice shall specify those aspects of the administration of the'
  • State program  that are determined to be inadequate. The State shall
   have ninety  days after receipt of the notice  to correct any deficiencies.
   If after that time the Administrator determines that the State program.
   remain* inadeiruuite, the Administrator m
-------
 .>.REFERRAL  FORM
                                                                       Date Rec'd
inscription of Alleged Corrplaint or Information
(Disposition
Referred to:
                                 Referred by:
                                 For further information, contact
Date referred
Date response du
-------
. /
-------
                                  -2-

     Basically  the Stats  plans  will be  measured  against the standards
sat  forth in sections  26(a)(l)  and  (2)  of  the  amended FIFPA.   They
require  that the State:

          (1) has adopted  adequate pesticide use laws and
          regulations; Provided, 'that the  Administrator may
          not require  a State to  have pesticide  use  laws
          that  are more stringent than  this Act; [and]

          (2) has adopted  and is  implementing  adequate pro-
          cedures for  the  enforcement of such  State  laws and
          regulations;...

     tthile  there is a  presumption that  States  with approved applicator
certification plans have  adopted  adequate  laws for violations  involv-
ing  restricted  use pesticides,  it will  still be  necessary to make
certain  that their laws and regulations are also adequate for  viola-
tions involving general use pesticides. It is  clear,  however,  that the
focus of the review will be on  the question whether  each State has,  in
fact, established adequate procedures for  enforcing  against use viola-
tions and whether the/ are implementing those  procedures adequately.
Some of  the procedural aspects  that will be examined  include:   1.  Are
sufficient State resources committed to the investigation and"  actual
enforcement of  use violations;  2. Are  complaints of  pesticide misuse
follcwed-up promptly and concluded in a timely manner;   3.  Are State
personnel properly trained to handle investigations  and enforcement
actions involving allegations of pesticide misuse;   4.  Do substantive
complaints of misuse actually result in State  enforcement action;  and
5. is the State enforcenent action appropriate in light of the viola-
tion and the enforcement options open to the State enforcement Agency?

     Since EPA regional representatives are the  most  knowledgable  about
the status of pesticide enforcement in  the States in  their  regions,  it
will be essential to the success of the review of each  State's plan  and
operating procedures to have strong regional participation on  March  23rd.
Although the Regions' views can either  be  presented in  writing in
advance of the irseting or  in person on  March 23rd (or both), if a  Region
is of the opinion that a particular State  should  not be granted primary
use enforcement responsibility/ it should  plan to send  a representative
to the March meeting to discuss that position  with the  Headquarters
personnel.  For States where the regional office  thinks there  is little
question about the appropriateness of granting State primary use enforce-
ment, it would be sufficient to submit  such a  recommendation in writing
before March 23rd.  Once a decision has been made about the status of
each of the thirteen States, letters will be prepared for  Mr.  Costle's
-------
                                 -3-

signature notifying the various State lead agencies about EPA's deci-  .
sion. In addition, each State being granted primary use enforcement
responsibility in accordance with the new section 26 will be asked to
meet certain minimal reporting requirements concerning pesticide use
enforcement until final regulations implementing sections 26 and 27
are implemented.

     I would appreciate it if each of the seven Regions that have State
plans to be reviewed at the March meeting would notify Mr. Ulfelder
whether or not they plan to be represented at that meeting. If you have
any questions about the. review of the thirteen State plans, please direc
your questions to Mr. Ulfelder at 472-3701.
                                                        7——
                                     A. E. Conroy II,^Direct
                                 Pesticides and Toxiq Substc	
                                       Enforcement Division
Attachments
-------
                             ATTACHMENT A



   List of States With Approved Section 4 Plans, But .Without CEAS








REGION I:          Maine



RE3ION 17:         Alabama



                   Florida



                   Georgia



                   South Carolina "



RE3ION V:          Illinois



                   Ohio



                   Wisconsin



REGION VII:        Missouri



R33ION VIII:      'Utah



                   Wyoming



REGION IX:         Arizona (Agricultural Use Only)



REION X:          Alaska -
-------
                              ATTACHMENT B
Friday, Kerch 23, 1979
Location:  EPA Headquarters
           Washington, D.C.
           3rd Floor Conf. Pro., East Tower
           Room Mo. 344
I.   9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
     The following States will be reviewed:
     Region I:          Maine
     Region IV:         Alabama
                        Florida
                        Georgia
                        South Carolina
     Region V:          Illinois
                        Ohio
                        Wisconsin-
II.  1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
     The following States will be reviewed:
     Region VII:        Missouri
     Region VIII:       Utah
                        Wyoming
     Region K:         Arizona
     Region X:          Alaska
-------
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                             V.'ASHINGTCN. D.C.  20460
                                  r..,-...
                                           :
                                                            OFFICE'Or ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
                                                              i
SUBJECT:   Clarification of Primary Use Enforcement Responsibility Guidance

TO:        Regional Pesticide Branch Chiefs
           Regional Enforcement Division Directors
     On January 4 of last year, the Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Enforcement Division (PTSED) sent cut an interim policy statement
describing procedures for EPA/State cooperation in the area of primary
responsibility for enforcing pesticide use violations.  This memorandum
supplements the January 4 guidance by expanding upon the proper Agency -
response to receipt of a State file which indicates a pesticide use
violations.

     Since the amended FIrRA, per sections 26 and 27, directs the Agency
to allow the States to have first option for bringing enforcement actions
against violators of pesticide use requirements, EPA should take no
action except in emergencies as described under section 27(c), based on
any otate file until thi appropriate Region consults with the State on
the investigatory or enforcement status of the case.  After the State
has been allowed time to conduct its inquiry, the Region should request
a statement indicating the proposed enforcement action chosen by the
State.  If the State's action is not "appropriate" (see section 27(a))
in light of the gravity of the alleged violation, the Region should
after obtaining concurrence from the Office of Enforcement's Pesticides
and Toxic Substances Enforcement Division, send a notice to the State
(1) ccinmunicating its disagreement with the selected action, (2) re-
commending the type of State action which the Agency would consider to
be "appropriate", and (3) notifying the State that it has 50 days to
commence an appropriate action.             -
-------
                                        - 2 -       •               '

     As a general operating principle, the Regions should avoid using  •
already-scarce Federal resources merely to reinforce state enforcement
actions taken in response to minor violations of the pesticide..laws.
Rather the Regional Offices, in accordance with stated Agency goals of
protecting public health  and safety and preserving sensitive ecosystems,
should be careful to focus their efforts and resources on those situations
which significantly endanger public health or the environment and which
are not otherwise appropriately addressed by state actions.
                                         Lchard D. Wilson
                                 Deputy Assistant Administrator
                                     for General Enforcement
-------
              Utilicu iiATES t.SYiKONMuNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                            18690
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Appropriate Documents to be Presented by  State
          Inspectors Conducting Pesticide Use  Inspections  in
          States Having Primacy

TO:       Enforcement Division Directors
          Air 6 Hazardous Materials Division Directors
          Pesticide Branch Chiefs
     At present most State inspectors conducting pesticide
use inspections present credentials headed:   "United  States
Environmental Protection Agency".  The credential  later
identifies the inspector as "an employee of  the State of
	."  This credential has been supplied by the  Agency
as a convenience to States which have cooperative  enforcement
agreements with EPA.   (EPA Form 3540-28  (Rev. 4-78))
                                                              •
     These credentials were designed before  primacy when
States conducted use inspections for violations of FIFRA
under the auspices of a cooperative agreement.  Pursuant to
Section 26, most States now exercise primary enforcement
responsibility for all use violations.  Use  inspections are,
therefore, primarily a State activity.  Consequently, use
inspections in States with primacy are undertaken  under the
authority of State law, (this is true even where the  use
inspections are Federally funded).
                                                            *
     Therefore, during use inspections, it is appropriate
for State inspectors to present credentials  which  indicate
that the inspectors are acting under authority  of  State law.
The existing Federally supplied credentinla  are misleading
since they are headed "United States Environmental Protection
Agency." In the fu£urjL«_State inspectors conducting pesticide
use inspections fihsatasaprasent credentials that are issued
by their, State employers.  If State credentials do not
already exist, the State is responsible for  designing
providing such credentials to their inspectors*
-------
     It. iii additionally nccossary  .Cor Statas  to  cease using
the rcderully supplied "I^ou-icu of  Ia:;,ycction"  forr.-.,  (EPA
Fcr:.i 3540-2  (Itev. 3-75)).  The present foru erroneously
identifies use inspections as beinc,- authorised under the
authority of the "U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency". The
    es are responsible for drafting nev.' Notice of  Inspection
       The States must design their Notice of  Inspection
forn in a manner which parallels tho liPA  form.   A  consistent
format will greatly aid the indexing of the information in
the Agency computer.  The State Notice of Inspection form
should indicate the relevant State statutes which  authorize
the inspection.  While States await the printing of  the nev;
forms, they may use the Federally  supplied forms if  all
indicia of Federal authority are obscured.

     It should also be noted that  State inspectors conducting
use inspections cannot rely upon FIFRA for authority to take
affidavits. Consequently the Agency affidavit  forsi (EPA Form
3540-11 (Rev. 9-75)) may not be used by States during use
inspections.  If State law grants  this power,  of course, the
inspector nay take an affidavit according to State pro-
cedures.

     I hope that the Regions will  implement these  guidelines
during the next 60 days.   Please contact John  Martin of ny
staff at 755-1075 if you have any questions.
                         A. E. Conroy II, Director
                      Pesticides and Toxic Substances
                           Enforcement Division
-------
404       Federal  Register / VoL 4& No. 3 / Wednesday.  January 5.  1983 / Rules  and Regulations
                                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                AGENCY

                                40 CFfl Part 173

                                (OP* 00159; PH-fFL 2215-3]

                                Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
                                Rodenticide Act, State Primary
                                Enforcement Responsibilities

                                AGiMCV: Environmental Protection
                                Agency (EPA).
                                ACTION: Final interpretive rule.

                                SUMMABY: This rule states EPA's
                                interpretation of several of the key
                                provisions In sections 28 and 27 of the
                                Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and
                                Rodenticide Act (FTFRA). but does not
                                impose substantive requirements on the
                                State*. Sections 29 and 27 established a
                                standard and procedure for according
                                States the primary enforcement
                                responsibility for pesticide use
                                violations {primacy). The rule also
                                provides operational substance to the
                                criteria used by EPA for primacy related
                                decisionmakiag, and ensures that such
                                decsionmakicg is consistent throughout
                                the regions.
                                smcnvz DATK This role will not takes
                                effect before the end of 60 calendar days
                                of continuous session of Congress after
-------
the date of publication. EPA will publish
• notice of ine actual effective date of
this rule. See SUPPIEMIMTAMY
INFORMATION fur further detail*.
ro* narrow INFOMMATIOM CONTACT:
Laura Campbell. Pea'Jcidei and Toxic
Substances Enforoer»eat Division (£,V»
342). Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Environmental Protection
Agency. Rm. M-2a24£, 401 M SU SW,
Washington. OC. 20480, (2J2-382-S56G).
               MFORUATIOfe
Back
  In 1978. Congress enacted Pub. L 85-
338 which contained numerous revision*
to the Federal Inaecticide. Fungicide.
and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 e<
*et/. J. One of the changes added two
new sections to FIFRA. section* 28 and
27.  U.SJ1 138w-l and 138W-Z. wfaxh
together established • standard and
procedure for according States the
primary enforcement n^mniAitt+y for
pesticide tae rJolabon* (primacy}.
  Section 28 provides three saeibccb by
winch a State can obtain prnaecy.
Section 2S(a) requires a State to be
accorded primacy if the AdoinistraJoT
finds that the State has (l) adopted
adequate uee laws. (2) adopted
adequate procedures for hap]eru?r..fa3
those laws, asd (3) agreed to fcrep such
records aad gvakf each reports as the
Administrator may require by
regulation. Section 26(b) allow* a Stale
to obtain primacy if the State has aa
approved tecc'oa 4 certificatian plan
thai meets ths criteria set fcrth in
section 26{aJ. or if a State enters isio a
cscperative a green eat for the
enforsessat of pesticide CM restrictions
under secScn 23.
  Secties 27 authorizes die
Adzunistratar ts override or rescind a
grant of primacy in certain situations.
Section 2T(a) requires the Administrator
to refer cg=£icar:t allegories* cf
pesticide s*e violations to the States. If
a State dees not commence appropriate
enforcement actioa within 20 days of
such referral, EPA may bring ils own
enforcement nctlna.
  Section 2Tjb] audsoriaej me
Administrator to rescind the primary
enforcement responsibility of a Slate if
she finds that the State is not carrying
out such responsibility. Tie
Administrator initiates a rescission
proceeding by notifying the State of
those aspects of the Slate's pesticide use
en forcemeat program which the
Administrator haa foend to be
inadequate, if the State does not correct
the deficiencies in its programs within 90
days, the Administrator may rescind the
States'* primary enforcement
responsibility in whole or in part. EPA
 hus promulgated procedures which
 govern !::£ conduct of a proceeding to
 reicint! Sti^e prjnacv. These procedures
 wure publi.shed in lh» Federal Register
 of May 11. 19fll (46 FR 28058). {« CFR
 Part 17JJ.
  S-c:ion  2Tfr) authorizes the
 Aftairijitrator lo take immediate action
 to abate an emergency situation where
 the State is ooabie or unwilling to
 respond to the cri&is.
  As in evident from die above
 description, several of the operative
 term* in sections 23 and 27 require
 further definition. This rule clarifies the
 meaning, of such words «s "adequate"
 and "appropriate" which FIFRA seta
 forth as the criteria for rao*t of die
 decisions  which will be r>»^f 'i**H*r
 these two  ««rti/»t»«. The rale also seta
 guidelines to be T**^ by EPA in mjltlna
                 *^^^*m^ afio> essures
that such
by limits^, arthsvgh riot ^
Agency discretion in the orimacy area.
  Specifically, this rale addresses Xhe
  UATtsTtCj? X3XQCS*
  I. Procedares EPA «nU follov whea
  femng »flg«afin-M ,at so State
with mare strfejent pesticide cse laws
than the Federal law should be granted
primacy. Although EPA cannot require a
Stare to enact a pestidde use law that Ls
mere stricg^cl  than rTFHA. there is no
prohibition against granting primacy  to a
State whose pesticde use law is more-'
stringent.
  One. comment so£**3ted  a chaste in
the requirement that State  laboratories
conducting sample analysis perticipate
in EPA's check umple program. The
comment stated that the National
Enforcement Investigation  Center
(NGQ check sample program should be
coordinated wnh me American
Association of  Peat Control Officials
(AAPCO). The  NE1C check sample
program is currently coordinated with
the AAPCO check sample program. The
rule has been changed to reflect this
comment
-------
 Further tnfaraution on Effective Oat* of
 ThisRuls)
   On December 17. 1800. the Federal
 Insecticide. Fungicide, iad Rodenticida
 Act extension bill (Pub. L »-W9) '
   •ame law. This bill amended several
    ions of FIFRA. hctmHng section 25
  .. rulemaking. Section 4 of the
 Extension Act adds a new paragraph,
 section 25(e). to FIFRA which requires
 EPA to submit final regulation* to
 Congress for revlaw before tha
 regulation* become effective. Copies of
 this rule have been transmitted to
 appropriate office* in both Houses of
 Congress,         .•          _
   Under section 4 of the 1380 FIFRA
 Extension Act this rule will r.ot take
 effect before tha end of GO calendar days
 of continuous session of Congress after
 tho date of publication of this rule. Since
 the actual length of this waiting period
 cay be affected by Congressional
 action. It is not possible, at this time, to
 specify a date on which this regulation
 will become effective. Therefore, at the
 appropriate time EPA will publish a
 notice acr.cuacing the end of the
 legislative-review period and notifying
 the publlcrjf the actual effective date cf
-this regulation.

 Cotnpliaaca With the- Regulatory
 Flexibility Ad
   I hereby certify that this rule will not
 have a significant economic Impact on
 small entities. The role affects only
 r  '• pesticide control agencies, which
      3t scall entitles under the
    .iatcrjr Flexibility Act S U.S.C. 601
 et seq.
 Compliance With Executive Order
   Under-Executive Order 12231. EPA
 rsust fudge whether a regulation is
 "Major" and therefore subject to the
 requireceat of a Regulatory Impact
 Analysis. This regulation la not Major
 since it is Interpretive in nature and
 docs not contain new substantive
 requirements. The regulation:
   1. Does not have an annual effect on
 the economy of SI 00 million or more.
   2. Will not substantially increase
 costs to consumers, indusiry.  or
 government.
   3. Will not have a significant adverse
 effect on competition, employment,
 Investment, productivity, or innovation.
   This regulation was submitted to the
 Office of Management and  Budget for
 review as required by Executive Order
 32291. (Sec. 2S(a](l) (7 U.S.C. 136w)).
 [Note: This rule will not appear in the
 Code of Federal Regulations.)

 L Appropriate Enforcement Action
   A, Procedures Governing Referrals. \.
 General. Section 27(a) requires EPA  to
refer to the States any Information it
receives indicating a significant
violation of pesticide use laws. If a State
has not commenced appropriate
enforcement action within 30 days. EPA
may act on the information.
  Given current resource limitations,
EPA Is not In a position to monitor State
responses to every allegation of
pastldda misuse referred by the Agency.
Rather, tha Agency will focu* its    ,
oversight activities on evaluating the
overall success of State pesticide
enforcement programs, aad will track.
on a case-by-case basis, only those
allegations involving particularly serious
violations. Such "significant" allegations
will be formally referred to the Slates
and tracked by EPA, while other less
serious complaint* will be forwarded to
the States for information purposes only.
  2. Cfitsria for tt'snificant cases. To
determine which alleged violations are
sufficiently significant to warrant formal
referral and tracking, the regions will go
through a two step process. First tha
regions. In consultation with each State.
will identify priority areas for referral
These priority areas will consist of those
pesticide activities in tha State which
present the greatest potential for harm
to health or tha environment (e.g. the
application of a pesticide by a certain
method to a particular crop, such as
ground application of endria to apple
trees). Tha selection of these priority
areas will depend primarily en the
results of pesticide enforcement program
evaluations conducted by the States and
the regions. The priority  areas will be
revised on an annual basis based upon
the effectiveness of tha program in
reducing, the harm associated with
pesticide use.
  Thereafter SPA will determine on a
case-by'Csse basis which allegations in
these priority areas involve sufficiently
"significant" violations to be formally
referred to tha State and Cracked. If a
complaint received by EPA alleges a
minor infraction which clearly presents
little or no danger to health or the
environment or if the information
contains patently spurious allegations.
tuch as those from sources which have
repeatedly proved unreliable, the matter
will be forwarded to the  State for
information purposes only.
  3. The 30-day time period. The Agency
interprets  the term "commence
appropriate enforcement action" In
section 27{a) to require States to initiate
a judicial or administrative action in the
nature  of an enforcement proceeding, if
one is warranted. Starting an
investigation of the matter would not be
sufficient. If (he State does not
commence an appropriate
administrative, civil, or criminal
- enforcement response. EPA would then
 be permitted, although not required, to
 bring it* owa enforcement action,
   Although section 27(a) permits EPA to
 act If the State ha* not commenced an
 enforcement action wiUtfinO days, the
 Agency recognize* that States may not
 be able to complete .their Investigation
 of many formal referrals in so short a
 time. The time needed to Investigate a
 possible use violation will vary widely.
 depending upon the nature of the
 referral A referral which simply
 conveys an unsubstantiated allegation
 will usually require more investigation
 than a referral which partially or fully
 documents a pesticide use violation.
 Consequently, the Agency wishes to.
 develop a flexible approach towards the
 tracking of referrals.
   To accomplish this objective. EPA i*
 adopting a system in. which the referral
 process is broken down into two stages.
 investigation and prosecution.
   4. The investigsUan stage. Following
 the formal written referral of an
 allegation of a significant pesticide use
 violation, the appropriate regional
 pesticide official will contact the State
 to learn the result* of the Investigation
 and the State's intended enforcement
 response to the violation. If the State
 has not conducted aa adequate
 Investigation of the alleged violation, the
 region may choose to pursue its own
 investigation or enforcement action after
 notice to the State. As a general rule.
 however, the regional office will attempt
 to correct any deficiencies in the
 investigation through informal
 communication with the State.
   An investigation will b« considered
 adequate if the State has (1) followed
 proper sampling and other evidence-
 gathering techniques. (2) responded
 expeditiously to the referral, so that
 evidence is preserved to the extent
 possible, and (3) documented all
 inculpatory or exculpatory events or
 information.
   5. Tho prosecution stage. After
 completion of the Investigation, the
 State will have 30 days, the prosecution
 stage, to commence the enforcement
 action, if one Is warranted. An
 appropriate enforcement response may
 consist of required training in proper
 pesticide use. Issuance of a warning
 letter, assessment of an administrative
 civil penalty, referral  of the case to a
 pesticide control board or State's
 Attorney for action, or other similar
 enforcement remedy available under
 State law. The 30-day period may be
 extended when necessitated by the
 procedural characteristics of a State's '
 regulatory structure (se« Unit V.A.
 Hypothetical 1).
-------
           Federal Register / Vul. 48, No.  3 / Wednesday.  January  5. 19flJ / Rules and Reuuianons   .^   4U7
  If. after consultation with the Slute.
EPA determines that the Slate's
intended enforcement response la the
violation is Inappropriate (see
•ubdjvision B). EPA may bring its own
action after notice to the State. Regional
attorney* will not, however, initiate an
enforcement proceeding looner than 30
days after the matter wai referred to the
State.
  At times, a State may find that the
particular enforcement remedy it views
as the appropriate response to a use
violation is not available under the
State's pesticide control laws. Therefore
the State may. at any time, request EPA
to act upon a violation utilizing remedies
available under FIFRA. In these
Instances, of course, EPA will
Immediately pursue its own action, if
one is'warranted.
  To illustrate better the proposed
referral system, two hypothetical
situations are described in Unit V. A.
  B. Appropriate Enforcement Action. 1.
General: After the Agency learns of the
enforcement action. \i any. the State
proposes to bring  against the violator.
the EPA regional pesticide cfHce will
consider, in consultation with the State.
whether the proposed action is
"appropriate", relative to the remedies
available to the State under its pesticide
control legislation. EPA interprets the
modifier "appropriate" In section 27(a)
of FIFRA to require that the severity of
the proposed enforcement action
correlate to the gravity of the violation.
  It is not possible in this Interpretive
Rule to prescribe the specific
enforcement action which will constitute
an appropriate response to a particular
violation. There an too many variables
which will influence the treatment  of a
use violation, including the disparity
between the types of enforcement
remedies available under the various
Slate pesticide control statutes. Thia
document can. however, establish
criteria to be employed in evaluating the
appropriateness of a proposed State
enforcement action. More detailed
guidance on evaluating relative gravity
is contained in EPA'a "Guidelines for
the Assessment of Civil Penalties under
Section 14(a)  of the Federal Insecticide.
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as
amended", published in the Federal
Regster of July 31.1974 (39 FR 27711).
The Guidelines establish dollar amounts
to be applied under the Federal statute
to use violations in civil penalty
proceedings. Regional personnel can use
these figures as a  guide in evaluating the
gravity of a particular violation. The
Agency will not require that a State
response to a violation have a monetary
impact equivalent to that of a dvtl
penalty which EPA would Impose under
 the Guidelines. Rather, the dollar
 amounts contained In the penalty
 matrices can be used by regional
 personnel to define the relative gravity
 of a violation by comparing the figures
 applicable to different violations.
  2. Gravity of the violation. The
 Agency believes that the gravity of a
 pesticide use violation Is dependent
 upon the risk the violation poses to
 human health and the environment. The
 factors which determine the degree of
 risk presented by a use violation can be
 divided Into two categories: factors
 related to the particular action which
 constituted the violation and factors
 related to the pesticide involved in the
 incident.
  a. Risk associated with the violativa
 action. The circumstances surrounding
 the violative action partially determine
 the risk the violation presents to human
 health or the environment. To assess the
 degree of such risk. State and regional
 personnel should ask such questions as:
  L Did the violation occur in a highly
 populated area, or near residences.
 schools, churches, shopping centers.
 public parks or public roads, so that
 health was endangered?
  11. Did the violation occur near an
 environmentally sensitive area, such aa
 a lake or stream which provides
 drinking water to the surrounding
 community, a wildlife sanctuary, a
 commercial fishery, or other natural
 areas?
  iii. Did a structural application
 threaten to contaminate food cr food
 service equipment?
  iv. Did the violation have the potential
 to affect a large cr a small area?
  T. What was the  actual ham which
resulted from the violation?
  vi. Was the nature of the violation
such that serious consequences wera
likely to result?
  This lest question is designed to take
 Into account the variation in the
inherent risk associated with different
 categories of use violations. For
 example, a drift violation resulting from
 improper aerial application generally
 presents a greater risk of harm than a
 storage violation, since the latter
 infraction does net necessarily involve
 the improper exposure of the pesticide
 to the environment
  b. Risk associated with the pesticide.
The factors which will be crucial in
 evaluating the risk associated with the
 pesticide itself Include:
  L The acute toxidty of the pesticide or
 pesticides involved in the incident The
 toxidty of a pesticide will be indicated
 by the "human hazard signal word" on
 the la'uels (see 40 CFR 162.10). "Danger"
 or "Poison" are indicators of a highly
 toxic pestidde while "Warning- and
 "Caution" signify successively less toxic
 substances.
   ii. The chronic effects associated with
 the pestidde. if known.
   ill. The amouJUrTihe pesticide
 involved in the Inddent relative to the
 manner of application (e.g., aerial versus
 structural).
   iv. Other data concerning the harm a
 pestidde may causa to human health or
 the environment such as data
 concerning persistence or residue
 capability.
   An analysis of the interrelationship
 between these two categories of risk
 factors should yield a notion of the
 relative gravity of the violation  and the
 severity of the action which should be
 taken in response.
   3. Category of applicator, size of
 business, and history of prior violation.
 Gravity is not the only factor which EPA
 will take into account in evaluating the
 propriety of an enforcement action.
 Secticn 14 of FIFRA requires that
 distinctions in the severity of an
 enforcement response be made  between
 the categories of persons who commit
 usa violations. The Intent of Congress,
 as expressed In section 14. is that
 commercial pestidde-applicatora who
 violate use requirements will be subject
 to more stringent penalties that  other
 persons who  violate use restrictions.
 Congress also envisioned that the size of
 the violator's business will be a factor in
 determining the severity of the penalty.
 In addition, section 14 distinguishes
 between violators who have committed
 previous infractions and those who &n .
 first offenders. Thus,' the issuance of a
 warning letter by a State to a person or
 firm who has been repeatedly warned in
 the past about a certain violation would
 not generally be considered an
 appropriate response to the violation.
   4. Knowins violations: criminal
penalties. The state of mind of the
 violator is another important'
 consideration. In extreme circumstances
 where the civil penalty remedy is
 inappropriate, it is the Agency's policy
 to pursue a criminal action against
 persons who knowingly violate a
 provision of FIFRA. EPA will be
 particularly interested in pursuing
 criminal prosecution for those violations
 which involve a death or serious bodily
 injury or la which the violator has
 demonstrated a reckless or wanton
 disregard for human safety.
 environmental values or the terras of the
 statute. To be appropriate, a State's
 response to a knowing violation under
 the circumstances indicated above must
 be similarly severe.
  5. Deterrence. It should be noted that
 the appropriateness of an enforcement
-------
408
Federal Remitter /  Vol. 48.  No. 3  / Wednesday. January 5. 1983  / RuJes  and  Kegulations
action it • dynamic, rather thin • static.
concept Because it U dynamic.
penalties must be periodically
evaluated. If a certain violation U
occurring more frequently, the leniency
of tha remediea which have been
applied to this infraction in the pa»t
should ba questioned Consequently,
what is appropriate ifl ona year may be
viewed as an inadequate response in the
next.
  The factors described above, together
with the aforementioned Guideline*.
should help to clarify the Agency's
                             definition o/"appropriate enforcement
                             action.** To understand belter how the
                             criteria described above can be tued to
                             evaluate whether • proposed State
                             enforcement action is appropriate, the
                             reader la referred to the hypothetical
                             fact situations in Appendix B.

                             0. Criteria Governing Grants of Primacy
                               Section 29 of FIFRA sets forth the
                             general criteria which apply to EPA'i
                             decision  whether to grant primacy to a
                             State:'
  "(a) For ih* purpose* of ihh Aci. s Smeihall have primary enforcement
responsibility lot pesticide use violations durteg any period for »hich (he Ad'
miruurator determines thai such Slate—
       •*(1)  has adopted adequate pesticide use unr» and regulations; Pro-
     vided. That the Administrator may not require a State (o ha»e pesticide
     u'jg laws ihai are more stringent than this Ac:;
       "(2)  has adopted and is implementing adequate procedure* for the
     enforcement of such State laws and  regulations; and
       "(3)  »iil keep such  records and mike such repofiv vhouing com-
     pliance wiin  paragraphs  (|) and (2) of (his subseviion as the  Ad-
     ministrate* may require by regulation.
  "(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of  subjection (a) of (his section, any
State ifut emert into a cooperative agreement with the Adrnmisir«or under
section 23 of this Act for the enforcement cf pesticide use restrictions shall
have th« primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations. Any
State that has a plan approved by the Administrator in accordance *uh the re-
quirernern* of section 4 of this Act that the Administrator determines meets
the crnerii set out is subieciion (a) of (h»s section $ha!l have !he primary en-
forcer*™ responsibility fat pesticide use violations. Th* Administrator Oiall
make such  determinations »ith respewt 10 State plan* under Section 4 of this
Act m effect on September 30. 1978 not later than March Jl. H7».
  Thus, a Stata nay obtain primacy bi
 vo ways; (1) by demonstrating that the
   .•rents of its use enforcement
 .cgram. cr of its-approved certification
program, satisfy the rwo nain criteria in
section ZS(a). (adequate laws and
adequate procedures implementing
these laws}, or (2) by entering into a   '
cooperative agreement for the
enfcrcesent of use restrictions.
provided the tenss of the agreement do
not specify otherwise. The Agency will
also  evaluate lha adequacy of a State's
LIB enforcement program before
conferring primacy by this latter
method.
  A. Adequate Lam and Regulation*.
To be considered adequate, a Stale's
pesticide control legislation must
address at least the following areas:
  1. Use restrictions. State pesticide
control legislation will be considered
adequate for purposes of assuming full
primat) if State law prohibits those acts
which *.-r; proscribed ur.der FIFRA and
which -».iie to pesticide use. The
activi!i»i presently proscribed under
FIFRA . .-.ude:.

  a.  L!si .' * registered pesticide in a
martn". •. '.nsistent with its label
!HFRA«~';onl2(a)(2)(C)).
                               b. Us* of a pesticide which is under
                             an exparimental use permit contrary to
                             the provisions of the permit (section
                               c. Use cf a pesticide in tests on
                             humans contrary to the provisions of
                             section igaj{2)fP).
                               d. Violation of the provision in section
                             3(d](1)(c) requiring pesticides to be
                             applied for any restricted ose only by or
                             under the direct supervision of a
                             certified applicator. Violations of
                             suspension or cancellation. orders are
                             not considered use violations for*
                             purposes of the primacy program.
                               States may be granted partial primacy
                             If they regulate leas than all categories
                             of use violations. For example. EPA may
                             in the future decide to issue "other
                             regulatory restrictions" on use under
                             section 3(d)(l)(C}(ii), (such as a
                             requirement to notify area residents
                             before pesticide spraying). If such a
                             restriction were issued, (and not
                             reflected  on pesticide product labels).
                             each State would automatically have
                             partial primacy extending to all  cf the
                             categories Hs'ed abov» which are
                             proscribed by State law. unless  the
                             Slate already has authority to enforce
                             such restrictions. A State with partial
                             prmacy would obtain full primary by
                             enacting a prohibition tracking the
 lection 3fd)(l)(C](U) re.friction.
   2. Authority to enter. To carry out
 effectively their use enforcement          ,
 responsibilities. State officials should be
 able to enter, through consent, warrant.
 or other authority, premises or facilities
 when pesticide use violation! may
 occur. States should also have
 concomitant authority to take pesticide
 samples as part of the use inspection
 process.
   3. Flexible remedies. Finally, State
 legislation must provide for a
 sufficiently diverse and flexible array of
 enforcement remedies. The State should
 be able to select from among the
 available alternatives an enforcement
 remedy that is particularly suited to the
 gravity of the violation. Without such
 flexibility, a State may frequently be
 forced to  underpenalize violators, and
 thereby fail significantly to deter future
 use violations. Thus, in order to satisfy
 the "adequate laws" criterion. Stales
 should demonstrate that they are able
 to:
   a. Issue Warning Letters  or Notices of
 N'oncompliaace;
   b. Pursue administrative or civil
 actions resulting in an adverse economic
 impact upon the violator. e.g., license or
 certifica-tioa suspensions or civil penalty
 assessments: and
   c. Pursue criminal sanctions for
 knowing violations.
   B. Adequate Pncedurey for Enforcing
 the Lam. In order to obtain primacy.
 States must not only demonstrate
 adequate  regulatory authority, but must
 also show that they have adopted
 procedures to Implement the authority.
 These procedures must facilitate the
 quick and effective prevention.
 discovery, end prosecution of pesticide
 use violations.
   1. Training.  One step towards this
 objective  is the training of enforcement
 personnel At  a minimum. States, in
 cooperation with EPA. should
 implement procedures to train
 inspection personnel in such areasjes
 violation discovery, obtaining consent.
 preservation of evidence, and sampling
 procedures. Enforcement personnel
 should be adequately  versed in case
 development procedures and the
 maintenance  of proper case files.
  Instruction in these  techniques should
 take the form of both on-ihe-job (raining
 and the use of prepared training
materials. The Agency also considers a
continuing education program to be a
crucial training procedure, so that
enforcement personnel can  be kept
abreast of legal developments and
technological advances.
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol.  43. No. 3 / Wednesday. January 5. 1983 /  Rules and Regulations
                                                                          409
  2. Samp/ing techniques and
laboratory capability. Requests for
primacy thould also »how thai the Stale
it technologically capable of conducting
a use enforcement program. States mutt
have ready access to the equipment
necessary to perform sampling and
laboratory analysis, and should
implement a quality assurance program
to train laboratory personnel and
protect the integrity of analytical data.
Laboratories conducting sample
analyses must also agree to participate
in EPA (NEIC) Check Sample programs
which are designed to ensure minimum
standards of analytical capability. (Such
a program is already operational for
formulation samples, and a residue
sample program is also under
consideration). The EPA Check Sample
program Is coordinated with the
Association of American Pesticide
Control Officials (AAPCO) to reduce
unnecessary duplication of effort. The
EPA will be guided in evaluating the
adequacy of State analytical procedures
by official compilations of approved
analytical methods, such as the Food
asd Drug Administration's (FDA)
Pesticide Analytical Manual, the CEPAC
(Collaborative Interr-alicnal Pesticides
Analytical Council] Handbook, the EPA
Manual of Chemical Methods for
Pesticides, and Official Analytical
Chemists Analytical Procedures. For
additional guidance on  adequate
samplirg techniques. States should
cor.suit EPA's FIFRA Inspectors Manual
or contact the appropriate regional
office.
  3. Processing  ccmplaints.  SIcca a
significant portion of pesticida use
violations are identified through reports
from outside E?A or the State lead
agency, the State must implement a
system for quickly processing and
reacting to complaints or other
information Indicating a violation. An
adequate referral  system should contain:
  a. A method for funneling complaints
to a central organizational unit for
review.
  b. A logging system to record th*
receipt of the complaint and to track the
stages of the follow-up investigation.
  c. A mechanism for referring the
complaint to the appropriate
investigative personnel
  d. A system for allowing a rapid
determination of the status of the case.
  e. A procedure for notifying citizens of
 the ultimate disposition of their
 complaints.
   4. Compliance monitoring and
 enforcement. Along with the abova
 described enforcement procedures.
 Slates must provide assurance that
 sufficient manpower and financial
 resources are available to conduct a
 compliance monitoring program, i.e.,
 either planned or responsive use
 Inspections. In addition. States must
 Implement procedures to pursue
 enforcement actions  expeditiously
 against violators identified through
 compliance monitoring activities.
  The Agency also believes that
 program planning and the establishment
 of enforcement priorities is an integral
 part of an adequate enforcement
 program. Such planning, taking into
 account the national  program priorities
 as manifested through the grant
 negotiation process, as well as the
 priorities specific to the Individual State,
 will help assure that  compliance
 monitoring and enforcement resources
 •re properly allocated.
   5. Education. Slates should implement
 a program to inform their constituencies
 of applicable pesticide use restrictions
 and responsibilities. Examples of
 education methods Include
 disseminating compliance information
 through cooperative extension services.
 seminars, publications similar to the
 Federal Register, newspapers, and
 public assistance offices where persons
 can call to ask questions or report
 violations. Such an educational program
 will promote voluntary compliance and
 Is essential to effective enforcement.
 States should also  develop procedures
 for soliciting input  from the public
 regarding the administration of the
 pesticide use enforcement program.
 ITT. Criteria Governing Rescission of
 Primacy Under Section 27(b)
  Section 27(b) authorizes the
 Administrator to rescind primacy from a
 State in certain situations:
  "(b) Whenever the Administrator determines that a State having primary
enforcement reiponsibiiity for pesticide use violations is not carrying out (or
cannot carry out due :o the lack cf adequate legal authority) such responsibili-
ty, the Administrator shall notify the  State. Such notice shall specify those
sspecn of the administration of the  State program that are determined to be
inadequate. The State shall have ninety days after receipt of the notice to cor--
reel any deficiencies. If after that  time the Adminisiraior determines thai the
State program remains inadequate, the Administrator m«y rncind, in »ncle
or in pan, the State's primary enforcement, responsibility for pesticide use
violations.
  In deciding whether a State is not
carrying out or cannot carry out. its use
enforcement responsibilities, the
Administrator will apply the criteria for
an adequate program set forth in Unit 0
to the performance of the State during
the time the State had primacy.
  A. Adequate Laws. The legal authority
can conduct an adequate use
enforcement program is a criterion
which affects both the decision to grant
primacy and the decision to rescind it.
Within the context of rescission, the
Administrator will assess the impact of
any amendments or supplements to the
State's pesticide use laws and
regulations. If legislative changes have
adversely affected the State's ability to
collect information or bring enforcement
actions, the State  may be subject to a
rescission action on grounds of
Inadequate laws.
  E Adequate Procedures. In
determining whether a State which has
adequate legal tools is carrying out its
use enforcement obligations, the Agency
will examine the efficacy of the
procedures adopted by the State to
Implement its pesticide laws. The
Agency will be particularly interested in
the remedies the State has actually
applied to the various use violations.
The lack of sufficient correlation
between the gravity of a use violation
and the severity of the enforcement
response would be evidence that the
State's arsenal of remedies is not being
applied in a flexible manner.
  In addition. EPA will evaluate each
program element listed in Unit ILfl.. in
light of the performance of the Slate
during the period the State had primary
use enforcement responsibility.
  I. Training. The Administrator will
note whether any difficulties
encountered by the Slate in enforcing
pesticide use restrictions have resulted
from a lack of adequate training of State
enforcement personnel.
  2. Sampling techniques and
laboratory capability. The
Administrator will consider whether the
State's sampling techniques end
-------
analytical capabilities are enhancing or
hindering the State'i ability to unearth
and prosecute snccessfuDy persona who
miiasa penticides. Another Important
consideration will be the degree to
  hich State laboratory and umpling
   icedurej have kept pace with
  -velcpmenU in analytical technology.
  3. Pncsatiag comp/a/nac The
Administrator will examine whether
complaints have been processed quickly
and efficiently. The degree to which
citizens alleging a MM violation seek
redreu from EPA  after first directing
their complain! to the Slate will be
considered. In addition. the
Administrator will take Into account the
performance cf the State in responding
to allegations referred to the State by
EPA under section 27(a) of FTFRA.
  4. Compliance mon/torrng and
enforcement. Under this element, the
Administrator will compare the State'*
level of compliance monitoring activities
with that of other  comparable States.
The EPA will review State case files to
determine whether tho State has
aggressively Investigated a case bsfsra
deciding on the disposition of the
natter. The ETA will also nrvestjgita
whether a State'i  Attorney General'*
office or other presecutcrial authorities
have dascsstrated a wiSirgness  to
pursue cases referred by the State's
pesticide control lead agency.  '
   The Agency will examine whether
Stats ec/crceineat resources have been
    c'.ed towards the more significant
    rcemeat problem areas, and
.. Aether enforcement priorities have
keen Devaluated  as the demands of an
adequate program change over time.
   S. Education. The Administrator will
evaluate whether  the State's education
program is encouraging voluntary
compliance with pesticide ate
restrictions. As part of this process, the
Administrator will note those use
violations which are at least partially
attributable to the violator's lack  of
familiarity with applicable laws and
regulations. The Administrator will also
review State procedures for facilitating
public participation in the enforcement
program.
   These criteria are indices of the
adequacy of a State's use enforcement
program, but they do not cunclusiveiy
determine whether a  Stale is dist  barging
its primacy responsibilities. Since the
Agency's goal is to protect the public
from the risks associated with
pesticides, one of  EPA'k central inquin.'s
will be whether the State's primacy
program assures compliance with
pesiicide use restrictions. F.PA. in
e\aluating State program adequacy, will
consider both the  deficiencies of the
program and the success of the program
In achieving compliance.
IV. Emergancy Respoas*
  Notwitajtaadin* other provisions of
sections 28 and 27. the Administrator
may, after notification to the State, take
Immediate action to abate emergency
situations if tha Stale is "unwilling or
unable adequately to respond to the
emergency."
  FTFRA does not define "emergency
conditions." Other EPA-admiaisteied
statute*, however, characterize
emergencies in fairly consistent terms.
The consensus of these statutes is that
an emergency presents a risk of harm to
human health or the environment that is
both serious and imminent, and that
requires immediate abatement action,
  p»amn!»« of a£e-reUted emergency
situations ore:
  1. Contamination of a building by a
highly toxic pesticide.
  2. Hospitaiiza lions, deaths, or other
severe health effects resulting from use
of a pesticide.
  X A geographically specific pattern of
use or misuse which presents
unreasonable risk of advene effects to
health or sensitive natural areas. This
situation may occur, for example, if a
hazardous pesticide is consistently
misHsed in a particular area so that the
net effect is the creation of substantial
endangerment to the environment, such
as runoff into a  water supply.
  A. -UavnUiog'. When EPA learns cf '
aa emergency situation. Agency
representatives eust notify tha affected
State. These representatives will try to
obtaia a coaaitmeni from the State as
to (a) what the Sute is  capable of doing
In response to the situs tioa, and (b)
when the State intends to respond to the
crisis.
  Emergencies, by nature, require the
quickest possible response. In most
cases, due to proximity, the Slate will
have the opportunity to be first on the
scene. If the State manifests an
unwillingness to respond rapidly to the
situation, or if the State cannot give
assurances that it will respond more
quickly than EPA could respond.'Agsncy
emergency response teams will be
activated.
  B. "Unable". The EPA will
immediately take action to abate an
emc'aoncy if Ihs Slate is unable t<>  rin
so. The Agency interprets "unable" to
mean  thai other the State dot s not have
the authority to adequately respond or
lh.it the State Is incapable of solving the
problem due to  tt^e lack of tethnolr^y or
resources.
  1. Authority. The EPA c;in  utilize its
autOority in section 16(c> of KIFRA  to
seek, in conjunction with  the
Department of Justice, a district court
order preventing or restraining misuse of
a pesticide. States should also bo able to
address • use-related emergency In this
manner or by the rapid Issuance of an
enforceable stop-use order or other
similar means. If the State lacks this
authority and the emergency conditions
warrant a legal response in the nature of
specific enforcement or equitable relief,
EPA may Initiate its own action after
notice to the State.
  2. Technical capability. Some
emergency situations may present
problems which the States are
technologically incapable of solving. In
these instances, if EPA possesses the
requisite technology or equipment the
Agency will immediately respond to the
crisis. For example, where a dissolved
organic pesticide has contaminated a
surface water system. EPA would
activate its portable advanced waste
treatment unit, a resource that is not
generally available to the States.
  The EPA will also take action if the
State cannot rapidly commit  the
necessary manpower to the emergency
situation. In most cases EPA  will not.
however, initiate a response oa this
basis if the State has developed an
emergency response plan detailing the
procedures to be followed in  •
counteracting a pesticide emergency.

V. Hypothetical Situations
  In reading the hypothetical* in Units
A and B. asruxne that the cases
discussed fall usder priority referral
areas discussed In Unit LA-2.
  A. Action by Citizen. Hypothetical 1.
EPA refers to the State a citizen's
allegation fiiat an aerial applicator has
allowed pesticides to drift over his
property. After 22 days, the EPA Region
obtains the results of State's
investigation and learns that  the State
plans to issue a warning letter to the
applicator. The EPA advocates a more
firm response and. after discussion, the
State agrees to suspend the applicator's
certification. The Stale certification
board does not meet, however, until two
months later. In this instance, the Region
may decide to extend the normal 30 day
prosecution stage to accommodate the
schedule cf the board.
  Hypothetical 2. A  citizen calls EPA
vtith information concerning a fish kill
wh.ch occurred m a  stream near his
residenre. The citizen  claims that he
reported his information to the Stcte. but
State officials have not responded to his
cor.plairt. The TP.Ys Regional official
calN the State, and learns that the State
did indeed kr.ow of the problem, but has
not yet had the opportunity to
investigate (ho allegation. The Regional
-------
official, believing the allegation to b«
lignificant. formally refers the complaint
o tht State, and the Stale agrees that
he matter ihould bt investigated within
  da^t. After 20 dayt. the Region learns
        Jtste has not yet beaun its
    ____ Slion. ID this case, the Region
    jegin it< own inquiry into the
natter, and may commence its own
•nforcement  action, after notice to the
>!ate. provided that 30 days have
japsed from the date of the referral.
  B. Action by State. In both of (hesa
lypolheticals, usuae that the State has
hosen a Warning Letter a* the
 ppropriata enforcement response.
  Hypothetical I. Mr. Smith operates a
 ae-man crop dusting company. Smith i*
 ired to spray Herbicide A over a power
 or.p«..y's lengthy right-of-way. The
•ght-of-way Is bounded on one Bide by
 residential development and on th»
 ther by a wooded area. Smith performs
 :e aer.al applicaticn aoidii high
 wiriin3 wtndj la contravention of tha
 istroctio^s on the herbicide'* label. A
 .gnificast pcrticn of the herbicide drift*
 =10 ihe weeded area. Herbicide A.
 hich ccntauis ths hazard ward
 jaeger" on its lacd. is a highly toxic
 r.d persistent restricted use peatkids.
 .r.ith has no reccrd of prior pesticide-
 :!atcd violations with gavemacci
 uticida ccstrcl cfDc=a.
  Th* Agency would consider tha
 acanca of a warning letter to be an
 .apaiJEriate response to  this violation.
  * ^^^crscc/3i?tf with the violotirt
   ^^^Rrtiiately fn this instance, tha
      .e did not mult Li damage to
 ii..;:s or sensitive enviroruseaJaJ
 MS, But at tha time (he violation was
 .•oir-itted, the risk that kara would
  suit L-cm the misuse was quite
 jmficar.t. given tha high swirling
 inds and the proximity of a residential
 .'ighbcrhood. Only chance prevented
  e herbicide from drifting Into anN
  habited area. The risk of hann waa
  so increased by the fact that a yreat
  al of land was subject to drift given
  » length of the target area.
  b. Risk associated with the pesticide.
  .>rb:cids A is labelled "danger" end is
  :refcr» an acatcly toxic Catenary i
  sticide ander |.o.<«>d cooking
racks were to b«s used.
  c. Other factors. Under FIFRA. the
Issuance of a Notice of Warning is the
maximum enforcement response to a use
violation commi'ted.by a private
applicator with no history of prior
violations. Thus, the Agency would, of
course, view  the proposed State
enforcement action as appropriate. If the
violation were repeated, a more
stringent enforcement action would be
warranted.
  Dated- f>c«mUr 12. 18S2.
Icfcn W. ttenuodci. [r.
Actirj AdmLntttrator.
(TB Dot f*4 KM I 4 «>
aaiMCOCt tsso
-------
        '•     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460


                           APR 2 1 1983
                                                           OFFICE Of
                                                    PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
 EM08AMDUM

S!''UECT:   Final  F IT'S 4 Cooperative Agreenent Prog ran Guidance

TO:        Air and Waste Management Division Directors
          Environnental Service Division Directors
          Pesticide Branch Chiefs


     Attached is tne final guidance for the FY^4 FIFtfA cooperative
agreement program.   This document combines guidance for both the
pesticides enforcement and the applicator certification and train-
ing programs.  For  your convenience, the sections entitled FY 1984
FIF-iA Cooperative Agreenent Program Guidance and FIF.^A Cooperative
Agreenent Program Guidance are included in their entirety.  Thesy
sections  replace the FY 1 kJ33 Cooperative Agreenent Pro?ran Guidance
and the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Program Guidance sections in
the FY33  guidance.   Also, nany of the Appendices in the FYo3 cjM-
an c a hove either been an ended, revised or r •» placed ana five new
^"oendic^s have  been added.

     This final  guidance has been modified in response to nost
comments  on the  earlier draft.  Specifically, the following areas
have been changed:

     o Bas e Al1otment
     o Product/Faci1ity Related Priority Setting Model
       (Appendix I, addendum)
     o Nonfunded Priority Program
     o §26 and §27  Interpretive Rule Procedures
     o LIP and CRP  Inspection Strategies
          /'

     For  FY84, the  enforcement cooperative agreement base funding
level has been increased from $45,000 to 560,000.  The weighted
factors used to  distribute the funds remaining after each State's
base allotments  were subtracted from the total program allotment
have also been revised to reflect new data on the numbers of private
and commercial applicators reported for FY32.
-------
                              2-
     Comi'ie-i tors aske-i if a State couH conduct, as part  of  its
  rst quarter outputs, the product/facility priority setting.
  ates who are 'unable to complete their product/faci1ity priority
setting prior to the awarding of their FY84 cooperative  agreement
may include that portion of their priority setting as part  of
their first quarter outputs.  Part III, Award Conditions of the EPA
Notification of Assistance Award Action for such States  must  include
* condition requiring States to conduct product/facility priority
setting by no later than the end of the first quarter.

     The section on nonfunded priority problems has been clar-
ified.  Some States' current pesticide programs may already
address pesticide problems identified through priority setting.
In such cases, States are requested to provide this information
as a supplement tn their cooperative agreement applications so
that EPA will have a complete picture of how a State is  addres-
sing all its pesticide problems.  This information will  aid the
Regions in evaluating the State's cooperative agreement  application.

     All States must update their previous years use priority
sotting and include it in t^eir FY84 cooperative agreement
applications.

     The final guidance document summarizes and expands  the
procedures to be followed by the Regions in reviewing State
investigations and enforcement actions un^or the Interpretive
  |'e for FIFRA §§25 and 27.  The Regional  offices and the States
  il annually define significant cases to  ne tracked by  £'JH
. fter referral to the State.  The uji/1a."!c~ outlines the  orocedures
yMch the Regions must follow 1) in revi f.-;-* PC the adequacy of
State investigations or enforcement *ctio" s and ?. ) before cu""1u:t-
i n g a Federal investigation or taking F e '1 H r a 1 enforcement action.

     Finally, inspection strategies for the LIP and^CRP  programs
are included in Appendix XI and Appendix XII.  The Office of
Pesticide Programs, Registration Division  will provide the
required data as outlined in the inspection strategies.

     If you have any questions, please contact John Martin,
of my staff, at (202) 382-5572.    •                      -          .
                                      •*• '
                              M. a. Conroy/'jn, Director
                             Compliance Monitoring Staff
                     Office of Pesticidesa'nd Toxic Substances
                                         '\
Attachment
-------
                         TABLE UF CONTENTS
	FY 1984 FIFRA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM GUIDANCE

ENFORCEMENT                                             1
A11otment of Funds                                      1
  InitialAl1otment                                     1
  Adjustments  to Initial Allotment                      2
  Final Allotment                                       2
  Alternati ve  Funding                                   2

National Priorities                                     3
APPLICATOR CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING
Allot "lent of Funds                                      5
  InitialAl1otment                                     5
  Final Allot ment                                       6
Attachments: Allotment Schedules
-------
    FY  1984 FIFRA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM GUIDANCE
         ^
This annual guidance outlines Regional funding allotments and
discusses  national priorities to be followed by the Regions in
implementing FY84 cooperative agreements for pesticides enforce-
ment and applicator certification and training.  The Compliance
Monitoring Staff  (CMS) of the Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Compliance Monitoring Staff (OPTS) expects to receive
56,913,400 to fund State and Indian Tribe cooperative enforcement
programs and has  received 52,000,000 for funding cooperative
applicator certification and training programs.
	i	
ENFORCEMENT
Allotment of Funds	

The President's annual budget submission to the Congress requests
an overall program appropriation for pesticides enforcement
cooperative agreements.  Individual State allotments for financial
assistance are initially determined by application of a two s'tep
formula.  States are to use these initial allotments to develop,
w i t n their respective Regional offices, work programs that meet
both State and Agency needs. [40 CFR Part 35.115(h)]  Final allot-
ments will be based on the States'  initial  allotments and a
redistribution of surplus funds.

Initial  Allotment
Because of a proposed reduction in the amount of pesticides
enforcement cooperative agreement funds available for FY84, EPA
Headquarters'  initial financial assistance allotments will  con-
sider only those States, Territories and Indian Tribes presently
participating  in the pesticides cooperative agreement program.
Any non-participating State (Ohio, Nebraska,  Colorado, Wyoming,
and Alaska) or Indian Tribe which wishes to. be included in  the
final allotment, must send EPA a  written commitment  to submit
an application and participate in the program prior  June 15,  1983.

For FY84, £PA  Headquarters will first determine the  initial
Regional  allotments for pesticides enforcement cooperative
agreements by  adding the following:  560,000 for each participating
State, Puerto  Rico and the District  of Columbia (-17); 525,000
for the Virgin Islands; and 510,000  for each  participating  Ter-
ritory (•*) which comprise  a base  level  of  funding.   The initial
Regional  allotment also includes  10% of the available funds (1*
per Region) as pesticides  enforcement incentive funds; and
5200,000  for cooperative agreements  with Indian Tribes (7).
-------
                                 -2-
Then, Headquarters will distribute the funds remaining after the
base  funds, pesticides enforcement incentive funds and Indian
Tribe funds are subtracted from the proposed budget ap-propriation
according to the following factors and weightings:

      1981 July 1, 1981, Provisional Estimates of Popula-  20%
          tion, U.S. Bureau of the Census - April 1982.

      1982 Number of Pesticide Producing Establishments    20%
          per State - FIFRA and TSCA Enforcement System
          (FATES) printout, December 23,  1982, CMS.
          (Numbers do not include Custom Blenders).

      1982 Number of Certified Private Applicators per     10%
          State, September 30, 1982, CMS.
     1982 Number of Certified Commercial Applicators per  20%
          State, September 30, 1982, CMS.
          (Individual categories were counted separately).

     1932 Estimated Number of Farms Per State - Crop      20%
          Reporting Board, (SRS) U.S. Department of
          Agriculture (USDA) Farm'Numbers,. August 1982.

     1982 Estimated Farm Acreage Per State - Crop         10%
          Reporting Board, SRS, USDA Farm Numbers,
          August 1982.

Each Region's initial allotment is  obtained by adding the appro-
priate base amount for each of its  States, Territories or Indian
Tribes, the proportioned amount determined by the above factors
and weightings and the pesticides enforcement incentive funds.

Each State's initial  allotment is obtained by adding the appro-
priate base amount and the proportioned amount determined by the
above factors and .weightings.  The  pesticides enforcement incentive
funds will  be used by the Regional  Administrator to reward innovative
or exceptional pesticides enforcement programs.   (Regional and
State allotments are  attached.)

Adjustments to Initial Allotment

Regions should not award funds based solely on a State's initial
allotment but rather  based on the negotiated need of the State.
The Regional Administrator may modify any State  allotment as
necessary as long as  total funding  for all  States does not exceed
the Regional allotment.   40 CFR Part 35.115(d) states that the
Administrator or the  Regional Administrator 'may  use funds not
awarded or  committed  to  an applicant to supplement  awards to
ot^er applicants for  pesticides enforcement.
-------
                              -3-

     A11otment	

ne Regional office must furnish the following information  i'n
riting to Headquarters no later than July 1, 1983:

     1. ' The names of States and Indian Tribes that will be
         participating in Fiscal Year 1984.

     2.  The anticipated financial  assistance funding level
         for each participating State and Indian Tribe.

ne EPA Headquarters will make the final allotment of cooperative
greement funds and notify the Regional offices in writing  by
•jly 15, 1983.  This final allotment will include a reallotment
f funds from Regions whose States do not need their entire
n'tial  allotments to Regions whose  States demonstrate a need
or additional funding.  The final Regional  allotment consists
f the sum of each participating State's final allotment and
2 s t i c i d e enforcement incentive funds and will be included  in
a c h Region's FY84 operating budget.

ne Regions will  base the distribution of cooperative agree-
2 n t funds on both the allotment schedule and the thorougnness
f the State's own priority setting  process.   The States should
•jpntify priority enforcement problem areas  by a  method similar
    at outlined  in the Priority Setting section  of the State
   •cation Standards and Evaluation Procedures,  Appendix I ana
: s addendum, so  that resource allotment decisions will  be
 sad  on objective measures.   The Region will  sase final  State
 •rjing  allotment decisions for State applications on the initial
 lotrnent,  the demonstrated pesticide enforcement priorities
  the State and  the exceptional  nature of a  program justifying
vard  of a  portion of the pesticide  enforcement  incentive funds.

'ternative Fundina
i e Regional  Administrator may  use current year funds remaining
•tar the initial  State  awards  to  1)  supplement existing awards
•  2) award  new partially  funded  cooperative agreements  for
ie next  year.   A  partially  funded cooperative agreement is a
?w agreement that  would  begin  immediately after the current
^operative  agreement  hacl  ended  and  is  funded, partially,  witn
j r r e n t year  funds.

srtially funded cooperative  agreements  offer  States a method
'"  maintaining  program continuity  during  EPA's transition
•om  fiscal year to  fiscal year.   All  funds  must be  obligated
i  accordance with  the legislative restrictions that limit
ie anount of funds  that can  be  obligated  in  the fourth  quarter.
lese funds  shall  not  be used to extend  budget or  project
?  '  ds of existing  cooperative  agreements.
-------
                              -4-
Nati ona1 Priorities
Each year, Headquarters formulates national pesticide enforcement
priorities based on major recurring areas of concern identified
by the States through their priority setting systems and on related
information from other sources.

Based on the available data and priorities established by States
that conducted priority setting in their FY83 cooperative agree-
ment applications, Headquarters has identified the following
general areas of concern as National Priorities for FY84.

     1)  Drift from pesticide application;

     2)  Misuse by pest control operators during structural
         applications;

     3)  Disposal  of pesticides and pesticide containers;
         and

     4)  Pesticide use problems associated with major spray
         programs, i.e. gypsy moth, forest service (conifer
         release), and mosquito control.                   '  •

     5)  Worker exposure to pesticides  before,  during and
         after appl i cati on.

The EPA has designated these areas of concern as national
priorities to guide the States in  their priority setting process.
Although  these areas  may not be of apparent concern in  all  States,
the States should  consider these areas  as they  develop  data  for
use in setting their  individual priorities.  After considering
pertinent data,  a  State may find that some or all  of  these  areas
are not priority problems  in the State.  In that case,  the  State
should, of course,  direct  its enforcement resources to  those
areas which do present major pesticide  problems..
-------
                              -5-
APPLICATOR CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING
A 11otment of Funds
The President's annual budget submission to the Congress requests
an overall financial assistance program appropriation for pesticide
applicator certification and training cooperative agreements.
Individual State allotments for financial  assistance are initally
determined by application of a two step formula including certain
factors and weightings described below.  States are to use these
initial allotments to develop, with their respective Regional
offices, work programs that meet both State and Agency needs.
[40 CFR Part 35.115(i)]

Initial Allotment
In FY34 financial assistance funds for the pesticides applicator
certification programs with States will be alloted from FY33
fjnds .!

?or FY34, EPA Headquarters will first determine the initial
Regional allotment for pesticide applicator certification and
training cooperative agreements by adding $10,000 for each parti-
cipating State which comprises a base level of funding.  Each.
.Regional allotment will also include an amount for cooperative
.agreements with Indian Tribes that are approved and operating
before the issuance of this guidance document.

Then, Headquarters will distribute the funds remaining after the
oase funds and Indian Tribe funds are subtracted fro
-------
                               -6-
          Regional  discretionary allotment for            10%
          pesticide applicator certification and
          training  programs.

Each Region's initial  allotment is obtained by adding for
each of its States  the base funding amount, the proportioned
amount determined by the above factors and weightings and the
Regional  discretionary allotment for pesticide applicator
certification and training.

Each State's  initial allotment is obtained by adding the base
funding amount and  the proportioned amount determined by the above
factors and weightings.   The Regional  discretionary allotment for
pesticide applicator certification and training programs will
be used by the Regional  Administrator  to reward exceptional
programs. (Regional and  State initial  allotments attached).

Final  Allotment

The irritial  allotment  will  become the  State's final  allotment.
However,  if a State cannot  use its entire initial  allotment
the unused funds will  be redistributed by the Regional  Adminis-
trator to other  States, within the Region requiring additional
assistance.  Prior  to  awarding unused  funds to another  State the
Regions must  inform CMS  where these unused funds will  be used.
-------
               UNITED STATES.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460




                              April 11,  1983
                                                             OPFICE OF
                                                      PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
ME MO SAND I'M .

TO:       Addressees
           :                            I

SUBJECT: Revised State and Regional  Initial Allotments
         for Pesticide Enforcement Cooperative Agreements       '



     Attached is a copy of t n e revised State and  Regional  Initial
Allotments for Pesticides Enforcement Cooperative Agreements  for
FY.?» and the supporting allotment formul-a  data.   This allotment
schedule incorporates tv/o najor changes:
                                                                t
     •°  Utilizes the numbers of private and commercial  certified
        applicators on September 30,  \'}-i2 ,  instead  of the  1931
        n u "i fc e r s .  ~he 1 ? 8 2 numbers were unavailable when  the
        previous allocation was ;nade  on January  11, 1933.
     0
        Base funding level was increased from  $-15,000  to  $50,000
        per state.   This change was recommended by the Association
        of Ame r i can Pes t i c i de Control Officials and the  State-
        r'lFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group.

     This allotment schedule is based on the President's  FY84
budget request of $5,918,400 for pesticide enforcement cooperative
agreements.  These  allotments should be used in planning  the FY84
pesticide enforcement program with the States  in your  Region.   As
indicated in the  Draft FY84 Cooperative Agreement Program Guidance
the Initial Allotment Schedule may be revised  to provide  funding
for any non-participating  State (Ohio, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming
and Alaska) making  a written commitment, prior to June 15, 1983, to
apply  for a grant.   The. final allotment schedule will  be  issued by
July 15,  1933.
                                 Conroy if,; Director
                          Compliance M o n i tW ing Staff
                    Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
 . 1 1 achment
-------
                State and Regional Initial Allotments for Pesticide
                    Enforcement Cooperative Agreements for FY84
\
Reg. I
CT
ME
HA
r«H
RI
VT
Regional Incentive
•-' Regional Totals
Reg. II
NJ
NY •
PR
V!
Regional Incentive
Regional Totals
Reg-, ill
DC
CE
MO
PA
VA
* VA
Regional Incentive
Formul
Percent
.627
.383
1.155
.214
.226
.232

2.837

2.275
4.912
1 .243
-

8.430

.112
.227
1.010
2.981
1.779
.677

la Funding
Amounts
19,708
12.038
36,303
6,726
7,104
7,292

89,171

71,507
154,392
39,069
'

264,968

• 3,520
7,135
31,746
93,697
55,917
21,279

Base
Funding "
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
69,000
429,000

60,000
50,000
60,000
25,000
69,000
274,000

60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
69,000
Total
Funding
79,708
72,038
96,303
66,726
67,104
67,292
69,000
518,171

131,507
214,392
99,069
25,000
69,000
538,963

63,520
67,135
91,746
153,697
115,917
81,279
69,000
Regional  Totals               6.78b213,294429,000642,294
-------
                                    -2-
Reg. IV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
Regional Incentive
Regional Totals
Reg. V
r '
i '<
1 1 *
• '. i
MN
OH
WI
Regional Incentive
Regional Totals
Reg. VI
AR
lA
i\M
CK
TX
Regional Incentive
Formula
Percent

1.665
4.376
3.154
3.060
1 .369
3.103
1.189
2.910

20.826

A. 636
2.517
2.533
2.661
-
2.731

15.128

1 .487
1 .362
.921
2.107
10.331

Funding
Amount

52,333
137,544
99,135
96,180
43,030
97,532
37,372
91,466

654,592

147,238
79,113
79,616
83,639
-
85,840

475,496

46,739
58,525
28, 9^8
66,226
324,719

Base
Funding

60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
69,000
549,000

60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
-
60,000
69,000
369,000

60, COO
50,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
69,000
Total
Funding
•
1V2.333
197,544
159,135
156,180
103,030
157,532
97,372
151,466
69,000
1,203,592

207,288
139,113
139,616
143,639
-
145,840
69,000
344,496

106,739
118,525
88,948
126,226
334,719
69,000
Totals
                                                                       ••'Oil
-------
-3-
Reg. VII
IA
KS
MO
NB
Regional Incentive
Regional Totals
Reg. VIII
CO
MT
NO
SD
7
WY
Indian Tribes(6)
Regional Incentive
Regional Totals
Reg. IX
AZ
CA
HI
NV
An Sarcod
Gua.T.
Mariana Is.
~"ust Terr-.
• indian Tribes(2)
Regional Incentive
Formula
Percent

2.848
2.097
3.172
-

8.117

-
1.201
1.422
1.310
.615
-
-

4.548

1.481 .
9.322
.369
.427
-
-
-
-
-

Funding
Amount

89,517
65,912
99,700
-'

255,129

-
37,749
44,696
41,175
19,330
-
-

142,950

46,550
293,005
11,598;
13,421
- •
-
-
-
-

Base
Funding

60,000
60,000
60,000
-
69,000
249,000

-
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
-
100,000
69,000
409,000

60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
100,000
69,000
Total
Funding

149,517
125,912
159,700
-
69,000
504,129

-
97,749
104,696
101,175
79,330
-
100.000
69,000
551 ,950

106,550
353,005
71,598
73,421
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
100,000
69,000
-------
                                        -4-
Formula
Percent
Reg. X
AK
ID 1.254
OR 1.656
WA 2.119
Regional Incentive
Funding Base ....
Amount Funding

-
39,415 60,000
.-*
52,051 60,000
66,603 60,000
69,000
Total
Funding

-
99,415
112,051
126,603
69,000
Regional Totals              5.029158,069249,000407,069
Total  to Regions           100.008       3,143,400      3,775,000       6-.918.400
-------
                     FY84 FIFRA ENFORCEMENT GRANT
                        Allotment Formula Data

                            March 21. 1983
     The attached table shows the statlsical  data used in developing
the formula for the allotment of the FY84 Pesticides Enforcement
Grants.  Only data from the 45 states participating in the program
plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are Included.  The
other territories and the Indian Tribes do not receive any formula
funds.  The statistics  used in the formula were amended to include
the 1982 certified applicator numbers and include the following:

Popu1ati on

     July 1, 1981 Provisional Estimates of the Population -
     Bureau of Census,  April  1982.                         i

Farm Numbers and Acreage

     1982 Preliminary estimates - Crop Reporting Board, SRS,  USDA,
     August 1982..

Producer Establ i shmen't s                     '         "

     FATES Data  System  - December 23, 1982 printout.  Numbers used
do not include Custom Blenders.

Private Applicators

     Number of Private  Applicators certified  on September 30, 1982.

Commercial Applicators

     Number of Commercial  Applicators certified on  September'30,
1982.    Individual categories  were counted separably.
-------
Rey.   1




      CT



      ME



      MA



      NH




      Rl



      VI




      Keg. Total




Retj.  II



      NJ




      NY



      PR




      Reg. Total




Reg. Ill



      DC




      DE




      MD




      PA




      VA




      W VA




      Reg. Total
Pop nl at Ion
Stdt.«
(jooo)
3.134
1.133
5,773
936
y53
516
12.415
7 , 41)4
17.602
3.186
TH.15?
631
59cJ
4,263
11.871
5.430
1.952
74-774-5-
%

.290
.105
.534
.OB7
.08B
.048
1.152
.685
1.628
.295
776118
.058
.055
.394
1.098
.502
.181
2.288
Farms
State

4 ,.300
7,900
5,300
3,200
750
7,500
28,950
9,500
50,000
31.837
9T7:nT
0
3,400
18,000
60,000
60,000
20,600
TOTffffff
i

.03H
.071
.047
.029
.007
.067
.259
.085
.446
.284
.8T5"
0
.030
.161
.536
.536
.184
1.447
F iirin Acroiii]o.
Sf.iiti;
(1UOO)
4'Jl)
1.560
630
. 540
80
1 , 700
5,000
1,030
9,500
1.750
1 2.2110"
0
660
2.750
8.800
9,800
4.300
[767370
1'i-st. . Pro'lticers
"1- ' ,t U>

. UOb
Ml
.OO/
.006
.001
.019
.055
.011
.105
.019
.135
0
.007
.030
.097
.108
.048
.290
52
19
113
14
23
5
266
271
280
53
' "fil-l
6
16
78
233
66
22
4"2T
%

.150
.055
.327
.040
.066
.014
.652
.783
.809
.153
T7W
.017
.046
.225
.673
^91
.064
1.216
Private Aj>plic.
State

2,074
2.975
1,879
803
338
2,565
10.634
3,270
15,507
16,260
"3T.03T
0
2,260
8.288
32,780
15.687
14,129
T37i"4T
1

.021
.031
.019
.008
.004
.027
.110
.034
.160
.1'68
.362
0
.023
.086
.338
.1162
.146
.755
Cnimn A
State

2.005
1.698
3.622
725
981
928
9.959
11,073
28,846
5,296
45,215
601
1,089
1.865
3,903
4.577
.880
12,915
plic.
1

.123
.104
.221
.044
.060
.057
.609
.677
1.764
.324
2.765
.037
.066
.114
.239
.280
.054
.790
' \l \. I.* | M
Fonmila
Fun

.627
.383
1.155
.214
.226
.232
2.837
2.275
4.912
1.243
8.430
.112
.227
.1.010
2.981
1.779
.677
6.786
-------
Reg.  IV



      AL



      FL




      GA



      KY




      MS




      NC



      sc



      TN




      Heg. Total



Reg.  -V




      II.




      IN



      MI




      MM




      OH




      Ml




      Reg. Total
Population
State
(1000)
3,917
10.183
5,574
3,662
2,531
5,953
3,167
4.612
39,599
11,462
5,468
9,204
4.094
-
4,742
3T.W
1
.362
.942
.515
.339
.234
.551
.293
.427
3.663
1.060
.506
.851
.379
0
.439
17?rc
Farms
State
57,000
41,000
58,000
101.000
53,000
88,000
33.000
95.000
526,000
104,000
89,000
65,000
103,000
-
92,000
•45TTOW
%
.522
.366
.518
.902
.473
.786
.295
.848
4.710
.928
.794
.580
.919
0
.821
~4~7042
Farm Ac
State
(1000|_
12,300
13,000
15,200
14,500
1 4 , 500
11,100
6,100
13,400
100,100
28,700
17,000
11,500
30,400
-
18,500
10 6", 100
rt'dijt!
1
.136
.144
.168
.160
.160
.123
.067
.148
1.106"
.317
.188
.127
.336
0
.205
1.173
Post. Producers
Stati;
129
864
281
89
64
182
79
140
1,828
418
166
184
152
-
152
1.072
1
.373
2.497
.812
- .257
.185
.526
.228
.405
5.283
1.208
.480
.532
.439
0
.439
Private Applic.
State
9,977
17,308
34,865
86,257
8,632
52,292
12,391
79,441
301,163
53,808
15,000
6,041
20,000
-
28.737
I
3.0981123,586
%
.103
.179
.360
.890
.089
.540
.128
.820
3.109
.556
.155
.062
.206
0
.297
1.276
Zomm A
State
2,757
4.059
12.771
8.376
3,733
9.432
2,914
4,292
48,334
10,087
6.443
6,226
6,247
-
8,677
37,680
plic.
1
.169
.248
.781
.512
.228
.577
.178
.262
2.955
.617
.394
.381
.382
0
.530
2.304
< ~ _dl %
Formula '
Funds
1.665
4.376
3.154
3.060
1.369
3.103
1.189
2.910
20.826
4.686
2.517
2.533
2.661
.000
2.731
15.128
-------
Reg. VI
AR
LA
NH
OK
TX
Reg. Total
Reg. VII
IA
KS
MO
NR
Reg. Total
Key. VIII
CO
MT
NO
SO
'JT
WY
Reg. Total
Popul at ion
St,ite
(1000)

2,296
4,308
1.328
3,!00
14,766
757/W

2,899
2,383
4,941
Tff,27J

-
793
658
686
1,518
-
3,655
%
.212
.398
.123
.287
1.366
TT556

.268
.220
.457
0
.945

0
.073
.061
.063
.140
0
.337
F a rms
State

57,000
37,500
13,500
71,000
185,000
1547(100"

117,000
76,000
117,000
Tio'.oW

-
24,000
38,000
37,000
12,900
-
111,900
%

.509
.335
.121
.634
1.651
•J.TB7I

1.044
.678
1.044
0
TJ66

0
.214
.339
.330
.115
.0
.998
F.jn;i Ac
Stat.?
(100U)

16,400
10,200
47,400
34,300
138,400
74T,701T

33,800
48.500
31,400
TfJ.ffio

-
62,100
41,700
44,500
12,300
-
160,600
r.
'i.

.18]
.113
.524
.379
1.531
7.V?8

.374
.536
.347
0
f.T57

0
.687
.461
.492
.136
0
1.776]
Post. Producers
State

52
146
19
b8
508
783

220
100
204
"52'4T

-
25
38
56
22
-
HI
*

.150
.422
.055
.168
1.468
"fT2~6I

.636
.289
.590
0
iTSlT

0
.072
.110
.162
.064
0
.408
Private Appl ic.
State
20,807
38,316
3,004
26,856
118,493
207,476

19,609
16,054
52,886
-
88,549

-
7,828
17.527
14.930
5,562
-
45,847
%

.215
.396
.031
.277
1.223
2.R?

.202
.166
.546
0
.914

0
'.081
.181
.154
.057
0
.473
Corrcn A
State

3,596
3,237
1,104
5,929
50,567
64,433

5,305
3,397
3,079
-
11,781

-
1,214
4.426
1,782
1,679
-
9,101
pile.
I

.220
.198
.067
.362
3.092
3.939

.324
.208
.188
0
.720

0
.074
.270
.109
.103
0
.556
X) «
> .ula
Funds

1.487
1.862
.921
-2.107
10.331
16.708

2.848
2.097
3.172
.000
T.I 17

.000
1.201
1.422
1.310
.615
.000
4.54^
-------



IX
AZ
CA
HI

NV


Reg. Total
LMJ. X
AK
II)


OR
WA
Reg. Total
National Totals
Populat
State
(1000)

2,794
24,196
981

845


28,816

-
959


2.651
4,217
7.827
216,266
ion
f


.258
2.238
.091

.078


2". 665"

0
.089


.245
.390
.724
20.003
Farms
State


7 , 200
80,000
4,300

2,900


94,400

-
24.000


36,000
39,000
99,000
2.240.587




.064
.714
.038

.026


.842

0
.214


.321
.348
.883
20.012
Farm Ac
State
(1000)

39,000
33.700
1.960

8,900


83,560

-
15,100


18,300
16,300
49,700
904,050
-r»;



.431
.3/3
.022

.098


.924

0
.167


.202
.180
.549
9.993
I'est. F
State


94
rt»6
37

29


1,046

-
45


92
139
276
6.921
•reducers
%


.272
2.560
.107

.084


3.023

0
.130


.266
.402
.798
20.001
Private
State


992
40.000
4,640

773


46,405

-
9.572


11.467
15.677
36,716
968.557
Applic.
I


.010
.413
.048

.008


.479

0
.099


.118
.162
.379
9.999
Coinm App
State


7,286
49,466
1,032

2,179


59.963

-
9,077


8.245
10.426
27,748
372.129
.lie. .



.446
3.024
.063

.133


3.666

0
.555


.504
.637
1.696
20.000
'al X
Formula '
Funds
i
1.481'
9.3^';
.369|

.427|


11.599

.000
1.254


1.656
2.111?
5.02^'
100.00:1
(45 States
plus DC & PR)
-------
                                        FfeB  24  t9S3
FT 03 State Certification  Breakout  - S  in Thousands
(Funds to support act f
\
Reojon I
Regional
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
ftew Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vernont
TOTAL


P A rj i 3 r | J
Regional
New Jersey
ftew York;
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
Region 1 11
Regional
Delaware
01 strict of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Vfcst Virginia


3.3
11.5
u.a
12.4
in.fi
in.*
11.1
71.3



3.i
16.7
21.0
17.3
in. 2
76.7
/
4.6
10. *
10.5
16.7
22.6
19.8
ja.S
vities in FY 84)

Reqion IV
Regional
Alabama
Florida
feorgla
Kentucky
Mi ssisslppl
North Carol ina
South Carol 1na
Tennessee
-C7AL
^fc;on V
=eOonal
[1 1 inoi S
tnrli ana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
W1 sconsln
TOTAL








..-
8.0
lfi.9
22.3
23.^
2
-------
                                                    FEB 24  !9SJ
                                    -2-
legion VI
Regional
Arkansas
Louisiana
riew Mexico
Oklahorj
Texas
TOTAL

    en VII
Iowa
 « - m A . •• «
 ' S , . -T •
(fed.  Program)
•»f\f«i
i j i ">.
                      13.3
                      22.1
                      11.5
                      19.5
                      18.2
                      ft*. 7
                       3.1
                      22.2
                      13.2
                      II. ~>
                      57.7
                     Region  X
                     Regional
                     Alaska
                     Idaho
                     Oregon
                     Washington
                                     2.4
                                    10.3
                                    11.1
                                    17.3
                                    11.7
Region VIII
Regional          ...2.8
Colorado
 (Fed. Program)
Montana          13.1
North Dakota     17.7
South Dakota     15.n
Utah             12.1
Wyoming (no fed. S
                                                TOTAL
                                                Reaicn !X
                                                                  50.7
                                                                  1.5
Ca'i'c.-r.ia        37.4
H>wa:i            11.3
Nevada (NO  
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIFRA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM GUIDANCE


REQUIRED APPLICATION ELEMENTS
Ability to Implement the Program
State Certifying Statements
Authority to Conduct the Proposed Program
Authority to Accept Federal Funds
Designation of Lead Agency
Discussion of Performance
Enforcement Management Plan Development
Defining State Program Objectives
Setting Priorities
Enforcement Work Program
Act ion Plan
Nonfunded Priority Program
Proposed Budget
Enforcement Conditions of the Coonerative Agreement
Quality Assurance 5 Procedures
Case Preparation and Enforcement
State Records and Reports
solicitor Certification, and Training Management
Plan Devel opment
Defining State Program Objectives
Aoolicator Certification and Training Work Program
Action Plan
Program Budget
Applicator Certification and Training
Conditions of the Cooperative Agreement
State Reports
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
7
7
8
9
10
10
12
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
-------
          tPA APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCEDURES
Summary of EPA Role                                     18
  Headquarters responsi bi1 ity      '                     18
  Regional responsibility                               Id

Application Submission                                  19

Appl i cation Revi ew                                      19
  Techni ca1 and Program Review                          19
  Admin istrative Review                                 21
	PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY	

Accountability Under the Cooperative Agreement          22

Training                                                22

Regional Reporting                                      22

Program Evaluation                                      23
  Mid-year Evaluation                                   23
  End-of-year Evaluation                                24
  Evaluation Report  ,                                   24

Modification, Suspension, or Termination                24


Appendices:  I through  XV
-------
                       Introducti on


Section 23 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act authorizes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enter
into cooperative agreements with the States and Indian...Tribes
for pesticides enforcement and for applicator certification and
training.  Regulations governing financial assistance to parti-
cipants in the cooperative pesticides enforcement and applicator
certification and training programs are found at 40 CFR Part
35.001 to 35.605.  This guidance document, developed by the
Compliance Monitoring Staff (CMS) of the Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances (OPTS),  supplements those regulations by
setting forth in detail the required elements of cooperative
agreement applications, the process of awarding financial  assist-
ance and requirements for program management.

Financial assistance in the form of cooperative agreements for the
pesticides enforcement program is designed to support (a)  improved
coordination of a cooperative Federa1/State pesticides enforcement
program, (b) more efficient allocation of resources through
improved planning and management, and (c) program review and
evaluation.   The program which a State conducts under the  cooper-
ative agreement should provide for pesticides enforcement  that
satisfies both State and Federal pesticide laws.  Areas  of mutual
pesticides enforcement include use/misuse investigations,  producer
establishment inspections, experimental  use permit inspections,
Tarketplace inspections, restricted use pesticide surveillance,
and applicator certification  enforcement inspections.

Financial assistance ir, the form of cooperative agreements for
the pesticide applicator certification and training program is
d e s i gned to support  fTl the pesticide applicator cert i f i c a t i o n
and training program, (b.) more efficient allocation of resources
through improved program planning and management and (c) improved
program review and evaluation.  The program conducted by the
State should provide pesticide applicator certification  and
training to all persons who wish to use restricted use pesticides.
State work programs  conducted under the cooperative agreement
will include an estimate of ,the number of applicators to be
certified or recertified b/' the State, the number of training
sessions to be monitored and  the number or frequency of  .the
certification test ing sessions.

In FY84 States are encouraged to consolidate their pesticides
enforcement and applicator certification and training cooperative
agreement applications.  The  consolidated cooperative agreement
process is voluntary.  A State which chooses to follow this process
may develop a single application for separate financial  assistance
programs that are administered by the same agency within the
State.  Consolidating cooperative agreement applications does
not alter existing statutory  requirements governing eligibility,
matching funds or maintainence of effort.  Consolidating coopera-
tive agreement applications does eliminate, duplicating similar
procedures in each individual  assistance application.  The single
consolidated application will  reduce excessive paperwork and
administrative costs.
-------
                   REQUIRED  APPLICATION  ELEMENTS
 The  formal  application  for  assistance  will consist of an
 "Application  for  Federal Assistance",  EPA Form No. 5700-33,
 and  shall  include  all elements outlined  in this section.   This
 form contains  a  section  entitled  "Part  IV Narrative Statement"
 which  the  new  40  CFR  Part 35.130  simplifies and replaces.

 In addition to meeting  the  requirements  contained in 40 CFR
.Part 30, a  complete assistance application must contain the
 fol 1 owi ng  elements:

   -   o  Ability to  Implement the Program  including certifying
        statements  that  the  State  program is consistent with
        EPA-approved strategies and  there are no impediments to
        the  State's ability  to carry out  the program; designation
        of  a lead  agency; and a discussion of the State's per-
        formance  to date  under the existing award.

      o  State Program  Management Plan detailing a list of program
        ODjectives  and priorities; and  a  description of the process
        through which  the State identifies priorities.

      o  Work Program specifying the  work years and amount and
        source  of  funding estimated  to  be needed for each program
        element including any outputs required; a schedule  for
        accomplishment of outputs; and  an identification of the
        agency  responsible for each  of  the elements and outputs.

      o  Conditions  of  the Cooperative Agreement containing  a
        statement that the State agrees toToTTow the quality
        assurance,  and case preparation and enforcement or
        certification  and training requirements.
-------
                               -2-


Ability to Implement the Program ""
State Certifying Statements
Each applicant must certify that there are no impediments to the
State's ability to carry out its proposed program or programs.
Applicants with continuing cooperative agreement programs are
not required to annually certify their ability to carry out the
proposed programs unless one or more of the areas described below
has changed.  The applicant should address the areas described
below as well as any others which might pose problems.

Authority to Conduct the Proposed Program	

A State must have enacted legislation which empowers it to:

     o Enter into a cooperative agreement with EPA, and

     o Conduct specific activities proposed under the
       cooperative agreement or consolidated agreement.

Authority to Accept Federal Funds	'

A State which can only implement a program under a cooperative
agreement with prior authorization by its legislature to spend
Federal funds must include a statement indicating the date on
which such authorization will  be obtained.  Commitment of EPA
funds will be contingent upon  such authorization by the State
legislature.

Designation of Lead Agency	

Although several  State agencies may be responsible for regulating
various aspects of pesticide manufacture,  handling, and use,  EPA
will  enter into only one cooperative agreement with a State
for pesticide enforcement and  only one cooperative agreement  for
pesticide applicator certification and training.

The Governor of the State, through a letter to the Regional
office, should designate a separate lead  agency  which will  be
responsible for each of the cooperative agreement programs or
a single lead Agency responsible for both  programs under a
consolidated agreement.  The designated lead  agency(ies)  must
have the authority to  enter into contracts or interagency -agree-
ments with other agencies for  the performance of all  necessary
activities.
-------
                               -3-
Discussion of Performance
Each State 1s required to provide a discussion of progress under
its current cooperative agreement.   In this  di scussi on ,• the State
shall examine the appropriateness of its  established  priorities
as well as the quality and effectiveness  of  its compliance moni-
toring and enforcement activities.   For the  applicator  certifi-
cation and training program,  the State shall  disucss  the number
of training programs in which the State participated;  the
number of training sessions  monitored; the  number of  individuals
examined for certification,  for recertification;  the  number of
certification sessions conducted, recertification sessions
conducted; and any changes made to  training  materials.
-------
                              -4-
 Enforcement  Management  Plan Development
 0 e f i n i ng  State  Prog ram Objectives
 Each  State  should  define objectives which support the achievement
 of  the  national  priorities, adjusted for the particular needs of
 the State.   Identification of  specific  State pesticide problem
 areas  is  central to the task of developing the  State objectives
 (see  Priority  Setting, below).

 State  objectives may  include management oriented objectives such
 as  improving planning of the enforcement program, achieving
 greater compliance through increased compliance monitoring  in
 certain areas  or improving the quality  or availability of
 compliance  information.

 Priority  Setti ng	

 To  attain its  objectivr.s; the  State should establish enforcement
 priorities  that  permit L."se most efficient use of resources  and
 personnel.   The  priority setting process will enable a State to
 concentrate  its  training, compliance monitoring, and enforcement
 programs  on  specific  pesticide manufacturing, distribution, and
 use activities which  pose a risk to health or the environment.

 Use or  Product Related Priorities
As  part  of the process of setting general objectives for its
pesticides enforcement program, the State should identify specific
problem  areas related to pesticide use, production, distribution
and disposal.  To identify priority pesticide problems, the
State  should develop a mechanism which analyzes information from
.a variety of sources.  The result of the State's analysis should
be  a  list of specific pesticide problems in the State.  Following
is  a  discussion of basic elements which should be involved in
the priority setting process.

Review of Information Sources

In  establishing priorities, the States should consult as many
information sources as are reasonably accessible.   The most
accessible Information source is likely to be a State's enforcement
and complaint files.  These records should indicate trends In
certain  use and non-use violations, and recurrence of violations
involving specific pesticide producing or distribution establish-
ments, pesticides or practices, as well as potential  associations
between  a pesticide or application practice and nealth or
environmental incidents.
-------
                                -5-


 Infornation  related  to  potential  areas of priority  concern  would
 be  found  in  State  records  on  local  pesticide  production  and  dis-
  •i but ion  establishments,  or  pesticides and pesticide  practices
  ommonly  used  in  the  State.   The  State may wish  to  consider
 information  concerning  chemicals  which pose more  serious  health
 and  environmental  risks  such  as restricted use pesticides,  emer-
 gency  or  experimental use  pesticides, and special  local  use
 registrations  as  well as application methods  most  likely  to
 result  in  harm if  improperly  carried out.

 Finally,  the State should  identify  and consider  the  concerns  of
 persons in the State  who may  be exposed to pesticides  or  otherwise
 affected  by  the pesticides enforcement program.   The EPA  considers
 a State effort to  gain  public participation in the  planning
 process to be  an  important element  of the .program.   Each  State
 may  use a  variety  of  means to identify the concerns  of the  public
 and  involve  them  in  the  State planning process.   The States,  in
.formulating  their  policy,  may wish  to use EPA's  Public Participa-
 tion Policy, January  19, 1981,  46 Fed. Reg. 5736,  as a guide.

 Establishing Priority Setting Criteria

 Since  States may  have a  large body  of information  to review  and
 analyze,  each  State  should develop  a set of criteria for  use  in.
 ranking problem areas.   For use-related problems,  these  criteria
 nay  reflect  such  factors as the degree of actual  or  potential
 harm to health or  the environment and the degree  of  public  concern.
  'r  product/facility  related  problems, violation  history  and.
  equency  of past  establishment inspections may  be  pertinent
 criteria.

 Ranking of Specific  Problems

 Once the  information  has been reviewed and criteria  have  been
 established  for setting  priorities, each State shoul'd  develop
 its  list  of  priority  problems.  Using the selected  criteria,  the
 State  can  develop  a  hierarchy of  areas of priority  concern.   The
 level  of  priority  will  provide  a  basis for the allocation of
 resources  in the  State's Action Plan.

 The  above  mentioned  elements  are  general guidelines  to be followed
 by  the  States  in  developing priorities. .-The  Compliance Monitoring
 Staff  (CMS)  of the Office  of  Pesticides and Toxic  Substances
 (OPTS)  has also developed  documents outlining a  step by step
 approach  for setting  use and  product/facility related  priorities.
 (See Appendix  I and  addendum) Each  State is free  to  follow these
 models, to modify  them,  or to establish its own  similarly objective
 priority  setting  methodology.
-------
                              -6-


In any case, however, the State should include in its application
not only a listing of its general program objectives and specific
areas of priority concern, but also a discussion of the methodology
used to develop' and rank its priorities.   All  State priorities
should be as specific as possible, but must either be'placed into
one of the following (fixed) broad types  of pesticides problem
areas under each activity for use-related priorities (See also
Appendix I  p.29) or one of the 5 broad types  of pesticide problems
areas under each activity for product;/faci 1 i ty-rel ated priorities
(See also Addendum to Appendix I).

Use-related Priorities

Home/Yard Incidents                  ;
     - Involving PCO1s
     - Involving homeowner's personal use of  pesticides
Other Urban Incidents
Agricultural Incidents
     - Involving Aerial  Application
     - Involving Ground  Application
     - Not Involving Application
;lon-Urban, Right-of-Way  Incidents
     - Involving Aerial  Application  :
     - Involving Ground  Application
Woodland Incidents
Incidents at Other Sites

Product/Facility-related Priorities

Violators within the State
Establishments not visited within the State
Inspected Establishments with no  violations detected
Others (from Action Plan activity categories)
Educational  Activity
-------
                            -7-


Enforcement Work Program
.'he Work Program must specify the workyears and the source of
funding for each program element, including any outputs and an
identification of the agency responsible for each of the elements
and outputs. (40 CFR Part 35.130)

Acti on Plan	

Once  the State has developed its list of priorities for both use-
related and product/facility-related priorities, it "should describe
its plan for carrying out a balanced program that addresses each
of these areas during the agreement period.  Outputs the State
proposes to accomplish during the agreement period mu st be ai med
primarily at solving and dealing with pesticide problems identified
by the priority settinq process.  However,  the plan may also
include any other activities not identified by priority setting
such  as responding to non-priority complaints provided these
activities  relate to violations of FIFRA.

A pesticides enforcement program that consists of elements from
both  State  pesticide statutes and FIFRA should contain outputs
for the activity categories which are defined as follows:

Use/Misuse  Inspection is a FIFRA or State  inspection.  FIFRA
use/misuse  inspections are conducted to discover violations
'escribed in FIFRA Sections 12(a)(2)(F,& G).  State use/misuse
 nspections would be conducted under State  statutes.  A State  or
Federal use inspection is an inspection identified under a neutral
or routine  inspection scheme to monitor or  observe the use of
pesticides.  A State .of Federal mi suse inspection is an inspection
identified  as  a "for.cause" inspection such as a follow-up to  a
complaint,  referral  or tip.

Monitoring  the Certification Program is a  FIFRA or State
T)inspection  at pesticide dealers to determine if Restricted
Use Pesticides are being sold in violation  of FIFRA Section
12(a)(2)(F) or State statute; 2) Inspection of applicators
to determine if they are properly licensed  and maintaining
records.

Producer Establishment Inspection is a FIFRA inspection of an
establishment  where  pesticides or devices  are held for distri-
bution or sale for the purpose of inspecting and obtaining
samples.  While conducting pesticide producer establishment
inspections States should review product labels for compliance
with  the Label  Improvement Program (LIP).   The Office of Pesti-
cide  Programs  (OPP)  has issued guidelines  for the upgrading of
pesticide product labels for several classes of pesticides as
well  as replacing or modifying certain labeling requirements.
(See  Appendix  XI) The States should also inspect pesticide pro-
ducts that  are subject to the Child Resistant Packaging (CRP)
-------
                               -8-


regulatlons issued by OPP.l  CRP inspections should be conducted
in accordance with enforcement strategy (See Appendix XII) and
the inspection guidelines previously issued by CMS.^

Marketplace Inspection is a FIFRA or State inspection at the
retail sale, distribution or wholesale level for determination
of product registration, labeling violations,  or product decom-
position.  Marketplace inspection samples  must b:e samples of
unregistered products, products with violative labeling, pro-
ducts subject to decomposition, or products unavailable at
producer establishment inspections.   States should give market-
place inspections a low level of priority  unless product violation
rates and compliance ratios show that such inspections will
prevent significant harm.                       '

Other Inspection is a FIFRA or State inspection.  Under FIFRA
this would include custom blender and import inspections,
section 18 and 24(c) inspections etc.  Under the State program,
this might include bulk tank sampling at  repackaging establish-
ments, inspection of the calibration of application equipment,
etc.

Experimental Use Inspection is a FIFRA or  State 'inspection to
monitor experimental use permits.  Samples should only be
collected if a violation is suspected.  Inspections must be
conducted on site; telephone inspections  or mon i.tor i n gs will not.
be credited under the cooperative
agreement.

Educational Activity is a State outreach  or related activity
directed towards educating or providing additional  informa-
tion to consumers of pesticides or pesticide services designed
to increase compliance with State pesticide laws and FIFRA.

Npnfunded Priority Program	
The Agency is aware that not all  States'  pesticide  priority
problems are addressed in the Federal  cooperative  agreement.
Some States' current pesticide programs  may  already  address
pesticide problems identified through  priority  setting.   In
such cases, States are requested  to provide  this  information  as
a supplement to their cooperative agreement  applications  so  that
EPA will have a complete picture  of how  a  State is  addressing
all its pesticide problems.  'This will  aid the  Regions  in
evaluating the State's application.
1 40 CFR Part  162.16Final  Rule for Child  Resistant  Packaging,
  March 19,  1979,  FR  Notice  pages  13019  through  13024.
2 CRP Inspection  Guidelines  issued  by  A.  E.  Conroy  II,  dated
  March 29,  1982.
-------
                               -9-


Proposed Budget          	
Each application must contain the State's proposed budget for
the program.  Expenditures for personnel, fringe benefrts,  travel,
equipment, and supplies must be supported by itemized statements
or fact sheets detailing their necessity.

When funding activities under this agreement,  EPA will  give
priority to ongoing operating expenses that are directly related
to the enforcement of pesticide law, e.g.,  inspections,  invest-
igations, sample analyses, and travel.

EPA's share of the "total  project cost" should not exceed 85» of
the total award.  The State's share may be  paid in direct or
allowable indirect or in-kind contributions.

The application must also  contain a summary of work  hours or
work years devoted to each of the following activity categories:
Administration, Supervisory, Inspectional (non-priority  and
priority, broken down by specific use-related  and product/faci1ity^
related activities as identified under priority setting  for the
State), Analytical, Analytical Support, Clerical and Legal.
-------
                              -10-


Enforcement Conditions of the Cooperative Agreement


Pesticides enforcement cooperative agreement awards are subject
to the regulations found at 40 CFR Part 35.001 through 35.605,
entitled "State and Local Assistance",  as well as the "EPA General
Grant Regulations and Procedures" (40 CFR Part 30).  In addition,
the applicant must agree to the conditions described below before
obtaining an award.

Quality Assurance & Procedures	

Quality Assurance Plan	
For FY84 States are required by the EPA Grants Administration
Division (GAD) to include quality assurance plans for analytical
laboratories under the cooperative agreement:  All  analytical
laboratories involved in environmental  monitoring must have
submitted a quality assurance plan within 90 days of award of the
FY84 cooperative agreements.  To assist States in complying with
this requirement, CMS has developed model quality assurance
guidelines.  The States may use these guidelines or develop
their own.  Each Region has an individual assigned  as quality
assurance officer and that person will  be available to assist"
the State in development of a quality assurance program.
(see Appendi x XIII)

FIF-vA Forms and Procedures.  During all inspections and sample
collections performed under the authority of FIFRA, inspectors
shall use standard forms and procedures as outlined in the EPA
Pesticides Inspection Manual.  To assure sample integrity, EPA
chain-of-custody procedures shall be adopted during sampling,
handling, shipping, storage, and analysis of pesticides collected
under Federal law.

State Forms and Procedures.  During all inspections, observations,
and sample collections performed under  authority of State law,
State procedures and forms should be used.  During  sampling,'
handling, shipping, storage and analysis of pesticides collected
under State law, State chain-of-custody procedures  should be
fol1 owed.

Referral and Inspection Procedures under FIFRA 526.  Under the
Final Interpretive Rule governing FIFRA Sections 26 and 27 (40
CFR Part 173), EPA and each State will  annually define significant
cases to be tracked by EPA after referral to the State.
(FIFRA State Primary Enforcement Responsibilities,  Final  Inter-
pretive Rule, January 5, 1983, 48 FR Notice pages 404-411)

After EPA formally refers a significant case to a State,  the Agency
will contact the State to learn the results of the  investigation.
The Region should determine whether the State has conducted an
adequate investigation.  An investigation should be considered
adequate if the State has 1) followed proper sampling and other
evidence gathering techniques, 2)responded expeditiously  to the
-------
                               -11-

referral, and 3)documented all inculpatory or exculpatory events
or information.   If the Region cannot negotiate an adequate
  "vestigation with the State, the Region may pursue its own
  vestigation after notice to the State.  That notice should
summarize the facts relating to the State investigation, discuss
the reasons for EPA's determination that the action is inadequate,
and state that the EPA will initiate its own investigation.

Analyti cal Methods.  Pesticide samples collected shall be analyzed
by the State1aboratory, or other laboratories specified in the
agreement, using the EPA Manual of Chemical Methods for Pesticides,
Association Of Analytical Chemists (AOAC), The State laboratory
may use the Collaborative International Pesticides Analytical
Council Limited (CIPAC) Handbook, the FDA Pesticide Analytical
Manual (PAM), or other approved analytical methods for sample
analysis.  All violative samples shall be verified by a check
analysis performed by a second chemist.

Cross Contamination Screening.  States shall establish a cross
contamination screening program in accordance with EPA Cross
Contamination Guidelines. (See revised Appendix III.)

Check Sample. The  State shall participate in the EPA (NEIC)
Chec'< Sample Program.  Under this program, EPA submits known
pesticide samples  to State laboratories for analysis and cross
contamination screening.  The States will submit a report
indicating the methodology used and results of the analysis to
^°A.  EPA will review the report and inform the States regarding
  * accuracy of their analysis and the methodology selected.  If
- State failed to  obtain the correct results, EPA will assess
the problem and provide assistance to the State laboratory, if
requested*. This program also assists in determining if the States
are screening pesticides for cross contamination,  since the
check sample may be contaminated with another pesticide.

Check Analysis Procedure.  The State shall participate in the
Sample Check Analysis Procedure.  A check analysis is a second
analysis of a sample originally analyzed by a State laboratory.
It i s usually done when:

    o  A State which is unsure of the results of an analysis
       requests an impartial  or second analysis before
       initiating  an enforcement action.

    o  A State requests that EPA take the enforcement action
       and EPA desires to check the State's analysis.

Samples in these instances would be sent to either another State
laboratory or EPA  for a check analysis.

Training of Analytical Chemists.  EPA will provide knowledgeable
personnelfor the  training of analytical chemists.  The States
should avail themselves of EPA courses offering training to
  ^mists on proper analytical procedures, instrumentation, and
  , hodology.  Personnel from EPA are available, if requested, to
"review State laboratories and discuss areas of improvement.
-------
                               -12-
States are also encouraged to participate on their own in profes-
sional association  meetings such  as those held by AO'AC,  as well
as other professional  training courses.

Provision of Analysis  Results.  The State shall  send a copy of
the results of anysample.analysis  made  under the authority of
FIFRA to the person from whom the sample was collected.

Submission/Retentionof  Reports.   Copies of all  inspectional and
analyti cal reports  shal1  be retained by  the State for examination
by EPA or forwarded to the Regional office.

Training of Case Preparation Officers and Inspectors.  EPA will
provide  for the training of State case preparation officers,
attorneys and inspectors.

Special  Projects.   The EPA/National Environmental Investigation
Center (N EIC) will  provide, on a  limited basis,  investigation
and laboratory support for special  State pesticide problems
s u c h a s :

     o  Af f i riTiat'l .3 compliance monitoring of major pesticide
        spray programs;  and

     o  Response to pesticide incidents  for which States  did
        not include resources in  the cooperative agreement
        appli cati on .2

Case Preparation and Enforcement	'

The State shall review the quality  and adequacy  of evidence
gathered in the course of  all investigatory activities performed
under the cooperative  agreement.   For misuse cases,  the  States
could establish a  committee to review inspectors' findings and
determine if any violations of State or  Federal  law  exist.  This
committee would provide  the States  with  an objective enforcement
framework for all  misuse cases.

State Cases
The State must review the quality and sufficiency of evidence
gathered in the course of all  investigative activities performed
under the cooperative agreement.

If the evidence reveals  a violation  of only the State's  pesticide
laws, the State shall pursue an  appropriate remedy provided by
State law.
   All  special  projects  assistance requests  shall  be submitted
   to the appropriate Regional  Office  as  soon  as  the State
   determines  a need for such  assistance.   EPA Headquarters  in
   conjunction  with  the  Regions  will  evaluate  each  request based
   on the seriousness of the problem  and  the amount of  EPA resources
   avai1 able.
-------
                             •13-


If evidence reveals a violation of both State and Federal  law,
the state may bring appropriate enforcement  action under State
law or refer the case to EPA for action under FIFRA.   In the event
that a case is referred to EPA for action,  the Agency-case
preparation officer should review the case  file to ensure  that
the State inspection procedures adhere to  basic constitutional
guarantees.  If the State evidence gathered  by State  inspectors
was legally obtained and is within the scope of admissible evidence,
EPA should proceed with the case.

Since States with cooperative agreements  have primary enforcement
responsibility for pesticide use violations, the Regions and States
should follow the Final  Interpretive Rule  governing Sections 26
and 27.(48FR pages 404-411, January 5, 1983)

Under the Final Interpretive Rule [governing FIFRA Sections 26 and
27 (40 CFR Part 173)],  EPA and each State  will  annually  define
significant cases to be tracked by EPA after referral to the State.

The State must commence appropriate enforcement action for cases
tracked under the Interpretive Rule within  30 days after completion
of the investigation.  The Region may, after negotiation with
the State, extend this  period if required  by the procedural
characteristics of the  State's regulatory  structure.

If the Region determines that the State's  intended enforcement
response to the violation is inappropriate,  EPA should first
attempt to negotiate an appropriate State  enforcement response.
If a State is unwilling or unable to alter  its  original  enforce-
ment response, EPA may  bring its own action  after notice to the
State.  That notice should summarize the  facts  relating  to the
State's enforcement response, discuss reasons for EPA's  determin-*"
ation that the enforcement action is inadequate and state  that
EPA will initiate its own enforcement action.  (See the  Final
Interpretive Rule governing Sections 26 and  27, 48FR  pages 404-411,
January 5, 1983, Section 58 for criteria)   Regional  attorneys
should not, however, initiate an enforcement action sooner than
30 days after the matter was referred to  the State.

For all pesticide cases, if a State feels  that  the most  appropriate
enforcement action is not available under  State law,  it  may
refer the case to EPA for enforcement under  FIFRA.

Federal Cases
Where evidence reveals a possible  violation  of  Federal  law  only,
the State shall  immediately forward  the  information  to  the  EPA
Regional office  and prepare testimony  and  provide  witnesses  as
necessary.
-------
                               -14-


State Records and Reports	
Semi-Annual Reports
The State should submit semi-annual  reports  to the Regional  Office
within 15 working days after the end of the  second and  fourth
quarters.  Each report should compare actual  accomplishments
with the projections as specified in the cooperative agreement.

Records of Enforcement Actions	

The State should maintain records regarding  enforcement  actions.
These records should include the type of violation,  who  was
involved (e.g. applicator,  producer, homeowner),  certification
status of the applicator, name of the pesticide,  application
site and method, compliance history  of the violator, and the
type of enforcement  action  taken.  This information  will be
used in developing the State's future enforcement priorities.

EPA Report of Enforcement Actions

EPA shall furnish the State with copies of all enforcement  actions
taken as a result of inspections conducted by the State  and  -
referred to EPA for  action.  This information will be  useful to
the State in future  priority setting.
-------
                               -15-


Applicator Certification and Training Management Plan Development


Defining State Program Objectives	

The States should define objectives which support the achievement
of the national goal of training applicators in the safe handling
and use of pesticides, especially restricted use pesticides.
State objectives may include management oriented objectives such
as: 1) improving planning of the certification program; and 2)
recommending areas of additional  training because of use problems
encountered through the pesticides enforcement cooperative agree-
ment or to provide applicators with information regarding the
impact of other Federal statutes on applicators.

Applicator Certification and Training Work Program	


The work program must specify the work years and amount and
source of funding estimated to be needed for each program element
including any outputs required, a schedule for accomplishment of
outputs and an identification of the agency responsible for each
of the elements and outputs (40 CFR Part 35.130).

Action Plan	

Once the State' has identified its program objectives, it must
describe its plan for carrying out a balanced program that addresses
each of the program objectives under the agreement.

A pesticide applicator certification and training program that
meets the requirements of both State pesticide statutes and
FIFRA should contain at least the following elements/outputs.

     o Number of training sessions in which the State will
       part i ci pate. 4
     o Number of training sessions which the State will  monitor.
     o Number of individuals to be examined for certification.
     o Number of applicators to be examined for recertification.
     o Number of certification sessions the State will  conduct.
     o Number of recertification  sessions the State  will conduct.
     o Any changes the State will make to training materials.
  EPA Regi on VI I  has developed a training slide and tape  presentation
  on how disposal  of pesticide wastes  and used  pesticide  containers
  by applicators  is regulated under the Resource Conservation  and
  Recovery  Act (RCRA).  This presentation can  be obtained for  State
  training  sessions by contacting Roger Gold,  Ph.d.,  University  of
 •Nebraska, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources,  101  Former
  Vet Science Building,  East Campus, Lincoln,  Nebraska   68583.

  Additional training slide and tape presentations  can  be obtained
  for State training sessions by contacting Dr. James  Parochetti,
  Program Leader  -- Pesticides, Applicator Training and  Weed  Science,
  U. S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service,  Washington,
  D. C.  20250
-------
                               -16-


These outputs should be listed separately for private applicators
and for commercial applicators.  For commercial applicators, the
outputs should be broken down by certification category as well.

Proposed Budget	

Each application must contain the State's proposed budget for
the program.  Expenditures for personnel, fringe benefits, travel,
equipment, and supplies must be supported by itemized statements
or fact sheets detailing their necessity.

The EPA's share of the "total project cost" shall  not exceed,'
50% of the total award.  The State's share may be  paid in direct
or allowable indirect or in-kind contributions.
Applicator Certification and Training
Conditions of the Cooperative '
 _   ._.-.-  ^
ive  Agreement
Pesticide applicator certification and training cooperative
agreement awards are subject to the regulations found at ".0 CFR
Part 35.001 through 35.605, entitled State and Local  Assistance,
as will as the EPA General  Grant -Regulations and Procedu-cs (40
CFR Part 30).  In addition  the applicant must agree to the
conditions described below  before obtaining an award.

State Reports	

The States will submit a semi-annual report corresponding to
the project and budget period of the cooperative agreement.
This semi-annual report must be submitted within 30 days after
the end of the second and fourth quarters of the Cooperative
Agreement outputs and will  include:

     1. The total number of applicators, private and  commercial,
        by category, currently certified.
     2. The number of applicators, private and commercial, by
        category, certified during the last reporting period.
     3. The number of applicators, private and commercial, by
        category, recertified during the last reporting period.

The States are required to  submit an annual report  corresponding
to the project and budget period of the cooperative agreement.
This annual report for both the State plan and Cooperative
Agreement outputs will include:

     1. The total number of applicators, private and  commercial,
        by category, currently certified.
     2. The number of applicators, private and commercial, by
        category, certified during the last reporting period.
     3. The number of applicators, private and commercial, by
        category, recertified during the last reporting period.
     4. Any changes in commercial applicator subcategories.
  Certification and Training Program Directive #81-2 issued  by
  A. E. Conrov II,  dated 9-10-81.
-------
                               -17-
        A summary of enforcement activities related to use of
        restricted use pesticides during the last reporting period
        Any significant proposed changes in required standards  of
        competency.
        Proposed changes in plans and procedures  for enforcement
        activities related to use of restricted use pesticides  for
        the next reporting period.
        Any other proposed changes from the State plan that would
        significantly affect the State certification program.^
The States nay combine the Annual  FIFRA  §4 State
and the final report of outputs accomplished und
agreement, since the first three reported  items  under th
Plan annual report are identical to the  outputs  reported
the cooperative agreement.
  Plan report
der the cooperative
 under the State
          under
-------
                               -18-
           EPA APPLICATION AND AWARD PROCEDURES
Summary of EPA Role
EPA Headquarters has the primary responsibility for:

     o Developing national  priorities  and strategies  for
       the pesticides enforcement program and applicator
       certification and training program;
     o Preparing guidance for implementing  and managing
       the programs;
     o Making funds available to the Regions for
       disbursement to the  States;
     o Providing a special  review of applications
       upon written request from the Regional offices;  and
     o Developing laboratory support for State personnel.

EPA  Regi onal Offi ces have  primary  responsibility  for:

     o Providing applicants with annual  guidance and
       application criteria to be used  in awarding
       cooperative agreements;
     o Notifying eligible State agencies of the availability
       of funds ;
     o Working closely with the States  to develop  a •
       complementary Federal/State  program  which considers
       State as  well as  EPA priorities  and  resources;
     o Negotiating outputs  with applicants;
     o Reviewing and approving applications;
     o Developing training  for State personnel; and
     o Conducting Mid-year  and End-of-year.program
       evaluatlons.

Each participating Region should establish  a cooperative agreement
Review Panel to  review and  evaluate all  pesticides enforcement  and
applicator certification and training  cooperative  agreement
applications.  This panel  should consist of at least  one member
from each of the following  offices:

          o Regional Air and Waste  Management Division/or
            Waste Management Division
          o Regional Grants Administration  Office, and
          o CMS  (Grants  and Evaluation  Group).
-------
                               -19-


AppHcatlon Submission
To apply for a cooperative agreement under FIFRA, a State must
submit an'"Application for Federal  Assistance", EPA Form No.
5700-33 complete with all  elements  required by the guidance.
(See Appendix V)

Applications must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the
beginning of the budget period.  (40 CFR Part 35.140)

Application Review	


The Regional Administrator will review each completed cooperative
agreement application and  should approve,  conditionally approve,
or disapprove the application within 60 days of receipt. (40 CFR
Part 35.141)

The Agency  will  allocate funding for cooperative agreements on
the basis of the appropriateness of the State's program plan
when compared to the criteria set forth in the Required Application
Elements section of this guidance and the  State and Local Assistance
regulations. (40 CFR Part  35.001 through 35.605)

Each application will be subject to two reviews:

          o Technical and  Program Review;  and
          o Administrative Review.

Technical and Program Review	

A technical and  program review will be made by the Cooperative
Agreement Review Panel to  determine the merit of the proposed
outputs in  view  of the objectives and priorities of the cooperative
pesticides  enforcement program and  applicator certification and
training program.  For the pesticides enforcement cooperative
agreement applications, CMS has developed  a form for use by the
review panel in  determining answers to basic evaluation questions.
(See Appendi x VI.)

CMS has also developed Output Time  Factors for use in evaluating
pesticides  enforcement cooperative  agreement applications for
financial assistance.  The following time  factors were obtained
by averaging figures submitted to CMS by the States:

                                                  Work Hours to
          Acti vi ty     '                         Complete Acti vi ty

          Agricultural Use Inspection                   20
          Non-agricultural Use Inspection                20
          Experimental Use Inspection                   15
          Producer Establishment Inspection             15
          Marketplace Inspection ,                        5
-------
                               -20-


                                                  Work Hours to
          Act i vi ty                              Complete Activi ty
          Import Tnspecti on                             10
          Dealer Record Inspection                       5
          Applicator License and Record Inspection       5
          Sample Collection and Preparation               5
          Sample Analysis  (Formulation and Residue)      11

These figures take into account all inspectional  or  analytical
time spent to complete an  activity, including supervisory time,
travel  time, document preparation, sample shipment,  etc.  The
work hours given also include the prorated time for  administrative
activities of inspectors and chemists.  Additional time for
administrative, case preparation, legal, clerical, and program
planning activities time may be charged if the State can show
that such activities are prerequisites to conducting the program.

The Regional office should compare each State's proposed outputs
and the personnel  requested in the pesticides enforcement cooper-
ative agreement application with the work years computed by
using the output time factors amounts shown  above.  The purpose
of these romyutations is to determine if the State's requested
work hour levels (or work  years) for inspectional  and  analytical
outputs are consistent with the work hours computed  for each
activity using  the above output time factors.  An  Output Time
Factors Computations Worksheet has been developed  to assist the
Regions in this comparison.  (See Appendix VII.)

 he Regions should use these time factors as a guide in negotiating
and evaluating  pesticides  enforcement cooperative  agreement
applications.  The number  of inspections, samples, and analyses
multiplied by the  appropriate time factors should  equal the
approximate number of work hours which each  State  requested to
complete the projected outputs under the cooperative agreement.
To ensure equal treatment  of all States, CMS has  identified a
normal  work year as consisting of 1800 hours after allowing for
1 eave and hoii days .

Deviations from these time factors can be expected due to differ-
ences.in travel time, local  procedures, etc.  However, the Regions
should  not permit  work hours grossly in excess of  these computed
levels.  Significant differences between the amount  requested
and the amount  computed must be justified, e.g., the need for
extensive travel time.  If an applicant's commitments  are in
excess  of those indicated  by the computations, the Regional
Office  must assure itself  that the quality of work is  not  suf-
fering  at the expense of the quantity of outputs.

The Review Panel will evaluate both pesticides enforcement and
applicator certification and training cooperative  agreement
applications to determine  whether:
-------
                               -21-
     o The application contains all  elements outlined in
       the Required Application Elements section of this
       gui dance;
     o The applicant's priority-setting process is adequate;
       (for pesticides enforcement agreements only)
     o The outputs are appropriate based on the priorities
       or objectives set by the State;
     o The applicant's objectives and expected results are
       consistent and compatible with EPA priorities
       and policies; and
     o It is feasibile to achieve such  objectives  in view of
       the State's existing problems, program authority, and
       resources.

Administrative Review	

The Regional Grants Administration Office will perform an
administrative evaluation to determine  whether the application
meets the requirements of the EPA General Grant Regulations  (40
CFR Part 30) and  regulations for State  and Local Assistance  (40
CFR Part 35.001 through 35.605 Appendix VIII).  At each stage  of
the evaluation, the State may be required to provide further
information or to amend the application to satisfy the concerns
of the Agency.
-------
                               -22-
              •PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
After award of the cooperative agreements,  both States and the
Regions will have program management responsibilities  in the
areas of accountability, training,  reporting,  evaluation and
agreement modification.

Accountability under the Cooperat1ve Agreement


States must maintain accounting records for funds awarded under
each agreement (including receipts,•State matching contributions,
and expenditures) in accordance with all  applicable EPA grant
regulations and with generally accepted accounting principles.
Headquarters suggests that the Regional Grants Administration
Office review State accounting practices  and procedures prior to
award of funding to assure t;,e State's ability to maintain
appropriate records.

State expenditures under the agreement must follow cost categories
(i.e., budget line item or program  elements) established in the
original agreement.  Deviations may be made by the State from the
proposed budget as long as they are in accordance with the general
grant regulations or approved by the EPA  Regional project officer.

Training


Training under the pesticides enforcement program will be conducted
by the EPA Regional Office with support from EPA Headquarters.
Training will consist of instruction in inspectional  and sample
collection techniques, sample analysis, and case preparation, in
both classroom and on-the-job form.  The  cooperative  agreement
should contain a schedule for conducting  training activities
agreed upon by EPA Regions, Headquarters  or NEIC and  the State.

Regi onal Reporti ng	


The Regions must forward copies of  all agreement applications
and all mid-year, and/or annual reports to  CMS for review.
CMS should also be kept informed of any problem areas  or
serious deficiencies that develop  within  a  State program.

The Regions must also enter into the FIFRA  And TSCA Enforcement
System  (FATES) all State enforcement and  certification and
training projections from the completed cooperative agreement
applications, as well as mid-year,  if appropriate, and end-of-year
accomplishments.  The Regions must  enter  this  data into FATES
within 30 working days after the award of the  cooperative agreement
-------
                               -23-


and within 30 working days of the end of the second and fourth
quarters.  For certification and training cooperative agreements
data must be entered within 30 working days after the award of
the agreement and within 30 working days of the end of the forth
quarter.  (See attachment X)

The Regions are responsible for reporting to the Administrator
data from the State applications and reports for the following:
(See attachment XIV)

          o Indicators for Environmental Results
          o Administrators Accountability System
          o Environmental Management Report

ProgramEvaluation
Program evaluati on
The Compliance Monitoring Staff (CMS)
and Toxic Substances (OPTS) developed
use by the Regi
the protocol
Stats programs
    al1  State
 The Regions  shall  use  the  evaluation  protocol
FRA enforcement and pesticide  applicator certi-
ining cooperative agreement  end-of-year evalua-
dix IX.)
t ions. (See Append

Mid"year Evaluations
At mid-year, the Regions shall  conduct  a general  review of each
State's outputs and accounting  procedures.   During the general
review, evaluators should, where appropriate:

     o Compare actual accomplishments with  output commitments;

     o Review selected sample collection documents,  inspection,
       reports, investigation reports,  and  results of sample
       analyses for accuracy and quality,  and  review
       appropriateness of enforcement actions;

     o Review, with State accounting personnel,  the  following
       accounting information:

            a. Employee time and attendance reports;
            b. Records for one-time non-expendable property
               expenditures;
-------
                             -24-


            c. Estimate, (excluding one-time non-expendable
               property expenditures),  of the amount of funds
              x expected to be remaining at the end of budget
               period.

If the review indicates areas for improvement or change, the
Region is expected to offer the State suggestions and guidance
in those areas.

End-of-year Evaluations	

The scope of the program evaluation conducted by the Region at
the end of the year will differ from that of the mid-year evalua-
tion.   The end-of-year evaluation will  be an in-depth qualitative
review of the Federal/State cooperative enforcement program and
the pesticide applicator certification  training program.

The Regions shall use the evaluation protocol, found in Appendix
IX, to conduct all cooperative agreement program end-of-year
evaluations.

When  conducting an evaluation using the protocol, the Kegions
shall  answer all questions.  The Regions can fill out certain
parts  of the protocol in advance from the application and. quarterly
reports; other parts must be completed  during the on-site visit
in the State.  The Regions should plan  on a minimum of three
days  to conduct the on-site evaluation  in the State.

Evaluation Reports	

The Regional office shall prepare a written report of each evaluation
and send a copy to the State within 20  working days of completion
of the on-site evaluation.  If the evaluation protocol is completed
properly, it could serve as the basis of the evalution report.
The report should include a discussion  of suggested program
improvements.  The State shall be allowed 15 working days from
the date of receipt of the report to comment on the findings
contained in the evaluation report.  The Regions shall send a '
copy  of the Regional evaluation report  and the State's response
to Headquarters.

Evaluations of both the pesticides enforcement and the applicator
certification and training agreements are especially important
in FY84 because State applications for  continuing assistance must
contain a discussion of their performance under the existing award.
(40 CFR Part  35.140)  Funding levels for the next cooperative
agreement project period could be affected if a State's performance
is less than satisfactory.

Modification, Suspension, or Termination of the Agreement


The provisions and funding of the agreement must be modified by
EPA and the State if it is found -that actual accomplishments
differ significantly from the planned accomplishments.  These
-------
                             -25-
changes may Include, but are not limited to, changes in the
outputs, changes in the date of performance for specific outputs,
or changes in the budget for the period of the agreement.   Changes
in the agreement are effective only upon the execution of  a
written amendment.   If performance by the State does not improve
after modification  of the agreement,  steps may be taken by EPA
to suspend or terminate the agreement.
-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES
Appendix I    Ranking Procedure to Establish Pesticide Enforcement
              Priorities And Allocate Enforcement Resources
              (revised 1/83)

Appendix II   Deleted

Appendix III  Contaminant Screening Guidelines (revised  /  )

Appendix IV   Deleted

Appendix V    EPA Application for Federal  Assistance - EPA Form
            .  5700-33 (Revised 1783..to include 'examples for
              completing form to apply for a consolidated
              cooperative agreement.)

Appendix VI   Pesticides Enforcement  Cooperative Agreement
              Application Technical Review Form

Appendix VII  Output Time Factors Computations Worksheet
              (Revised 1/83)

Appendix VIII Revised 40 CFR Part 35.001 - 35.605 Subpart A,
              EPA regulations governing State and Local Assistance
              (Replaces  40 CFR Part 35.750 - 35.786)

Appendix IX   Evaluation Protocol

Appendix X    Pesticides Enforcement  Cooperative Agreement and
              Applicator Certification and Training Output
              Projections and Accomplishments Forms, for input
              into FATES (Revised 1/83)

Appendix XI   Label  Improvement Program (LIP):
                Dec. 4,  1980 letter from H.  Harrison re:  LIP
                  with attachments: PR Notice 80-1, Storage
                  and Disposal Statements  and Sample Label.
                PR Notice 80-2 re.  deletion  of Salt Water Emesls
                Termiticides Label  Improvement  Program
                Anti-fouling Paints Label  Improvement Program
                Funigants Label  Improvement  Program

Appendix XII  CMS Strategy for the  Enforcement  of CRP from
              A. E.  Conroy II dated June 8,  1981  and the
              OPP listing of product  types subject to CRP from
              Reto Engler, Chief Disinfectants  Branch dated 2-26-81

Appendix XIII Model  Quality Assurance Project Plan for State
                Pesticide Laboratories from  A.E.  Conroy II,
                dated 12/14/82.

Appendix XIV  Developing Indicators for Environmental Results
              memorandum from T.E.  Hunt dated 9/28/82.

Appendix XV   Final  Interpretive Rule governing FIFRA §26 A 27
              (48 FEDERAL REGISTER, Pages  404-411, Jan. 5,  1983)
-------

CJ
-------
V.<> i'    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
w.\.<>'                     WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460

                                          JAN 1 0  1975
To:        Regional—Administrators
          •v         T*-*-^-         v *
From:    Asststa.ni Administrator' lor water
          and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)

          Assistant Administrator for Enforcemen
          and General Counsel (EG-32S)

Subject:  Continuing State Registration of Products  Containing
          Aldrin and Dieldrin for Which Uses Have Been Suspended

    Late in December, 1974, the Agency became aware  of the existence of
activity in the above referenced  matter, first in the State of California,
and subsequently in several other States in other Regions,.  Preliminary
investigation  into the magnitude  of the problem suggests that there may
be significant  continuing activity on a national scale,  that there is con-
fusion as to the extent of Federal jurisdiction over such activity by States,
and that the  economic, political  and regulatory considerations involved
require additional action by the Agency „

    Accordingly, our joint staffs  are preparing a Federal Register notice,
v/hich,  upon  publication, will formally assert Federal jurisdiction over
non-Federally registered  products  containing  Aldrin and  Dieldrin by
impl^r.icnting Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide,. Funrjlcid-'? and
Rodsnlicide Act (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C.  136  e"t seq.).  Attached
is a strategy paper v/hich explains the background cf this matter in greater
detail and provides an explanation of how these Aldrin and Dieldrin pro-
•ducts should be  treated  upon the activation of  Section 3.  In add-'.tion,
proposed enforcement activities by Hie Agency, anticipated in cooperation
with involved States, is discussed*

    We  shall expedite publication of this  notice in the  Federal Register.
Pending formal  publication, you should  proceed v.-ith confidence  in the
proposed substance  of the  notice as outlined above and in  the attached
paper to  inform affected States in your Region  of these developments.
Further,  we trust you will encourage their support and  cooperation  in our
effort to achieve orderly and equitable disposition of existing State-reg-
istered products together with even-handsd and comprehensive enforce-
ment of the  Aldrin-Dieldrin cancellation and  suspension  orders. The
Enforcement Division of each region will be contacted by the Pesticides
Enforcement Division in Washington which will provide additional details
and support, where needed, to achieve Federal-State cooperation in pro-
viding notice of these developments and in proceeding with   enforcement
of the Administrator's orders relating to cancellation and suspension of
Aldrin  and Dieldrin,,

Enclosure:
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        •                WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Strategy Paper:

         State Registration of Products Containing Aldrin and Dieldrin
         for Which Uses Have Been Suspended


Background;

    Late in  December,  1974 Headquarters was informed by Region IX
and the State  of California that products containing Aldrin and Dieldrin
were being registered by the State in possible contravention of the intent
of the Administrator's Order of December 7, 1972 (37 F.R. 26463, 26-165).
That  order provided that henceforth all technical  Aldrin and Dieldrin
must  bear the label  restriction:  "For use only in formulating products
bearing EPA-appro ved FIFRA registrations." It was thought that such a
restriction on use of the technical material, which is available only
through import and therefore subject to Federal jurisdiction,  would pre-
clude further formulation of finished  products for State registration
and thereby provide de facto Federal control of all products containing
Aldrin or Dieldrin, Investigations by California  and Region IX (confirmed
now by several other Regions and State.-;) have revealed that many State-
ro^ist-'ved Aldrin-Dieldrin products wore:   1) formulated from  technical
material held prior to December 7, 1972  and  therefore not subject to  the
restrictive  labeling requirement,  2) formulated from so-called "end-
use" or finished Aldrin-Dicldrin products bearing State or Federal
registrations  and lacking any stated restrictions concerning refor-
mulation, 3) formulated from technical melerial sold after December 2,
1972 which failed to bear the required restriction,  4) formulated  from
technical material restrictively labeled and ignored  by the formulator.
Stales,  having lately become aware,  of the intent of the December, 1972
order, are faced with a .dilemma:  pressure to reregister for continued
shipment,  sale and use products  formerly approved by the.ni  and the
likelihood  that such registration  contravenes at least  the spirit, and in
some cases possibly the letter,  of a Federal  cancellation  order.

Action:

    In order to clarify existing ambiguities concerning the legal status of
these non-Federally registered  products  with respect to Federal juri 7'He-
ll on over their production, shipment,  sale, and use, and to insure  •JVCTI-
Jiand^d enforcement ol" the Aldrin  and Dieldrin cancellation and susot-v^ion
orders,  xhe Agency will formally  implement Section  3 of the Federal Insec-
ticide, Fungicide, and Flodenlicide Act, as amc'.idad  (7 U. S. C. 136  ct scq.)
by notice in the Federal Register.  This notice will contain an  exemption,
-------
                                -2-

pursuant to the provisions of Sections 6{a)(l) and 15(b)(2) of the Act,  allow-
ing States to register for orderly disposition through shipment,  sale and
use in that State,  existing stocks of products containing Aldrin  and
Dieldrin produced on or before the  date of signature by the Administrator
of the order implementing Section 3 of the Act as to these  State-registered
products. Effective the day following signature of the order implementing
Section 3 of the Act, production of products containing Aldrin and Dieldrin
must cease,  and States must cease to register for shipment,  sale and use
any but  existing stocks of such products,,

    Regional offices should  arrange to advise appropriate authorities in
States in that Region, in advance, of the planned  activation of Section; 3
and its attendant prohibitions, and should request State authorities to
notiry all State registrants and any other potentially affected parties of
the Activation of Section 3 and of the effective date of related prohibitions,.
States are  to be asked to provide  to the appropriate Regional Offices lists
of State registrants or persons with registration applications pending for
products containing Aldrin or  Dieldrin8 Information relating to location
and relative amounts of  these  State-registered products also is to be
sought.

    The Agency's pesticides enforcement  personnel will enlist State  coope-
ration in continuing its  on-going investigation of the formulation since
December  7,  1972,  o:  products containing Aldrin or Dieldrin for State
registration, _ Should it  be the case th::t Federal registrants of technics.!
Aldrin or Dieldrin have not  r^lp.bele^ their products in coni'ormancc  with
the Administrator's Order  of  December 7, 1972, or that  pesticide pro-
ducers have formulated products  containing Aldrin or  Dieldrin in con-
travention  of labeling prohibitions against use in  non-Fcderally registered
products, such violations will bo  prosecuted in accordance with the appro-
priate provisions of the  Act,
-------
    ^      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\^*S>             .         WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
     To:      [Enforcement Division Directors]

     From:   A. E. Conroyll, Director         //  £ (*s*~^J~^/'> * ~(
              Pesticides Enforcement Division   /+ •   '     X^

     Subject:  Non-Federally Registered Products Containing Aldrin or Dieldrin


     Background:

        In his memorandum of December 10, 1974,  Point #4, the Director
     advised that production of non-Federally registered products containing
     Aldrin and Dieldrin contravened the  December 7,  1972 Order of the
     Administrator (37 F.R. 25463, 26465). The  intent of that order was to
     restrict use of technical Aldrin and Dieldrin to use in EPA-registered
     products only. The  Director's memorandum continued that  production
     of non-Fedcrally  registered products containing Aldrin and Dieldrin
     could subject such products to stop sale and  their producers to liability
     under Sections 12(a)(2)(G)  and (K) of  the Act.

        Subsequent to the Director's memorandum, it has come to the
     Agency's attention that numerous products ccntaining Ald.rin and Dieldrin
     r--.3^'have be-n produced since December 7.  1972 and ppaisTproH 'ny <;^T^ =
     under circumsibices not strictly contravening the December,  1972 Order.
     Details concerning  this production and questions  relating to the scoi^e 01
     Federal jurisdiction over  such production under the December, 1972
     Ord<3»~ are elaborated in-the attached memorandum and  strategy paper,  •
     which >vere sent to  all  Regional Administrators on January  10, 1975.

     Action:

        For purposes of t ederal enforcement activity, the following develop-
     ments are important:

              1)  The Agency has determined to implement Section 3 of the
                 Act with respect, to  products containing Aldrin  and Dield: in
                 intended for intrastate shipment. States will be permitted
                 to register and allow shipment,  sale  and use in that State
                 of stocks of products containing Aldrin or Dieldrin in  2\is-
                 tence on the date of the  signature by the Administrate nf .
                 the order  activating  Section 3. After  that date, all tjrod:c-
                 tion of products containing Aldrin or  Dieldrin must cease,
-------
                                -2-

            and States must cease to permit registration or to allow
            shipment,  sale or use of any but existing stocks.  Viola-
            tions of the Act will be subject to prosecution 60 days
            after Federal Register publication of the Administrator's
            order.  (This of course will not apply to- those products
            registered Federally and by States for uses which have
            not been suspended: 1) subsurface ground insertion for
            termite control; 2) dipping of non-food roots and tops; 3)
            moth-proof ing in a closed system.)

         2} It is the obligation of each Region to notify, in advance,
            appropriate State authorities of this development and its
            attendant prohibitions  and to enlist their aid in notifying
            registrants and other affected persons in their State.
            Attached is a sample letter which States may  wish to
            employ as a guide in the notification process.

         3) Immediately upon signature, of the Section  3 order, Head-
            quarters staff will notify Regional officials who  should con-
            tact the State authorities directly.

         4) Cooperation and aid of State authorities is to be enlisted i*>
            obtaining for Federal use:

            -  lists of State registrants or persons with applications
               pending for Aldrin-Dieldrin product registration;

            -  information nn location anH relative smmintc  ot" such pro
               ducts within the State;

            -  assistance of State enforcement authority to achieve com-
               pliance with the production, registration, and shipment,
               sale and use cut-off.

         5) EPA regional personnel are to continue their  investigations
            of production since December 7, 1972 of products contain-
            ing Aldrin and Dieldrin for  Stat^ registration.  Should it be
            determined -;ha*. Federal registrants of technical Aldrin or
            Dieldrin have not relabeled their products in conformance
            with the Administrator's Order of December 7,  1972,  or
            that pesticide producers have formulated products contain-
            ing Aldrin or Dieldrin in contravention of  labeling prohi-
            bitions against use in non-Federally registered  products,
            such violations are to  be prosecuted in accordance with the .
            appropriate provisions of the Act.

    Shorld you have questions or encounter difficulty with regara 4.o any
of these matters,  please notify the appropriate Regional Coordinator.


Attachments:
-------
                                         Attachment I

                   Aldrin - Dieldrin Strategy

1.  R.C^'s phone Region in advance of order - inform of strategy

2.  R. C. *s send Director's  enforcement package to Regions  •

3.  Regions inform States of pending action and request names of
   State registrants

4.  PEP sends Administrator's order  to Regions

5.  HDQ sends Administrator's order  to States

6.  States or Regions notify State registrants of order
   (See Attachment ii).

7.  Regions follow-up at each State registrant.
-------
                                     Attachment  II  SAMPLE LETTER
State Registrant
(Address)
Gentlemen:

   On (date),  the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency issued an Order asserting Federal jurisdiction over
all non-Fedcrally registered Aldrin-Dieldrin products in intrastate
commerce by  invoking Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136  ct seq. ).
As a result of this Order, the shipment, sale,  and use of non-Feder-
ally registered Aldrin-Dieldrin  products, produced after the effective
date of the Order will be prohibited. Accordingly,  the State  of (name)
can register or continue registrations only of non-Federally registered
Aldrin-Dieldrin products which  were produced on or before  the date
of the Order.  Such registrations are being permitted to allow the
orderly disposition of non-Federally registered products through
shipment, sale, and use in the registering State.

   Any further questions regarding the Order  should be directed to
Mr. 	, EPA, Region	,  street	_,
city, 	,  State	,  telephone number

                                      Sincerely,
-------
                                              Attachment III

Types of Violations Involving Non-Federally Registered products
containing Aldrin or Dieldrin

1.  Failure of a Federal registrant to place a statement such as "For
    use only in formulating products  bearing EPA-approved F1FRA
    registrations" on manufacturing use only labels.

          Violation:  Misbranded, inadequate directions
                    Section 12(a)(l)(E)
           Action:  Civil/Criminal/Stop Sale

2.   Use of a "manufacturing use  only" product bearing a statement such
    as "For use only  in formulating products bearing EPA-approved
    FIFRA registrations" on the  label in a non-Federally registered
    Aldrin - Dieldrin product.

          Violation:  Misuse Section 12(a)(2)(G)
         Action:    Civil/Criminal/Stop Use

3.   Sale of a non-Federally registered Aldrin - Dieldrin product pro-
    duced after the effective date of the Order,  but before violations
   are actionable  (GO days after  publication  in the Federal Register).

         Action:    Stop Sal^

4.   Sale cf a non-Federally registered Aldrin-Dieldrin product pro-
    duced after the effective date of the Administrator's Order (day
    after signature) and after the date violations become enforceable
    (GO days after  publication in the Federal Register).

         Violation:  Non registration Sec. 12(a)(l)(A)
         Action:    Civil/Criminal/Stop Sale
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                             JAN 15 1976
                                                     OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT '
SUBJECT:
TO:
FROM:
            Enforcement of Administrator's Decision and
            Order Suspending Most Uses of Heptachlor and
            Chlordane

            Enforcement Division Directors
            Pesticide Branch Chiefs
            A. E. Conroy II, Director
            Pesticides Enforcement Division (EN-342)
I.  LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
istrator on the Suspension of Heptachlor-Chlordane (In re Velsicol
Chemical Corporation,  et al. , FEFRA Docket No.  384) ordered the
suspension' of "registrations of all pesticide products containing hepta-
chlor or  chlordane for use on corn, household, garden, lawn, and
turf pests, use against ticks  and chiggers, and use as a constituent
in shelf paper. This Final Order reversed the December 12, 1975,
"Recommended Decision" of  Chief Administrative Law Judge Herbert L.
Perlman dismissing the Administrator's July 29, 1975,  "Notice of
Intent to  Suspend. "*

   On January 8, 1976, the Agency filed a "Suggestion.for Clarifcation"
(attached) requesting the Administrator to adopt the Agency's interpre-
tation of  the meaning and limitations of  the Final Order.   The Admin-
istrator has requested briefs on the issue of  the appropriateness of a
clarification.

   Finally, appeals have been filed by the Environmental Defense
Fund (in  the Court of Appeals for the  District of Columbia Circuit)
and by Velsicol (in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit). The
Velsicol  appeal of. the District Court's denial of its motion for pre-
liminary injunction against the Administrator's issuance of the July
^  Copies of the Administrator's "Conclusions" and the  "Order" are
attached.
-------
                              -2-

 29, 1975, "Notice of Intent to Suspend" remains in abeyance in the
 Sixth Circuit as well.

 II.  CURRENT AGENCY ACTIVITY
        The office of the Hearing Clerk is preparing to serve by
 certified mail copies of the Final Order on all parties to the suspen-
 sion proceeding.  In addition,  the Registration Division is preparing
 to notify all registrants by letter of their  status under the  Order and
 of what label amendments, if any,  are necessary for them to continue
 the registration of their products in accordance with the Order.

 El.  ENFORCEMENT

        The Pesticides  Enforcement Division is  preparing  a general
 strategy to enforce the Administrator's Order.   This strategy will
 provide status of registrants vis a vis the cancellation and suspension
 proceedings, lists of formulatorjand distributors of chlordane and
 heptachlor products,  and status of product uses as clarified by any
'subsequent Orders.

        Pending the completion of this strategy,  regions  should pro-
 ceed with normal surveillance and inspection activities relating to
 chlordane  and heptachlor products. Enforcement actions should await
 official notice of suspension to subject registrants.

        Until that time you may find it helpful to deal with general
 inquiries as follows.

             1) So far as PED is able to determine at this time, stocks
 of Dro^]T^tc intpn^r? for gMT^npnHpH ngge; v/hich were formulated after
 July 29. 1975. are illegal  for further fih'T^^'"''-  T"10 ^ ll'jf

            2) Persons desiring to dispose of illegal stocks may arrange
 with involved regions to ship the products for  assorted disposal, includ-
 ing for return to a supplier, for export, or in accordance  vath directions
 provided by the  Office of Solid Waste Management.  Disposal questions
 may be referred to Ray Kreuger in Washington at (202) 755-8050. Regional
 offices should cooperate in every way possible with responsible efforts to
 dispose of  suspended chlordane/heptachlor stocks.

            3) Questions relating to label status should be referred to
 Tim Gardner of the Registration Division, Washington, (202)  426-9425.
 As soon as firm policy exists as to this issue you will be informed of
 its substance.

            Should you have questions concerning any facet of the
 chlordane/heptachlor suspension,  please contact the appropriate regional
 coordinator.
-------
     °,
     ?    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    *                   WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                              JAN ?T 1976

                                                     OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
SUBJECT: Clarl'-lcrJ,:.-.:: of Heptachlor/Chlordane
           Suspension Order

TO:        Enforcement Division Directors
           Pesticide Branch Chiefs

FROM:    A. E.  Conroy E, Director
           Pesticides Enforcement Division (EN-342)
    Please find attached a copy of the Administrator's "Clarification
of Order of December 24, 1975 (In re Velsicol Chemical Corporation
et al. , FEFRA Docket No. 384), " aated January 19, 1975. Although    .
the Administrator did not adopt per se Respondent EPA's proposed
order and table for clarification (see my January 15th memorandum
and enclosures),  this document makes patent that all registrations
(Federal and State) of pesticide products containing heptachlor and
chlordane for uses not specifically continued (as set forth in paragraph
4 of the Conclusion to the December 24th Decision) were suspended.
For purposes of enforcement, "Attachment A" will be used as the
list of uses not suspended.

    Should questions arise concerning the Clarification,  or any other
matter relating to the heptachlor/chlordane proceedings, please con-
tact the appropriate regional coordinator.
-------
                ;  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
               rNVIRONMEIITAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
    >uol Chemical  Corporation    )  .   .FIFRA Docket No. 384
    L—'       ;                 )                -,       '
                Registrants.    )  .            .
                      CLARIFICATION OF .
                 ORDER OF DECEMBER 24, 1975
     C* January  7,  1975,  Respondent EPA filed a Suggestion for
 far itication of the  Order of December 24, 1975, in the above-
                     •                        *               »
 ?j?!irr.ed proceeding, seeking clarification of the uses of
 •i-r^'.-cts containing heptachlor and chlordane for which
 f-;'.'.'ratioiiS are not suspended by the December 24 Decision
 tX'i Cr-Jcr.   Respondent  also submitted a Proposed Order, including
 t"v «*.uchr,ent setting forth a proposed list of uses not suspended,
 !i-;.r;/.er with certain explanatory notes.'      .           .   '
     On January  13, 1976, I issued.a notice of the filing of
             Suggestion for Clarification and Proposed Order
              written- consents from the parties, thereby
 l*Jtesting my intention to consider the possible need for
 < :if;f>cition of the  December 24.Decision and Order.*  On  .  "
 •'ivury }fjt 1976,'.written comments v.-ere received from counsel for
 f1'/;ll°'i  v.vra subsnitted  by  counsel  for Vclsicoi Cl-.emical
lvc''->ri-'lK'nf?n Januapy  1?«  1576, but not sufficiently in advance of
    »   oration of the  January 13 notice to be considered  therein.
-------
                                2
   Agriculture of  the State of Hawaii; counsel for some 300
   registrants of  various products containing heptachlor or chlordane;'
   the  Environmental Defense Fund; the U.S. Department of Agriculture;
   and  Respondent  EPA.  All of the foregoing parties, except the
   Environmental Defense Fund, oppose Respondent's suggested
   clarification of the December 24 Order, both on grounds that the
   Administrator lacks jurisdiction or authority to clarify, modify,
               *                   .                                *
   or alter the .Order and that the Order is final and cannot now .be
   changed .in the nunner proposed by Respondent.
       Even though not expressly provided for in the Rules of
   Practice governing expedited hearings, under the FIFRA, I have
 .determined that authority does exist to clarify the December 24
   Order and that  some clarification is warranted, in view of the
   apparent possibility that its provisions may be unclear.   In my
   view., the December 24 Decision and Order are clear and specific
   in their terms and should not require any further elaboration.
   Implicit in Respondent's suggested clarification, however, is the
   notion that proper administration of the Decision and Order by
   the Agency and explicit understanding thereof by all  the parties
.   require a clear statement of the uses of products containing
   heptachlor and chlordane for which registrations have not been
   suspended.  ' In an abundance of caution and concern, therefore,
   I believe proper administration of the Decision and Order wfiV.be-•
.   served and facilitated by the following clarification of the..
   December 24 Order.            .        .                 •      -^,..  '
-------
                                 3


        In reviev/ing the Decision and  Order  and  the  possible  need


  for'clarification,  I have not  considered  any  new  eviu'iiiici  o.r     "   •

                      *                *                       ' ' '     i
  argumentation.   I have sought  only  to  discern any possible source

                                      i
  or sources of any lack of clarity in tiie  expression  of my


  intentions at the time I issued the Decision  and  Order.  Comments


  received froa the parties have been most  helpful-  in  determining

                                   *          .            *•
 ••whether or not my intentions were clearly expressed.  The  sole

            •   •
.  purpose of tin's clarification  is to add clarity to the expression   ;


  of my intentions at the time I issued  the December 24 [iccisic'i .   •


  and Order.      •       .    •       •


       The December 24 Order, by its  terms, provides that all


.  pestici-de products containing  heptachlor  or chlordane for  use


  (1) on corn pests,  (2) on household, garden,  lawn, and turf pests


  (both by private homeowners and by  pesticide  control operators),


  (3) against ticks and chiggers, and (4) as a  constituent in


  shelf paper, are suspended [the suspension of products for use on


  corn having a post-effective date of August 1, 1976].  The Order


  further provides that any stocks of technical grade  heptachlor   .  .  ..


  or* chlordane formulated into products  intended for such uses


  [after July 29, 1975] may not  be placed in commerce, sold,  or used •

                                  *                                     '
  for such purposes or any other purpose not specifically


  exempted [in the November-.18,.  1974, cancellation  order] or_


  specifically permitted•in'accordance, with the Decision of  the  •


  Administrator attached thereto. .                      . -.
-------
                               4          '                  -       '
     . Th3 uses  specificall.y permitted or continued  by the
 Decision accompanying  the  December 24 Order include only  those set
 forth in paragraph 4 of  the Conclusions contained  in the  Decision*
 and, therefore,  these  uses (together with the exempted uses  for
 subsurface ground  injection for termite control  and dipping  of
 roots or tops  of nonfood plants) are the only uses not suspended
 by the December  24 Decision and Order.  All other  registrations
                                        •              '      •
 for uses "of products ^containing heptachlor or chlorda:i£ are  •
 suspended.   Because ch-2  words  "intended For such uses" in lino 12
 of t!::! Order might be  interpreted as limiting the  suspended, uses
'to thp four uses enumerated in the first sentence  of the  Order,
 the words "intended for  such uses" are hereby deleted from the
 December 24 Order.               •  '                 .  •
      The reasons for the specific enumeration of four uses
'suspended in the first sentence of the Order, while suspending uses
 for "any .other purpose"  in blanket form in the second sentence, are
 twofold:   (1) other than an occasional reference to certain
 fruits and  vegetables and  other miscellaneous crops, the  record
 (including  the Recommended Decision.of the Administrative Law
 Judge) does not  adequately address many other (presumably minor)-
 uses of heptachlor  and .chlordan'e, as to which little or-.'no benefits
 evidence was presented at  the  hearing, and, :indeed, because'the
 record was  so inadequate in this regard, the  Administrative  Law
 Judge  recommended  that such other uses not be continued,  and
 *  Decision of the Administrator,  p.  76
-------
                             .5



(2) the four uses enumerated specifically  in  the  December  24



(Vclcr .'••-«-• •--.' <:•     •     •".••  K-     •;"
          •". -                 '


   ("ici'sion  of the Administrator, p. 76.
-------
                              .  6


   "any other purpose" generally, i.e. that, in view of the        ^


   evidence on carcinogenicity risk, and in the absence of sufficient


-   benefits evidence, these uses are suspended, even though they


   could not be enumerated specifically in the Order.  Thus, there is


   no inconsistency betv/een paragraph 5 of the Conclusions in the
                                   *

  •Decision and the provisions of the,Order.


       In view of the foregoing, I do not find it necessary to


   either adopt or reject the Proposed Order subniitted by Respondent.
                                                  Russell li. [rain
                                           •    -i

  Dated:  January 19, 1976       '.   •             '-.'•..
-------
. chlordane
                                 ATTACHMENT A             • .
                    • •'   '                 1
                        SPECIFIC USF.S   OF CIlLORnANE U II.EPTACIII.Oll
                    NOT SUSPENDED BY  ADMINISTUATOU'S OKUlill OF 12/21/75
COMPOUND(s)
chlordane &
hcptachlor •
chlordanc &
hcplachlor
chlordanc &
1 4
hcptachlor
4
heptachlor
hcptachlor
heptachlor
» '
chlordane
clilordanc
r
9
chlordanc
chlordanc
USE(a)
2.
Subsurface ground insertion for termite control
2
Dipping of roots or lops of non food plants
•*
Control of cutworms on corn (both pre and post
emergence)
Control of narcissus bulb fly
Seed treatment
Ant control to achieve pineapple mealy bug
5
control in Hawaii
In Federal /Slate quarantine programs for
6 5,6
Japanese Beetle and imported fire ant
Control of black vine v/eevil on Japanese Yew
in Michigan
Control of Texas harvester ant in Oklalioma
Control of imported fire ant by private
5.7
individuals
•STATUS OF US£(s)
3
continued
continued •
continued until ^
8/1 /7G only
continued • ' •
• continued
continued
*'•
continued • ,
•
. * . . 1
*
continued
' continued
continued
                   Control of white fringed beetle attacking food
                      '    O                        *           "
                          8  .
                   crops   in 8 S. E.  States (AL.FL.GA.LA.MS.NC,
                   SC,  TN)
continued
chlordanc
                    Control of soil insects   attacking Florida citrus
continued
'chlordane
                    Control of strawberry root pests by pro-plant
                    treatments
continued
chlordanc
                    Control of white 
-------
      I   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -
     ^                   WASHINGTON. D.C. 2
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                          WASHINGTON. D.C.  20450   '       •
CERTIFIED MAIL
Gentlemen:         '           •

Subject  :  Notice of Suspension for:
This is to notify you that on December 24, 1975, the Administrator
issued his-Decision and Order on the suspension of Chlordane and
Heptachlor.            '     ••  .       ,.        ••'-...".'

This document provides that all uses of Chlordane and Heptachlor  are
suspended except those set ;forth on the enclosure.  Your subject  regis-
tratipn v/as suspended effective December 24, 1975.

As stipulated in the Administrator's Notice of Intent to Suspend, issued
on July 2?, 1975, the product under this registration may not be  formu-
Uted, shipped, sold or_used after July 29, 1975.       •

The Administrator's Decision and Orderv wilj be published'in-the Federal
Regi ster.Jn: they near'future   -";'  . •.;'••']  ^-. ".

Sihcerely;yours, : ':  : •::'•"'•'•;;;•-•"•• ;^-;^:V;.:\:(.':^•'..-•^'V   ..
John B.  Ritch, Or.     ..=  ..*'   •
Director                      ...
Registration  Division  (WH-567).

Enclosure  ;                       :
-------
^S& *   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  ' "                         V/ASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                                            '
   CERTIFIED MAIL
   Gentlemen:

   Subject   :  Notice of Suspension for:
  'On December 24,  1975,  the Administrator issued his Decision and Order
   on--the .suspension of Heptachlor and Chlordane.  Host federal and state
   registrations of Heptachlor and Chlordane were suspended although
   certain  uses were specifically exempted, (Refer to the enclosure).  Any
   registration which  included a suspended use was suspended effective
   December 24, 1975.  This letter is to notify you that your above
  .•registration contained a use suspended 'by the Order and therefore has
   been  suspended  effective December 24, 1975.

   If you wish to  be permitted to continue your registration, you have two
   "alternatives.   First,  you may s'imply discontinue the use of Chlordane
  ' or Heptachlor in the formulation of your product.  If you select this
   approach you will not  be required to submit a petition for an amendment
   if your  product contains no other insecticides and all insecticide.claims
   are eliminated.   If other insecticides are contained you must apply for
   an amended  label which in certain instances ,may require new efficacy
   data.  If you wish  to  continue to formulate your product with either •
   Heptachlor  or Chlordane you may continue to do s,o only for uses not
   'suspended and only  after you have submitted a petition for a label
   amendment in v/hich  all references to suspended uses have been deleted.
-------
                                   -2-     •   .

It is sufficient to send a cover letter with  an stranded label  or labs!
1n which the suspended uses including any claims referring to  these
uses have been blocked out.  The granting by  the Agency of such a
petition will permit you to continue formulation and/or sale of Hepta-
chlor and/or Chlordane for exempted uses.  Petitions for a provisional
labeling arriendment in accordance with the enclosure must be received
within 30 days of receipt of this letter at the follov/ing address:  .

                       Mr: Timothy A. Gardner
                       Product Manager (15)                 '   •  .
                       Registration Division  (WH-567)
                     .  Environmental Protection Agency                • •
                       Washington, O.C.  20460.

The amendment will not abrogate your right to defend both suspended or
nonsuspendad uses in the continuing cancellation proceeding.

Existing stocks of EPA registered pesticides  containing Heptachlor or
Chlordane may be distributed and sold for suspended uses only  if the
stocks were for-.ivlited prior to July 30, 1975.  This date was  stipulated
in the Administrator's Notice of Intent to Suspend, issued on  July 29,
1975.  Stocks of Hsptachlor or Chlordane formulated after July 29,  1975,
may only be distributed and sold for those exempted uses included in the
enclosure and under labels containing no suspended uses.  Stocks which
you may presently have on hand, if manufactured or formulated  after    t
July 29, 1975, may not be shipped or sold until you receive EPA approve"
of your amended label.

The .Administrator's Decision and Order will be published in the Federal
Register in the near future.    .               .
•                                                 •»
                     *                                       * •
Sincerely yours;                            '  .   ,        • " •
John B.  Ritch, Jr.       '  -
Director                    _
Registration Division  (WH-567)

Enclosure
-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                          WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
 CERTIFIED MAIL
 Gentlemen:      '  . ••"   •

 Subject   :  Notice of Suspension for:
 On December 24, 1975, the Administrator issued his Decision and Order
 on the suspension of Heptachlor and Chlordane.  Most federal and state
 registrations  of Heptachlor and Chlordane were suspended although
. certain  uses were specifically exempted (Refer to the enclosure). -Any
 registration which  included- a suspended use was suspended effective
 December 24, 1975.  This letter is to notify you that your subject
 registration contained  a use suspended by the Order and therefore has
 been  suspended effective December 24, 1975.              •      •

 If you wish to be permitted to continue to formulate and/or sell Hepta-
• chlor and/or Chlordane  for uses not suspended, you vnll be required to
 petition for a provisional amendment of registration.  Such petition •
 should  request the-elimination from-your labels of any reference to
 suspended uses.   It is  sufficient to. send a cover-letter with  an amended
  label or label in which the suspended uses including any claims  referring
 to  these-;uses  have^beenNblockedx-outv^ The'granting by-the Agency of such
 a petition will .permit:-"yQU-Jtp|c&ntihue-:;fprmulation and/or sale of Hepta-
 chlor and/or ChVof.dahe'-forrexeinp;ted uses; ' Petitions for a provisional
  labeling amendment in  accordance,with the enclosure must be received
 within  30 days of receipt of  this letter at the following address:
-------
                                               "li   .  -.
                                                '    _,..
                        -Mr.  Timothy A.  Gardner
                         Product Manager (15)
                         Registration Division  (WH-567)
                         Enviror,T:sntal  Protection Agency
                                     D.C.   20460.     •
  The amendrnGnt v/ill  not abrogate your right to defend  both  suspended or
  nonsuspendecl uses. in the continuing cancellation proceeding.

  Existing stocks  of EPA registered pesti-cides containing Heptachlor or
• Chlordane may be distributed and sold for suspended uses only if the
  stocks- were formulated prior to July 30, 1975.  This  date  v/as stipulated
  in the Administrator's Notice of Intent to Suspend, issued on July 29,
 • 1975.   Stocks of Heptachlor or Chlordane formulated after July 29, 1975,
  'may only be distributed and sold for those exempted uses included in the
  enclosure and under labels containing no suspended «ses.  Stocks v/hich
  you may presently have on hand, if manufactured or formulated after
•.July -29, 1S75, may not be shipped or sold until you receive EPA approval
  of your amended label.       ..              ...      '        ~ .: ------- *-

  The Administrator's Decision and Order v/ill be published in the Federal
 . Register in the near future.  .           •     •       .       •         .

  Sincerely yours,    '  '
  John B. Ritch, Jr.
  Director         .     ' .'     '  •
 .Registration Division (WH-567)

  Enclosure        '-"'.•'
-------
                          SPF.C1FIC USES   OF CJILORDAN'K / H"rTACIIl.OK
                  \'  NOT SUGl'E.NDEU DY ADMIN1STKATOKT, OliiJL'H OF 12/2-1/75
  COMPOUNDS)
                  USE(s)
STATUS OK USE(s)
  chlordane
  heptachlor
Subsurface ground insertion for termite control       continued
  chlordane
  heptachlor
Dipping of roots or tops of non food plants
   continued
  chlordane i

  heptachlor
Control of cutworms on corn (both pre and post

emergence)	'_  	
   continued until

   8/l/7Gonly
  heptachlor
Control of narcissus bulb fly
   continued
  heptachlor
Seed treatment'
   continued
  beptaehJor
Ant control to achieve pineapple mealy bug
                 5
control in Hawaii
   continued
  chlordace
In Federal/State quarantine programs for
                6                     5.6
Japanese Beetle  and imported fire ant
   continued
  chlordane
Control of black vine weevil on Japanese Yew         continued
in Michigan
  chlordane
'Control of Texas harvester ant in Oklahoma
   continued
  chlordane
 Control of imported fire ant by private
            5,7
 Individuals
   continued
  chlordane
 Control of white fringed beetle attacking food
       8                  '
 crops   in & S. E. States (AL.FL.GA.LA.MS.NC.
 SC. TN)
   continued
  chlordane
 Control of soil insects   attacking Florida citrus     continued
  chlordane
 Control of strawberry root pests by pre-plant        continued
 treatments
•  chlordane	    Control of white trrubs'in Michigan	continued  	
* "IT  Ail registrations U-'caeral and state) 01 pesticide products containing heptachlor and
      chlordane for uses not specifically continued are suspended by the Administrator's.
      Decision and Order on the Suspension of Heptachlor-Chlordane.  The effect of the
      Order is to further prohibit the  manufacture, formulation or reformulation of products
      containing Heptachlor or Chlordane for any purpose other than for those registered
 ~"    uses which have been exempted  in the Order and for manufacturing uses as an
      interim step in the ultimate formulation for such registered uses. Sale and use of
      existing stocks of registered products v/hich were formulated prior to July 30,  1975
    '.  are permitted for both continued and suspended  uses.                 '  •
  •3.  PR Notice 74-11 (33 FR 412?3) exempted this use from cancellation.  Such use
      was similarly exempted from the Notice of Intention to Suspend, 40 FU 34456
      (7/29/75).        --• :
   S.: Clarified at 40 FR 30522 (7/21/7S) to apply to the use of cmulsifiable or oil
      concentrate formulations  for controlling subterranean termites on structural
    _• sit CD such as buildings, houses, barns, and sheds, using current control
 t   '.  practices.
 '  4.  Velsicol has represented  thit it would voluntarily suspend domestic shipments
      of hcptaehlor for this use. pending resolution of the cancellation proceedings.
   5.  On the assumption that Mircx is not available.       '               ••.   •-
   6.  To include treatments required  to certify to pest free conditions as well as for
      use in suppression and control pr-o^rams. ''
   7,  To include use on both public a.nd private property by cither owner, agent,
       employee, or contractor.'                           .                          .
   8. • Not intended to.preclude use on  couon.  However, use on tobacco is  suspended.- •
   D.  Restricted to_citrus root weevils. ..
-------
       *   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

V   ./          .,-        WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
 •    v
                               2 3 MAR 1976
                                                      OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
    SUBJECT: Heptachlor/Chlordane Suspension Order
               Enforcement Strategy

    TO:       Enforcement Division Directors
               Pesticide Branch Chiefs            ^~^
    FROM:    A. E..ConroyII, Director
               Pesticides Enforcement Division

         In my memorandum of February 19, 1976 regarding the status
    of Agency activity on the Administrator's December 24th Order sus-
    pending most heptachlor and chlordane product registrations, I alerted
    the appropriate Regional personnel that a more specific strategy for
    ensuring compliance would be forthcoming.  This memorandum pre-
    sents EPA's enforcement strategy concerning the three categories
    of these products: (A) Federally registered products,  all uses of which
    have been suspended} (B) Federally registered products, some uses
    of which were suspended, but which may continue to be sold and dis-
    tributed for continued uses upon amendment of the product's registration
    and labeling to delete any suspended uses; and (C) intrastate products
    afforded the opportunity to  continue in intrastate  commerce until the
    completion of the cancellation proceedings.
    I.  SUSPENSION ORDER PROVISIONS   ' "      -  —-'.-..   .

         In previous memoranda, the terms of the Administrator's Sus-
    pension Order have been discussed. To recap, the December 24th Order
    and January'19th Clarification provide the following:     *•..

         (1) All registrations of pesticide, products containing
            heptachlor and chlordane for uses not specifically
            continued [see  "Attachment A  — Specific Uses of
            Chlordane and Heptachlor Not Suspended by Admin-
            istrator's Order of 12/24/7FrT"for the list of uses
            exempted] were suspended as  of December 24,  1975.
-------
                               -2-

     (2) By invoking the "Special Rule" provision of section
         15(b)(2),  the Administrator has provided that stb'cks of
         EPA registered pesticides containing heptachlor or
         chlordane formulated prior to July 30. 1975, may be sold.
         distributed, or used for suspended uses.

     (3) Stocks of heptcichlor  or chlordane products formulated
         f-fter July 20,  1975 may be sold, distributed, or used
         only for exempted uses, as per "Attachment A".


 n.  CATEGORIES OF HEPTACHLOR /CHLORDANE. PRODUCTS  ' '   _',-:-:

 .  .  As stated above, there  are three categories of heptachlor/chlor-   .. .
 dane products:

     (A) Federally registered products, all uses of which have been     ----_
 susp'ehdecnThe Registration Division/Office of Pesticide Programs
 has notified, by certified mail, all affected registrants that their prod-.  .,' .
 ucts have been finally suspended by the December 24th Order. 1 /  An
 example of  a product in this  category would be a product regisfered     -----
 for use only on ticks and chiggers.  There are approximately 644 prod-  "
 ucts registered by over 300 registrants which have been so suspended.   ...-
 You will find attached to this  memorandum a list of suspended product
 registration numbers,  product names,  registrant names, and the names
 and addresses where such heptachlor/chlordane products, have been pro-
 duced.

     (B) Federally registered products, some uses of which have been	
 suspended  As noted in the introduction and in previous memoranda,   "
 there is a large category of registered products whose uses were sus-
 pended in part by the December 24th Order, but whose sale and distri-
 bution may  continue upon ["provisional"] amendment of the produces  .   .
 registration and labeling to delete all suspended uses.  A typical product
 in this category would be one registered and labeled for indoor roach con-
 trol and for subterranean termite uses (the former being a suspended use,.
 while the latter is a permitted use). • Pending the decisions by the regis-- •
 trants to amend or not  [such decision must be made within 30 days of   ••'-••
 receipt of the notice of suspension], it is not .possible to determine
 the registration status  of products in this category.  Upon RD's comple-;-:
 tion of the necessary registration.review, a region specific list will
 be forwarded to you noting the.status of individual products in this category.

     (C) Intrastate products.   Although this third category is comprised
 of products similarly situated to those in above categories (A) and (B),
 for purposes of this enforcement strategy,  "intrastate products" are
.being-treated separately.  The Registration Division has notified the

                                     *•'                             '•   ••

 I/ see my ^edruary 19, 1976 memorandum entitled "Status Report on the •
TTeptachlor/Chlordane Suspension, " and its attachments.            '  .
-------
                            -3-
registrants of 140 "intrastate" products as to the impact of the
December 24th Order on their heptachlor/chlordane products.
These products were being sold only in intrastate  commerce when
they became subject to the FEPCA registration requirements by
the accelerated activation of section 3 in November 1974. Sub-
sequently, all applications for Federal registration were denied
and the applicants who timely requested a hearing were made
parties to the cancellation proceeding and the subsequent suspen-
sion hearings.  Accordingly; these products were equally affected
by the December 24th Order in that to continue marketing them.
registrants must delete suspended uses from their labeling.  Please
note the attached three Registration Division form letters used to
apprise this category of registrants  as to their products' status.
You will find an attached list of forty-eight "products in this cate-
gory whose sale, distribution, and use was  prohibited as of Decem-
ber 24, 1975, for formulations made after July 29, .1975.  As soon as
the suspension status of the remaining products in this category is
available, you will be advised.	
m.  ENFORCEMENT POLICY       -

    The Agency intends to ensure that the-Administrator's Order
of December 24th is strictly complied with by all affected persons,
including manufacturers, formulators, registrants, wholesalers,
retailers, and users.  The Administrator, in his December 24th
Order,  provided that products formulated prior to July 29, 1975,
should be permitted distribution and use  through normal channels
of trade until the stocks are exhaused. Affected persons were
informed of the consequences of formulating after July 29th—those
that chose to continue formulation despite the Notice of Intent
to Suspend did so at their own risk.  The Agency wants to ensure
that the pesticide producing industry does not interpret a Notice
of Intent to Suspend as a signal to increase production of the subject
product during the pendency of  the suspension proceeding.

    It has been the general  policy of the Agency to request national
recall where product registrations have been suspended in order
to prevent an imminent hazard  to man or. his environment. That
policy will be applied in the instant case.r As the initial step in  ....
implementing this policy, EPA has requested the recall, down to
and including the retail level,  of all heptachlor/chlordane products
for which all uses were suspended and which were formulated
after  July 29, 1975  [category A products].  In addition, the Agency
intends  to request the recall—in some instances for1 relabeling--of
all heptachlor/chlordane products formulated after. July 29, 1975
-------
                             -4-
 whose labels contain both suspended and non-suspended uses [category
 B products],  "Intrastate" products [category C products] will be treated
 in a manner consistent with similarity situated Federally registered
 products.
 IV.  ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
     As has been the established policy in such matters,  enforcement   " .
 actions will be taken, in accordance with normal procedures and at     -"•::•
 levels consistent with those provided for in the Pesticides Enforcement-':-J
 Division Case Proceedings Manual, against all persons found in viola-
 tion of the heptachlor/chlordane suspension order.           .     "-•••.	

 •" •'" There exist a number of enforcement action options available .to . :.L-.;^-~
 ensure compliance with the Administrator's Suspension Order.  As - -i-^-i-
 previously stated, the Agency has determined that a national recall	 —
. of violative products would be the most effective and efficient means "•••  -•
..of ensuring compliance with the suspension-order. -Because of_the  .:._._...-i-.
--extra-ordinary number of products and'firms which are affecte'd by~~-'
 the December 24th Order and the commensurate amount of Agency •--•-— -
 resources which would be involved in-conducting a formal-recall, -the-----'---/
 Agency feels that the procedures outlined in the Case  Proceedings
 Manual, Chapter 12, for informal recalls would be more appropriate
 in this matter.  Information and guidance with respect to specific en-
 forcement related actions which may be directed toward each of the
 aforementioned categories of heptachlor/chlordane products follows: -.•;.-." •

     (A) Federally registered products,  all uses of which were sus-  •
 pended and which were formulated alter July  29, 1975. . As per recall'" "
 initiation procedures, the Pesticide Enforcement Division has notified
 by certified mail those registrants who had all uses of their heptachlor/
 chlordane product(s) suspended by the December 24th Order, that  EPA
 is requesting that all subject products formulated after July 29;  1975;.. •
•be recalled immediately. This letter .-..a. copy of which is attached to-   . -
 this memorandum, refers the addressee, to the Registration Division
 suspension letter informing the registrant of  the registration status of
 his product(s), and continues by specifically requesting that (a) the 	~.
 company initiate, procedures to  determine the locations of all quantities-
 of their finally suspended product and the amount of such product at
 each such product location, (b)  that the product be returned to the
 registrant from all locations, and (c) that the named regional contact
 person be informed of all actions taken in connectiqn with the.recall.

 In your follow-up to determine compliance with the recall request, you
 should:

         (1) be assured that the registrant has recalled the product
            from the retail level,  and either

             (i)  .disposed of the product,
-------
                                -5-


            (ii)  exported product in accordance with section 17,  or  2/

            (iii)  sought new registration for continued uses;

        (3) stop sale any such product found in consumer channels
            under section 13; and

        (4) where appropriate, initiate enforcement action under
            section 14.  3/               ........
                        •—M>  f

    (B) Federally registered products with both suspended and con-
 tinued uses and which were formulated alter July 2V, i^To"!As soon
 as. these products can be identified as to their registration status, PED
 will request each registrant to contact all  known, distributors, whole-
 salers, and retailers that the subject product should not be sold or
 otherwise distributed.  Registrants will be instructed that they should..
 recall from retail level as set forth above for category A products.

 When following-up to determine compliance with the recall of these pro-
 ducts, you should:

    •••- (I) be assured that the registrant has recalled the product
          •  from the retail level, and either

            (i)   disposed of product if amendment to labeling is not
                 made,

            (ii)   exported product in accordance with section 17,

            (iii)  relabeled product with amended label deleting sus-
                 pended uses,  or      •-	 ,          ..

            (iv)  in accordance with EPA approved instructions,
                 overlaid product with approved sticker labels,
                 masked out suspended uses, or used other means to
                 delete suspended uses from the labels;
_T/  Registrants: should be inforxned-thatfthe Agency would interpose
 no objection to the export of; products affected .by. the suspension order,
 but wishes to caution, registr.ants concerning the recent stipulation
 signed by the Department of. State concerning the.utUization-.bf US funds
 for USAID-procurements of such products.  See.USAID regulation entitled
 "Pest Management Program,  Interim Pesticide Procedures, " published
 in the Federal Register on January 7, 1976.

 3/  Those persons who distribute or sell a suspended heptachlor/
 chlordane product in violation of the terms of the December 24th
 Suspension  Order will be in violation of section 12(a)(l)(A) for non- •••
 registration, as well as section 12(a)(2)(J) for violation of a section
 6 suspension,order.                        .    :'   "             '
-------
                               -6-
        (2)  stop sale any such product found in consumer channels
            under section 13; and

        (3)  where appropriate, will initiate enforcement action under
            section 14.  3/
                            /
     (C)  Intrastate products.  The policies outlined above will also
apply/as appropriate,  to intrastate products  as they become identified.
At present, the 48 products thus far'identified will be treated the same-
as Federally registered products, all uses of which have been suspended
[category A products].

     Now that all parties affected by-the Administrator's Decision and
Order in the heptachlor/chlordane suspension proceedings have been - -•
duly notified of this action and of their obligations attendant thereto,
the Agency places the highest prior ily -^n-assuring full and immediate- -'•
compliance.  The initiation and follow-up of the heptachlor/chlordane
recall herein authorized will represent a significant addition to-exist-  "
ing regional enforcement burdens. It is anticipated that regions will --.
exercise initiative and  energy in performing,, in addition to program---...-.
med outputs, the surveillance,  inspections," enforcement actions, and
routine follow-up necessary to implement this recall.

     The region should report the.following information to the appro-
priate regional coordinator as soon as available:

      (1)  the number of firms subject to-recall;       -

      (2) the amount of each product recalled; and                  ~  "

      (3) the methods of actual or planned disposal                    '
          of recalled material.


V. DISPOSAL OF HEPTACHLOR/CHLORDANE PRODUCTS

     Persons desiring  to dispose of stocks.of heptachlor/chlordane
should be apprisedithat they may arrange with the appropriate regions
•'to ship the product;for  disposal, including return to a supplier," for
export, .or in.accordance with directions provided by.the Office of
Solid Waste Management.  Disposal questions may be referred to. .
Mr. Ray Kreuger,  Operations Divison, Office of Pesticide Programs
[(202)  755-8050], Regional offices are encouraged to cooperate in every
way possible with responsible efforts to dispose of suspended heptachlor./
chlordane stocks. -                                             .
-------
                               - 7 -


VI.  INDEMNITIES

     The Office of Enforcement has been advised by th-?-Office of
General Counsel that the registrants of heptachlor/chlordane products
suspended by the December 24th Order are not eligible for indemni-
fication under section 15  of the amended FIFRA.


VH.  INQUIRES

     Should you have any questions concerning any facet of this memor-
andum and the heptachlor/chlordane  suspension order, please contact..
the appropriate regional  coordinator.-Questions relating to registration
and label status should be referred to Mr. Tim Gardner, Registration -
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs [(202> 426-9425].         -.-•  - .?


      ATTACHMENTS            	-._..-   -

     Please find attached the following:

        (1) "Attachment A —Specific Uses of Chlordane and
        '   -;Heptachlor Not Suspended by Administrator's  Order  —  —-—
           of 12 724/75:T7"

        (2) Copies of recall request letters sent to registrants by
          ' FED.

        (3) Three form letters sent  by RD/OPP  to "intrastate"
         .-• heptachlor/chlordane registrants.

        (4) 41 FR 7552 (February 19, 1976) — "Velsicol Chemical
      	Co. et al., Consolidated Heptachlor/Chlordane Hearing. "-

        (5) List of Federally registered heptachlor/chlordane pro-
        •   ducts, all uses of which  have.been suspended [category'
        .  -.A products] was mailed by PED to the regional pesticide. • :
         .  branch chiefs under separate cover March 17,  1976.

        (6) List pf the 48  "intrastate" heptachlor/chlordane products,"
           -all use of which were suspended [category C products].   ^---
-------
    u
    ?   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
                     27AUG1976
                                                    OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
TO:     Enforcement Division Directors
        Pesticides Branch Chiefs           ^ f\    .1^'  N/.

FROM:  A. E. Conroy II. Director
        Pesticides and Toxic Substances
        Enforcement Division (EN-342)

RE:     Heptachlor/Chlordane Suspension OrVler
        Enforcement Strategy — CORN USE
         e confusion has arisen concerning the enforcement response
to certain heptachlor/chlordane products now on the market which are
labeled for use on corn pests.  The Administrator concluded in In re
Velsicol Chemical Corporation, et al. (Expedited Hearing On Heptachlor -
Chlordane),  41 Fed.  Reg. 7552 (February 19, 1976) that

      the benefits of  continued use of heptachlor  and chlordane to
      control cutworms  on corn crops during the time which may
      be required to  reach a final decision in the cancellation
   .   proceeding are not sufficient to outweigh the human health
      risks identified; provided,  however that particularly in view
      of the difficult  transition required to implement alternative
      cutworm control methods,  the use of heptachlor and chlordane
      to control cutworm on corn crops should be permitted during
      the 1976 corn growing season.  Accordingly, I have concluded
      that the registration for use of heptachlor and chlordane  to
      control cutworms  on corn crops should be  suspended effective
      August 1, 1976. _*/

     As you are aware,  the Administrator's heptachlor/chlordane orders
provide the following concerning the legal status of the various products:
      */  See also, "Clarification of Order of December 24, 1975, " 41
Fed.TTeg. 7552 (February 19, 1976).
-------
                              -2-

      1.  With the exception of the corn use, all registrations of pesticide
 products containing heptachlor and chlordane for uses not specifically
 continued (e. g., chlordane to control black vine weevil on.Japanese yew
 in Michigan), were suspended as of December 24, 1975.  *»/

      2.  By invoking the "Special Rule" provision of FIFRA section 15(b)
 (2),  the Administrator has  provided that stocks of EPA registered pesti-
 cides containing heptachlor/chlordane formulated prior to July 30, 1975,
 may be sold, distributed, or used for suspended uses, including use on
 corn.

      3.  Stocks of heptachlor or chlordane products formulated after
 July 29,1975, may be sold, distributed,  or used only for  exempted uses
 [see "Attachment A," enclosed].  Thus, for example, a chlordane product
 whose sole registered use was for  cutworm control  on corn could legally be
 produced, distributed, sold, and used without violatingthe December 24
 suspension order until this product became finally suspended on August 1,
 1976.

     You will remember that prior to our request for the recall of violative
 heptachlor/chlordane products, R ^"tration Division, Office of Pesticide
 Programs advised affected  registrants that if amended labeling which deletec
 all reference to suspended  uses was  submitted and approved by EPA, the
 relabeled product could continue in commerce.  To  accomodate those pro-
 ducers of agricultural products listing corn uses, a decision was made to
 allow the registrant to continue to display the directions for use on corn,
 provided the following disclaimer was inserted immediately after the crop
 designation:  "USE SUSPENDED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1976. "  Ten com-
 panies exercised their option to relabel accordingly; the 19 products areas
 follows:

 279-2656    NIAGARA CHLORDANE 5 COATED GRANULES
 279-2904    CHLOR KIL 10 DUST INSECTICIDE
 449-123     SURE DEATH BRAND HEPTACHLOR 3E
 449-74      SURE DEATH  BRAND HEPTACHLOR 2E
 876-55      VELS1COL CHLORDANE 72EC SOIL INSECTICIDE
 876-89      VELSICOL BELT 72 ECF
 876-99      VELSICOL BELT 33. 3 G AGRICULTURAL INSECTICIDE
            GRANULARS FOR SOIL INSECT  CONTROL
 876-102     VELSICOL BELT 72 EC AGRICULTURAL INSECTICIDE  .
 876-172     BELT 40% WP AGRICULTURAL INSECTICIDE'
 148-139     CHLORDANE E-8
 226-178     TASCO BRAND CHLORDANE 20  GRANULAR
 226-219     TOBACCO STATES 50% CHLORDANE WETTABLE POWDER
 228-92      RIVERDALE 25% CHLORDAKE GRANULES
    • _**/. To arrive-at a result consistent with the Administrator's intent to
suspend all use of chlordane/heptachlor. on corn, regardless of target pest,
the use of these pesticides to control the white fringed beetle attacking corn
crops in  eight southeastern states (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, and TN)
and to control white grubs on corn in Michigan is also precluded.
-------
1029-77     AT.HEX CflLORDANE 8E
2&35-151    RED TCP CHLORDANE 8 SPRAY
9859-51     CIILORDANE 10 GRANULAR
9859-53     CHLORDANE 5 GRANULAR
9859-55     CHLORDANE 25 GRANULAR
'14775       CHLORDANE-TOXAPHENE BAIT NO. 11 (Florida "intrastate"
            —Asgrow Florida Company,  P. O. Drawer D, Plant City, FL)

     Therefore, at'ter December 24, 1975, no product produced after July 29,
1975 for corn use could be legally distributed or sold without the above men-
tioned disclaimer.  The detection of such violative product will continue to
receive Agency response  in the form of a FIFRA section 13(a) Stop Sale,  Use
or Removal Order and section 14 action, as appropriate.  It is the Office of
Enforcement view that enforcement action,  including SSURO's, should not be
taken against the sale and distribution after August 1, 1976  of products bearing
the disclaimer.  The use  of such product on corn after August 1, 1976 is in vio-
lation of the suspension order [§12(a)(2)(J)J, as well as a misuse [§12(a)(2)(G)J.

    ' To summarize:  (1) products formulated prior to July 30, 1975, includ-
ing those with directions for use on corn, may continue to be sold, distributed,
and used;  (2) products formulated after July 29, 1975, may  be sold,  distri-
buted,  and used only with labeling amended to include only continued uses;
and (3) products formulated after July 29, 1975, with directions for  use on
corn, must bear the following disclaimer immediately after the corn use
directions: "USE SUSPENDED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1976. "

     The Agency is not contemplating at this time "the recall of the above
products for relabeling to delete reference to corn uses.  At the conclusion
of the cancellation proceeding,  heptachlor/chlordane labels will be revised
to conform with the Administrator's final order.

     All inquiries in this  matter should be referred to the appropriate regional
coordinator.
-------
  <;.-,£"••"•••«...


\ \\ff ^   U!'" '  J STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 \.,""'"'>:                    WASHINGTON. D.C.  20-160



                               23NGV W3

                                                         OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
     To:     Enforcement Division Directors
             and Pesticide Branch Chiefs

     From:  A. E. 'Conroy II, Director
             Pesticides and Toxic Substances
                Enforcement  Division

     Re:     Continued Enforcement of the Suspension of Registration
             for Certain Products Containing Chlordane and Heptachlor
         On August 1, 1976, the suspension of existing registrations of
     heptachlor/chlordane products for use on corn was effective as to
     all products formulated-after July 29, 1975.  Thus, the Admini-'
     strator's suspension order of December 24,  1975 became completely
     effective as to all subject products formulated after August 29,  1975
     and not already cancelled.  The recall of subject products initiated in
     March 1276 is no\v essentially complete and a final report should  be
     submitted to  PTSED for inclusion in the  heptachlor/chlordane file.
     Therefore, each region should prepare a Recall Final Report (Exhibit
     14-E, Pesticides Inspection Manual) for  each product subject to our
     recall  request which was  produced after July 29, 1975.  This report
     should be submitted to the appropriate Regional Coordinator no later
     than December 31, 1976.

         Recently  the Court of  Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sustained  the
     Administrator's decision  to suspend certain  uses of chlordane and
     heptachlor in all but one important respect.  (Environmental Defense
     Fund v. EPA, No. 76-1247 (D.C. Cir.,  decided Nov.  10, 1976)).  With
     respect to the Administrator's decision to allow use of existing stocks,
     the  court remanded for reconsideration of such issues as amounts of
     existing stocks- and the problems involved in their return or disposal.
     How the Agency will proceed in meeting  the requirements of the
     remand has not been determined.
-------
                             -2-

    Future surveillance for compliance with the Administrator's
order should be routine except in the c.?~c of firms refusing to recall.
Additional visits to produccrs~and/or distributors may je necessary
to assure compliance in these situations.  Regarding enforcement
actions,  pending a final outcome on the issue of the remand,  the fol-
lowing should be pursued.  Any suspended hcptachlor/chlordane pro-
duct produced after July 29,  1975, and remaining in commerce should
be stop saled.  Additionally, since all but retail distributors should
have been notified to return the violative products, any suspended
products found  in channels of trade  above the retail level should be
sampled  and civil penalty actions issued to the  distributor and/or the
producer, as appropriate. Civil penalty actions should also be issued
for any violative samples previously collected above the retail level.
Beyond stop sale,  decisions  on the level of action to be applied at the
retail level are left Jo regional discretion,  though any  repetition of
violation or evidence of bad faith should warrant civil penalty action.
This policy is reiterated now because  a  period  of grace was previously
allowed for return or disposal of violative stocks.  Now that the recall
is complete and the suspension order close to a year old, such leniency
is no longer appropriate.

    Finally, in  several instances recently,  questions have arisen con-
cerning indemnities.   The Agency's position has been that such requests
pursuant to section 15  of the  Act are inappropriate in the absence of a
final order of cancellation.  (See letter attached).

Enclosures:
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION /•.".. ;-;OY
                                                                         t«-
                                     120CT 1276
        Mr. Kalph Lnq'il'  '   ,
        Executive Director
        Chemical Spscialtisc r-iaT
       •   'Association;  Incorporated
        1001 Connecticut.  Avsnuo,  u.
        Suite 1120
        Washington,  r;.  C.   20035

        Dear Mr. l£p.:jel:
             Your letter  of August 30,  1970,  has boon  referrad to
        this office  ior  rev-ly...  •-•CCO.USG  of.- tuo Administrator':~
        ongoing vole  in  tfte ch.lc-rdan •-/hev'-^ciilor prccesdir.vo,  it  /
        would >:3 ' improper  under the  Agency's  rules of  practice
        for i'iim to resoond to your inquiry.
                  ' .  '  "  •      - '   "    '     '" •        ,   •  * •"      ' •  '
         •f    Your letter  asks that tl;c  A-d:r.iniutr.3tor  invoke  the ". .
        "scccicil rul'i"/uniior 5l'j(b)(2),  in order tc allow inven-
        tories of chlor3anG. products  formulated bctv;c-.?n  vluly  29,.  ;•
        1<;75, ana Decemijsr 2^., li>7r>,  and currently on  dsalor
        shelves, to  be sold until such.  Btocks: ore oxhausted.
       .      Your rec/uest would -necessitate r.:o..'.ii'icatioo  of the
        order issuea  by  the Administrator  on !)occip.oer  2n>  1975.
        Requests tor  cuch Modifications  must be made  in  coni'oririance
        with the rules o£ practice  set  forth in 40 Cl-'R Part 164.
        be"j especially 40 ClfU lo>1.6(b),  concern ing 'enlargement of
       'filing periotis;  40 >FR 164.31,  concsrninq  intervention;-
        en-.! 40 CTi\ IG-^'.llO,' concernin-i  ino.cicnc for reconsideration
       'of orders.
OATt
   FORM 1333'!
                                                                OFFICIAL KILE COF
-------
      finally, condor  requires that I inform you  that  the
 Aqency statt would  oppose  any socii motion to modify  tae ,
 :suspensicn order, should one  in fact .be filcc'l.   Essentially,
 .this is because  the  suspension order in a temporary  or dor,
 which ultimately will  be sncerceded. by an ordor  at  the
 termination of the.  cancellation prccooclinq.  The  question
 of thfi extonf to v/hich distr iouticn o£ existinq  stocks  oi
 c.hjtovaano protv.-.cts  ci-.ould  be  ailov/ed can and ;?liould  be
• a'dc.r^ssed in tho cancellation procvjeui'nq, and  resolved  in
 the order at ttia conclusion of that proceeding.   Sound
 ^considerations of oroceaursl  nian&ciom.'jnt militate  against
 interruption of  the  cancellation proceeding to consider •
 this question at this  time.      ,;
                                G.  William Frick
                                Genural 'Counsel   (A-130)
-------
                  /• i
                  (J
                   ^J
                           A&J
CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION. INCORPORATED
        CXCCUil'.l 
-------
                      -2-
   to.3,600,000 units remain on the shelves of some
   75,000 retail dealers.  While the recall or stop-
   sale of these units would have an adverse economic
   impact on many formulators, their normal, generally
   outdoor use v/ould not significantly exacerbate a
   situation that has been ongoing for some 26 years.
   Furthermore, v/e have heard that some dealers are
 .  simply flushing unmarketable units away, thereby
   possibly creating a potential hazard more pro-
   nounced than that created by accepted uses before
   suspension.  Indeed, safe disposal remains a pro-
   blem for the formulator.

3)  There has been some ambiguity concerning the sale
   of chlordane that has left a number of formulators
   confused and uncertain.  On July 29, 1975 you, in
   your Notice of Intent to Suspend, announced that
   you were invoking the Special Rule for those pro-
   •ducts formul'itM as of the date of the notice.
. .  We believe that this action should have beea taken
   when the registrations of chlordane for most uses
   was suspended on December 24, 1975.  Had you is-
   sued an emergency suspension order on July 29th,
   the Special Rule could have been invoked.  By
   letter dated September 23, 1975, the Office of
   General Counsel indicated that the sale of pro-
   ducts formulated after July 29th was legal until
   final suspension decision was made.  On December 24,
   you suspended most registrations and stated that
   products formulated after July 29th could not be
   sold.   On March 23, 1976 the Enforcement Division
   requested formulators to undertake a voluntary
   recall of products formulated after July 29th.
   The net effect of these actions has been to en-
   gender confusion-in many people over the mandatory
   nature of a ban on sales.  While perhaps not de-
   cisive, we believe this factor should in good faith
   be considered.           ...                     •

4)  Harassment of dealers by some Enforcement officials,
   especially in the Northeast, has fostered resent-
   ment of the Agency as a whole and,  in some cases,
   strained relations along the distribution chain.
   The orderly sale of remaining inventories would-.  .
   reverse these counterproductive tensions.         ':
-------
                           -3-
Of course,  should you  invoke  the  Special Rule,  it would
alleviate indemnification  problems  that will "arise wi.th
.respect  to  products  formulated prior to the Suspension
Order.

I look forward  to hearing  from you  concerning this impori
tant matter.                          .
Ralp
Exec
RErkas
cc:  A.E. Conroy
-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                         280CT1976
                                                      OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
TO:     Enforcement Division Directors
         Pesticide Branch Chiefs

FROM:  A. E. Conroy II, Director
         Pesticides  and Toxic Substances                __ .
         Enforcement Divison                  /                \)

RE:     Conclusion of the Mercury Cancellation Proceeding
    On August 19, 1976,  the Administrator concluded,the four year old
mercurial pesticide product cancellation case by approving a settlement
in In re Chapman C he mi zzl Company, et al. between the registrants
and EPA.  The purpose 01 this memorandum is to briefly review back-
ground events, to explain the terms and conditions of the settlement
order, and to provide you with a revised mercury cancellation enforce-
ment strategy.


I.  BACKGROUND         .'                                          •

    The mercury hearings were initiated on March 22,  1972, when EPA
Administrator Ruckelshaus issued PR Notice 72-5 announcing the Agency's
intent to cancel the registrations of all mercurial pesticide products, and
the immediate suspension of all alkyl mercury compound registrations
and of all nonalkyl products registered for use on rice  seed, in laundries,
and in marine antifouling paint.  In March of 1972,  there were twenty
registrants with thirty-seven alkyl mercury products registered, and
four hundred eighty-four registered non-alkyl mercury products held by
one hundred sixty-five registrants.  None of the registrants of the sus-
pended mercury pesticides opposed the Administrator's order and the
products were therefore suspended and finally cancelled. Twenty-three
registrants sought administrative review of the notice of intent to cancel;
these registrants contested-the cancellation of mercury as a bactericide/
fungicide for use on turf, in paints and coatings, as a seed treatment, in
dry formulations,  in fabrics, on .wood, and as a treatment for the  control
of the Dutch elm disease.
-------
                                 -2-

    The formal adjudicatory hearings were held between October 1974 and
September 1975.  On December 12, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Ber-
nard D. Levinson issued an initial decision,  concluding that the follow-
ing pesticides containing mercury should be cancelled because they create
an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment:

    (1)  all uses in paints and coatings, except as an in-can preservative
        in water-based paints and coatings and as a fungicide in water-
        based paints and coatings used for exterior applications;

    (2) all uses as  a-fungicide on golf courses,  .except as used on greens,
        tees,  and aprons for the control of fungi of the snow mold complex;

    (3) all uses for seed treatment;

    (4) as a treatment for control of the Dutch elm disease; and

    (5) all uses for any material that could be used in wearing apparel
        and other uses for textiles and fabrics,  except as a fungicide in
        the treatment of textiles and fabrics for out-of-door use.

    On February 17,  1976, the Administrator issued his decision and order
in the consolidated mercury hearings (In re Chapman Chemical Company
et al., FIFRA Docket No. 246,  et al.).The Administrator found that the
benefits from the continued use  of mercurial pesticides for use as bacteri-
cides or fungicides  "(1) in paints and coatings,  (2) on turf, including golf
course greens and all other areas of golf courses,  (3) for seed treatment,
and (4) for any other use not specifically identified and permitted" by the
decision did not sufficiently outweigh the risks to man and the environment
and were, therefore,  cancelled.  The decision and order cancelled the
registrations for all remaining mercurial products, except for use

    (1)  as fungicides in the treatment of textiles and fabrics intended
        for continuous outdoor use;

    (2) to control brown mold on freshly sawn lumber; and

    (3) as a treatment for the control of Dutch elm  disease.

As to the  existing stocks issue,  the Administrator provided that the
sale and use of cancelled mercury products which were formulated
on or before February 17, 1976,  were permitted.

    Several mercury registrants sought review in the United States
Federal Court of the Administrator's cancellation of the seed treatment
and the turf fungicide uses of their products.  On March 2,  1976, the
Administrator ordered that the effectiveness of the February 17th
Cancellation Order  be temporarily stayed pending judicial review in
several United States Courts of Appeals.  This order applied to all
existing mercurial registrations and the stay was to continue through
-------
                               -3-

June 30, 1976,  or the conclusion of judicial review proceedings, which
ever occurred first.  An important feature of the March 2nd Order was
that it prohibited the parties to the cancellation proceeding from increas-
ing production of subject products or from stockpiling.
             J
   On March 26, 1976, the Administrator granted registrants' petition
for reconsideration of the decision and order to cancel the  registrations
of mercurial pesticides for use  in water-based paints and coatings.

   The Administrator modified the February 17  cancellation order on
May 27,  1976, to reinstate the registrations for certain.mercurial water-
based paints  and  coatings;  and,  he extended the stay of the  effective
date of the cancellation until November 30,  1976  (or until the conclusion
of judicial review; if earlier).

   On August 19, 1976, the Administrator approved a settlement in
In re Chapman  Chemical Company, et al. between respondent-EPA
and registrant-appellants Parsons Chemical Works,  Inc.; Troy
Chemical Corporation; Gustafson, Inc. ;  Mallinckrodt, Inc.; W. A. Cleary
Corporation; and O. M. Scott & Sons Company concerning certain contested
uses awaiting review in the Eighth Circuit,  U. S. C^urt of Appeals, as the
result of an appeal filed following the February 17 cancellation order.  In
brief, the settlement will terminate the mercury case contingent upon the
completion of necessary regulatory activities by the Registration Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs,  according to the following terms:

    (1)  Registrations for mercurial seed disinfectants and  for
        mercurial turf fungicides for use against summer turf
        diseases will be finally  cancelled on or before August
        31, 1978.  Production of these products in the interim
        is limited to prevent stockpiling; total permitted pro-
        duction will not exceed the equivalent of two years of
        production, as determined by production data for recent
        years.   These uses involve 20, 000-25, 000 pounds of
        production of technical mercury annually.

    (2)  The cancellation of registrations for mercurial fungicides
        for use against winter turf diseases  (10, 000-15, 000 pounds
        production of technical mercury annually) is vacated.  Use
        of these products within 25 feet of water bodies where  fish
        are taken for human consumption is  prohibited.  --The pro-
        ducts may be applied only by or  "under the direct supervi-
        sion  of" golf course superintendents.  The registrants will
        request that these  products be classified as restricted use
        pesticides.

    (3)  Mercury products  produced before the effective date of final
        cancellation  (August 31,  1978 or the date  on which maximum
        allowed quanitity is reached) will become "existing stocks, "
        the sale, distribution, and use of which will be permitted.
-------
                     .  •        -4-

The Administrator has concluded that the terms and conditions of settle-
ment agreed to by the parties to the cancellation proceeding satisfy
appplicable  statutory standards under FIFRA and that the.settlement is
in the public interest.  See attached "Chapman Chemical Company, et
al., Consolidated Mercury Cancellation Hearing, Settlement and Order
T4TFed. Reg.  36068. August 26, 1976) [hereinafter,  Settlement and
Order]."

    Until such time as RD/OPP notifies the registrants of cancelled
mercurial pesticide registrations of the status of these products under
FIFRA §3, PTSED  cannot be confident in the accuracy of any list of
continued mercury registrations that this office might  construct. At.
this juncture,  it appears that all uses of mercury were cancelled on
August 31, 1976, except as follows:

    (a)  for  seed treatment (cancellation stayed by August 19
        Settlement  and Order),

    (b)  for  control of summer turf disease (cancellation stayed
        by August 19 Settlement and Order),

    (c)  in the treatment of textiles and fabrics intended for
        continuous outdoor use,

    (d)  as a treatment for control of the Dutch Elm  disease,

    (e)  as an in-can preservative in water-based paints and
        coatings,

    (f) as a fungicide in water-based paints and coatings used
        for exterior application,

    (g)  as a fungicide for use against winter turf diseases, and

    (h)  to control brown mold on freshly sawn lumber.
II.  ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY.

    A.  ENFORCEMENT  OF THE STAY ORDER -- STATUS.

     In my memorandum to you of May 14, 1976, entitled "Consolidated
Mercury Hearing—March 2 Stay of the Febraury 17 Cancellation Order, "
I outlined the Agency's enforcement strategy concerning the manufacture
of mercurial pesticides during the pendency of the stay of the cancella-
tion's effective date.  The order staying the final cancellation could have
been dissolved if the Administrator found  that a party to the proceeding
was increasing production and/or stockpiling mercurials during the pen-
dency of  the stay.  Affected regions (II, III, IV, and V) were requested
to initiate section 8 books and records inspections at all producer estab-
lishments,  twenty in all, to determine the level of compliance with the
Administrator's order.  Your cooperation in ensuring that the terms
-------
                                -5-r

of the Administrator's orders — particularly, the "average monthly amount"
restriction — were complied with by affected registrants is appreciated.
The further need to monitor and to advise the Administrator as to the level
of compliance by the registrants with the conditions of the- stay order has
been mooted tjy  the issuance of his most recent order announcing the con-
clusion of the  mercury proceedings.

 •! '  B.   TERMS OF THE "SETTLEMENT AND ORDER. "

       1.  Registration  Status of Mercury Products.  The Administrator's
gs
76,
August 31,  1976, Settlement and Order provides the following:

          (a)  the cancellation order provision cancelling the
              registrations of the following mercurial seed
              treatment products is stayed until August 31,
              1978,  or until the registrant has produced the
              maximum allowed quantity of the product under
             . the conditions of the particular settlement  agree-
              ment, whichever occurs first:

              (i)   Parsons Chemical Works (1969-MI-01) —

                   1969-57   PARSONS SLURRY CONCENTRATE "60"
                   1969-58   PARSONS LIQUID SEED SAVER
                   1969-91   PARSONS SEED SAVER DUST

              (ii)  Gustafson, Inc.  (2079-NJ-01; 36209-NJ-01) —

                   7501-2    MIST-O-MATIC LIQUID SEED DISINFECTANT
                   7501-5    MIST-O-MATIC DRILL BOX TREATMENT

              (iii)  Troy Chemical Corporation (5383-NJ-01) —

                   605-37   GALLOTOX LIQUID SEED DISINFECTANT

          (b)  the cancellation order provision cancelling the registrations
              of the following mercurial fungicide products for use against
              summer turf diseases is stayed until August  31,  1978,  or
              until the registrant has produced the maximum allowed
              quantity of the product under conditions of the particular
              settlement agreement, whichever occurs first I/:
   T/  As part of the settlement agreement, O.  M. Scott, and W. A. Cleary
have agreed to apply to the Registration Division,  Office of  Pesticides Pro-
grams on or before September 1, 197G, to amend the registrations of subject
products to establish separate registrar1*?:-.;-; ;'or (i.) products for use against
summer turf diseases  and (ii) product? U;Y n^o against.winter turf diseases.
You will be notified and supplied with the necessary information as soon as
PTSED is apprised of the completion of this action by RD/OPP.
-------
                                  - 6 -

              (i)   O. M. Scott & Sons Company (538-OH-01) —

                   538-27    PRO-TURF BROAD SPECTRUM FUNGICIDE
                   538-36    PRO-TURF FERTILIZER PLUS FUNGICIDE
                   538-56    CALIFORNIA FERTILIZER PLUS FUNGICIDE

             J  (ii)  W. A.  Cleary Corporation (1001-NJ-01) —

                   1001-4    PMAS  CRABGRASS KILLER AND FUNGICIDE

          (c) the cancellation order provision cancelling the registrations
              of the following Mallinckrodt, Inc. (372-PA-01; 372-NJ-01)
              mercurial fungicide products for -use-against 'V/inter turf dis-
              eases 2_l is vacated in accordance with the terms of the
              settlement agreement  and production, sale,  and distribution
              may resume unimpeded 3/:

                   372-5    CALO-CLOR
                   372-33    CALO-GRAN

          (d) the order of March 2,  1976, staying the cancellation
              order •••-' February 17,  1976,  is dissolved effective.
              August oi,  1976.


       2.  Enforcement Responsibilities Under Settlement and Order.  Pur-
suant to the terms of the settlement agreements, registrant-appellants must
fulfill certain substantive requirements to be afforded a stay of the effective
date of the cancellation of the seed treatment and summer turf disease pro-
duct registrations.  The conditions impacting on the Office  of Enforcement
include;

           (a) During the pendency of the stay, the registrants must limit
              production of the subject mercurials for use against summer
              turf disease to the amount  determined by multiplying the
              average monthly production rate during the base period (in
              most cases,  April 1, 1972 to September 1,  1976) times the
              number of months the  cancellation is stayed  (24).  If this
              total production figure is reached prior to August 31, 1978,
              the subject product's registration become immediately
    77 "Winter turf diseases" consist of Fusarium nivale (pink snow mold,
pink patch, or fusarium patch),  Typhula incarna, Typhula ishikariensis, and
Sclerotinia borealis.

    _3_/ As part of the settlement agreement, Mallinckrodt has agreed to
amend the subject products' labeling to include the caution "Do not apply
•within twenty-five (25) feet of any body of v.-ater where fish are taken for
human consumption" and the direction ihrt the product may be used ". . .
only by or under the direct supervision en .•;••.>!:.' course superintendents. "
These label additions will also be made to the O. M. Scott and W. A. Cleary
products  for use against winter turf diseases (see footnote I/, supra).
-------
                                      -7-

               cancelled, and the registrants must notify the Director
               of the Pesticides and Toxic Substances Division of such
               fact immediately.

           (b) On or before September 1,  1976, the registrants were to
               provide PTSED with (a) production figures by product
               for the base period,  (b) the total existing inventories
               of subject products as of September 1, 1976,  and (c) a
               list of immediate customers likely to purchase the
               subject products.  As of now,  these data have not
               been fully submitted. PTSED is corresponding with
               the subject registrants, noting their delinquency and
               the necessity for delivery of the required information.

           (c) Beginning on September 30, 1976,  the registrants must
               submit quarterly production reports on subject regis-
               tered products to PTSED (plus other reports and/or
               additional information necessary to effecutate the
               intended purpose of the agreement). As of now, these
               data are also incomplete.

    C. ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.

      The Agency's enforcement strategy concerning mercurial pesticide
 products will-have two,g.eneral .areas .of .emphasis: (1) the monitoring of
 the production limitation provisions of the settlement agreements for
 compliance by all affected registrants, and (2) the exercise of standard
 enforcement actions against persons who are discovered violating the
 terms of the mercury cancellation order.

         1.  Monitoring.  The monitoring of settlement agreement com-
 pliance will be the joint enterprise of regional personnel with pesticide
 enforcement responsibilities and the Pesticide and Toxic Substances
 Enforcement  Division. Initially,  PTSED will review data submitted by
 the mercury registrants subject to the Settlement and Order,  and will
 independently calculate and corroborate the figures submitted by subject
 companies as the "maximum allowed quantity1 for each product to the
 final August 31, 1978 cancellation deadline. The official figures will be
 transmitted to the regions who will  then be able to determine whether
 and when inspection of mercury producing establishments is warranted
 under the particular circumstances of each case.  Deviations from the
 Administrator's  Settlement and Order will be dealt with as appropriate.

         2.  Enforcement'actions.  As soon as PTSED is provided with an
 official list of those mercury products cancelled and those mercury regis-
 trations surviving the cancellation proceedings, you  will be so advised.
 Additionally,  as  soon  as there is a change in  the registration status of
 those products whose  effective dates of cancellation have been stayed by
'the Settlement and Order, regions will bo notified.  Violations of the
 cancellation order will be handled as rouri^c  enforcement matters.  As.
 the Administrator has provided for  the use of existing stocks of products
 subject to the August 19 order,  there will  be no recall program initiated.
-------
                               -8r

HI.  INQUIRIES.

   Inquires concerning any facet of the mercury cancellation proceedings
and the Agency's enforcement strategy should be referred to-the appropriate
regional coordinator.
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                             JAM  6  1377
                                                       OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT


TO:       Enfor-'^nt rivisi.cn Directors
          Pesticides Branch Chiefs

FROM:     A. E. Conroy II, Director        f\
          Pesticides and Toxic Substances
             Enforcement Division

RE:       Enforcement of Mercury Settlement


      In a memorandum of October 28,  1976,  entitled "Conclusion of the
Mercury Cancellation Proceeding" (attached),  I  outlined the background
and conclusion cf In Re Chapman Chemical Company,  et_al.,  including,
at pp 5-7, the terns of the settlement and  order and the Agency's pro-
jected enforcement thereof. Review of the compliance with  the order by
the six registrants affected indicates that there exist degrees of com-
pliance activities, varying from none to complete.

      On December 24, 1976, five registrants  (not including Mallinckroct)
were advised by registered letter (copies attached) of the Agency's record
of their compliance, of those activities required to be completed, of a
general deadline of January 14, 1977, for initial compliance, and of  EPA's
intention to immediately enforce against non-compliance.

      As a follow-up to these letters, you  are  requested to make plans
to inspect, between January 19 and 21, 1977 those manufacturing facilities
in your region where section 7 records indicate subject products are  pro-
duced for the purpose of placing stop sales against those  products whose
registrations are no longer valid in  that information was  not submitted
as required by the "Settlement and Order".  Attached is a list of affected
products, labels, producing establishments  and  addresses.  On  the afternoon
of January 18, 1977, your Regional Coordinator  will contact you to indicate
which producers and products have attained  an acceptable level  of compliance
and which ones have not.
-------
                              -2-
      You may use the revised stop sale form provided at p.  13 in the
new section 13 (10-76) of the Case Proceedings Manual.   In the paragraph
specifiying the violation, it is suggested you insert the following:

            . . . there is reason to believe that (product
            name) is in violation of section 12(a)(2)(K)
            of the Act in that the registration of said
            product was continued subject to the terms  of
            the "Settlement and Order"  signed August 19,
            1976, in Re Chapman Chemical Company,  et_al.,
            and said registration is no longer valid in
            that [base period production reports,  calcu-
            lation of total allowable production,  customer
            lists, existing inventories, and quarterly
            production reports] were not submitted as
            required by the Settlement.

      This is the first of several so-called "phased cancellations" which
the Agency is handling.  It is of great importance that we enforce
compliance firmly and swiftly in this intial order to build  an awareness
of and appreciation for the Agency's intentions to enforce similar .
cases in the future. Should you have questions, please  contact the
appropriate Regional Coordinator.
-------
TO:       Enfcrccrr-iHt Division Cirectcrc
          Pesticides Branch Chiefs

FPC«:     A. E. Conroy II, Director
          Pesticides and Toxic Substances
             Enforcement Division

RE:       Enforcement of Mercury Settlement


      In a memorandum of October 28, 1976,  entitled "Conclusion of the
Mercury Cancellation Proceeding" (attached), I outlined the background
and conclusion of In Pe Chepman Chemical Corcany, et al., including,
at pp 5-7, the tersis of the settlement and  order and the Agency's pro-
jected enforcement thereof. Review of the corpliance with the order.by
the six registrants affected indicates that there exist degrees of com-
pliance activities, varying from none to complete.

      Cn December 24, 1976, five registrants (not including Mallinckroct)
were advised by registered letter (copies attached) of the Agency's record
of their corrpliance, of those activities required to be cotrpleted, of a
general deadline of January 14, 1977, for initial cotrpliance, and of  EPA's
intention to itrr.ediately enforce against non-ccirpliance.

      As a follow-up to these letters.- you  are requested to make plans
to inspect, between January 19 and 21, 1977 those manufacturing facilities
in your region where section 7 records indicate subject products are  pro-
duced for the purpose of placing stop sales against those products whose
registrations are no longer valid in that information was not submitted
as retired by the "Settlement and Order".  Attached is a list of affected
products, labels, producing establishments  and addresses. On the afternoon
of January 18, 1977, your Regional Coordinator will contact you to indicate
which producers and products have attained  an acceptable level of compliance
and which ones have not.
-------

      You rrsy use the revised step sale  forr provided at ^  12 in tho
new section 13 (10-76) of the Caso Proceedings .".anusl.  In the i^rcgraph
epecifiying the violation, it is suggested you insert the following:

            ... there is reason to believe that (product
            name) is in violation of section 12(a)(2)(K)
            of th;.1 Act in cnac the registration of said
            product was continued subject to the terns of
            the "Settlement and Crder" signed August 19,
            1976, in He Checnvan Chemical Cofppany, et al,,
            and said registration is no  longer valid in
            that [base period production reports, calcu-
            lation of total allowable production, customer
            lists, existing inventories, and quarterly
            production reports] were net submitted as
            required by the Settlezr,ent.

      This is the first of several so-called "phased cancellations" which
the Agency is handling.  It is of great  importance that we enforce
ccnpliance finrly and swiftly in this intial order to build an awareness
of and appreciation for the Agency's intentions to enforce similar
cases in the future. Should you have questions, please contact the
appropriate Regional Coordinator.
-------
                   Region V Pesticide Products and
                       Company Addresses Involved In
                         The Mercury Settlement

1    0  M  *>^*?- r ",••.'- r^
 '•   ** •  I'* -«'-••' U '„ '. •••!,.' \/>.;|l

      a.  Corresponding Address:

          Mr. John P. Kennedy, General Counsel
          0. M. Scott u Sons
          Ma r> •-,v i  i"; 
-------
                  - 2 -

sons Seed Saver Dust; EPA Reg.  No.  1969-91

arsons Seed Saver Dust was included in the  settlement
jreement, but a search of EPA records  has revealed that
t was never registered.   It carries the file symbol
).  ISGS-kR.
-------
                             RONMENTAL PflOTtlCYION AC-EMCV
       rlr. ilofin P. Kennedy,  General  .Counsel
       0. I!. Scott u. Sou:;"              .         .          .'••,.
       Karysville, Ohio   43040  '                :'

       Dear Mr. Kennedy:           '                    '              /       '
            •                   -              "                       '
            Thank you for your timely submission of tlio quarterly  report for
       the period of July 1.  1976  through Sspteabcr 30, 1S7G.

            V'e are attaching  for your convenience,  a schedule  showing  when the
       next quarterly reports arc  due in  this office.  The reports should be
       sent by certified  nail  and  addressed as follov;s:

                 A.  E. Conroy II,  Director                                ;
                 Pesticides and Tor.ic Substances            .    ;
                 Cnforc-oi:«rr.t  Division (f.i'KM2)
                 U.S. Cnvirorner.tal  Protection Agency  .     "
                 401 M Street, S.iJ.                       •              .   .
                 Washington,' D.C.  2C460             .     .       .          ...

            The data you  suunit uill b-2 treated as confidential, unless yea"
       advise otherwise.          "          •

            V.;e appreciate tfta ptxj^ptr.ass  with which you have responded to the  .
       requirements  ov the SottloPssnt Order end !;ope th.it you  v/'ill continue to
       Deet the coruiifions and rcqiriregents -in:posed upon you,   iiov/evc-r, v.-e
       should tr:ipi:ai:i;.e ti>at  failure to submit •the; reports in  a tir.aly inar.ncr
       will result in the initiation of step cc-le f.nd seizure  actions  as well
       as ths i;:?•:£.liij-.o en-col iatioii of rcyistraticrss for Lija  prcducts involved
       in the Settja.-.c-nt  Ordnr.
                                      Sinccvaly yours,
                                      A.  E. Cor.my II, Director
                                  sstiev'cs  	 1 " 	 ~
! .L ....1 	












                                                                                        cor;
-------
          " •ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
  J'.E ro: so;:,:;ici.io;, or ULTCP.TS.
  Period
•  Oct.  1  - Doc.  31,  1:276
  Jr-n.  1  - tor.  3'i,  1277
  April.  ]'- Jusio 30,  IS77
 Jul. 1 -  Sept. 30, 1977
"Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1577
 Jan. 1 .- Mar. 31,  1973
Apr. 1  - June 30,  1978
July.  1  - Aug.  31,  1978
 DUG To PTSED
 Jan. 15, 1977
 Apr. 15.  1977
 July 13,  1577
 Oct.  17,  1977
 Jan.  17,  1973
 Apr.  17,  1978
July  IS,  1978
Sept. 18, 1978
          i  •»  i        :
          :'<-.-!  •  "'7v
                                                                     ILL" C'JTV
-------
                                DEC 27  1S7G
Mr. C.«n. Parsons, President
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
P. 0. Box 146
Grand Ledge, Michigan  48S37

Dear Mr. Parsons:

     This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your September 10,  1976,
conwi.'nica'cion containing the signed settlement agreement  and order
pursuit to the Adrnnistrator's'Crdor and Sattltr.snt of August  19,  1976,
(41 FR 3GG68), 1n In re _Chap~an Chemical ___Co.7i?:my, ot al.,  the mercury
pesticide cancellation case.

     As you are well aware, the settlement to which you agreed  specified,
in part, that Parsons Chemical K'orks, Inc. v-.'oulo' provide  th2 Director of
the Pesticide-; and Toxic Substances Enforcement Division  (PTSED)  with
(a) certain production records on your mercurial products,  Parsons
Slurry Concentrate "CO" (EPA Reg. !,'o. 1259-57), Parsons Liquid  Seed
Savor (EPA Rag. ficu 1SG9-53). and Parsons Seed Saver Dust  (EPA  Ren.  No.
1959-91), (b) a computation of the total maximum amounts of production
of these proc'ucts that arc. allowed under the terms of  the  settlement
agreement, (c) a list of ir^eoiate customers, end (d)  an  inventory of
the quantities of these products on hand.  PuTSSD has  not  yet received
this Infornstion.  In addition, your first quarterly report, due  on
September 30, 1576, has not yet arrived.  Ws would also remind  you  that
the next quarterly Report covering the period through  December  31,  1976,
is also due to be submitted.

     The above information and the quarterly reports for Scptsr^r and
Decfv~Ler c-'j't be suto.ittrd i-y vJon'.-T.r/ 14, lL"177.  Thr c.»o ivv:~-k poriod
betv.'con Occc-.-.-iic-r 31st r.:'.;i Januzi-v !'ftl; should silo/; enple  t.;;.yj  to com-
plete the proci:jctiorj rrr:/rt: for chc Dccanbcr fjuar^r  and  still provide
sufficierri tir.io for r;aiMng the infotr^tic1;:. If thijre  is no production
ciurinq reporting periods, then zero production figures-should be  re-  "
portc '
-------
     The inforr.iation should be sent by certified mail  and addressed as
follows:

         '  .         'A. E.  Conroy II, Director
                    Pesticides and Toxic Substances
                    Enforcement Division (EH-342)
                    U. S.  environmental Protection Agency
                    401 H Street, S.W.
                    Washington, 0. C. 20s60

     You way rest assured that the data you submit will be treated as
confidential, unless you advise otherwise.

     Attached for your convenience is a schedule showing when the various
reports are due.  There will be no further reminders fron this Agency.
The conditions and requirements imposed upon you by the August 19; 1976,
Settlement and Order are salf-exocutinn.  Your strict compliance with
these terms is not only anticipated, but required.  Failure to submit
the required reports in a ttoly manner will result in t:ha initiation sf
stop sale and seizure action on all products affected by this Order and
the inwediate cancellation of the registrations for these products.

     We are disc attaching a cop/ of the Settlement Order entitled
"Proposed Teras of Settl&ncr.t of Certain Portion of FIFRA Docket flos.
246 et al.:  llercury Pesticide Cancellation Case", sicncd by you on
September 10, HVii.  K'e sucjyest you review tho docufr.c-nt.

                                   Sincerely yours,
                                   A. E. Conroy II, Director
                                Pesticides and Toxic Substances
                                     Enforcement Division
cc:  Col burn T. Cherney
-------
                       PARSONS  CHEMICAL 'r/ORKS, IJ.'C.
                                                   ?
SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS.
                                  i
                   PERIOD             '              DUE TO PSTSED
               t fomultited  each month
            during period between April 1,
            1972 and July 3'! ,  1376.
          Computation or total m-^iiiiujsi           "    Jan. 14, 1577
            amount of production.
          Inventory of quantity of
            product en licnd  as of                                 .
            Sept.  1, 127G.
          Lfst of ioediato  customers
          July 1  - Sept. 30, 1976                    Jan. 14, 1977
          Oct. 1  - Dec. 31.  1976                     Jan. 14, 1977
          Jan. 1  -Mar. 31,  1977                     Apr. 15, 1977
          Apr. 1  - Jun. 30,  1977                     Jul'. 18, 1977
          Jul. 1  - Sept. 30, 1977                    Oct. 17, 1977
          Oct. 1  - Dae. 31,  1977        .             Jen. 17, 1970
          Jan. 1  -tor. 31,  1975                     Apr. 17. 1D7S
          Apr. 1  - Jun. 30,  1570                     Jul. IS, 1978
          Jul. 1  - Aug. 31,  1P7S                     Sept. 18, 197G
-------
ilZ^   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 V'                    WASHINGTON. D.C.  20450
                          280CT1976
                                                        OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
  TO:.     Enforcement Division Directors
           Pesticide Branch Chiefs             .

..FROM:   A. E. Conroy II,  Director
           Pesticides -and Toxic Substances
           Enforcement Divison

  RE:    ;  Conclusion of the Mercury Cancellation Proceeding
     On August 19,  1976, the Administrator concluded the f'.»i;r year old
  mercurial pesticide product cancellation case by approving a settlement
  in In re Chapman  Chemical Company, et al. between the registrants.
  and EPA.  The purpose 01 this rnernoranoum is to briefly review back-
  ground events, to explain the terms and conditions of the settlement
  order, and to provide you with a revised mercury cancellation enforce-
  ment strategy.


  I.  BACKGROUND                 ."..-.           ..'•''

     The mercury hearings were initiated on March 22,  1972,  when EPA
  Administrator RucUelshaus issued PR Notice 72-5 announcing the Agency's
  intent to cancel the registrations of all mercurial pesticide products, and
  the immediate suspension of all alkyl mercury compound registrations
  and of all nonalkyl products registered for use on rice  seed,  in laundries,
  and in marine antifouling paint.  In March of 1972, there were twenty
  registrants with thirty-seven alkyl mercury products registered, and
  four hundred eighty-four registered non-?.ikyl mercury products held by
  one hundred si:rty-five registrants.  None of the registrants of the sus-
  pended mercury pesticides opposed th": .Administrator's order -and the
  products v.'crc therefore si'.socncerl -And finally ':a:acoUcd.  Twenty-three
  registrants sought ach:iini:::r~:iv? r?vi-:v.* of the nc:icc  o: ir.ts::c :o cancel;
  these  registrants  coutcsctd the cancellation of mercury as a bnctoricide/
  fungicide for use on turf,  in paints and coatings, as a seed treatment, in
 .dry formulations,  in fabrics, on wood, and as a treatment for the  control
  of the Dutch elm disease.
-------
                                 -2-

    The formal adjudicatory hearings v/cre held between October 1974 and
 September 1975.  On December 12, 1975,  Administrative Lav/ Jud;_fc Ber-
 nard D. Levinson issued an. initial decision,  concluding that the follow-
 ing pesticides containing mercury should  be  cancelled because they create
 an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment:

 .Y-  (1) all uses in paints and coatings, except as an in-can preservative
 •''••':'•>   in water-based paints and coatings and as a fungicide in water-
        based p-ainta and coatings used for exterior applications;

   • -(2) all uses as a fungicide  on golf courses,  .except as used.on;greens,
        tees, and aprons for the control of fungi of the snow mold 'complex;
        all uses for seed treatment;                                 ;

     (4) as a treatment for control of the Dutch elm disease; and

     (5) all uses for any material that could be used in wearing apparel
        jnd other uses for textiles and fabrics, except as a fungicide in
        the.- treatment of textiles and fabrics for out-of-door use.  :

    On February 17, 1976, the Administrator issued his decision and order
in the consolidated mercury hearings (In re Chapman Chemical Company
et al., FIFRA Docket No. 246, et al. ).  The Administrator found "thai: me
benefit's from the  continued use 01 mercurial pesticides for use as bacteri-
cides or fungicides "(1) in paints and coatings, (2) on turf,  including golf
course greens and all other areas of golf courses,  (3) for seed treatment,
and (4) for any other use not specifically identified and permitted" by the
decision did not sufficiently outweigh the risks to man and the environment
and were,  therefore, cancelled.  The decision and order cancelled the
registrations for all remaining mercurial products,  except for use

    .(1)  as fungicides in the treatment of textiles and fabrics intended
        for continuous outdoor use;

    (2) to. control brov.ii mold on freshly sawn lumber; and

    (3) as a treatment for the control of Dutch elm disease.
                                        /

As to ths 5xi£ tins' stocks iss^s, rh-:- Airr-inistrw-Tor provided that th?
sale and  use cf cancelled mercury products which were formulated
on or before February 17, 1576,  \Wre pen-ait ted.

   Several mercury registrants sought review in the United States
Federal Court  of the Aci rain is* rate? r'c -tar. collation of the seed treatrr.ent
and the :ur: fungicide u.cos 01 ;ho:r prouuc:s.   On Marc:'. 2, 1976, the
Administrator  ordered thai t:."/ c;!:':-rtv"v:O£:s of th:?  F?bru?.rv 17t!:
Creiceliation Orcier hi.- v»-v:ipor?ri'.y -r.::y.; ,: .v-tT.iinij judicial  rc\ic:v,-  fn
several UniLi-a .SiotoK Courts oi A;.:o<.--.:iL-.   :.'.':•• order applied to c\l
existing mcrr.urial rc^/stration.s i-.'Kl tjj;e ;-:'.:'y -vVii.s to continu.'.* through
-------
                                -3-
June 30, 1970, or Ihe conclusion of judicial review proceedings, which
over occu/n -j i'iu;'.   A:i iinporltsi:- feature of the March 2nd Order was
that it prohibited the parties to the cancellation proceeding from increas-
ing production of subject products or from stockpiling.
             j
    On March 2G,  197G,  the Administrator granted registrants' petition
for rcconrudcrai;:---  of -• •-. c!ec.icir;n and ordr-r to cancel the registrations
of rn^rcur:'-.! v.:-stic:itie:.-! for use in water-based paints and coatings.
                                                       »
    The Administrator modified the February 17 cancellation order on
-May 27,  l&YG, ..to reinstate the registrations for certain mercurial water-
based paints and coatings; and, he erf ended the stay of the effective
date of the cancellation until November 30, 1976 (or until the conclusion
of judicial review; if earlier).

    On August 19,  1976,  the Administrator approved a settlement in
In re Chapman Chemical Company, et al. between respondent-EPA
and registrant-appellants Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.; Troy
Chemical Corporation; Gustafson, Inc. ;  Mallinckrodt,  Inc.; W.  A. Cleary
Corporation; and O. M. Scott  &. Sons Company  concerning certain  contested.
uses awaiting review in the Eighth Circuit, U. S. Court of Appeals,  as the
result  of an appeal filed following the February 17 cancellation order.  In
brief, the settlement will terminate the mercury  case contingent upon the
completion of necessary regulatory activities .by the Registration  Division,
Office  of Pesticide Programs,  according to the following terms:

    (1)  Registrations for mercurial seed disinfectants and for
       •mercurial turf fungicides for use against summer turf
        diseases will be finally cancelled on or before August
        31, 1978.  Production of these products in the interim
        is limited to prevent stockpiling; total permitted pro-
        duction will not exceed the equivalent of two years of
        production,  as determined by production  data for recent
       years.  These uses involve 2"o,' 000-25, 000 pounds of
        production of technical mercury annually.

    (2) The cancellation of registrations foi' mercurial fungicides
       for use against v.-inter turf diseases (10, 000-15, COO pounds
        production of teclmica: mercury aivr.Vt-oily) is vacated.  Use
        of these prc'-iucts vi:hirL-5 •feet of v.-^rsr bodies wh^re -ish
        are taken for human consumption is prohibited.  The pro-
        ducts mny be applied only by or  r'iu:cier the direcc supervi-
       sion  of" golf course superintendents.  The registrants will
        request that these products be classified  as restricted use
        pcstici.ies.

    (3)  Mercury product.? pred-.-cod r>o"o*-e *.'.:«- effective d:\tc os fin.?.!.
     '   ca.McoJ].';iicu  (Ai.;yji!f.t j.j, ii'.-T..' ..>.•  \'^-.- -r.cic on which maximum
       aliou'ct! iji;;:i!ii!..:i:y is roi'.o.'i-.ru) v/i'i :.- .-c:no ':cxit;i;iny j:ioc!;s, "
       tiic oCilo, distribution, auu i;:'e ;•.!' ,v;\.;i.ii v/ill be pci-miLtod.
-------
                                -4-

 The Administrator has concluded that the terms and conditions of settle-
 ment agreed to by the parties to the cancellation proceeding satisfy
 appplicable statutory standards under F1FRA and that the scltlcmen' is
 in the public interest.  See attached "Chapman Chemical Cornpnny.  rl
 al., Consolidated Mercury Cancellation Hearing, Settlement and Ordc-.
 (41 Fed. Reg.  36068, August 26, 1076} [hereinafter, SettlcznenJ. and
 Order]."  -

    Until such  time as RD/OPP notifies the registrants of cancelled
 mercurial pesticide registrations of the status of these,products under
 FIFRA S3,  PTSISD cannot be confident in the accuracy of any .list of
 continued mercury registrations that this office might construct.  At
 this juncture,  it appears that all uses of mercury were cancelled on
 August 31, 1976,  except as follows:         .     "  ' '

     (a) for seed treatment (cancellation stayed by  August 19
     ..  . Settlement and Order),

     (b) for control of summer turf disease (cancellation  stayed
        by August 19 Settlement <*nd Order),

     (c) in the  treatment of textiles and fabrics intended for
        continuous outdoor use,

     (d) as a treatment for control of-the Dutch Elm disease,

     (e) as an in-can preservative in water-based paints and
        coatings,                        .                     "   '

     (f) as a fungicide in water-based paints and coatings used
        for exterior application,

     (g)  as  a fungicide for use against winter turf diseases, and

     (b) to control brown mold on freshly sawn lumber.


 ii.  ENFORCK^HLMT STRATEGY.                  /  •

 •   A.  ENFORCEMENT OF ThZ STAY ORDER -- STATUS.
clcncy of the ^i-.y.  AiTooteJ rv;Ti3i!:.: {:!,' HI. "l7, and V) were rvJqusWo;!
to initiate scciiou u iiook? :md rccoi-'Js inyp'-'Clioiis ;il all produci1'- c.::."h-
liGljinonts, lv/on!y in  r.ll, to dOinnn;.nc lii.c I-.'.-voi of oonij>]!.r.:;«jo '.VKI'I i!>-.-
Admiirislrn.ior'ii of-cici-.   Yotu- cooi5Oi-;;{io:i if: ensuring tJjat ll-.o <."r>:;:.;
-------
                                  -5-

 of the A..iinini.Ur;uor!s orders—particularly,  the "average monthly amount"
 rertrirtio"!" ••'.-.-, .•:•'.• (.-o;,i.-.0f xl v/ith by affected registrants is appreciated.
 The fui\i;-_-r nui.d to inonKor and to advise the Administrator as to the level
 of compliance by  the registrants with the conditions of the stay order has
 been mooted by the issuance of his most  recent  order announcing the con-
 clusion of the mercury proceedings.

    B.  TIi.Ti?v!S OF 'JU.JG ".-ij^TTLEP.lSNT  AND ORDER. "

        *•  jRg/Ti.3tr?:-tio;-i Sfr.tv.s of Mercury Products.   The Administrator's
 August 31,  i'J i'G, "bcrtTemcTnt and Grdc/r provider  ihe following:

           (a) the  cancellation order provision cancelling the
               registrations of the following mercurial seed
               treatment products is stayed until August 31,
        •" "     1978, or until the registrant  has produced the               • •
      .  '      maximum allov/ed quantity of the  product under
    ...     .  . the conditions of the particular settlement agree-
               ment, whichever occurs first:

               (i)    Parsons Chemical Works (1969-MI-01) —

                     1969-57  PARSONS SLURRY CONCENTRATE "60"
                     1969-53  PARSONS LIQUID SEED SAVER
                     1969-91   PARSONS SEED.SAVER DUST

               (ii)   Gustafson, Inc. (2079-NJ-01; 3S209-NJ-01) — .

                     •7501-2    MIST-O-MA.TIC LIQUID SEED-DISINFECTANT
                     7501-5    MIST-O-MATTC DRILL BOX TREATMENT

               (iii)  Troy Chemical Corporation  (53S3-NJ-01) —

                     605-37   GALLOTOX LIQUID SEED DISINFECTANT

           (b) the  canceLlotion order provision cancelling the registrations
               of the follcv/ir.g mercurial  fungicide products  for use against
               summer turf diseases, is stayed until August 31,  1978, or
               until  the registrant h&s  produced the maximum allowed
              • quantity of the product under coaciiticns of tiie particular
               settlement agrcerri-j.nc, whichever occurs first I,-':
    T/ As par: of the settlement sgrccme-nt,  O. M. Scott,  and W. A. Cleary
have agvred ~c a~~iy :o :he .^•••g:~:.-u:v.:n DiT.-is:cn,  Office of Pesticides Pro-
grams on or before September I, 1976,  to arriond tho re-gisti*:'t:onj ">f s\:;v'«...-.:
p:'^-.::.;0.::i to v^:. .L'ili:; .v.-.K-.rmo *•.i;t.-j;:- v;...:::^:  loc (J) products J'cr i:^>- r.;.;-::-riSt
runinx'r turf '!:.--;ai-os :i?".i (ii) p'.-oi:!1.:-^:;; f-.^'1 uro ru":;i:ist \viufor ti:rf u::;La;';c-;.
You \vJll be no!.•'.;';cu and ;-jnnpried \viih tho ncccjjiirti'y inforniau'on as i;.;^:i ;.ps
 PTSED is appri.-.od of the completion of thic nct^on by RD/OTI'.
-------
                                   - c  -

               (i)   O. M.  Scott & Sons Company (533-OI-I-01) —

                    538-27    PRO- TURF BROAD SPECTRUM FUNGICIDE
                    538-36    PRO- TURF FERTILIZER PLUS FUNGICIDE
                    533-56    CALIFORNIA FERTILIZER PLUS FUNGICIDE

                (ii)  W. A. deary Corporation (1001-NJ-01) —
1001-4
                              PMAS CRABGRASS KILLER AND FUNGICIDE
           (c)  the cancellation order provision cancelling the registrations
               of the following Mallinckrodt, Inc. (372-PA-01; 372-NJ-01)
               •mercurial filicide -products for use -against v.inter turf dis-
               eases £/ is vacated in accordance with the terms of the
               settlement agreement and production, sale, and distribution
             .  may resume unimpeded _3_/:                       .  .
372-5
372-33
                              CALO-CLOR
                              CALO-GRAN
          (d) the order of March 2, 1976, staying the cancellation
               order of February 17,  1976, is dissolved effective
               August 31, 1976.         '  .
       2.  Enforcement Responsibilities Under Settlement and Order.  Pur-
su="->t to the terms 01 tne semc-meni agreerhc-nts,  rc-gistrant-upp^iiauts must
f?     certain substantive requirements to be afforded a stay of the effective
dc.,  of the cancellation of the seed treatment ana summer turf disease pro-
duct registrations.  The  conditions impacting on the Office of Enforcement
include:

         •  (a)  During the pendency of the stay, the registrants must limit
               production of the subject mercurials for use against summer
               turf disease to the amount determined by multiplying the
               average monthly production rate during the base period (in
               most cases, April 1,  1572 to September 1,  1976) times the
               number of mouths the cancellation i? stayed (24).  If this
               total production fieri;re is reached prior to  August 31, 1973,
               the subject product's registration become immediately
                           X

    <[/rrv.'1_-::er ;ur: :.:±,-:.z ,1   7_.-.3;=: :: Jusarlun: .-:ivale \p_r.k snow mole,
pink p~.tcb,  or fusariuni pate:-.), Typliulr. uicarna,  Typliula igl'fkr.riensis, s.nd
   _.  As part of the settlement, agreement,  M.illinckrodt has agreed to
amend the subject n--:di!o:s: :.^^':~: -.-• include :;:..- ?2u::cn "Do noc apply
.vithin tv/enry-i'ive (25) fcot o: any  body ot water \vhcre fisii are taken for

Jnly  by or »:;ic!or tJcO '.!ii'c.'ct S'.tpc-rvi^-.' .•:.  ' :"..-ii' L\>U!T,-C yuperinfetKior.ts. "
Hics;^ lobe; a«Jclitio:i3 \vill zl.i-o  bo  ::i:;d^ '.-.< i:u.- O. Ai.  Scott a:id  \V. A. Clcary
)rb>    3 for use against, whiter turf disc:;sos (see footnotc_l_/, £11!
     - — ^
-------
                                       -7-

                        .'.•• cu.-torncrs likely to purchase the
                svbjcx-i j); i;;-j-r:i5.  As of now, these- data have not
                beeii fully .submitted.  PTSED is corresponding v/ith
                the subject rerlotrants, noting their 'delinquency and
                the necessity for delivery of the required information.

            (c)  Beginning on September 30,  1975, fee registrants must
                submit quarterly production reports on subject regis-
           .  .   tered products to PTSED  (plus other reports and/or
                additional information necessary to effecutate the
                intended purpose of the agreement). As of now, these
                data are also incomplete.

     C. ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.                     '          .' ;

      The Agency's enforcement strategy concerning mercurial pesticide
 products will.have tv/o general, areas of emphasis: (1)..the .monitoring of
 the production  limitation provisions of the settlement agreements for
 compliance by  all affected registrants, and (2) the exercise of standard
 enforcement actions against persons v/ho are discovered violating the
 terms of the mercury cancellation order.

         *• • Monitoring.  The monitoring of settlement agreement com-
 pliance  will be "me joint enterprise of regional personnel with pesticide
 enforcement responsibilities and the Pesticide and Toxic Substances
 Enforcement Division.  Initially, PTSED will review  data submitted by
 the mercury registrants subject to the Settlement and Order, and will
 independently calculate and corroborate  the figures submitted by subject
 companies ?.s the  "maximum allov/ed quantity11 for each product to the
 final August 31, 1078 cancellation deadline. The official figures will be
 transmitted to  the regions who will then  be able to determine whether
 and \vhen inspection of mercury producing establishments is v/arrantcd
'under the  pariicvlc.r circumstances of c^ch cu.se.  D-vviations from  the
 AcuTiinisirator:s Settlerr.en: anc Crier v.-iil be dealt with as approf-ric.ee.

         2.  J;M''oycc-ryrr^ actions.^ As soon as  PTSrJD is provided viih ar,
 official  list of those mercury products cancelled and those mercury ro-is
 tralions surviving the cancellation proceedings,  you will be so advised.
 Additionally,  ^.s scon zs -.hors i.-; i .chzn-e in :he rogistration status ot'
_those products  -.v::osc ei'fective cr.tcs of cancellation have been stayed by
'the ScttlciT-^nt  and O:-dor, reri^-v; u-;.;: :....  notified.  Violations of the
 car.cc.-llcvf.ion o-,-<'.":r "-i]I ro hanri'lod a~:  vo; !i;;o on'c.-r-cement mciitcr-.   .\i:
 the /uimi;u:j!..--::':r.r h::.;'; ]!:-o\'idc>(i for i.'u"1. ">.••"' of '..-:-;i=.tinr? stocks of pro-nets
 subject  to the August ID order,  there v/i.ll bo no recaU program i nit b. fed.
-------
                                -8r


III.  INQUIRIES.
   Inquires concerning any facet of the mercury cancellation proceedings

and the Agency's enforcement strategy should be referred to the appropriate
regional coordinator.
-------
   O.H. Sect* & Sons Company
   ATTTi:  Gary ii. Clc.ri:
 :  Marysvllle, OH 43C40         ' '  :  '           '
                                 •  »   -  - .....
   Gentlemen:           •        •"  *

:  Subject:  PROTURF BROOD SPECTRE* FUNGICIDE          .          '    .    :
\            (For Use on Winter Turf Diseases)
}            EPA Reg. No. 333-27 "                              '
•I            Letter of Hoveaber 12; 1976
*                                *  ^
   The labeling referred to above; 'sufcr.itted in connection with registration
   under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodanticide Act, as amended,
   is acceptable, and a starcped copy is er.closed for your records.
   Oohn H. Lee              .   '  " *   •
   Product Manager (2.2.)
   Fungicide Herbicide. Branch  .    *
   Registration Division          ' '
                                  ^ % .  . .  «   .

   Enclosure                      * ;

  HH-567:FKB:JHLee:nlo:acs:63S-6767":ll/29/76
-------
  SGOTTS
  TMO LAWN PEO.-UC                                Q f
                                                   MorysviHe, Ohio >:3040
                                                   (513) 042-801 '5
                                  November 12,  1976
 EPA Registration Division (WH-567)
 Office of Pesticide Programs
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington,  D.C. 20460

.Attn:  Mr.  John Lee,  PM-22

 Subject:   ProTurf Broad Spectrum Fungicide
           EPA Keg. No. 538-27   :
           Resubnission

 Gentlenen:
                                                  t
 Enclosed  are fivercopies of finished labeling for subject
 product including the following revisions:

 '   '  1)  "EPA Est. 538-OH-l" has been added to the
          front panel below the ingredient statement.

      2)  "EPA Rag. No. 538-27-AA" has been changed to
         ."EPA Reg. No. 538-27".

 If you have  sny questions concerning this matter, please
 give me a call at 513/644-0011, extension 2104.

                                  Respectfully yours,
                                       N./Cl/rk
                                  Federal, Regulatory Specialist    ,' ;','
                                       I
 ca
 enc.
                                                                    r c t «
                                                                     • t
-------

/
FH
®
                                                       «.,-•% u
                                      NET IVfUG'nV 26 IBS  m* KSI


                         p-"^  \   . __
                              -'f        '
                                                                         r
                                                                 n
                                                               :  . ,           ,-
                                                 vji'u^iiH  in!!«;
                                                   i-jj^vH/i
                                    ^3.            n     B   n
                                   r 'hn n r^ f^ n /';.:\ n r^-. \ ,<
                                 •-   n 1I;  ; ; ;'7 • 1 •..•• ^   ' ii;' ,•
                                                FOR USE ON

                                          WINTER TURF DISEASES
                   «ffijy, fffimf^gy^^^y

                                   FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY
DEO i    -,Q7P
 ...  a i  \;...i-M-:> •'• A-'-
         ;'o;/'f
                             Hjfr:^.:;1'.^':^?-) i.;.t< •;••::;-£•; c:^:j;t»'.?i:..n ;: g?:v; ^nts «•,•< i.^r.^^clio
                             ;s:!'C". »'.tt<5ii.'i t' fvsm.M1. ^ .;?; ~rt.;;i ?;:cr,-:r 3rc-r"y. A':rr LJ;.-.-. •« j?n zil
                             eip::r-J ;i i; jij.'ii-i.'^'j-j^^-.Ciii'' 
-------
                              .;>.-    ';
             w   ....      	       ,	
             [•• >u fv.:/'r' :':'*j'-iTi"'
             [.rv ^~:^b-'LJ
           .                                    .     .
  !(.-i  i! nT£
Scotts (Drop Typ°)          3 mph"  overlap wheels    7      S'/>
Candy 8 ft A Series Medal  4.5 mph  overlap wheels   26     36
  42 In  Model    :       2.5 mph  overlcp v/heels   37     46
             •FOR USE ON GREENS. TEES, AND APRONS
  Use before riissasa appears cr when symptoms ars first
  noticed. Revest as r.oc&s*2ry. To arrc-.n severe infsction
  L-iadoubJo rale.
  Foliage may be- e-ilher moisi or dry when making
  application.  On  golf greens, rinse surface lightly after
  cpplicatlor? tc cvcitl  pickup en shoes, so'f bails'or main-
  Ur.arc'-ecq^'.-.v.iri:
 PfcTurf Division, C .M Scoti £, Sons   MarysviJ'e, Ohio 43040
-------
—,
 I

                         • •>
             O.H. Srr.'.t
                                                                                     .'•:•".' *
             ATTM: -L-.ry M; Clc-i-k
                                                                                        »<
                                                                                 - - .*-. - • .   /
                                                                                    * Vi . ' -
*                  t .   ••               ••      ~      -.•--..•••••-. •••*'.-. ••'._•.*       n ,.-« -r  j
            Ma t*^/ *• *•' I  •'*  * t'V! /V*,''"'/"1"' " •     '" • • v *^ "*-1* *- *• '   * A ** *  *•'*.••- •  ' -  •.'••.*.*        •-* t ••""*'.* t

I               •  ^~-i^,^' IW  '^i^:^:^/^^^.:44^*':"11--;.^;^                   ..r,-.'^.<--5

            Gentlemen:1"        . *'.?.f^^'**-*'if:;?\ ^^>4":':*:" ^••:^H---^-'r^
   ^  ^           --
             The labsling referred  to  above; .Submitted 1n connection with registration
             under the Federal Insecticids, Fungicide, end-Rodenticide Act, as'amended,
             is acceptable, ana 2.-stamped copy is  enclosed for your records.        .  ;
             John H. Las
 1            Product Manager (22)'
 '            Fungicide Herbicide  Branch
             Registration Division

             Enclosure           -: T™-.™.-:
             WH-567:FHB:JHLee:nlo:acs:635-6767:11/29/76
-------
 THE LAWN PtiOPLE                                  fj * 1 O--.« 0 ^n-
                                                    U lil ULVU U L-'U/.'
                                                   Marysville. Ohio 43040
                                                   (513)642-6015
                                  November 12, 1976



EPA Registration Division (WH-567)
Office of Pesticide  Programs
Environmental  Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

Attn:  Mr. John Lee,  PM-22

Subject:  ProTurf  California Fertilizer Plus Fungicide
          EPA  Reg. No. 533-56
          Resubmission

Gentlecen:

Enclosed are five  copies of finished labeling for subject
product including  the following revisions:

     1)  "EPA  Est. 538-OH-l" has been added to the front
         panel below the ingredient statement.

     2)  "EPA  Reg. No. 538-56-AA" has been changed to
         "EPA  Reg. No."' 538-56".

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
give me a call at  513/644-0011, extension 2104.
                                  Respectfully yours,
                                  Federal K«isul-aCcir7 Specialist    ,.   ,
                                          //                        C t «. . ,. i
                                          /
ca  _      ... .   	  	   __.		-'--	---  -	— r-cfc,
enc.             "                                                   re  I
« r • r r
  •
* o • f t
                                                                            **:••
                                                                               "
                                                                   « < I (
                                                                     C  C
                                                                   • t  t
-------
/'
                            1 tOi-3
                                              NET WEIGHT 45 IBS. (20/» Kg)
                -

            CO
                             ir » > •! .P*
                                                                             ,  _.
                                                                         r    r
                                                     vXra «..-•*«•
                                                                     r» nric


                                 H rf^-j-V'ri'ijVrKn^l   ii-'^'i"!! !>•"'! '/^M"
                                 VsyC-i.a/-4« ^>>tj U JjJ;v>.'J   Ltt-^ii  Vji»i:.it;»'»i?i3

                                                     <^          a   c  r



                                                     ll it'/J J _i^ .-.A J ^i/ U Cfci VS#



                                      FOR USE ON WINTER TURF DISEASES
                                                                                                    LlJ
                                                                                                     £-0
                                                                                                     tii
                                                                                                     C )
:»!

 o
                            /


                                                              re:
                                     (Ive i.?!)
                                     for hun.
                                    X t'.» «-, «»vr.f\ /^••»<*>"«'i.-"e ».«!•

                                    lf«'*"^»*.!- • •^^.•••^/••w-i-j.**;*!
                                  t  -»*.'f"T |

                                  I  l-ni,,.,.

                                  i  ir. »v *
                                             .--.- i. f- ^»-^ :\ -n •••-•» '»
-------
                         Or-*   •  •   ,•••    •   »    • • t
                        *•'.';:-•. •'. <%••-.•.'••••";•••!•*. "•"':••.'.•?.
                           DIRECTIONS FOR USE

     This product shall be used only by or under the direct supervision of golf
     course superintendents.

                         for use on winter turf diseases

     Fertilizes turfgrasses. Controls fungus activity causing pink snowmold
     (Fusarium nivale) and gray snowmold  (Tvphula spp)
                     SUGGESTED SPREADER SETTINGS
                                                      /„.
         to provide proper distribution calibrate spreader before application.

  45 LBS (20.4 Kg) TREATS 11,000 SQ FT (% ACRE/1022 SQ M) AT NORMAL RATE
  45 LBS (20.4 Kg) TREATS  5.500 SQ FT (1/8 ACRE/511 SQ M) AT DOUBLE RATE
                   GROUND OR   WIDTH OF
      SPREADER    PTO SPEED   COVERAGE
     SPREADER SETTING  "
NORMAL RATE   DOUBLE RATE  I
Scotts (Drop Type)   3 mph
Scotts Rotary        3 mph
Lely-WTR &
  WFR Models      4.5 mph
Lely-HR            450 rpm
  {PTO Model)    @ 4.5 mph
Gandy 8 ft
  A Series IVodel     4.5 mph
                                overlap wheels
                                  8 feet

                                 16 feet
                                 16 feet
overlap wheels
      67*
      1

      5111
      5111
                                                     20
                                      N

                                      6% III
                                      6% II!
                       27
                  FOR USEOiS! GREENS.TEES, AND APRONS
         Apply to moist or dry grass-

         To control snowmoki — apply DOUBLE RATE in fall, laia winter and
         early spring.
         ProTurf Division. 0 M Scott & Sons. Marysville. Ohio  43040
• 1 • »
 >   •
  * ft
-------
                                                                        	J
                                  NET WEIGHT 45 LBS. {20.4 Kg)"
___-., J. . . ,. ... .... ... ^ . p-
'"."''• i - • •'" ." ' '
•"s" .'..i J " .-"""T^- ""•—• --C •-..
:'-lr.-' "• ; ( x •>'>."-••. ""•-'
^™* ; , i ' x* • • ~ -*
£• I !
;:i:i J '..
4^^^ "
v» •*
w
s-
«
C£.
• •*• *
kvj
-^
V"^
«.r;
t?sm
 nar- n ff nPfp
f T ^^ ^irt " **• * ^?^^ ^'^T^*^ *'* ^^^\ ^ ^ *^— V .** - ^ ' J ^ • f'T Cf^T ,^^^ ^ ^
'•',..:• •.:•;,••!; i i ; : • . .- . f • i ••.» .4 i > : ^ , • !. /v i '5. . f
Vii' 'C-'j J ii U ^.i' '.; li l: i. -.c-.i U V.i7 J vi J -. J J <~a '. i"; ' 5/1 Hri **i i :i'"^2
f 'W fci V.'Jti^&' S« V^tJ •] il ".r*"> ia ^^? tl V-/ i **&
U Vj»*
FOR USE OK SUiYir/iER TURF DISEASES
:•*»;' • "
'/*>' , ''?'l
''t/'.' ~~-' '•
1 ' **• '
,*i"^> •_ •»•. '
• . JrM
r«^
!LS
p
s.
g*
«^.»
UTJ *
r"*t. • •
1 • K-J
| J^J
i >.- ^*

i ^5
i fc
i f*'
i «••
i t'».
1 ?5"
J CVk.« •
1 ^*^^

  tn
  0
   1976
:.cr>r-;.-;i.^ Ac!,
                                    ric.i ••t»emcr»!i;«cf e^i1'-:"
                       r^ •.,•*!",t...-v?f«rvi.iia. wx
                      * P          	t  ..

                      li 0 >•''«' *•«, 4 i'^J J**« 10-*fc *.•''* - 0>'r /C*/
                      r-hrr^«;.s,w
                                                               ?«* I
                                                        	tr* I
                                                        ltU»<.CJ.
-------
                                           ,-. i
2                                  ^i  **-
                                  /c-O-
                      <•*!•••   •   t  » * V     I
                        U-r'-vrna TQ!'fi>l~'£>" ''';
                        ;iluMi»d Icl Like; ^.
                           DIRECTIONS FOR USE

                        for use on siimsc.er turf diseases

   Fertilizes turfgrss^s. Co;urn!s /unf,us sctivir/ Criusinn brov/npatcli. leafspot,
   dollarspoi, re J llirt-iid aiv.i copper spot. Alio controls moss.
                    SUGGESTED SPREADER SETTINGS
                                                                      *
       To provide proper distribution calibrate spreader before application.

45 L5S (20.4 Kg) TREATS 11,000 SQ FT {'/, ACRE/1022 SO M) AT NORMAL RATE
45 LBS (20.4 Kg) TREATS  5.500 SQ FT (1/G ACRE/511 SO IW) AT DOUSLS: RATE


                  GROUND OR   WIDTH OF         SPREADER SETTING
     SPHEADEH    PTO SPEED   COVF.RAGE    NOHMAL RATE   DOUBLE RATE
Scbtts (Drop Type)   3 mph      overlap \vhsals
Scons Rotary        3 mph       . 8 feet
Lely-WTR &
  VVFR Models       4.5 mph     16 test
Lely-HR             450 rpm     1C feet
  (?TO Mode!)     @ 4.5 mph
Gandy 8 ft
  A Series IVode!     4.5 mph    overlap wheels
                                                                     511!
                                                                     511!
                                                                     20
N

6^ II!
6/ill I
27
I > > •
       Apply to moist or dry fjrass. On o'ichccdra apply to art leavgs and
       then ?prini'.!= lightly to \vjsh off partic'es.

       On put-.irg c'-t"?".s -• :r.r/ I'-'; t;ieJ svc,-/ rrion'.:- it NORMAL RATE
       durinr; g.-c-.v-'a ;<^.t^ ;r. r::vjntion or con:ro!. Interim protection
       can bo scin-jvcd with ProTi!rf Droad S;)j;ciri>rn Fungicide.  Minis svirfacs
       lightly after application to ovoid pickup on sf-.ocs, golf balls or maintenance
       equipment.

       For a![ cthor ,•»•••.'•.» — •t'-.s b-^fcra fun^o: djrn::i-9 appears or when syr.iptom
       are first  notice-id,  f'/i.ny ho rcpsr.tsd evory oth°r month at NORMAL  RATE.
       !f dise3£:! is s?v?r-; r,r •.-.;.-. :.. ..,..;: ;:• i.-vjioacx.-:; Apply ?.i Ou(:3L£ RATE.

       To control mns; — apply any;:mo .-•; r.'OnMAL RATE to me.rst faliace.
       Follow up at two week intervals vvirh PruTurf Bio.id S;;t'Ctrum Fungicide
       as ne?c!rd.
-------
                                                       i  ^..v..;,::;!
                                !  .-

                                                      _../   *
                                                           -h    r
                                                                                      i    I             1    '
                                                                                    -l

                                                                                         n
                                                                         .
                                                                                       n
                      fi
                                                                  FOR USE CN

                                                          SUMMER TUrt? DISEASES

Ore  ?
 «.  006
         1    1978
                 .-» .   .....
                                        WJ.TT'J! i' r-j'lr.-.r/ *.'M s•:.'• s'<-.i cr r•:•'.-.: >.v> n-?v 1.1 cjw of in.
                                        in:.o.i. -,».•»;s:.'..- .^ *y*"n:j:,-j- f ?• ^-;.;ii ;;;.,ivjn C's.-rr::y. A".j< 'j<-.-.s. «.n.'i t'.l
                                        wpr.;i''. .ifJii::;:Cii-il). Cl
-------
 * *
• i »
                           .-; r-s /«•, e* :'r,   r* **\ (?\ fc*;? r<* r q r**?*.   >, .••." :•; • ^ £=•?:; /rj a .**••
                           i'fM-V^lM   iT^'SSi'i'i ri L'i! -r1    I?  .•t«;jyvJ^*-!! .M
                           >U \«#UiW   ^.^xs^'Jvu.1 k'jwiiB    U biiUu>.U . *
k    t
 • '  I > •
                           Prevent* or arrertt fur.gu* activity causing disease such as brownpatch. leaf-
                           spot, dollarspot. red thread and copfwrspot.  Also controls most.
                                           SUGGESTED SPREADER SETTINGS

                                to provide proper distribution calibrate spreader before application.

                          25 UBS (11.8 Kq) TRrATS 11,C005Q FT (/i ACRE/1022 SO M) AT NORMAL KATE
                          26 LBS (11.8 Kg) TREATS  5.500 SO FT (1/3 ACRE/511 SO M) AT OOUSLC RATE
                                                CROU.VJ SrtiD   COVERA55
                                                                       SPREADER SlTTI-Jf!
                                                                       KOSV4L  BOU31.S
                                                                        RAVE    RATc
                            Scotts (Drop Type)         3 mph  overlap wheels   7       9Vj
                            Gahdy 8 ft A Series Model  4.5 mph  overlap wheels  25      35
                             42 In Model            2.5 mph  overlap whocli  37      46
                                FOR USE ON TURFGRASSES OR DICHONDRA

                            Use before disease appaars or when si'mptorr.s are first
                            notlcsd. Repent S3 necessary. To arrest sevare infection
                            usa double rate.
                            Foliage may ba either moist or dry when making applica-
                            tion (except !"3ss control requiros spplicaticn to moist
                            foliage only). On 22!? [ircans, rinse surface  iightiy aftsr
                            applicsticr: to c;voi.1 picl'.up en slices, gc!f bsiis or iTisin-
                           ProTurf Divif ion, 0 M S=ctt &. Sens  Marysvillo, Ohio 43040
-------
 0.15. Scott "  inns Ccnpany
 AlTri:   Gary".  Cfltrk
 MarysvUle, CH  43G40

 Gentlemen:
Subject:   PROTURF FERTILIZER plus FUNSICIDE
           (For lisa on Winter Turf Diseases)
           EPA Reg. Ho.  53S-36  ' '           	
           Letter of Koveitiber 12,* 1976      '  '   '
                               . N           - . •    ' .   •  	•'     .   .
Tha  labeling raferred to above"; submitted  in connection with  registration
ur.dsr  tha  Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,  and Rodenticida Act, as asianded,
is acceptable, and a stsnipsd copy is enclosed for your records.
John H. Lee                   '     .
Product .Manager (22)            "  "  "
Fungicide Herbicide Branch      	
Registration Division         *      '"  '
                              » •    * • ,

Enclosure               « "
                    r>           ........
WH-567:FH8:JHLee:nlo:acs:628-6767:11/29/76
-------
          .
LAWN PEC PUS
                                                      M f
                                                    Mar/svills. Ohio 43040
                                                    (5] 3} 642-6 01 5
                                  Novenfaer 12, 1976
EPA  Resistratiou Division 07H-567)
Office  of Pe3ticide Programs
Environcental Protection Agency
^Washington,  D. C. .20460

Attn:   Mr. John Lee, K-t-22

Subject:   ProTurf Fertilizer Plus Fungicide
           EPA Reg.  No. 538-36
           Resubtnissioa

Gcntleucn:

Enclosed  are five copies of finished labeling for subject
product, including the following revision:

             "EPA Reg. No. 538-36-AA" has been changed
             to "EPA Reg. No. 538-36".

If you  have  any questions concerning'this catter, please give
oe a call at 513/644-0011, extension 2104.

                                  Respectfully -yours,
                                                                             • <<<•*•
                                                                             c-  »  •
                                  Federal /legulatory  Specialist1
 ca                      -                                          »    •
                                                                    •. • • • *
 er.c.                                                                •
-------
 "  f~
 r—>  I
                                 ' O' •    • •>'.,••..-• V
                            i<    ^••  ;•
      u-: 1   197B
                                    ^ /H
                                                n   n
                              [I [ih; j"; ;-^X:!  17 •  ^ i'' =
                               FOR USE ON V.'JNTER TURP DtSEASSS
                                PC?? PRO?E3SSO?tf.L USE ONLY

                            ''" NET WEIGHT 45'/= IBS (21.1 Kg)
                                                ?•* 5 3

       • •- *    — «• c ••  • •—

.  :-. ,. .^VW.^-^/-
                                                                         c   «
                                                                         < * r f t *
-------
                                              r
                                             T _J
                                                «^J
                                                      «   n  pj
                          DIRECTIONS FOR USE

  Thij product j!>»!l lit used only by or uncter the direct yjparvijiorvof golf
  course «:|icrir.WrK!«ftK.

                       tor use on v.-inter turf diwase.

  fmffifi". tuKrcsrv:?. Controls funr,"? sctivirt' cil'j'.ir.'j p:nk snowmold
  (i~m.iri»m r.iv'iei ami jrcy sriownu'ld (Tynh'itj ;p;;)
                    SUGGESTED SPF'.CADER SETTINGS

       to provide proper distribution calibrate spreader before application.

 Stt LBS (21.1 KQ) TREATS 22.000 SO FT (V> ACRE/20-14 SQ M) AT NORMAL RATE
 VA LBS (21.1 Kg) TREATS 11,00020 FT ('« ACRc/1022 SQ M) AT DOUBLE RATE
4G'/t LBS (21.1 Kg) TREATS 44,000 SQ FT (1 ACRS/^C88 SQ Ml AT HALF RATE

                             CRO'.l'OOif    *i0T*«Or
                                                     03.TVJ K.'l/
               Scons (Oru3 T»0«l
               Scorts Pniary
i!» ovefijowhe«H  41.'.    6   3V»
     Sfeet      D    G    8
                                       6
                                       G

               «.Sin;h    IStecl    2V,rr 3Vitt IVtK
Lcly-MR         450.-en    16!cot    2'.iiz 3'.tt I'/.c
 (PTO Mutfell    (ji.5 mrrt
Ginrty 2n ASe.-ics  4.^rjh overlap wliteis  13'.'i  l7Vi lO'.'i
 MgdrU2'ir.cJcl  2.5 rr.n!i oisrljp *!iccls  2*    30   19
                FOR USE OfJ GREENS, TEES. ANO APRONS

            Apply lu moisi or dry grass.

            To tontrol snowmold-apply DOUBLE RATE in fall (heforc
            first snow), late winter and early spring.
            ProTurf Division,OM Scott & Sons. Marysvills.Ohio 43040
-------
         \A   /GJ.V

                          '   M   !  !  !  '':   .'

                          •   •   I   '^'  I  '.   i
            c.
                        r^cnn
            h  hJ  !M; I/ .r,s; !vl.r[ I^jj
            FOR USE ON SUT.'.VcS TURF OS5GASES
                    f^^rarr-.--=:i.**-?^.-e-*^^nv^: :.'/*t; •: •.- ' '• . '."cicj— WT :»::.'•?!- ;•*:
      US"-;'! •••:. M> :... ;;•"!/»:     wt.--fi:?
      P'Sf-.-fP »'-.-. 0 U ?.-;- I J,,-,
                                                  5%
                                                                      <  •   •
                                                                       i  • ••
                                                                      «    •  •
                                                                       i •   •

-------
                               .'•?.''>,'/.•*
                           I •* -r'"  I1"1 -," •  ' ' '  •
                           <»••»«'*;•!»:;<••!•


                           «•/•"•  •'"   r>j   oi i;-<>t. A!«: control: rnoa.
                   SUGGESTED sraEADcR SETTINGS

      To provide proper distribution calibrata spreader before application.

    LBS (21.1 KS) TRSATS 22.000 SQ FT ('4 ACRE/2014 SQ M) AT NORMAL RATE
46'-i LDS (21.1 Kg) TREATS 11,000 SQ FT (% ACRE/1022 SQ M) AT DOUHLE RATE
46V4 LBS (21.1 Kg) TREATS 'W.C'JO SO FT (1 ACRE/--.OS3 SQ M) AT HAUF RATE
                                      WiTTMOl
                                      tz:;?:-j.
                                                s?.-i«ocs irrnvi
     Ov«fl5pwh«!«lS  A'.'i
3 RI;.I     3 fcut      0
                                                     G
                                                     G
3'A
 e
                VVrP M
              Ulj-KP         4SCr;.-n    15fist    2'/iC: 3YiXT I'.'tiz
                (PTO MuCtf)    «i.S r-.;^
              Gjnrtr S h 4 Series  < 5 r-;li  ov«rli>nnh-c!j 12'.'»  t7'/i  10'.'.
                MoCcU2 model  2.5 r:sh  ove.'l«?ol;««ls 24   30   19
           Apply to moist or dry grass.
           Putting greens—may ba used every (wo weeks at NORMAL
           RATE Curing Crowing season (or prevention or control. In-
           terim protection can tJ oc;i:evod witd ProTurf Sroad Spec-
           trum Fungicidfc. Syrinci surljcs ligh;iy ofter appli;ation ;o
           avoid pickup on shoes, ijoif balls or maintenance equipment.
           All other areas—use before fungus dama^a appears or
           when symptoms arc first noticed. May be repeated every
           month a; NORMAL RATE. I! disease is severe or more
           feeding is desired apply ?.t DOUBLE RATE.

           To cv.nt;o! moss-zpply anytime at NORMAL RATE to moist
           foliage. Follow up at tv/o wo ok intervals cs r.e:ded.

           ProTuH  Division,O.V. Sccr. SSons. Marysville.Ohio43040
-------
Parsou C
Poet Omci-v
Craud LndgB  MlcSzlssa
Attcuiica:  J>. /:» S',
                                                       ocn
                letter o£
                                 srCJ CGECEHTEAES "d
ccoolsted.
          Suhait two copies of tiia SLcished Ihbal vfc'iu.rsris'cias ii
                                               l  S,
                                                 G-. Alftsrd,
Enclcsare-sbaapod label
IS PDSI 9-S5-5 "
10-10-68
-------
                                                                                                                V ' ' .i I   mi*^*4
                                                                                                                                                                      \
                                                                                                                                                .'s  KOK USK   "*'!"
                                                                                                         Rrrd *hc.ul.l he clemmd an.I xvcll r>n--'! Ix-lore tn-atin^. f.Ifi
                                                                                                    SUMvKY  CONCKNTUATI-; "(JO" miir-l I-: d.in:..d \vi;h  •.•..-,',T  I
                                                                                                    lowinj; table shows |>i»|"-r (!i!uUnn  for IKC nf SKKU JJAVKIt "<•'
                                                                                                    Trcatcr:                                                          i
                                                                                 i  --H—1
                                                                                  i n"~'
                                                                                 , . I I  C; ,
                                                                                 '••'..' !.—.'
   [         This  V/j/I  H/c  SsofJ  Grwfn
  A    ^ a nn r i  •. '•". 'i  .r, ?     n? 3 ?-;.si /p.s r s n
  ---.'i   _ . iiijj -A«;-.)V.   • :.  *{.:.•  n.j   li  W i. -o \i-.,s J ^ a \-^> u
        DANGER — '-:t/  our  OF REACH OF CHILDREN
              Sec dir^.cti" ••-;.' :'JicJ for  additional warnings      t
                                                  1
      nti 'o!c sfotcmcnt  j:id  oihc;-  required warning  statements on    '•
                            l!;c  direction  panel                    r           £

ACV!'. E INOVtDIENTS:  fHtNYt MLSCUKIC  AMMONIUM ACETATE ................ 13.30?'.  -  J
II.JKT |NC-:::jlENTSi [[[ *.. '86.50%  '  |
          CONTAINS: METAUIC ^C'CUHY .............. . ..................... 7.0%         •
                                                                                        N.
                                                                                               J
             KHKI)
           'VvinlvF
            OATS
s)-;i-:i>
SAVI-:IC "co"
r;.niion
»)=i.- a)
OIK- (!)
\VATI:U
Cnll'ii.
^»
12
St.UIUCY
I'.tiCiXKT
2:i i-.-.
::.i cr.
| SKI-
1 CA'I
1 !•"•
1 20
3,,y
         Aililili'iiui! dy<- may l-c t«Mcd if ilr.tii"--!                          j
         U:i:i'.  Kll'n'ivr iciilrnl  may mi!  li.l
         nmoiinln MIC usi'il.                                               !
                                         V/An.N!f-!0  .  "   /--'•-

 ""*N ANTIIIf)TK — If •.•.vallov.-rd, rrivc nnlU •>;  v. I  •• •• .••' ,-,-:K |((-al..-.n  '•
      luhlc!!|>:innfiil rii" snil in n i:l;i:;r. nf wnrni v.!il( !. !•..•'• ;— p'jr.t i:i;lil -..
M     Repeat mills or v/hitc  i.-f (;KJ;  lirnlcu wi'h \v..'. •-.  Call a r-I.J-sii:.?
V                                                                       I
if^^'WnriiiiiK — May  Pn>«lm-" JJrlayd  Cli<-i"i--;i!  liiirnM.  Do i.ct I-'
»     Thin pvoilnrl .'iliC'lliil  IT i-dM.-i'dfivil  |iipi:-'iic.ir.  i;:;:i  !i;:ndlv.l \v'n!
      (]unlc ventilation .ror t!ii- (.pt-ralnr.  !f -s-iiVd • •'. .•••.in, ini:>i'..l:.T!t'.
   V with soap rind water.  ;-i.iy  lur lal::l il' v.\:ii!i. •. .-,i.   !'i,,  (,f t col :.
  I   clolhiiiK-  If  it ;'"vp?< ai:d ul'i cluiV.i:ro in n
      Destroy  il I>J'  prrfi:rnliiii: or
                                                           i!i.si-nnl in
               ;K TO 1 •UKCIIAXKK — I'ar.inns  I'h.-niiral Works Inc. n:\
       ': warranty, expressed or  implied,, roiicciiiin^ tj-.c use  of tliis .pro '*
-------
                                                                                                                                 I
                       rou USB
.r.o.l an.) w.-ll vim I bi fo:v treating;.  LIQUID SKKD SAVKR
A TIC  "liO" must !.:; diluted with wnlrr before use.  The fol-
!>er dilution  for i,n. ul .ilCKIJ SAVKR "i!0" in a Slurry Seed
   r,o"
nn
fir
I.IIHUY
IK'KI'T
~>:i\:c~. H
2:1 rr.
Si-.ri)
CAT12
P is—
20
UATR I'KIl
IIUSIII'L
« fl. 01.
'/« fl. oz.
(!)	
 Mll.Ull if lli-MI'i ll.
.1 ilosairi:.  Kifci-iivc rmitror innv  not  In- obtained if lowor
owed.  ?;ivo  !i\;^v •.:<.• \vliito of ejrtt bealen with wntcr,  then  n
 .1 ;;la.-.s of warm -.vali-:, nnd repeat until vomit fluid is clear.
 f eri: be:Uen wild water.  Cull a phy.;ician inimediately.
re  Delayed  Ohci.'.icnl  Uurns.  On nr.i breathe spray mist.
•  ec.rv.iU'ied pais- anus  and handled  v.ilh  cave.  Allow  ndc-
o i-|.ci-nt.ii-.  If s; i'lej m» uf
                                                                          wheat run nui be cnnlrollcd by liny known  chviiiicnl i-rcil li'-iipr.cr.t.
                                                                          I'AKSONS SKI-:I) SAVF.H  SI.UItUY CONCKNTIUTK •'$<>" wl.en properly t'iiiar-.l
                                                                          will 0 '  aeeordinu to table on "dircrtionu fur use."  It i*  impoi'lant lluil .'-«\ !•>•
                                                                          band,  allnwint; iwo cups to empty  into niticbino b-.fon* 1.1'MII; |'i;iin drop  in'-.
                                                                          trealer. After llow of jrrain has been shut elf (or hutch t'lir.  iliron;;li), lot iniii-'ni:i •
                                                                          operate u few seconds  to empty  rvmnininp; (train fr-,iii] In-iU'i  inl-> \>i>x, lbei>  tur;i
                                                                          motor olF, Always use fresh,  clean water, when nialdrig pi»|Mi dilution.
                                                                                                     I.AIIKL TltKATKI) SKKUS    —••    />/...->-•.>

                                                                                     Treated seeds should be plainly lubclol or '.ac^eil ii'1 fuilr/ws:

                                                                                       NKKCTKD SKED — POISONOUS TO ANIMAL AND MAN.
                                                                                            110 NOT USE  FOH FOOD. FKKfJ Oil OIL."
                                                                                                  USDA  RETG,  NO.  ISeo-57
                                                                                                            1 GALLC
                                                                                                                   -Lc:^
                                                                                                                                                                          *•• •
                 v
-------

Persona Chedccl Works
Attention:  Kr. A. R. Fox
Eoct Offics SOS 146
Grand Led-c, !:* saigaa  48837

Gentleman:

Subject:       FAESOH5 S/1SD SAVER B.1AND LIQUID READY MIX
               USDA Reg. lia.  1969-55
               Your letter of Septeabar 4, 1963

The labeling referred ta above, subsdtted in connection tfith
registration under ths Federal Insecticide, Funsictde, end
RcdenticirJe Act is acceptable, end a stamped copy is enclosed
for your records.

It. is assumed thdt the word "Poison" will be printed in red.

                                            Sincerely ycura,

                                            j.u.,,.-'  :•'•  nix?-J?.

                                            Harold G. Alford
                                            Assistant Director
                                              for Registration
1               Enclosure
j .              Stamped Label
•,
i
i .
i
A-A
ARS:P.1:HSH:ibf 79-25-68
-------
^,,^.>«-JlN|*f^^;,ii
•••'$ •' ' T"J'i "V^'Ti ''-' ^ /--:A :A'/ 1 "ii s'-"' -'!i j
'"" "•- '" ' '••."•"'• .. '"' ."""." ,."•'. r- -i Ii -";"'• ""•' • '• !
. f 1 /^r^^"^^-^^-^^ 1 •
\ 1 ///I:: 'r.rrr-v //^vMOr.'iA t,
? :i it.-: "n I _ I <:r:r:ci \ i
*• i ? Jr;: v.::--,} p */ «*B C'-V Vo J's^/Vir I r:/:- A1- •*''--,. I f ;
'v^V'r0^.-^ r:p /- v,r OATC: x^VaTwfe^ ? "
^S.. •^i>' ® U i..ii'uj'V V-yi-l » *J) -s^ign^x- WJ j
p' rVl.\.r... .v :;:.'••..,.- -XK, - I*' Vv*' ..•:•-.•.,*.;,.•-, ^
[• WARNING .- ;lilc r.lir.-.vs i>n:pi>i n.y.,..- '
SKH.)

Q o^l^G
(j «: U t!
UJ coBS^r"
1- |§Rp||
>O 'j|;! O'lSo
[.U Wj'i.'H'o0
'*>^ LiJ LJ '** j- (^ U
f/1 f* M o »"? "^
-^* k P c *** '
"** P lM U, 0 t-'
*
A
• [
it
!
:.
WIIKAT
OATS i
UAKLIiY
TI.AX
Sco mnchiu
vnnmi.s -
!;l*t »l W.IM.I
»ll n !'l.>%lri:
\Vnrliinil:
r on tl(il.:iM^.
Sinn- hi ,n
nun* ci»iti«-i:lr
.Ali.M O-Malic
)a fl. OK. per l)ii.
2 'inii.|'i pun liinil.
II l|lllll|l-C |MT llH.
!i ll.  *•'•*
piMirnl.s pnii lonii.
'.< ilniiiii.-; pi:r !ni.
f» tr. <".i|> lo (i^;,
liinnnls p.'in Imiil.
!) iliinips per bu.
Ad:iptors or
(,'oMMTsinn Kits
'; n. < z.
per li!i.
Vi H. f r..
l-i-r In.
"i ll. 17.
p<;r hi.
1 '-i ll. )/..
|irl In.
IV. r- i
•';'• ''.'
1
^!
' 1
•••; r j
per |
I'.S 1 '
PIT '
c niiiiunl for rtip xirr mid ;>uhl.in« >pr III tr> ^
V< (.!'•> 'I i- *j
\Vnlrl, II'. -1 II I'IMt until. \*ililil ll-ii.l 1 • '•• ir.

l» ;•• .1! 1
* ".ii. !
Un-.ll II .r-..:,jlilv ulltl I...M ,!...,;.
i
fi«t| nl.iif. Kr«-|i n.Ml'.li.-r .1. .. .1. >-. in.l ,:. 1 in « -. . '

; :
-------
.1 u:id \vi-!l  rin-i
           ws |sr
                 '|ifi
:';i,-o tivaliiiL,'.
•.H.oiinl.-.:
                                      Mot  to he  diluted  with
.1.1.
.\d:i;ilni.s T
(°»nt i-r.ti.in .its
•'H il. <•£.
m-r bu.
M II. •:::.
p-.-i V.i.
1 1 -.• :',. i-/.
I ,,,,.
>
:>i II. oz.
per bu.
'•>:, II. OZ.
;•>•!• bu.
•!', II. Oi.
per bu.
.._ ._ -
1 '.i II. i'a.
pi-r bu.
Slurry Machines
'/<_• 11. oz. per bu.
1M c,-. flip In 10.5 poundii
n. .i! 1 pi. per );nl. wuler
Sct-il Calc 15
'.i 11. «''/.. per bu.
L' I fi-. flip lu t>.5 piiuncld
I:N .- 1 Vi pi. per |;al. \valer
^i-nl Hale 1!0
'.-: ll. o-/.. per bu.
1' .' i -.'. flip tu 111 pounds
us.- 1 '.'i pt. per I'.nl. wuter
S>v.l liale IH
1 '.i II. «.z. per bu.
J ! cr. cup tu 'J pounds
u>i- J pi. per >;•»!. water
, S«-,l«»u.|0
       and p.<:i lead.
\-t- ,r:ll i:r »!.!!.- .'I i .:il l>. ..!.-u willi u-.il.-i. lh.-:i a l.il,lr\|tiji.iifnl i>f fciilt In u
... i,l 	 II.M.I .. f..,,. li...,.il ,,,,U ,,r wh,.^- ..f  i-u^ I.,.,I,,, vv.Il, w.,l.-r.
   >!..
           i.l.
                         .11,
                                           •il.-
                                                Il  In
 . .1 Cliiitiu.il b:,iu. l><* in<: l.fi-alhc ^1'iay uii^l. Do not tot In i-yc>, on shin
 .:,.i |,..,..!l..i^.

  .l.i:.i,-r ^1. *.:-,!.  wo ,,ol ^.-1 i,i i-frs. mi .skin «>r (Itill.in^. \V.t\li lltaroiiulily.
   .I<.
                             I,,
                                           Tlii
                                                  ,,lii
         .       ..
        ill ,1)L- I..H..K or .miilo |h;i|
      nj uKI fliilln.iK.
                                                            into
 ...,i« (!li, ...it .il M'.iLt. Inf. :mit of »ori;huinu, brown lorwu .-mint of barley, uii'l loose kii'.'it of \vlifjt
can iu;t  bu controlled by any !aio\vn chemical seed treutnieiit.

PAIl.SONS  LIQUID SEED RAVER will dye need red ami compiles with tho VS..td
l.inva" iTgimlinn tlic detection of tiuntcd seed /;ruiiu.

•Tor tmiliiifr seed Kiuin  use  PARSONS LIQUID SKED SAVtR uccoriliiif to  ti.llc
on "rlinxtions for uao." It in iinpurlunt that iniicliine run u few iiunuli.-.i bu/oio  trruiinx'.
So; that niarliine ia  clean i.iul in  ^oud u|iLT:ainj;  condiliun l>cforu treutii.rf.  Do  not lot
sulutiun stand in licater fur extended periods of tinU'.

                                        CAUTION
This product should be considered poisonous nnd bundled with  cure. Allow  adtqur.ta
ventilation for the operator.  If spilled on  skin, wasii  thoroughly  with soup and water.
May be  futal if swallowed. Do not reu.sc  empty container. I'cstroy it  by performing o/
           l^ury or discard in a Mife place.

                               I..VIIi:i.  Tlfl::.-VI'KI» SKKIIS

              TrcateJ sccdu Khotild be plainly labeled or lucked iui follows:

           "DISINFECTED SEED — POISONOUS TO ANIMAL AND MAN.
                      DO NOT USE FOR FOOD.  FEED- OR  OIL."

                           USDA  REG.  NO.  19G9-5O    :
                                                                                                      t  GALLON
                                                       1
                                                                                                                                                            Inc.
-------
                                                               3 9
Parsons Chcnical V.'crks
Attn:  A. R. Fox
P.O. Box KG
Grand Ledge, Michigan  48337                                     .   .

Gentleman:          .        •

Subject  :  PARSONS SEED SAVER OUST DRILL BOX SEED TREATMENT
            File Symbol 19S9-RR                    .    ,  .
            Your letter of Hay 18, 1970                 .

Please refer to the enclosed PR Notice 72-5.

Since the subject product contains rrercu;-y, and .is subject to cancel
lation we cannot process your submission.       '            .       .

Sincerely,
T. E.
Chief,
Fungicida-Hsrbicide Branch

Enclosure
PR Mot. 72-5
EPA:PR:R5-7-:je  4-74-72
-------
     o.1;. lui'Aniiu.MT >_'f  / r,t(ic.uL"UJnt
     ACKICULIOCAI. fit '.'.'MtCH t'EI'.VICK
     l'».*. OAlCOr AI'1'I.K.ATION

                                                                                  Anril   7.  1970
                                                                            2. NAMU cr rcONOMic coi:,ON /.I/us/ In: tamr pmluci «J"is
                                                                              on lnl>cl-do not Hit acliv<: in
                                                                   Seed  Saver  Dust
                                                                   Pri11  Rnv  Ti
                                                                    'i/.i.'
            ROOENTICIOEQ                 GERMICIOE-DISINrECTANTd]

     4.INAM6 5 MAILIKC AOD.TESi OP FIRM TO WHOM RCCISTF
       \{Include Zip Ci'dtl
                                      ICISTRATION IS TO DE ISSUED
                         PARSON'S   rirrMir'T   V'^?.!CS,   IXC.
                         P.   0.   Bo:;  MO
                         Grand  Lecl^c ,. Michigan  48337
 6. TYPE OF FORMULATION
                    V/E1TACLE
           CRANUUAHr~!
                                 PReE€URI7ED

               EMULSIFIADLE LIOOICQ       BAITt  1
                 5. 15 THE REGISTRANT SHCV/rl IN
                   ITCH 4 TH& M/iNUFACTUf-.ERT
                                                                                                                            NO tZU
                                                                                (If "fi'o ". :ee instruction 5 0:1
                                                                              OTHER (Specify)
7. TYPE OF CONTAIN KR

                    CUASSI  1
                          OTHER (Specify)
8. NET CONTENTS OR CONTAINER SIZES
                                                                               2-ih.   and  6-lh.
t. MANNER IN V/MICh UABEL IS AFFIXED TO PROOOCT

      LITHOGRAPHED^             PAPER.
                                                   STENeli.ED(~~1
                                                                     jOTHER (Specify)
10.. P.LACE V.'HEftE DIRECTION'S FOR USE APPEAR
 ...  ON
                                          IN PRINTED MATTER ACCOMPANYING PRODUCT I   I
 II.3A.TA sue.viTYto \viT.M THIS Ar»fLic/.Tic.M (Itleri tify end submit in triplic;:e)

     'EFriCACY DATA^U        TOXICOLOGY DATAQ               .  RESIDUE DATAl  |

      OTHER (Specify-};
                                                                              PETITION FOR TOLERANCE I  i
 ..ANY ADDITIONAL PERTINENT INFORMATION (Do not enter cc.-.fid.->nrisJ fomuls hcri-ue item M.befaw)
   TKE FOLLOWING MUST S- cUCMITVC'J VV.T.'i A??'_iCAT I'.'iN

      five JS) topio of r.f^poifd iobcling, mc'os'i.-.g all piintcd cr  grapt.ic nolle; whicli

    . may-oany I!IT jo!e~of this j:fcducT. Cc^:'cs mint 1>J clocrly IcjcbU ooj It'cnileol.

      f>'3 'Ti  ce^.'e;  of Mio ii'roisrs 'w'MjIo, »ri-.v:'-c :>s  :.•*::-.« -5^?  sr-':  ;.••:•-:-.;•

      of lCE f5N THIS
                                                                PIKCR TO THIS FILE SYV.23L !IO.:
 !•!. SIGNATURE cv A'J fii^..;;;/- 3 - TM :;k;- '^-. •:.•! r.^T

                                          CTOCK or  f ni OI:M n.i-io ijuiv
                                       v/iii  t.:. u::nj LI.MIII. L.'.'HAU.. 11.^
-------
                             P.O.  cox  i i 6 — c u A ;; D L E u G t.  KICHICAK

                                   April  7,  1970
N>r. Harold G. Alford                  •           •
Assistant Director  for Kepistration
t). S. Dcpt. of Agriculture-
Agricultural Research Service
Pesticides Regulation Division              .
Washington D/C. 20250

Dear Mr. Alford:                               '

We are enclosing five (5) corrected SHED  SAVEP  DUST
(Drill Box Seed~Trcatr!ent)  labels. Also  enclosed is
five (5) copies of  the formula  for your  information

We trust that this  product  will  now  be in  line for
registration.

Yours truly,                                     ..

PARSON'S CHEMICAL' WORKS,  Inc.
 / •  //  ^ •' .  .
 '•'-A   V-V<^ /->t
A'. R. Fox, Technical Dept.
ARF/pr
enc.
-------
r .
                                                                 ••«••- —.-.: t.-
;•  ;--.:. •••«}.
• u-;--. I.'.-R  c  :• . ff.rtor./ol
                   AntiJofc:
                  r.iilk or »hili  jr  ;-vi t.-cfcn  with
                                         o( worm
                                                          .  I
      »;U». r   K-; ..'  ur.UI vjT.ir liuij  n ;i.-.ir.  Ki-; :_t milk
   "'   Ji  *•• -I:  of  ;..;  L.'iiin yith w^:.-.  Coll  «  !'l.)ii.-ton

 "i   'r	'    ''         DANGER
  -I'    KEEP OLT  OF REACH C'f CHILDREN
   j * Sec C;.icr  foncls for  AtJcfificnr.l  Ccuvions
   I          Ts'ET WEIGHT 2 i-'C'JN'OS
  '.]               T-JTATS IG eu-.'HCLS             \--.j
   \   rT~~7 i""7•'." "'"T"™,"'   """" ""rrrn  f  '•{

         ' I I'.' !'J.U •.'.' l.'-C.l 'Jji.',-:' i'J'.lj;.'i)'J'it(\  •!»•    "4    • •
          ~.:   .  ^. •   . "..;••*  ..-^..	V..... ..t.-'iii--'•'.'::{    '•  »
                                                  f-:I    •••'•'•
                                                                     'THE'EASY'MODERN".
                                                                    .  METHOD  TO TREAT V  ::
                                                                           SEED GRAIN  -'   .   .'•;''
                                                                             V/ARK'IKG:

                                                                     May Produce Dtlcycd Chcmi- .
                                                                  cnl Ourns!  Do not breathe  dust.
                                                                  Da not get in eyes, on skin or on .
                                                                  clothing.  Wash thoroughly after
                                                                  handling.                .  .   ;•.'..
                                                                           USDA  NO.
                                                                                                               WHKAT
                                                                                                               RYE
                    ll\:i.ill> IM:,;I..,;,        s»r. r.i-~.< il /, i. r.i.it
                        DI.'I-J.'I.           TO i:n> l''r  :;„.
               .Sliniiv .S;.iiil
               nr liunl                   .        2 f".
               (tnvcreil  Sn
                                                                                                                            l::»fk l.mist- Km ill — Stripe
                                                                                                                            S/m. IH
                                                                                                                                                              2 Oj.
                                                                                                                                                              2 n/..
                                                                                                                                                              2  O/..
•   .    .Or IIKC n:ie pciiiml  !•. n l,n.-h.-l< n( rrrd yrain.

                     I) 1 .1 i:. 0 T I O N S

  fie Aurc fr«l Ki.'iin  is v.-rlj r\\i>-i nr.il  troroiij;hly clf.in o
  trcntin;- >vi!h DUST,  to ;>..| trcr.l u,.;,!( or I'o-.r Cirf.'i.-.at-.f.ii
  test sci-il> or xi-c.ls  II..-.; .-,.••> r«-:il d.»rk  with Smut Du.-l.  Kcr
•  IK III r i.tr.n.-l» end yii.M.s ;>:.••.>•.'. r.iftiit l.ich Cci-min.ilii.i  :c^t
  ifi J:.. £)ij!<... the rnn to '•<•>: .»n u;i m.-iti r'Ui.
  Apply fAK-'jONS SKKl) .SAVU: DUST dlrrclly to diy tccxpr'.-».'.ed  or ini|.I;nt, ;.••
  rr.nilo 3.1  to  Ihc ejects i.f ;,mii t,t tl.c rcvuil.i lo \i-. ai.-tiii.i-il
  if not iistrl in nrc"»liiii.-i: «ili. (iir«:rtin:;i or r»l;.l>!i»!i'-il ».'«.'c
  pr.ictirc.  The huycr cnur-t ••  .•.mm: r.H  ri..-;;ic/;.siliili:y. in.:lui|!.-i;
  injury or damn).'*',  rcairiu :i- fio/.i iti rniiu.ic K-, »crh. or in
  coinMnnllon uiih other ITIH'I ii i|-.

                       CAUTION
  Provide ilc lo Hear u MA*', of .v-t hj;. Ji.crcKicT o-':: the
  no.'.c  and mouth vliilc woiUi-t;; v i;'n  I.,; ri-.-i.  Do  ,-.ct  ^.1
 dust on tkin, nr.j -specially nhiv: vci-.^piiin;.  I' 3 nil >.. j t.-.i
 trotted with  DUST for any food p>irp<;:;o. >'ct to U sKiiUAci.
  Do not rCL.sc empty container.  i'Jt'&'rc.y it by jjcif.irilir.; cr
        tf.  Bury  or dixcird in a » .fe f'uct.
''  ••:.  RfCISTCRfD IH U.S. PAfiHT OfflCE SO. J70.K4 .

..    :        LABEL T;:r;.V7 2:0 SEED5

 Treated seeds should b;- jilainly  labeled or  ti;;£c;l
'                        rii follows:
 "DISINFECTED SEED— POISONOUS TO AK:;-f AI.
      .. AND MAN.  HO NOT US!-: FOR S'OCD.
  -   :               K:-;::D on OIL/'

         Manufacturing C'-..:;:i?li  Since  If-Jo
-------
       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                        WASHINGTON, D.C.  20-160
                            MAR   T  1979
                                                       OFFICE Of ENFORCEMENT
SUBJECT:   Enforcement of  the Administrator's Emergency Orders
           Suspending 2,4,5-T and  Silvex  Registrations

FROM:      A. E.  Conroy  II, Director
           Pesticides and  Toxic  Substances
           Enforcement Division

TO:        Enforcement Division  Directors
           Pesticide Branch Chiefs
     On February 23, 1979,  the Administrator  signed  Emergency Suspension
Orders pursuant to FIFPA section  6(c)(3)  immediately suspendirrj  the
registrations of all pesticide products containing 2,4,5-T for fores-
try uses  (including site preparation, conifer release,  and brush and
weed control), rights-of-way uses (including' brush and  weed control),
and pasture uses _V, and of all pesticide products containing Silvex
for forestry uses (including site preparation, conifer  release,  and
brush and weed control), rights-of-way uses  (including  brush and weed
control), pasture uses, home and  garden uses, commercial/ornamental
turf uses (including recreational area uses), and aquatic weed control/
ditch bank uses (use on rice not  suspended),'. pending the  final outcc.vie
of Agency cancellation proceedings which  v/ere also initiated by  Order
of the Administrator on February  28th.  Copies of these Orders are
being mailed under separate cover.  The purpose of this memorandum is
to set forth the Agency1s enforcement strategy concerning products
suspended by the February 28th Orders.  It is the Agency's intention
to ensure that the Administrator's Orders are strictly  complied  with
by all affected persons, including manufacturers, foraulators, regis-
trants, wholesalers, retailers, distributors, government  agencies,
and users.
jy  Pasture is defined as land producing  forage  for  animal  consumption,
"harvested by grazing, which has annual or more freqi:ent  cultivation,
seeding, fertilization, irrigation, pasticide application,  and  other
similar practices applied to it.  Fencerows enclosing  pastures  are  in-
cluded as cart of the oasture.
-------
                                  -2-

I.   SUSPENSION ORDER PROVISIONS

     The February 281± Orders provide:

        (1)  As of February 28, 1979, all registrations of pesticide
        products containing 2,4,5-T and Silvex for the uses described
        above are suspended.  For 2,4,5-T this means that in addition
        to the uses cancelled in 1970, all pasture land, right-of-way
        and forestry uses are now suspended.  For Silvex this means
        that all aquatic (except for use on rice), home and garden,
        recreation area, as well as. pasture land, right-of-way and
        forestry usss are now suspended.  None of the products with
        any of the suspended uses may be sold or distributed in  the
        United States.  The Agency is officially notifying by certi-
        fied mail all affected registrants of products any use of which
        has been suspended by the February 28th Orders (hereafter referred
        to as suspended products).

        (2) As of February 28, 1979, all 2,4,5-T and F51vex
        products, regardless of how and when they were obtained, may
        only be used or applied for non-suspended uses, and only if-
        the particular product in the user's possession is currently
        labeled for one of the allowable uses.

II. . CATEGORIES OF 2,4,5-T AND SILVEX PRODUCTS

     The following is a numerical breakdown of producers and registrants
of the suspended products:

            Producers

                                       2,4,5-T:  43

                                       Silvex:   58

                                       TOTAL    101 */
            Registrants

                                       2,4,5-T: 80

                                       Silvex: __87

                                       TOTAL   167
V  There is an overlap in the production of suspended 2,4,5-T and •
Silvex products.  As a result, there is only a total of 81 individual
producers of such products.
-------
                                   -3-

            Distributor Registrants

                                       2,4,5-T: 376

                                       Silvex:  382

                                       TOTAL    758

There are seven (7) 2,4,5-T registrants and fifteen (15) Silvex registrants
not affected by the Administrator's Suspension Orders.

     There are three categories of 2,4,5-T and Silvex products:

        (A)  Federally registered products, all uses of which have been
     suspended.  An example of a product in this category would be a
     product registered for use only in forests.  None of the products
     in this category nay be sold, distributed or used in the United
     States during the duration of the Administrator's Suspension Orders.

        (B)  Federally registered products, some usss.of v/hich have been
     suspended..   There is a category of registered products some of but
     not all of whose uses were suspended by the February 28th-Orders.
     An example of a product in this category would be a product registered
     for use on range land as well as for forest use'(the former being
     a permitted use, the latter being a suspended one). Until the
     completion of certain initial procedural steps resulting from the
     Notices of Cancellation as well as the Suspension Orders, which will
     help clarify the future status of products in this category, such
     products may not be sold or distributed for use in the United States.
     PTSED will be preparing further guidance on the .status of thase
     products after discussions with OGC and OPP. Products in this
     category may only be used or applied for non-suspended uses,
     and only if the particular product in the user's possession is
     currently labeled for an allowable use.

        (C)  Federally registered products, no uses of which have been
     suspended.  There is a small number of federally registered 2,4,5-T
     and Silvex products none of whose uses were suspended by the
     February 28th Orders, and whose sale", distribution and use may con-
     tinue.   An example of a product in this category would be a product
     registered for use only on rice.  Also included in this category
     are 2,4,5-T and Silvex technicals, which are registered for manufac-
     turing  use only.

          You will be receiving shortly a list of suspended product
     registration numbers, product names, registrant names, and the
     names and addresses of establishments where 2,4,5-T and Silvex
     products with suspended uses have been produced.   You will also
     receive a copy of the site/registration listing.   In order to
-------
                                  -4-

     determine whether a particular product fits into category A or
     B, you will only need bo look up the product by its  registration
     mmber and determine whether all or only some of its listed uses
     have been suspended.

          In addition to the federally registered products discussed
     in paragraphs A through C above, all products being  sold pursuant
     to State 24(c) registrations are subject to the requirements of
     the Administrator's February 23th Suspension Orders.  A final list
     of these products is not yet available.  As soon as  this infor-
     mation is prepared, it will ba forwarded to the;regional offices.
     In the meantime, the regional offices should inform  the States in
     their regions that State registrations for suspended uses of 2,4,5-T
     and Silvex issued pursuant to FIFRA section 24~(c) hava also been
     suspended by tha Administrator's February 23th Orders, and  that no
     further State 24(c) registrations may be issued for  suspended uses
     of the affected products.

          Intrastate registrations with assigned accession numbers are not
     included in the Administrator's February 23th Orders.  A listing of
     these products and the States in which they are registered  is being
     mailed under separate cover.  The regional offices should contact
     the State agencies responsible for the original registrations to see
     that appropriate steps are taken by the States to limit the possible
     distribution, sale and use of these products consistent with the
     Administrator's .Suspension Orders of February 28th.

III. ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY

     A. POLICY  .

     The Office of Enforcement intends to ensure that the Administrator's
February 23th Orders are strictly complied with. The Agency's enforcement
policy has a two-fold objective: 1) to prevent the distribution  and
sale of suspended 2,4,5-T and Silvex products; and 2) to  prevent any
use of these products for other than non-suspended uses.

     The general policy of the Agency has been to request a national
recall where product registrations have been suspended in order  to prevent
an imminent hazard to man or the environment.  However, because  of the
emergency nature of the Administrator's actions and the fact that such
a recall approach would not have the effect of immediately halting sales,
distribution, and use, the Office of Enforcement is issuing Stop Sale,
Use and Removal Orders as quickly as possible to all registrants, distri-
butor registrants and producers of 2,4,5-T and Silvex products subject to
the Administrator's Orders, as well as to all identifiable large scale
users of these products.  In addition, the Agency is taking special steps
to notify interest groups who represent orcducers, sellers and user/appli-
cators of the suspended products of the Administrator's Orders and the
resulting legal obligations.
-------
                               -5-


     B. STRATEGY

     The initial Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders directed  at  2,4,5-T
and Silvex registrants, producers, distributor  registrants,  identifiable
large scale users and federal government  agencies V  have  been  prepared
and sent by certified mail by PTSED.  A copy of the Stop Sale Order  forms
and cover letter being used are being mailed under separate  cover.   Each
region will be sent a copy of each Stop Sale Order issued  to any person
within their region.  A regional contact  has been named at the  bottom
of each Stop Sale Order.  This contact person should  be able to assist
the recipients of the Stop Sale, Use, or  Removal Orders with any ques-
tions that might arise. In addition, the  cover  letter accompanying the
Stop Sale Orders requests that certain information be provided  to  the
regional contact person specified on the  Stop Sale Order.  Note that
certain information from producers of the suspended products is manda-
tory in accordance with section 7(c)(2) of FIFRA.  The information
requested is intended to assist the Agency in tracking shipments of
the suspended products through the channels of  trade.  Additional
information is requested of all recipients of the Stop Sale  Orders to
assist EPA in monitoring compliance.  The regional offices who  will  be
receiving information from Stop Sale recipients should maintain the  :
information about stocks on hand and report monthly and cumulative totals
to PTSED by the 10th of each month.

     The regional offices, working closely with States, are  to  conduct
books and records inspections at establishments of registrants  or
producers v,ho fail to comply with the.Agency's  request for information
about suspended products.  Such inspections will be necessary in order
to obtain, updated information about quantities  of production and loca-
tions of recent shipments.

     The regional offices and States should visit the headquarters
offices or major distribution points of food, drug, hardware, lumber,
garden supply, variety stores, etc., to inform  them of the Suspension
Orders and obtain assurances that they will take immediate action to
instruct their outlets to remove the suspended  products from sale.   In
addition, the regional offices and the States will undertake special
marketplace inspections at a representative sampling  of these and other
retail--outlets in order to monitor compliance-with the Administrator's
Orders.  The dealers and retailers who are visited are to  be advised •
of the Administrator's February 28th Orders and  asked to voluntarily
remove suspended products from their shelves(if  they  have  not already
done so).  Persons who refuse or for some other  reason fail  to  comply
voluntarily with an inspector's request to remove the suspended pro-
ducts from his available stocks should be issued a Stop Sale, Use, or
Removal Order.  Further decisions about future  efforts aimed at the
retail level will depend on the degree of voluntary compliance
occurring at that level.  FT3ED should be kept  advised as  to the
extent of voluntary compliance as well as any problems concerning
the retail sale of suspended products.

V*Twelve federal aqencies have been sent Stop Sale, Use, or Removal •
Orders.  A list is being mailed undet separate cover.
-------
                                  -6-

     Since the time for annual spraying with some of the suspended
products is imminent, regional offices and the States should take
immediate steps to inform users and applicators of the Administrator's
February 28th Orders.  Although the regional offices and cooperating
State personnel should first seek voluntary compliance, they should
not hesitate to issue Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders to persoqs who
are holding quantities of the suspended products for application.  Such
orders may be issued to applicators who are in the process of making
an application with a suspended product.  An inspection of the appli-
cator's business establishment is not required for the issuance of such
an order.  A copy of the Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order form applicable
to users (as opposed to producers or registrants) is being mailed under
separate cover for your information and/or use.

     Once final action has been concluded on requests for an expedited
hearing pursuant to the provisions of section 6(c), and the status of
2,4,5-T and Silvex products pending the outcome of the future cancella-
tion proceedings has been settled, the Agency will review the need for
a possible request for a voluntary recall of the suspended products by
the .registrants and producers.  Until that time the Stop Sale, Use or
Removal Orders will remain in effect, subject to suggestions from the
affected parties about possible disposition of the current stocks of
suspended products.

C. SUKMASy OF PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

   1. Headquarter's Responsibility

      a.  Issue Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders via certified mail
      to all registrants, distributor registrants and producers of
      all suspended 2,4,5-T and Silvex products.

      b.  Issue Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders to Federal agencies
      involved with the use or application of the suspended products.

      c.  Issue Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders to identifiable large
      scale users of the suspended products after conferring with the
      regional office.

      d.  Supply regional offices with copies of the following:  .

         1) The Administrator's Suspension and Cancellation Orders.

         2) Copies of the Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order forms and
         accompanying cover letter.

         3) Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders mailed by EPA Hdqrs.

   2. Regional office Responsibility

     a.  Notify States of the Administrator's Suspension Orders and
     Agency enforcement strategy, and develop cooperative approach
     to implementation of the enforcement strategy.
-------
                                  -7-
     b.  Compile information supplied by producers concerning 1978-79
     distribution, as well as additional information requested from
     all Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order recipients.  Report data to
     PTSED on monthly basis.

     c.  Conduct books and records inspections at those major producer
     establishments, who do not supply the requested information, to
     update information about quantities of production and locations
     of shipments.

     d.  Review information obtained from producers (.per b. and c. above)
     to identify recipients of shipments of the suspended products in
     order to target distributor and marketplace inspections.

     e.  Contact headquarters offices or major distribution points of
     food, drug, hardware, lumber, garden supplies, variety stores etc.
     to inform them of the Sus.pension Orders and to solicit their coopera-
     tion in informing their customers of the Suspension Orders.

     f.  Conduct marketplace inspections in order to locate possible
     improper retail sale or distribution of suspended products.

     g.  Undertake special efforts to inform State pesticide user associa-
     tions, applicators and other users about the Suspension Orders and
     thair legal requirements.

     h.  Issue SSUROs when appropriate.

     i.  Undertake appropriate enforcement action against any persons
     violating the terms of the Administrator's Suspension Orders or
     SSUROs.

     j.  Regional contact person, with assistance from EPA Headquarters,
     should be prepared to answer questions about the Agency's actions
     and to assist persons directly affected (e.g. producers, registrants,
     sellers, users, applicators, etc.) with compliance.

   3.  State Responsibility

         States, especially those with''Cooperative Enforcement Agreements,
     are expected to cooperate fully with the enforcement efforts outlined
     in' this memorandum. Specifically, they will be asked to assist
     in items c, d, e, f, g, h, and i above.

17.  ENFORCEMEOT ACTIONS

     Enforcement actions will be taken in accordance with normal procedures
and at levels consistent with those set forth in the Case Proceedings Manual
against any person found in violation of the 2,4,5-T and Silvex Suspension
Orders or Agency SSUROs. Note: Section 26 of the amended FIFRA, which
grants to the States the primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide
use violations, does not extend to situations involving the use of a
£ ;spended product in violation .of Sections 12(a)(2)(J) or 12(a)(2)(I).
-------
                                -8-

V.   DISPOSAL OF 2,4,5-T AND SILVEX PRODUCTS

     Until the conclusion of Agency cancellation proceedings involving
2,4,5-T and Silvex  registrations, persons requesting information about
the possible disposal of quantities of the suspended products should be
advised to place the material in storage in accordance with label direc-
tions .
VI.  INDEMNITIES

     PTSEJD has been advised by the Office of General Counsel that con-
sideration of requests for indemnification under section 15 of FIFRA
by parsons possessing quantities of the suspended products will not
take place until the conclusion of Agency cancellation proceedings for
the suspended products.

VII. INQUIRIES

     Any questions about this memorandum and the 2,4,5-T or Silvex
Suspension Orders should be directed to the appropriate regional
coordinator.

VIII. SEM1 UNDER SEPARATE COVER

      (1) Administrator's Suspension Orders, Feb. 28, 1979.

      (2) Administrator's Notices of Cancellation, Feb. 28, 1979.

      (3) PT3ED Stop Sale Order forms and cover letter.

      (4) List of Intrastate 2,4,5-T and Silvex Products.

      (5) Copies of Headquarters-Issued Stop Sale, Use, or Removal

          Orders.

      (6) List of federal agencies sent Stop Sale Order.

      (7) List of federally registered 2,4,5-T and Silvex products

          suspended by the Administrator's Feb. 28, 1979 Orders.

      (8) Site/registration listing.
-------
       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                        APR 0 5 1P7P
                                                       OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
SUBJECT:  Further Guidance Concerning Enforcement of the Administrator's
          Emergency Orders Suspending 2,4,5-T and Silvex Registrations

FROM:     A.  E. Conroy  II, Director
          Pesticides  and  Toxic Substances
          Enforcement Division

TO:       Enforcement Division Directors
          Pesticide- Branch Chiefs
     In a Tremor and urn dated March  7,  1979,  I explained the Agency's
enfoL'ce.-nent strategy concerning 2,4,5-T and Silvex products suspended
 y the Administrator on  February  /.8th.   In that memo r and U.T. I indicated
   1- I would provide you with  additional, guidance concerning the status
      icrally registered  2,4,5-T and  Silvex products v.hich 'nave both sus-
p3.._^c and non-suspended uses  on  their  labels.  In the meantime, such
products cculd not be  sold or  distributed  for use in the United States.
However, affected products in  the user's or applicator's .possession could
be used or applied -for non-suspended uses, if the particular product
in the user's possession was currently  labeled  for an allowable use.

     In a letter dated March 22,  1979,  the Agency advised registrants of
2,4,5-T and Silvex products .with  both suspandei and non-suspended uses
on their labsls that they would be allowed to distribute .and sell such
products for use in the  United States once they had prepared adequate
interim labeling designed to inform  the purchaser that certain of the
uses on the label are  allowable,  but that  others are suspended.  I have
attached a copy of the letter, \vhich is self explanatory, and do not
plan to surmrarize it in  this memorandum.
-------
                                 —2—

     As you will see,  registrants  of  such  products have been instructed
to send copies of their interim labeling to  the  appropriate regional
office along with information about what steps they have taken to com-
ply with the letter.   Since many of the products are distributed  and
sold throughout the United States, as each regional office receives
copies of the interim  labeling, they  should  forward copies to all
the other EPA regional offices.  A list of regional contacts who  are
responsible for matters relating to 2,4,5-T  and  Silvex  products is
attached to the March  22nd letter.  Although the Agency is not re-
quiring advance approval for each  registrant's interim  labeling,  the
regional office receiving the original of  the interim labeling should
briefly review each label as it is received  to make certain that  on
its face it appears adequate to inform purchasers of the product  that
certain of its uses are no longer  allowable.   Any questions about
specific interim labeling should be directed to  fir. A.  J.  Dellavecchia,
Chief of PTSED's Policy and Guidance  Branch,  and his staff.

     As you know, immediately following' the  release of  the Administrator's
February 23th Orders,  PTSED issued over 1,000 Scop Sale, Use, or  Removal
Orders to all affected 2,4,5-T and Silvex  registrants,  producers  and
distributor registrants. As a result  of the  Agency's subsequent decision
to allow certain, of the registrants to prepare interim  labeling so they
can cell and distribute their products which have sore  non-suspended
uses on their labels,  it will be necessary to formally  vacate.,or  lift
the Stop Sale Orders affecting those  products v'oich can be properly
relabeled.  In other words, registrants who  have prepared  interim label-
ing can only begin to  sell and distribute  their  products as scon  as the
interim labeling is attached and after they  have notified  EPA of  their
actions.  Other 2,4,5-T and Silvex products  in their custody or control
which were subject to  the Stop Sale Order  and/or which  have not been
properly relabeled still may not be moved  in commerce without advance
approval from the appropriate EPA  regional office.

     A question has been raised whether the  Stop Sale,  Use,  or Removal
Orders issued by PTSED should be amended, vacated,  etc.  by PTSED  or by
the appropriate regional office.  Once the Stop  Sale Order  has been
issued, it is the responsibility of the regional office listed on the
Order to take whatever future action is appropriate in  connection with
that Order.  For example, if a distributor registrant is able to  arrange
for the return of a particular product to  the  registrant or  producer,  it
will be the regional office's responsibility to  amend or vacate the Stop
Sale Order to allow the pesticide  to be returned.
-------
                                    -3-
     A question has  also been  raised  about  the  possible violation of
the Administrator's  Suspension Orders if  a  pesticide dealer  attempts to
return quantities  of the suspended  products to  the  distributor,  producer
or registrant.  Although the Administrator's Orders state that "the sale,
distribution, or other movement  in  commerce (emphasis added)  and the use
of all such pesticide products ...  is prohibited",  it is not  the Agency's
intention to prevent the return  by  a  dealer of  suspended products to a
registrant, producer, or distributor.  However,  it  is necessary for the
Agency to know v^ether quantities of  the  suspended,  products are  going to
be moved in commerce, to whom,  in what quantities and for what purposes.
Therefore, if a dealer plans to  return unsold quantities of suspended
products to a producer or distributor he  should  first contact the approp-
riate EPA regional office in writing  notifying  them of his plans and
wait for confirmation before actually shipping  the  material.   If the
saiTB dealer is subject to a federal Stop  Sale, Use,  or Removal Order,
it will be necessary for him to  have  the  Order vacated or lifted before
he ships the pesticide.  Similarly, if the  products  under his control
have been detained pursuant to a State order, it will be necessary for
him to contact the appropriate State  officials about his plans to return
the pasticide(s).

     Finally, based  on an extensive computer listing provided by the
Office of Pesticide  Programs of  possible  users of suspended 2,4,5-T or
Silvex products, PTSED is about  to  begin  issuing approximately 24,000
Stop Sale, Use, or Rerraval Orders.  These  Orders  will be  sent  directly
to various persons who might be  holding suspended products for use or
planning to use such  products  including timber tract owners,  aerial
applicators, lawn service companies,  electric power  companies, pipeline
operators, railroads, irrigation operators, etc.  A complete  listing  of
the persons receiving such Orders,  broken down alphabetically, by State,
will be sent to each  regional office  along  with  a copy of the cover
letter and Stop Sale  forms.as  soon  as the Orders have been mailed.
Attachment
-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                           WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                           AUG 2 0  1979
                                                           OFFICE Of ENFORCEMENT
SU2JECI:  Further Guidance on  the  Cancellation and Suspension of 2,4,5-T
          and Silvex

10:       Enforcement Division Directors
          Pesticides Branch Chiefs
     On July 9, 1979, the Assistant Administrator  for  Toxic Substances
signed two notices of intent  to hold  hearings  pursuant to FIFRA section
6(b)(2) to determine whether  or not the  uses of  2,4,5-T and silvex not
subject to the Emergency Suspension Orders  of  February 23,  1979 should
be cancelled (copies attached).  This essentially  ;ieans that all uses
of 2,4,5-T and siivex will now be  reviewed  as  part of  the ongoing can-
cellation proceedings.

     In preparing the two notices  the Office of  General Counsel concluded
that the list of non-suspended uses of both 2,4,5-T and silvex products
was broader than originally assumed.   In my earlier guidance '.Terror anda
I expressed the Agency's view that only  rice,  rangeland, sugarcane and
certain orchard uses of these products ware not  affected by the February 23,
1973 Suspension Orders. This  sa-.e  view was  expressed in the Registration
Division/Pesticides and Toxic Substances Enforce.nent Division March 22, 1979
letter to all 2,4,5-T and silvex registrants.

     It is now the Agency's view that a  number of  uses of both 2,4,5-T and
silvex that wsre previously considered to be suspended are  not suspended
and products with these additional -uses  on  their labeling can be sold and
used in the United States p2ncing-the outcoirve  of the cancellation proceed-
ings.  According to the 6(b)(2) notice,  in  addition to use  on rice and
rangeland, non-crop usss of 2,4,5-T at the  following sites  are not suspended:
-------
airports;  fences,  htxiciorov/s  (not ut'v-r.vi.'-X' incl'icicd in suspended uccs, e.g.,
rights-of-way, pasture);  lurr^rr  yaroc;  refineries; non-food crop areas;
storage  areas; wastelands (not otherwise included in suspended uses, e.g.,
forestry);  vacant  lots;  tank farms;  industrial sites and areas (not other-
wise  included  in suspended uses, e.g.,  rights-of-way).  ,

     Similarly, according to the 6(b)(2) notice, in addition to use on rice,
rangeland,  sugarcane  and  orchards,  non-crop uses of silvex at the following
sites are  not suspended:  fencerows,  hedgerows, fences (not otherwise included
in  the suspended uses, e.g.  rights-of-way, pasture, home and garden);
industrial  sites or buildings (not  otherwise included in suspended uses,
e.g. rights-of-way, convnercial/ornaTental turf); storage areas; waste
areas; vacant lots; and parking  areas.  Attached to this memorandum is
a revised  version  (dated  July 24, 1979) of the list of suspended and
non-suspended uses for 2,4,5-T and  silvex products. This list supersedes
the version provided  to you  in connection with my guidance of April
5th and  the March 22nd letter to affected registrants.
                                           A.  E.  Conroy II,/Director
                                         Pesticide and Toxic Substances
                                              Enforcement Division
                                                        V
Attachment
-------
                            SU3LANDED OSES
2,4,5-T  I/

[2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy acetic acid,
  esters, amine salts)

Firetrails and lanes
Forest lands, management areas,
   plantations, and stumplands
Rights-of-way: highways, pipelines,
   powerlines, utilities, roadsides,
   roadways, etc.
Pasture
 3ILVEX          I

 [2-{2,4,5-tr ichlorophenoxy) propionic
    acid, esters, amine salts]
                 i
 Farm buildings
 Forestlarxls and management areas
 Golf courses
 Home use, lawns, grass, ornamental
    turf, patios, sidewalks, drive-
    ways, farmyards
Ditchbanks, drainage ditchbanks
 Ponds, pond margins, standing
    water
 Lake, lake margins
 Rights-of-way, all; roadsides,
    roadways, etc.
 Pasture
 Ditches - water
 Parks, athletic fields .
 Marshlands, canals, aquatic sites
                           NON-SUSPENDED USES
2,4,5-T
Rice
Rangelard
Airports
Fences, hedgerows (not otherwise
   included in suspended uses, e.g.
   rights-of-way, pasture)
Lumberyards
Refineries
Nonfood crops
Storage areas
Noncrop areas
Wastelands (not otherwise included
   in suspended uses, e.g., forestry)
Vacant lots
Industrial sites and areas (not
   otherwise included in suspended
   uses, e.g., rights-of-wayj
 SILVEX

 Rice
 Rangeland
 Sugarcane
 Preharvest fruit drop of apples,
    prunes and pears
 Fence rows, hedgerows, fences  (not otherwise
    included in suspended uses, e.g., rights-
    of-way, pasture, home and garden)
 Nonfood crop areas
 Nonerop areas
 Storage areas
 Waste areas
 Vacant lots, parking areas, etc.
 Industrial sites or buildings  (not
    otherwise included in suspended
    uses, e.g., r ights-of-way,
    commercial/ornamental turf)
I/  Certain uses of 2,4,5-T were suspended and cancelled  in 1970.   P.  R.  Notice
70-11, April 20, 1970, suspended the registrations for products  containing
2,4,5-T and bearing directions for all uses in l?kos, oonds and  ditchbanks,  and
liquid formulations for use around the hoire, recreation areas, and  similar  sites.
P. R. Notice 70-13, May 1, 1970, cancelled the registrations of  2,-1,5-T  projects
including all granular formulations for use uroun3 tha home, recreation  areas
and similar sites,.and all uses on food crops intended for human consumption,
except for products whose labeling could be modified by deleting cuch  claims.
-------
•tJ sr/.

              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

      •                         WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                                   NQV    7 B79
                                                              OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
  MEMORANDUM

  SUBJECT:  CBCP Suspension Order Enforcement Strategy

  TO:       Enforcement Division Directors
            Pesticides Branch Chiefs

Background

       On September 8, 1977, the Administrator announced  his  intention to take
  two separate suspension actions with respect to pesticide products containing
  dibromochloropropane (DBCP).  These actions were taken  pursuant to his autho-
  rity under Section 6(c) of the Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide  and Rodenticide
  Act, as amended (FIFRA).  On October 27, 1977, because  no registrants invoked
  their right to a hearing pursuant tc Section 6(c)(2), the Administrator
  issued a Suspension Order concerning DBCP products.  The order was based on
  the findings that DBCP is carcinogenic and also found to damage human repro-
  ductive functions and may cause sterility in males.  The October 27, 1977,
  Suspension Order therefore proposed two separate actions: (1)  the
  "Unconditional11 or "Specific Food Use" Suspension of all products registered
  for use on nineteen (19) specific food crops in which DBCP  residues occurred,
  or appeared likely to occur in the edible portion of the treated crop; and
  (2) A "Conditional" Suspension of DBCP products registered  for all other end
  uses.  The conditionally suspended uses were:  cotton,  soybeans, citrus, grapes,
  pineapples, peaches, nectarines, plums, almonds, commercial okra, commercial
  lima beans, commercial snap beans, commercial southern  peas, berries (black-
  berries, blueberries, loganberries, dewberries, boysenberries, raspberries),
  strawberry nursery stock, apricots, cherries, figs,  walnuts, bananas, turf
  (commercial and residential) and ornamentals (commercial and residential).   For
  the conditionally registered uses it was thought that risks to applicators
  could be sufficiently reduced on an interim basis by placing restrictions on
  the product, such as, limiting use to certified applicators using respirators
  and. protective clothing.

       On July 18, 1979, the Administrator announced his  intention to suspend
  all remaining uses of pesticide products containing  dibromochloropropane
  (DBCP).  This Notice of Intent to Suspend is based on additional information
  showing that the conditional suspension is not adequate to  reduce the risks
  associated with continued use of DBCP, and in turn prevent  an  imminent hazard
  during the time required to complete full scale cancellation proceedings which
  are now pending pursuant to Section 6(b) of FIFRA.   The new findings reveal
  that DBCP residues may occur even in crops which are not grown in contact with
  or in close proximity to treated soil; that treatment with  DBCP may result  in
  contamination of water supplies, including drinking  water sources;  and that
  application of DBCP may result in ambient air levels of DBCP at sites outside
  the application area and may result in ambient air levels of DBCP at the site
  of application several days after application.
-------
    Pursuant to Sec±ion 6(c)(2) of FIFRA,  each registrant of a DBCP product
was given the opportunity to request an  expedited hearing on the question
of vhether an imminent hazard existed.   Three  registrants requested such a
hearing and following these proceedings  the Administrative Law Judge presiding
on the issue, ruled that an imminent hazard did in fact exist and recommended
to the Administrator that all remaining  uses of pesticide products containing
dibromochloropropane be suspended.

     On October 29, 1979, the Administrator issued a Suspension Order suspend-
ing all products containing dibromochloropropane with the exception of those
products bearing directions for use on pineapples.  This usage was strictly
limited to the State of Hawaii.

     A copy of the Notice of Intent to Suspend, the Recommended Decision by
Administrative Law Judge, Gerald Harwood,  the  Suspension Order, a copy of
the recall letters sent to registrants of  DBCP products, and a list of reg-
istrants and registered DBCP products are  enclosed.

     This memorandum represents EPA's Enforcement Strategy to be used in
relation to this Suspension Action.

Enforcement Policy                                    	.    ...  ._ .

     The Agency intends to ensure that the Administrator's Order is strictly
complied with by all affected persons, including manufacturers, formulators,
registrants, v&olesalers, retailers and  users.

         On November 5, 1979, the Pesticides and Toxic Substances Enforce-
         ment Division notified by certified mail all registrants and/or
         producers of products containing  DBCP requesting that they:

            a. remove from sale down to  and including the retail level
               all existing stocks of products bearing suspended uses;

            b. recall those products which do  not bear directions for use
               on pineapple;

            c. relabel with interim or amended labeling those products
               bearing directions for use  on pineapple.       :

         The interim' labeling"we proposed  would bear the statement "For
         Sale for Use on Pineapples in Hawaii  Only".   No product may
         be legally shipped after March  1, 1980,  without approved amended
         labeling.  Those products in the  state of Hawaii bearing directions
         for use on pineapples shall be  removed from sale until they have
         been relabeled with interim or  approved  amended labeling.  Under
         no circumstances shall relabeled  products be sold at the retail
         level in any state other than Hawaii.
-------
                                 -3-
Enforcement Procedures                          .       .       ...

     1.  After  initial contact with the registrant, an inspector from the
   ~~    Regional Office  or State should visit affected registrants to
         discuss  the  recall action and monitor the steps taken to comply
         with the recall.   Proper storage of recalled products should
         be stressed.   See  Section 14 of the Pesticides Inspection Manual
         for information  on procedures to be followed in monitoring the
         recall.

     2.  If a firm  refuses  to  recall its products, the Regional Office in
         cooperation  with the  States shall issue Stop Sale, Use or Removal
         Orders and/or seizures to effect removal of the products from the
         channels of  trade.

     3.  Vhen necessary the Regional Offices and States will take
         appropriate  enforcement action against those persons found
         in violation of  the DBCP Suspension Order.

     Regional Offices shall request States to identify and recall products
bearing  intrastate  labels since intrastate products represent a major share
of those registrations which are currently active.  The Regions should also
inform the States that only products bearing federal registrations were
sent recall letters by PTSED.   Those Hawaiian intrastate products bearing
directions for use  on pineapples may be relabeled if the state so wishes.

Use of Existing Stocks and  Disposal                  .  			

     As stated in the Administrator's Suspension Order, the use of existing
stocks of DBCP (except those products bearing directions for use on pineapples
in Hawaii) is prohibited  and would be in violation of the Suspension Order and
subject to enforcement action.   Persons desiring to dispose of stocks of DBCP
products should be  apprised that they may arrange with the appropriate regions
to ship their products for  disposal.   This may include returning the product
to the supplier,  or disposal in accordance with directions provided by the
Office of Solid Waste.  Disposal questions may be referred to Mr. Ray Krueger
(202-472-9403).

Export '               '

     DBCP products  may be exported.   Exportation must be  in accordance with
FIFRA Section 17(a) which includes a requirement that the product must        t
bear specific labeling.   Registrants exporting DBCP products affected"
by the Suspension Order should also be cautioned in relation to the
stipulation signed  by the Department of State concerning the utilization
of U.S. funds for U.S. AID  regulation entitled "Pest Management Program,
Interim Pesticides  Procedures",  published in the Federal  Register on
January 7, 1976.  The  notice states that AID will not provide assistance
for the procurement or use  of  a pesticide which has been  finally suspended
or cancelled by EPA.
-------
Indemnification

     The Office of Enforcement has been advised by the Office  of General  Counsel
that registrants of DBCP products would not be eligible  to make any claim for
an indeminity payment until the registration of their pesticide is  canceled,
(See section. 15(a) of FIFRA).  Any questions concerning  indemnities should
be directed to Mr. Mitchell Bernstein, Office of General Counsel  (202-426-9448).


Inquiries                                             	

   .  Should you have any questions concerning any facet  of this memorandum and
the DBCP Suspension Order, please contact the appropriate Regional  Coordinator.
                                      A. E. Conroy n, Director
                                   Pesticides and Toxic Substances
                                         Enforcement Division
Enclosures
-------
       3     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

     .£                 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
 '«<
                              2JUL1982
                                                          OPFICE OP
                                                  PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
MEMORANDUM

TO:       Air and Waste Management Division Directors /'
          Pesticide Branch Chiefs

SUBJECT:  General Compliance Strategy for Products Suspended
          Under §3(C)(2)(B) of FIFRA
     Actdched Is the final General Compliance Strategy for

products suspended under §3(c)(2)(B)  of FIFRA.   The final

strategy incorporates comments received on the  May 10, 1992,

draft.   Also attached is a complete fist of suspension actions

initiated or accomplished under section 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA by

OPP.  This list will  be updated as needed by OPP.
                             A. E. Conroy A I ,/Director
                             Pesticides arid "Foxic Substances
                               Enforcement Dyi vision

Attachments
-------
      GENERAL COMPLIANCE STRATEGY FOR PRODUCTS SUSPENDED UNDER
                        §3(c)(2)(B) OF FIFRA
Ov e rview
     Section 3(c)(2)(B)  of the Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)  authorizes the  Administrator to request
additional  data on registered products  in order to allow EPA to
further evaluate the product's active ingredient.   Registrants
who fail to produce the  data requested  face suspension of their
product.  A Notice of Intent to Suspend (NOIS)  is  issued by the
Office  of Pesticide Programs (OPP) for  specific products produced
by a registrant if the registrant fai.ls to take steps to produce the
data requested.  The NOIS is sent by certified  mail to the affected
registrants.  Effective  suspension of a product is acccnplished
through the issuance of  a StopSale, Use or Removal Order (SSliRO)
and tinely  coordination  between Headquarters,  Regions and .States.

Regulated Industry
     Requests for additional data made  pursuant to Section 3 (c ) (2 ) (B)
are directed to all  registrants who produce &  product containing the
specific active ingredient.
R e q u fFelnVh t s of The Rule
     Section 3 (c ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ).. of the.Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (F IF3A ):
    - Authorizes the Administrator" to require  additional data  on
      ^ chemical to further evaluate the chemical  and to support
      existing registrations.
-------
                           ;  -2-

    -  Requires  registrants  to take  appropriate  steps  to  secure the
      additional  data  within  90 days  or  face  suspension.
    -  Grants  EPA  the  authority to  Issue  a  Notice  of Intent to Suspend
      If a  registrant  fails  to take  steps  to  secure the  required  data.
    -  Allows  a  registrant and other  parties  to  request a  hearing
      within  30 days  of  receipt of  the NOIS  by  the  registrant regarding
      whether (1) the  registrant diligently  took  one  of  the listed
      steps to  develop the  data, or  whether  (2)  the Agency's  decision
      on disposition  of  existing  stocks  is consistent with the Act.
      The effective date of the suspension is  affected by the
      registrant's request  for c  ;,caring.  -
    Each registrant originally i: given  the  following options for
complying with  the data  request:
    1)  develop the  re quired  'data  himself  or jointly  with other
        registrants;
    2;  certify that  the product  is  exempt because  it is  an end-
        use product  formulated from  a registered,  non-suspended
        manufacturing  use or  technical grade product  purchased
        from  another  producer;
    3)  request and  receive a waiver of  some or all of the data
        requ i rements;  cr
    4)  voluntarily  request cancellation.
    Failure to  exercise  any of these options within certain
specified time  periods results- in  the suspension  of the  reg i s-
trant's product.
-------
                             -3-

Infore ernent Objective's      ~~~
    The aim of the compliance strategy Is to stop the manufacture,
and possibly the distribution, of products subject to the suspen-
sion.  This can be accomplished through the Issuance of a SSURO to
the registrant at the point of manufacture.  Because suspensions
initiated pursuant to §3(c)(2)(B) are based on a failure to submit
data rather than on product deficiencies, it is not necessary to
recall  suspended products from the marketplace.
                                   1
The sale and use of existing stocks  of suspended products which
are already in the marketplace is allowed to continue for a period
deemed  appropriate by the Administrator.   Production is commonly
permitted for 120 days after receipt of the NOIS by the registrant.

Types of Violations                           •
    Section 12(a)(2)(J)  of the Act prohibits the violation of a
suspension order issued  under §6.  There  is, however, no specific
unlawful act under §12 for the violation  of a"r§3(c) (2) (3) suspension
order.   Under §13 of the Act, the Administrator may issue a SSURO
when a  product is suspended.  By issuing  a SSURO, any person viola-
ting the §3(c)(2)(B) suspension order would therefore be in violation
of §12(a) (2) (I), which prohibits violation of a SSURO,  and subject
to the  penalties thereunder.  It is essential that each registrant
of a suspended product be issued a SSURO  in order for the §3(c)(2)(R)
suspension to have the force of law.
1  Existing stocks are those packaged, labeled and released for-
shipment at the time production is suspended.
-------
                             -4-
TTdnf ini s t r a t i v e ConsideratTIT ns
Program Management
    Upon final suspension, PTSED will send the regions:
    1)  A copy of the HOIS issued by OPP including,
        a)  a list of companies and specific products affected
        b)  the Agency's decision on the disposition of existing
            stocks;
        c)  dates when production must cease; and
    2)  Any pertinent supporting documents.
    The NOIS will allow the registrant a period of time, determined
by OPP, after the effective date of the suspension notice to stop
production of the suspended product(s).  Additionally, registrants
will, generally, be allowed a period of ti.^ie to dispose of existing
stocks of the suspended product(s).
      Prior to the dat-2 *hen all product ion must stop, the region
will  send any affected registrants a copy of the fJOIS and a SSURO,
effective the day after the production' termination date. 'The cover
letter which  accompanies  the NOIS and SSU'30  should include a
discussion of the options available  to the registrant to remove
the suspension.  0?P  shall be contacted by the Region to discuss
what  options  are available to the registrant of the suspended
product.  States should be notified  by the.region  of  the suspension
action upon the  region's  receipt of  the PTSED transmittal and should
be  provided with copies of all  the information the region has received
from  PTSED.
-------
                               - D -
     The Regions should also work with the States in which the
affected registrants are headquartered to schedule inspections of
the affected registrants.  Production facilities of affected regis-
trants should be visited by the State after termination of the time
period allowed by the NOIS for production.  Normally, only one
inspection should be necessary for each registrant.  States should
determine that production of the suspended product has been halted
and that the registrant understands the options available to lift
                                                           :
the suspension, should the registrant so desire.  States should
explain that the EPA will allow existing stocks of the suspended
products to be sold for the period of time authorized by the
Administrator.  States should also determine the amount of existing
stocks of suspended products in the control  of the registrant and
report this information to EPA.  Dealers, possessing products"
produced prior to the production termination date, will not.be
afrfected by any time li:iit for the sale of existing stocks .
     Intrastate products included in a §3(c)(2)(G) action are to
be treated as federally registered products.   States nay take
action against these products and are encouraged to do so.  Regions
are expected to assist in any State effort to suspend or restrict
the sale and distribution of suspended intrastate products.
ATT o c a 11 on of Respo.n s i D iTTtie s
1)  Headquarters Responsibility.
    a)  Provide Regions with strategy for §3(c)(2)(B) suspensions.
    b)  Provide Regions with copies of all  pertinent correspondence
        in this suspension action.
    c)  Effective dates of suspension actions.
2
   PEPS No. 3, 40 CFR 162.17
-------
                            -6-

2)  Regional  Responsibility
    a)  Send  copies of Notice of Intent to Suspend and the SSURO
        by certified mail  to all  registrants  of suspended  products
    b)  Provide guidance for State enforcement efforts.
    c)  Encourage States to suspend intrastate registrations.
3)  State Responsibi1i ty
    a)  Conduct follow-up inspections to ensure compliance   ;
        with  the SSURO.
    b)  Suspend intrastate' registrations if possible.
Penalties
    Violation of the SSURO is a violation of Section 12(a)(2)U)
and subject to the penalties found under section 14(a)(l) and'
-------
Imirrdlrnt
                          r f f rcl I v/r
                          0.1 | r
             f I •! c I 1
            P ,1 r k n o c i
              by
 f ,i y h r
 fold l-y
firnlstra.it
  lint U
                                                                      I'ro.'uctt  AMt-clcU
                                                                                       Cofipnny r
        hy jr.»z t de
                                      12/"/fl2   rorewer
                                                              no'iuo-nooi I
                                                            sic- c. r (i
                                                              n n -'i ii (i - n n r. c, ;
                                                            n r o u - s i «
                                                              IIU<
                                                            »or. en Ch1o  '»  Storr
                                                              rn-xb^-npiin
                                                            E-? Flo  "oldc llydrazldc
                                                              no^ Jb-no< 3?
                                                            Cro- 1 ,ir«l
                                                                               30
                                                            .S t mil -»• Jin
                                                              0? ; H'i -r
                                                            L I mi I d  I. auniaoue r
                                                              0 .? 7 « " - rt 1 2  j 7 - o o o o ?
                                                            Siie»«T  Stuff
                                                              1'1713-PnOl 1
                                                            tte \Ar.i
                                                              l'i 713-0001 '.
                                                            Sprou t - C t op
                                                              i -j / 1 :i - n o o 1 6
                                                            Siick.?7»°-?no»
                                                            Sprou I  Stop
                                                                            Unlroyol
                                                                            Chemical 'Fornul a t or i

                                                                            Oalrd  and HcCulrc
                                                                            Crouer  Service  Corp.

                                                                            National Chensearch

                                                                            Crltrin

                                                                            Acetb  Agr fcul t ur'a I Chealcalt
                                                                            F dlrmcunt
                                                                            Oroel
Chiorona trd
   I soc y aniir^ t c s
10/?6/80
                                  Sec memo of  12/31/60  and list  attached.    List attached.
-------
          Fur.pm.';iM
                               itirriA'irn on wro>u-i.iriir.i) umnt FIIHA M-x.Tirti i it/ YIIK si-iriAr. rwricnu-: mvinv Division, OPI>
Act. i vv
                                     l'ackj Inr.t>cLici(V:
                                    00274')-002(>1
                                  Uthloo Tcclinic-.il Kieicl IciiV;
                                    00274-1-00293
                                                             000072-09
                                  Totrartifon Tfchnic.il
                                     onnoi-oooo2
                                  lVtr
-------
Effective
Dote
                                    f.tccka   May be
                                   I>.icka9eil  SoM  by
                                     by     neqistrant
                                              Unt i 1
         Prrxiucts Affrrtoi)
                                                   Coipoiiy tlsuat
                       action pcndli*)
Cinitr.wino
                                 Demox Spray Cone. Systemic Insect I elite
                                   002749-00115
                                 tx-nox 6  Lha/
-------
                TOXAPHENE CANCELLATION COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
Overv i ew
     On May 25, 1977 £PA issued a Notice of Rebuttable Presump-
tion Against Registration and Continued Registration of Pesticide
Products Containing Toxaphene.  This RPAR notice was issued pri-
marily on the basis of studies showing that toxaphene causes
tumors in laboratory animals, acute toxicity of toxaphene to
aquatic organisms, and the high likelihood that toxaphene causes
reductions in the populations of nontarget animal  species.  Fur-
ther examination of the data available to the Agency showed that
toxaphene is extremely persistent, moves readily through the
environment, contaminates habitats of vulnerable aquatic and avian
species at levels sufficient to reduce their populations, and that
humans are exposed to toxaphene through occupational contact
and contamination of a range of food products, particularly fish.

     On October 18, 1982 the Agency announced it's  decision to
cancel most uses of toxaphene.  This action was taken pursuant to
Section 6 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act, as amended (FIFRA).  On November 29, 1982, the Agency "pub-
lished in the Federal  Register, 47 FR 53784 the notice
cancelling most uses of toxaphene, the conditions  for continued
registration of toxaphene for certain uses, disposition of
existing stocks and hearing rights of affected registrants.   The
cancellation is effective 30 days after notification by the
RegistrationDivision.
Requirements of the Rule

A11owable Uses

     The  order  cancels  all  uses  of toxaphene  with  the  following
* ~. c a p *. i o n s :

     1)  Dipping of beef cattle  and sheep  to  control  scabies.

     2)  Use  on  cotton,  corn  or  small  grains  to  control  armyworms,
        cutworms  or grasshoppers.   Use  is  restricted  to  $18  emer-
        gency  exemptions on 1y.

     3)  Use  on  pineapples to  control  mealybug  and  pineapple  gummosis
        moth and  use  on bananas  for weevil control  in  the  Virgin
        Islands and Puerto  Rico  only.
     4)  Manufactjring  use  only  for  formulating  to  products  listed
        above.
-------
                            - 2 -
The order further restricts use to certified applicators, speci-
fies protective clothing to be worn when mixing or applying the
pesticide, and mandates improved directions for use, disposal,
and to reduce exposure.

Used dip solutions must be disposed of in accordance with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).   If the owner
generates more than 1000 kg of used dip solution per month or
more than 1000 kg of used dip solution in combination with other
hazardous waste,  the material must be treated as a hazardous
waste subject to  subpart C of RCRA.  Any user who wishes to manage
the disposal  of this material as a.- hazardous waste must obtain a
permit to serve as a hazardous wa'ste facility pursuant to RCRA.
The label may exempt from these disposal requirements any farmer/ •
rancher who uses  the product solely to treat beef cattle or sheep
which he and/or his immediate family owns as individuals.

Existing Stocks

     Existing stocks are defined in the order a those stocks of
cancelled toxaphene products existing within the territorial
United States on  or before November 29, 1982.

     The rule allows the use of existing stocks of toxaphene
in the following  manner:

     1 ) Existing  stocks within the physical  possession of
        regi strants, (i.e., stocks stored in faci1ities
        owned or  Te~ased by the registrant or within  the
        the registrants direct control):

          a)  If the formulation is of a type that  permits label
             conversion to one of the following uses,  the re-
             labeled product may be sold and used  until December 31
             1986.   Existing stock may be relabeled  for:

               1)  control  of sicklepod in soybeans  and peanuts
                  only  in States with this  use  as  a  current  or
                  future §24 -xc) registration,
               2)  use on insects in rro-till  corn,
               3)  use on dry or southern  peas,  or
               4)  §13 emergency use exemptions,

          b)  If the formulation is of a type that  does not  permit
             label  conversion,  the product  may  be  sold for  one
             (1)  year (until  December 31,  1983)  utilizing amended
             1 abeli ng.
-------
           c)  Registrants  wishing  to  qualify for the existing stocks
              provisions of  the  order must  notify EPA, within 30 days
              of  receipt of  the  notice,  of  their decision regarding
              disposition  of  existing stocks and provide EPA with
              an  itemized  inventory of their stocks.  Failure by a
              registrant to  notify  EPA of their decision to attempt
              to  qualify for  the provisions  for existing stocks
              will  cancel  the  product and require the registrant
              to  dispose of  existing  stocks  of  that  product within
              90  days  of publication  of  the  order.   Cancelled
              existing  stocks  must  be disposed  of as required by
              the Resource Conservaton and  Recovery  Act  (RCRA).

           d)  Any registrant  wishing-to  sell" or distri bute~ any
              existing  stocks  in their possession must either
              relabel  or apply supplemental  labeling to  the product
              as  required  by  the Notice  sent by Registration Divi-
              sion, OPP.

     Existing stocks  of registered technical products must be used
in the formulation of  products with  registered uses prior  to manu-
facturing  any new  toxaphene  technical  chemical.

     Existing stocks  of any  type may  not be sold, distributed or
used after December 31, 19-86.

     2) Existingstocks outside the  physical possession of regis-
        trants   (i.e.,products alreadyin  the channels oftrade
        or in the  possession  of dealers and retailers).

           a)  Existing  stocks  already  in the channels  of trade or
              in  the possession of dealers  retailers may be sold,
              shipped or distributed  for use  in  accordance  with
              the labeling accompanying  the  product  until Decem-
              ber 31,  1983.   These products  may  be used  until  Decem-
              ber 31,  1936 utilizing  existing labeling.   Any existing
              stocks of this type unsold as  of  December  31,  1983
             must  be cilsoosed of according  to  RCRA  regulations.

     3) Existing stocks in tne nands   of users
a)


EXT s
be u
cer
c i  g *. -j e

V
x i

i n
st

the
ing 1

hands
abel i

0
ng

f u
un

ser
til

s may
Decem

Hearing Right.;

     The or-.*?- .;•"•"* "3 j - - ••: - •- •• r • •:; ^ •.'••ant s the opportunity  for
a hearing PJ <•:,-, --. :? :j-j . • ~'.~s~.  .]'j:h a hearing will consider
only whethe^ ; i:: ---.  i i: •: • • •.:..- •••;-.•. ed and pursued  appropriate
action to ..••;:•  - :  • ;'-.-    • ;-e • .•: : -  : the time provided or whether
the Admi n ••:•.•-v-~. •'   .:?«•.--';  .-,:•<:•• •••;:•» -d i ng the disposition of
existing s r. • •.: -  : ;   •.-;:.:••-:  .-•••.• :: r. Act.
-------
     Any  action  concerning  the  registrant's  products-wi11  De  held
 in  abeyance pending the outcome  of  the  hearing.
Regulated  Industry
     Appendix A of  this  strategy  lists  those  registrants  affected
 by  this order.
 Enforcement
     The Agency's efforts to achieve compliance with  this  order  "
 shall be directed towards assuring that cancelled products are
 disposed of properly and that proper labeling is affixed to  those
 products introduced to or remaining in the marketplace.

 Compliance Monitoring	
     Compliance monitoring of this order will be achieved  first
through inspections of affected producer establishments and
secondarily, dealer inspections and marketplace surveillance.

     Producer establishment inspections shall be conducted to
determine if the registrant is complying with the order.   Producer
establishment inspections will be conducted in the following order
of priority:

     1)  Inspection of registrants with cancelled products.

     2)  Inspection of registrants with non-convertible existing
         stocks, i.e. products which cannot be relaoeled and
         must be sold within one year.

     3)  Inspection of registrants with existing s r. T c k s which
         can be relabeled to one of the allowable existing
         stocks uses.

     4)  Inspection of registrants with products .< -i i c h will
         remain registered.

It is likely that registrants may have products  W;-M ;h fall
into some or all of the categories listed above.   Tr.Q Agency
is most concerned that cancelled products are di>po.sed of
properly.   For products which may be sold after  relabeling, the
inspector should determine what types of toxaphene products are
in the registrant's possession (i.e., products with registered
uses, relabeled existing stocks or existing stocks that cannot be
relabeled)  and whether they are properly labeled.   The inspector
should also  determine whether the manufacturing  use product used
in the formulation  of registered products is a new chemical or
previously  manufactured.  Registrants must use existing stocks of
manufacturing use product to manufacture registered products until
-------
such stocks are depleted.  Registrants may not sell..or distribute
any toxaphene not labeled  for a registered use or not labeled in
accordance with the existing stocks provisions of this order.

     Regions will provide  the States with all pertinent materials
regarding the order and work closely with the States to develop a
compliance monitoring schedule.

     After initial producer establishment inspections have been
conducted, regions will coordinate marketplace inspections witn
the States to determine compliance with the existing stocks pro-
visions of the order.

     Dealer inspections and marketplace surveillance will  be
conducted to assure that products  are properly labeled and sold.
Existing stocks of toxaphene already on dealer's shelves may be
sold without label modification until  December 31, 1983, provided
the registrant has notified EPA within 30 days of their decision
to attempt to qualify for the existing stocks provisions of the
order.   Dealer inspections will  become a major activity after
December 31, 1983, the last date existing stocks which do-not
have allowable uses on the label may be sold.

     Use inspections  will  become critical  after  the December 31,
1986 cut-off date for all  uses of  existing stocks.  Use inspec-
tions may be conducted before then at  the option of the Region
and the State or if problems  regarding the use of toxaphene are
not ed.
Administrative Considerations

     Allocation of Resources

     1) EPA Headquarters - EPA headquarters  shall:

          a) Provide Regions with  a  copy  of  the  cancellation
             order,  compliance strategy  and  a  list  of  names  and
             addresses of affected  registrants.

          b) Provide the Regions with  a  list of  those  registrants
             who intend to amend their regisration  and  remain
             registered, registrants who  intend  to  relabel  their
             existing  stocks of toxaphene  for  permitted  uses,  and
             those who took  no action  and  therefore  face  cancel-
             lation  of their product.

          c) Provide the Regions with  the  yearly  inventory  of
             existing  stocks of toxaphene.
-------
                          6 -
     d) Provide additional  support and guidance as the
        Regi ons may requi re.

2)  Regi ons -  The regions shall:

     a) Provide the States  with  copies of the materials
        received from headquarters.

     b) Coordinate inspectional  activities related to this
        order with the States.
 /
     c) Provide support and guidance as the States may
        requi re.

3)  States  - The States shall:

     a) Conduct producer establishment inspections of
        registrants affected  by  this order.

     b) Conduct dealer inspections and marketplace surveil-
        lance to determine  compliance with existing stock
        provisions of this  order.
-------
-------
                                     5/10/82
FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY COMPENDIUM
             A.  E. Conroy II, Director
             Pesticides and Toxic Substances
               Enforcement Division
-------
     The Compl i o.ioe Program Policies contained  in  this  compendium
and the Policy ana Criteria Notices published by the Office  of.
Pesticide Progr:,r,s have been cross referenced by subject matter
in a "Key Word Index" located at the end of this compendium.
Copies of the Policy and Criteria Notices are not  provided but
a list of all current' Notices is attached.

     These Compliance Program Policies will supersede all existing
P o 1 ici.es.
-------
          FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY INDEX PAGE

TITLE                                              NUMBER
Use Recommendations                                2.1
Label ing of Outer Containers                       2.2
Shipment Prior to Registration                     3.1
Distributor Registrations                          3.2
Fumigation of Truck Vans on Flatbed Rail Cars      3.3
Custom Blenders                                    3.4
Production of Pesticides for Personal  Use          3.5
Contract Manufacturing                             3.6
Written Examinations for Private Paillcide         4.1
  Applicators
Custom Blenders                                    7.1
Release of Pesticide Production Data               10.1
Using Registered Or Experimental Use Permit         12.1
  Pesticides In A Manner Not Included  On
  The Label  Or Permit
Pesticides Closed Transfer, Mixing/Loading and     12.2
  Application Equipment (Closed Systems)
Authority for Use Inspections                      12.3
Making Restricted Use Pesticides Available         12.4
  to Persons Without Pesticide Applicator
  Certi f icati.on
Pesticide Processing in Foreign-Trade  Zones         17.1
Waiver of Notice of Arrival Requirements           17.2
Special Local  Needs Labeling                       24.1
ChildResistantPackaging                          25.1
Transfer of  Use Enforcement Primacy to the States   26.1
Referral  of  State Misuse Cases to EPA               26.2
-------
     FIFRA COMPLIANCE  PROGRAM  POLICY  SECTION 2  INDEX PAUE






TITLE                                             " NUMBER



Use Recommendations                                 2.1



Labeling of Outer Containers                        2.2
-------
             FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 2.1

                       Use Recommendations


FIFRA Section;  2(ee)

Issue:

     Should the Agency allow the advocacy of Section 2(ee) uses
by any person without regard to his financial interest in the
sale of pesticides?

Policy:

     To the extent that Section 2(ee) allows a particular use, any
person, regardless of his financial interest in the sale of pesti-
cides, may legally recommend or advertise such uses provided that
recommendations made under Section 2(ee) pertaining to the amount
of diluent used in applying pesticides for forestry or agricultural
purposes is in accordance with the Advisory Opinion issued March 3,
1931  (46 FR 14965)J

Discussion;

                           Background

     Federal  jurisdiction over- the use of pesticides was established
through the'1972 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Sections 3(d)(l);  4;  1 2(a) (-2) (G) .  .
Acceptance of the label  submitted with the registration of a pesti-
cide  product  by the U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) is a
central part  of- the pesticide registration process.  The pesticide
label  dictates the approved uses for each registered pesticide.  Any
use of a registered pesticide which is inconsistent with its labeling
is unlawful,  (Section 12(a)(2)(G)).

     In 1975, the Pesticides and Toxic Substances  Enforcement Division
(PTSED) initiated a series of Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statements
(PEPS).  The  PEPS are designed- to inform interested members of the
public about  the policies adopted by the Agency in  the exercise of
its prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of  FIFRA (40 FR
19526).  Such exercise of prosecutorial  discretion  has been- guided
in each instance by the  legislative history of  the  1972 FIFRA amend-
ments  which states that  it was the intent of Congress  to ensure that
the Agency evaluate the  meaning of the term "inconsistent with the
label" in a common sense  manner,
    Supersedes Federal  Register Notice,  (Vol. 44,  No.  112,  Friday,
    June 8, 1979, p. 33151 ),  which limited Section 2(ee)  recom-.
    mendations to user/applicators.  This Policy does  not prospec-
    tively amend any existing pesticide  labeling;  all  changes  in
    a registered pesticide  label  must still  be -approved by  the
    Agency.
-------
     (H.R. Rep. No. 92-511, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., 16 (1971)).  In
accord with this Congressional direction, the PTSEO determined
that some uses or applications which were not expressly stated on
the label were, nonetheless, to be allowed.  In particular, the
following uses were not subject to prosecution:

     1)  Use of registered pesticides at less than the label
         dosage rate (40 FR 19529; 40 FR 42914); (PEPS #1).

     2)  Use of registered pesticides for the control  of unnamed
         target pests in structural pest control (40 FR 41175);
         (PEPS #2).

     3)  Use of registered pesticides for the control  of pests
         not named on the label in agriculture and other non-
         structural pest control  (41 FR 4.1142); (PEPS  #5).

     4)  Use of aerial  application techniques where the label
         instruction does not specifically prohibit such use
         (42 FR 21496); (PEPS #7).

     The PEPS permitted these limited deviations from  the
language of the registered pesticide label  only where  the lab?'
does not explicitly proscribe such uses.  Thus the question ut
"what" nonlabel uses were permissible was addressed by the PEPS.
The second issue of "who" could recommend these uses was also-
answered by the PEPS.

     All of the deviations permitted under the PEPS were subject
to the restriction that only "knowledgeable experts" cfould
recommend them.  Under  the PEPS,  States could designate know-
ledgeable experts subject to certain educational and experiential
standards.  For example, knowledgeable experts could include
persons employed by State Cooperative Extension Services, State
Land Grant Colleges, and State Agriculture Departments.

     The PEPS denied the designation of "knowledgeable expert"
to individuals whose primary source of personal income is
directly derived from the sale or distribution of  pesticides.
This limitation precluded pesticide sales representatives,
marketing employees, or advertising agents  from advocating PEPS
deviations.  The PEPS justified this position by reliance on
Section 12(a)(l)(B) which makes it unlawful  for any person with
a financial interest in pesticide marketing to make a  claim which
differs substantially from registered pesticide labeling.

     In short, the PEPS have had  two consequences.   First, they
made certain pesticide  use deviations permissible  even though
the uses do not appear  on the registered pesticide  label.  Secondly,
all  persons with a direct financial interest  in the sale of
pesticides were forbidden under Section 12(a)(l)(B) from recom-
mending any of the pesticide uses permitted  by the  PEPS.
-------
                                                       3 - 2.1

                  Federal P-esticide Act of 1978

     FIFRA was again amended by enactment of the Federal Pesticide
Act of 1978 (FPA).  The FPA broadened the construction of Section
12(a)(2)(G) of FIFRA by adding Subsection 2(ee).  Section 2(ee)
defines the term "to use any registered pesticide in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling."  According to the language of
this new section, it is a violation of Section 12(a)(2)(G)  to use
a registered pesticide "in a manner not permitted by the labeling"
with the exception of four specific areas.  The areas specifically
excluded from enforcement are almost identical to those previously
listed in the PEPS.2  Under Section 2(ee) it is not a misuse to:

     1)  Apply a pesticide at any dosage, concentration, OP
         frequency less than that specified on the labeling
         (PEPS' #1) ;

     2)  Apply a pesticide against any target pest not specified
         on the labeling if the application is to the crop,
         animal, or site specified on the labeling (unless  the
         label states that the pesticide may be used only against
         pests specified on the label) (PEPS #2,5);

     3)  Employ any method of application not prohibited by the
         labeling (PEPS #7); and

     4)  Mix a pesticide or' pesticides with a fertilizer when
         such mixture Is not prohibited by the labeling.  (This
         issue was not expressly dealt with by PEPS but was
         covered by Policy and Criteria Notice 2000.1, Fertilizer-
         Pesticide Combinations.)

     Thus,  Section 2(ee) defines by lay certain uses which  will
notbe considered inconsistent with labeling even though these
uses are not listed.  The PTSED responded to Section 2(ee)  by
publishing  a Federal Register Notice which rescinded PE-PS numbers
1, 2,  5, and 7 (Vol . 44, No. 112,  p. 33151).   As  explained  in
the Federal Regi ster, the PTSED restricted the advocacy of  Section
2(ee~]  uses  to user/applicators.  The PTSED has now reconsidered
its earlier position and has decided to remove this restriction.
Experience  has demonstrated that the earlier policy prevented
certain qualified individuals from recommending authorized
deviations  from the express terms  of the label.  The following
examples illustrate the problem:

     0  In  States with farm cooperatives there are individuals
      !  who both  use and sell  pesticides.   These  individuals
        were prevented from recommending authorized uses.
    It should be noted that while the FPA  amends  existing  Federal
    law concerning pesticide misuse,  it  does  not  purport to  affect
    State laws.
-------
                                                       4 - 2.1

     0  Likewise,  pest advisors who serve as IPM consultants
        OP farm management consultants were prevented from
        recommending Section 2(ee) uses solely because they
        may also be directly or indirectly connected to the
        sale of pesticides.

    The new PTSED  position is also supported by the statutory
language of Section 2(ee).  Since Section 2(ee) uses are no
longer considered  misuse, any recommendations made regarding
these uses will not be viewed as substantially different from
use directions appearing on the label.  Accordi ng-ly, it is
PTSED policy that  Section 12(a)(l)(B)  no longer prohibits
financially interested persons from recommending or advertising
such uses.  Thus,  to the extent that Section 2(ee) allows a
particular use, any person may advocate that use,  provided
that recommendations made under Section 2(ee)(l) pertaining
to the amount of diluent used in applying pesticides for forestry
or agricultural purposes is made in accordance with the Advisory
Opinion issued March 3, 1981 (46 FR 14965).

                       Civil Liability

     This new policy not only implements the Congressional
intent of Section  2 (e e) to allow beneficial nonlabel  pesticid-e
uses but also provid-es for strong enforcement to ensure appropriate
recommendations of such uses.
relaxes the administrative or
who recommend pesticide uses.
no longer limits the advocacy
financial  interest in the use
                               The policy statement in no way
                              other civil liability of persons
                               The only change is that the PTSED
                              of permitted uses on the basis of
                                The Agency will,  however, take
enforcement action under Section 12(a)(l)(B)  against any person
with a financial  interest who makes pesticide use recommendations
which exceed the limits of Section 2(ee).  Additionally, any
person who recommends Section 2(ee) uses, of  course, remains
liable for possible civil damages arising out of  his own negligence.

See Also:

     FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No.  12.1 Using Registered or
Experimental Use Pesticides in a Manner not.Included on the LaDel,
Policy and Criteria Notice 2000.1, Ferti1izer-Pesticide Combin at ions

Key 'Words:

     Fertilizer-Pesticide Mixture, Knowledge  Expert, Misuse, Target
Pest, 2(ee), Use Inconsistent with the Labeling,  Use Recommendations,
                        A.  E.  Conroy  I
                        Pesticides  and,'
                           Enforcemen
                                    (0
                                   Date
                                           rector
                                          ic Substances
                                         vision
-------
               FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 2.2

                      Labeling of Outer Containers


FIFRA Section: 2(q)

I s s u e:

     When must a label  be attached to a shipping container of a
pesticide product?

Pol Icy:

     A  label must be attached to a shipping container of a
pesticide if the customary practice of the manufacturer is
to retail the product to consumers without opening the outer
shipping container to sell the product in  individual  units.

Discussion:

     Section 2(q)(2)(C)  of FIFRA states that a pesticide 1s
misbranded unless a label  is  affixed to its container and to
the outside  container or wrapper of the retail package.

     The regulations at  40 CFR 162.10(a)(4) (i) state  in part:

        The  label shall  appear on or be securely attached
        to the immediate container of the  pesticide product.
        . .  . If the immediate container  is enclosed  within
        a wrapper or outside  container through which  the
        label cannot be  clearly read, the  label  must  also
        be securely attached  to such outside wrapper  or con-
        tainer,  if it is part of the package as  customarily
        distributed or  sold.   (emphasis added)

     The preamble to these regulations clearly states EPA's
intention to continue its  policy which requires  labeling on
retail  packages  for sale but  not on shipping containers.  If
it is customary  to sell  a  product in its  shipping  container  •  .
rather  than  in individual  units, the outer container  must also
bear a  full  end  use label.  If a product  is generally sold in
individual units and 'only  occasionally by  the  case, the outer
container would  not be  required to bear labeling,  since the  outer
container is not intended  to  serve as a retail unit.

     The purpose of requiring labeling on  the  retail  package,  be
it the  shipping  container or  individual units, is  to  allow the
person  who uses  the pesticide to read the  entire label  and be
fully informed about the product.  Failure to  properly  label
the retail package is considered to be misbranding and  is a
violation of Section 12(a)(l)(E).
-------
                                                       i  -  2.2


References;

     Letter of June 16,  1976,  from A.  E.  Conroy  II,  to
Mr. C. M.  Elnhorn  of USS Agri-Chemicals.

     Memorandum of September 10,  1976,  from  A.  E.  Conroy  II to
Pesticide  Branch Chiefs  and Enforcement  Division  Directors.

Key Words:

     Labeling, Outer Containers,  Shipping Containers.
                               A.  E.  Conroy  II/Di/ector
                               Pesticides  and  Tox/c  Substances
                                 Enforcement
                                             ate
-------
     FIFKA COMPLIANCE  PROGRAM POLICY  SECTION 3 INDEX PAGE





TITLE                                          ...  NUMBER



Shipment Prior to Registration                     3.1



Distributor Registrations                           3.2



Fumigation of Truck  Vans  on  Flatbed Rail  Cars      3.3



Custom Blenders                                     3.4



Production of Pesticides  for Personal  Use          3.5



Contract Manufacturing                             3.6
-------
                 rlFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 3.1

                      Shipment Prior to Registration
FIFRA Section:  3

Issue:

     May a pesticide product which is not sold under an
Experimental Use Permit (EUP) be shipped to distributors prior
to being registered with EPA?

Pol icy:

     A pesticide product not sold under an EUP may be shipped
prior to final approval of its EPA registration under certain
circumstances.  The registrant must apply to EPA for a temporary
exemption to registration requirements;  demonstrate a compelling
need for the distributor to receive the product before its EPA
registration is finalized; detail a plan for control  of the
product prior, to registration; and receive EPA approval of the
exemption request.  ,

Discussion:

     Section 3(a) of FIFRA states:

          ... no person in'any State may distribute,
          sell, offer for sale,  hold for sale, ship,.
          deliver for shipment,  or receive and (having
          so received)  deliver[y]' (six)  or offer to
          deliver, to any person any pesticide which
          is not registered with the Administrator.

The exemptions to this  requirement found in Section 3(b)  do not
address delivery of an  unregistered pesticideto a distributor.
However, the Agency will consider granting an  exemption of this
type as a matter of policy if certain conditions are  met.   When
granting such exemptions,  the Agency will  consider:  whether regis.
tration is  imminent (final  printed labeling waiting approval);
the type of  pesticide;  the need  for such action; and  the  regis-
trant's ability to maintain control  over the product  to prevent
itssalepriortoregistration.

     Upon receiving EPA ap-proval  of the  exemption  request,  the
registrant  must contact each EPA Region  and State  involved  and
inform them  of the shipments.  The registrant  must provide the
Regions and  States with exact shipping data including the  point
of origin,  the date of  shipment,  the name  of the carrier,  the
name and address of the consignee, the name and telephone  number
of the responsible person at the consignee's,  and  the expected
date of arrival.  The registrant must  also provide the Regions
with a plan  for control and handling of  the product to prevent
its sale or  use prior to registration.  If the product  does not
become registered as anticipated, the registrant must notify the
Regions and  States immediately and no  further  shipment  or  dis-
tribution of the product is allowed until  it is fully registered.
-------
                                                     2 - 3.1
     Failure to fulfill  the conditions of the exemption or sale
of the product at the distributor level  prior to registration
is a violation of Section 12(a)(1)(A) of FIFRA.

See Also:

     Regi stration.

References :

     March 21, 1978 letter from A.  E. Conroy II, Director, PTSED,
to Ingrid  K. Allen, Registration Coordinator, Agricultural
Ch em icals  Division, Fisons, Inc.              ;

Key Words;

     Exemptions,  Shipment, Unregistered  Pesticides.
                                   .E.  Conroy
                                  Pesticides and/oAic Substances
                                    Enforcement  Division
                                          MAY
J_£
                                            Date
-------
             FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 3.2  •

                    Distributor Registrations

FIFRA Section: 3

Issue:

    May a distributor repackage a pesticide which it intends to
sell under a supplemental registration?

Pol icy:

    A distributor may repackage a pesticide it sells under a
supplemental registration only if it is under contract to the
basic registrant to do so.

Discussion:

    Manufacturing or packaging a pesticide under contract and
distributing a pesticide under a supplemental  registration are
two separate activities.

    Section 3(b)(l) of FIFRA and the regulations at 40 CFR
162.5(o)(l)  allow for the transfer of an unregistered pesticide
from one registered establishment to another registered  establish-
ment operated_ by the same producer .sol ely for packaging  or use as
a constituent' part of another pesticide produced at the  second
establishment.  The.term "operated by the same producer", is
defined at 40 CFR 162.3(dd)  to mean  another establishment owned
by  the registrant or an  establishment operated by a person under
contract to the registrant.

    Under supplemental  registration, a  distributor of a  registered
pesticide product is permitted to market that  pesticide  product
under the distributor's  brand name if it adheres to the  conditions
described at 40 CFR 162.6(b)(4)(i).   The regulations require, in
part,  that distributor products  be manufactured and packaged by the
same person  who manufactures and packages the  previously registered
pesticide product (40 CFR Part 162.6 (b) (4) (i ) (B)).   Labeling is
considered as part of packaging  for  the purposes of these regula-
tions. . These provisions preclude more  than one person  from producing
a product.

    The contract manufacturing policy may be  applied to  situations
where  a person, under contract to a  manufacturer to produce or
repackage a  product,  also wishes to  distribute the  product under
a supplemental  registration,  a  supplemental  registrant  (distributor)
may repackage a pesticide,  which it  intends to sell  under its own
brand  name,  only if it  is under  contract to the basic registrant to
do  so.  Where such a contractual  arrangement  exists, the supplemental
registrant acts as an  agent  for  the  basic registrant and is  held
to  the same  standards  of adulteration and misoranding imposed on the
registrant at the time  of registration.
-------
                                                            2 - 3.2


    A supplemental  registrant under contract to the basic registrant
may also label or repackage the product for other distributors.
However, the product must bear the contractor's (supplemental regis-
trant's) establishment number and the distributor number assigned to
the firm whose brand name appears on the label.

    Any supplemental registrant's (distributor's) name appearing
on the label must be qualified by terms such as "packed for",
"distributed by", or "sold by".

    The Agency feels that this policy protects both the public and  .
the environment for several reasons.  The product produced by the
contractor is fully registered with EPA by the basic registrant;
In, addition the product must conform to the standards held for the
basic registration  and to the requirements for supplemental regis-
trations.

    Liability for any violation of Section 1? in such a contractual
arrangement may rest with either or both parties to the contract
depending upon the  circumstances associated with the violation.

See A1 so:

    FIFRA Compliance .Program Policy No. 3.6., Contract Manufacturing

References:    .                                          .  •

    40 CFR Part 162. 26(b)(4)(i), (11), (iii).

    Memo of August  i9, 1977, from A. E. Conroy II to Ed Johnson,
OPP, titled "Contract Manufacturers".

    Memo of December 13, 1976, from A. E.  Conroy II, PTSEO, to
Regional Enforcement Division Directors and Pesticide Branch
Chiefs titled "Relation Between Contract Manufacturers and
Packagers and Distributors of Supplementary Registered P.roducts".

Key Words:

    Contract Manufacturing, Distributor Registrations, Repackaging,
Supplemental Registrations.
                                 A.  E.  Conroy 11   Director
                                 Pesticides  andfTo/xic  Substances
                                 Enforcement DivVsion

                                             ' y 0 1582	
                                              Date
-------
                 FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 3.3

              Fumigation of Truck Vans on Flatbed Rail Cars

FIFRA Section;  3

Issue:

    Will EPA, in the absence of specific label directions, allow
the fumigation of truck vans with pesticide products that generate
phosphine gas while the vans are being transported on flatbed rail-
road cars?
Pol icy:

    EPA will allow truck vans being
rail  cars to be fumigated provided:
transported on flatbed
    1)  the pesticide label contains directions which allow
        the use of the product in sealed boxcars and hopper
        cars while in transit, on the commodity being carried
        in the truck van, and these directions are followed;

    2)  the truck vans are sealed and placarded during
        fumigation; and

    3)  the truck vans are ful 1-y aerated in accordance with label
        di rections1-prior to removal from the flatbed rail  car.

        For the purposes of this policy, a truck van is defined
as the container portion of any highway truck, trailer or  semi-
trailer having a demountable chassis.

Discussion:

     The Agency finds that the use of aluminum phosphide products to
fumigate truck vans while the vans are being transported on flatbed
rail  cars is allowable provided the conditions mentioned above are
met.

     This policy also applies to all other registered products which
generate phosphine gas and bear directions for use in sealed boxcars
and hopper cars.  The Agency feels that the construction of truck
vans  is sufficiently similar to the construction of boxcars and
hopper cars that there is no greater risk of exposure to phosphine
gas during and after fumigation on rail  cars provided that care is
taken to properly seal, label, and aerate the truck vans.   EPA
feels that fumigation of truck vans while on rail  cars provides
the least risk of exposure when compared to other alternatives.
-------
                                                       2 - 3.3
     The Agency will  not extend this interpretation to allow
the fumigation of truck vans being transported over the highway
because of concerns that the driver and other members of the public
could be exposed to phosphine gas.

Key Uords:

    Aluminum Phosphide Products, Fumigation, Labeling, Phosphine
Gas, Phostoxin, Rail  Cars, Truck Fumigation, Truck Vans.
                                 A.' E. Conroy  I.I/ Director
                                 Pesticides and Tbxi/c Substances
                                   Enforcement Divj/sion
                                         w
'0 £82
                                            Date
-------
              FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 3.4

                           Custom Blenders


FIFRA Section; 3

Issue;

     Are custom blenders of pesticides subject to the requirements
of Section 3 of FIFRA?

Policy;                      '             '

     Although custom blenders of pesticides are subject to the
registration requirements of Section 3, they need not meet these
requirements when certain prescribed conditions are met.

Pi scussion;                                       *       ••      '

     Section 3 of FIFRA requires any person who produces a pesticide
to register  that pesMcide w*th the Administrator before selling or
distributing it.  Custom blenders provide the service of mixing  pes-
ticides to a customer's specifications, usually a pesticide/s)-ferti-
lizer(s) or  pesticide-pesticide mixture.   Custom blending  is considered
production under Section 3.  The Agency,  however, has determined that
registration of certain custom blends is  not nece'ssary to  fulfill  the
intent of FIFRA.             •                  . • .

     In order for a custom blender to avoid liability for  failure
to meet the  requirements of Section 3, the following conditions  must
be met:

    1)  the  blend is prepared to the order of the user and is
        not  held in inventory by the blender; and

    2)  the  pesticide(s) used in the blend bears end-use
        labeling* directions  which do not prohibit  use of  the
        product in such a blend;  and

    3)  the  blend is prepared in a registered establishment;
        and

    4).  the  blend is delivered to the user together with:
* The term "end-use labeling"  means labeling containing directions
for use in pest control  and  otherwise meeting the requirements  of
40 CFR 162.10.  Labeling indicating that a product is  intended  only
fijar use in manufacturing or  formulating pesticides shall  not  be;con-
sideredend-uselabeling.
-------
             a)  a copy of the end-use labeling of the
                 pesticide used in the blend, and

             b)  a statement specifying the composition
                 of the mixture.

The Agency feels that the public will be adequately protected without
Section 3 registration of custom blends if custom blenders meet these
criteria.

     If a custom blend does not meet the criteria listed above, it
must be registered as a pesticide in accordance with the requirements
of Section 3.
                                          ^-
     The limited obligations of custom blenders under Section 3
are independent of their obligations under FIFRA Sections 7 and 3.

See Also:

     Custom Blenders - FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No. 7.1,
Policy and Criteria Notice 2000.1

References:

     Memo to Pesticide iranch Chiefs and Enforcement Division
Directors from Edwin L. Johnson and A. E.  Conroy II, dated
September 3, 1975, titled "Interim Regulations Regarding
Registration of Custom Blends and Custom Blending Establish-
ments."

     Memo to Pesticide Branch Chiefs from  A.  E. Conroy II, dated
September 10, 1980, titled "Custom Blender's  Identification
for ERSS."

     PR Notice 73-1

Key Words:

     Custom Blenders, Fertilizer-Pesticide Mixtures, Registration.
                             A.E.  Conroy II,/Director
                             Pesticides and Ld'xic  Substances
                               Enforcement  Division

                             	•••# I  Q  (982	
                                           Dace
-------
             FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY NO. 3.5

            Production of Pesticides for Personal Use

FIFRA Sections: 3, 7

Issue:

     May a person lawfully produce a pesticide for his own use
without registering his product or establishment?

Pol icy:

     Generally, a person may lawfully produce a pesticide for
his own use without registering his product or establishment.

Discussion;

     Section 3 of FIFRA requires a pesticide producer to register
his product only if he sells or distributes the pesticide.
Furthermore, the regulations (40 CFR Part 167) which address the
registration of pesticide producing establishments under FIFRA
Section 7 state that persons who produce pesticides solely for
application by themselves are not required to register th.eir
establishments.  Thus, a person who produces a pesticide solely
for personal use is not required under FIFRA to register the
pesticide or th'e producing establishment.

     The Agency considers any application of an unregistered
pesticide for other than personal use to be distribution of an
unregistered pesticide, a violation under Section 12(a)(l)(A)
of FIFRA.  This includes applying an unregistered pesticide to
another person's property for other than monetary consideration.
Furthermore, a person applying an unregistered pesticide for
hire, only to provide a service of controlling pests without
delivering any unapplied pesticide to any person so served, would
be considered a distributor and, is therefore, subject to the
higher penalties set forth in section 14(a)(l) and 14(b)(l) of
FIFRA.  (see S. Rep. .No. 95-1138, 95tn Cong., 2nd Sess.  44-45
(1978)).

References:

     Memorandum to Roy Clark, Region IV, dated April 9,  1981
titled "Interpretation of FIFRA §162.4(c) (6).

     Senate Report No. 95-1188, 95th Congress, 2nd Session
44-45 (1978).
-------
                                                     2 - 3.5
Key Words:

     Establishment Registration, Product Registration.
                               A/E. Conroy II, Dfreo'tor
                               Pesticides and Toxic/Substances
                                 Enforcement DivisJ'on
                                            Q 1982
                                         Date
-------
              FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY NO. 3.6

                       Con tract "'Manufacturing


FIFRA Section:  3(b)(1)

Issue:

     May an unregistered pesticide be lawfully transferred
between two separately owned registered establishments?

Policy:

     An unregistered pesticide may be lawfully transferred
between two separately owned registered establishments if
one establishment is operating under contract to the other.
Under such a contractual  arrangement, the establishment under
contract must produce the product in question solely for the
company to,, whom it is under contract.

Discussion:

     Section 3(b) of FIFRA provides an exception to the general
requirement of Section 3(a-) that  all  pesticides  moving in commerce
be registered.  Specifically, Section 3(b)(l) of FIFRA provides
that an unregistered pesticide may be transferred if:

     . . . the transfer is from one registered establ i shm'ent
     to another registered establishment operated by the same
     producer solely for  packaging at the second establishment
     or for use as a constituent  part of another pesticide
     produced at the second establishment ....

     The phrase "operated by the  same producer"  as  used in
Section 3(b)(l) has been  defined  in 40 CFR 162.3(dd) to mean:

     . . . (1) another registered establishment  owned  by
     the registrant of the pesticide product or  (2)  another
     registered establishment operated under contract  with
     the registrant of the pesticide either to package
     the pesticide product or to  use the pesticide  as  a
     constituent part of  another  pesticide product,  pro-
     vided that the final  pesticide product., is registered
     by 'the transferor establishment.

     Under such a contractual arrangement, the establishment
under contract must produce the product solely for  the company
to whom it is under contract.
-------
                                                     2 - 3.6
     Any attempt by the establishment under contract to sell  or
distribute the product to another person would be considered
sale or distribution of an unregistered pesticide under Section
12(a)(l)(A) of FIFRA.  The basic registrant is responsible for
any product produced by an establishment under contract.

     The following are acceptable activities under the contract
manufacturing policy:

    Company A, the end use registrant may contract with Company B
to manufacture an end use product or process an intermediate
formulation Into an end use product.  Company A may also contract
with company B to produce a technical substance which company A
               into an end-use product.  Company B may contract
               to perform some or all of its contract obligations
                 At no time,  however, may Company B'or C sell or
               end use product to anyone other than Company A.
              also contract with Companies 0 and £ to produce the
then processes
with Company C
with Company A.
distribute the
Company A may
same technical  substance or the same end use product or to process
the same intermediate into the same end use product.

    The Agency  feels that this contract manufacturer policy
protects both the public and the environment for several  reasons.
The product is  fully registered with EPA by the company letting
the contract, and the product must conform to the standards held
for the basic registration.  Both companies may be held liabje
for any product found in violation of FIFRA.                  .

See Also :                                        r

    FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No. 3.2, Distributor
Registrations.

References:

    Memo of August 19,  1977, from A. E. Conroy II, PTSED to
Ed Johnson, OPP titled  "Contract Manufacturers."

Key Words:

    Contract Manufacturing, Distributor Registrations,
Establishment Transfer,  Unregistered Pesticides.
                              A.  E.  Conroy
                              Pesticides  ard
                                Enforcement
                                                i rector
                                              'bxic  Substances
                                             i v i s i o n
                                       MAY  I 0
                                            Date
-------
     FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY SECTION 4 INDEX PAGE
Written Examinations for Private Pesticide          4.1
  Applicators
-------
                FIFRA COMPLIANCE  PROGRAM  POLICY No.  4.1


      Written Examinations for Private  Pesticide Applicators



FIFRA Section;  4(a)(l)

Issue:

     May a State Certification Plan approved  by EPA  under FIFRA
require a private pesticide applicator  to pass  a written examina-
tion to become  certified or recertified?

Pol icy:

     A State Certification Plan may require a private applicator
to pass a written examination or  other  equivalent method of
evaluating competency as a prerequisite to becoming  certified or
recertifi ed.

Pi scussion;

     Under FIFRA Sections 3(d) and 12(a)(2)(F), applicato'rs must
be certified before they may legally obtain and use  pesticides
classified for  restricted use.  FIFRA Section 4 establishes two
different routes for  certification:  certification by a  State
pursuant tn a Plan approved by the Administrator, or certification
by the Administrator  in cases where States have chosen not to
submit a Plan.   Only  two States,  Colorado* and  Nebraska, do not
have plans for  certification of pesticide applicators.

     FIFRA Section 4(a)(2) describes the  criteria used by the
Administrator in d-eciding whether to approve  a  State-submitted
Certification Plan.  Section 4(a)(2)(E) states  that  a Plan sub-
mitted by a State must contain "satisfactory  assurances  that State
standards for the certification of applicators  of pesticides con-
form with those standards prescribed by the Administrator" under
FIFRA Section 4(a)(l).  Section 4(a)(l) provides that a  State
Certification Plan must specify a method  by which an applicator
will establish  his competency.

     Under FIFRA, the Administrator may not require  a private
applicator to pass an examination to establish  competency for
certification or require a State  Plan to  contain such a  provision.
*  Colorado i s in the process of developing  a  certification plan,
   which will  initially cover only  commercial  applicators.
-------
                            -  2  -

FIFRA Section  4(a)(l)  prohibits  the  Administrator from requiring
private applicators  to pass  an  examination  to  establish competency
for certification  in EPA-administered  certification  programs.
Section 4(a)(l) also specifies  "...  That  the  certification  standard'
for a private  applicator shall,  under  a  State  plan submitted for
approval, be deemed  fulfilled  by his completing a certification form
..."  However, a State may  wish  to  adopt  a  certification program
which is more  stringent than that  prescribed  under FIFRA Section 4
and related regulations.  A State  may  on  its  own initiative choose
to require a private applicator  to  pass  an  examination to establish
competency for certification.

     EPA's policy  of.accepting  State Certification Plans which require
private applicators  to pass written  examinations is  supported by the
lack of a statutory  prohibition  against  such  an action and the legis-
lative history.  The Senate and  House  conference report clearly
affirmed the right of  a State  to require  the  passing of a written
examination by a private applicator.  The right of a State to require
the passing of a written examination by  a private applicator has
been of fir.*:**1  EPA policy since the  passage  of FIFRA.  Pursuant to
this policy :he Administrator  has  approved  State Plans requiring the
passing of a written examination by  a  private applicator as well as
State Plans using  methods other than written  examinations to establish
private applicator competency.

See Also:

Reference:

     Letter dated  August 30, 1982 from Edward C. Gray, Acting
Associate General  Counsel,  Pesticides  Division to Mr. Frank
Graham, Florida Department  of  Agriculture,  re:  State  --Imposed
Requirement for Examination of Private Applicators.

     Letter dated  November  16,  1982  from Robert M. Perry, Associate
Administrator for Legal and Enforcement  Counsel and General Counsel
to J. T. Griffiths,  the Citrus Growers Association,  subject:  State
-  Imposed Requirements for  Examination of Private Applicators.
Key Words:

     Establi sh
certi fi cati on.
competency,  written  exami nati-on,  private applicator
                             A. E. Conroy II, Director
                            Compliance Monitoring Staff
                     Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
                                              1983
                                        Date
-------
     FIFKA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY SECTION 7 INDEX PAGE






TITLE                                              NUMBER



Custom Blenders                                    7.1
-------
               FIFRA COMPLIANCE  PROGRAM POLICY No. 7.1

                           Custom Blenders


FIFRA Section; 7

Issue:

     Are custom blenders of pesticides subject to the requirements
of Section 7?

Pol icy;

     Although custom blenders of pesticides are subject to the
Section 7 establishment registration requirements they are not
required to meet the reporting requirements of Section 7 if they
meet certain conditions.
Discussion:
                                                    r     ______
                                                   concern'ing p r o -
                                                     lations promul
                                                    that a custom
                                                      rements of


     Custom blenders provide the service of mixing pesticides
to a customer's specifications.  The custom blend is usually a
pesticide(s)-fertilizer(s) mixture or a mixture of pesticides
derived from an end-use formulation.

     The Agency has, however, determined that subjecting custom
blending establishments to all  provisions of Section 7 is not
necessary for effective regulation of the industry. • Therefore
the Agency will not require producers of those ble-nds  exempt
from Section 3* to meet certain Section 7 requirements.
 requires that all pesticide producers must
hments in which they produce pesticides.
n fho Anonrv annual  rann rt e r/inrorn'inn nrn_
*To be exempt from Section 3, a custom blend must meet the following
requi rements:
    1)  the blend is prepared to the order of the user and is
        not held in inventory by the blender, and
    2)  the pesticide(s)  used in the blend bear(s)  end-use labeling
        directions which  do not prohibit use of the product  in such
        a blend, and
    3)  the blend is prepared in a registered establishment,  and
    4)  the blend is delivered to the user together with:
        a)  a copy of the end-use labeling of the pesticide
            used in the blend, and
        b)  a statement specifying the composition  of_the  mixture.
-------
                                                       2 - 7.1

     All custom blenders, whether or not their blends must meet
Section 3 requirements, must register their establishments with EPA
This is necessary to provide the Agency with the locations of pes-
ticide blending operations. The Agency will use'this information in
scheduling Section 8 inspections and in tracing contaminated or oth
pesticides in violation of the law.
                                                                 i
     Custom blenders whose blends need not meet Section 3
requirements are not required to report on amount produced at
the establishment or to place their establishment number on the
pesticide produced.  Normally, the Agency requires the establish-
ment number to be placed on a product in order to allow EPA to
trace a shipment of pesticides which may be in violation of the
Act.  Since a custom blend'is used within a day or two of purchase
and the user knows the person who manufactured the blend, placing
the establishment number on the blend has little value.

     Production data is required for registered pesticides, so
the Agency knows how much of a pesticide is produced and who pro-
duces it.  This information is useful not only to know the total
production of pesticides but to assist EPA in  recall actions or
other actions where knowledge of production is essential.  Because
EPA does not require custom blenders to meet the Section 3 require-
ments of FIFRA, the Agency would not be consistent in asking for
production information on a blend which does not require registrati?

     Custom blenders remain subject to the provisions of Section a*
of FIFRA as well as to all requirements relating to  proper use of
pesticides including transport, storage and disposal.

See Also:

     Custom Blenders - FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No. 3.4

References:

     See references in FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No. 3.4

Key 'dords:

    Custom Blenders, Establishment Registration, Reporting.
                                    Conroy II/Di/ector
                              Pesticides and/Tox/c Substances
                                 Enforcement

                              	iVjAY  I 0 IQQ?
                                          Date
-------
     FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY SECTION 10  INDEX  PA'"






TITLE                                              NUMBER



Release of Pesticide Production Data               10.1
-------
             FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY  No. 10.1

                Release of Pesticide Production Data


FIFRA Section; 10
                                                        N
Issue:

     Under what circumstances will EPA release yearly production
data for particular pesticides?

Policy:

     The EPA will not release an individual producer's production
data for a specific pesticide.  The Agency will  release production
data in the aggregate, without individual producer identification,
at the request or order of an EPA Administrative Law Judge in a
data compensation proceeding under FIFRA Section 3(c)(l)(0).  In
such a case, the EPA will  indicate the confidential  nature of the
data to une Judge.  When EPA responds to a Congressional request
for confidential  data, the Office of Legal Counsel  will  decide
whether co release the data.

Discussion;

     Production data which producers submit under FIFRA Section
7(c)(l) is confidential  (Section 7(d)) and thus  may  not  be released
by EPA (Section 10(b)).   In many cases,  aggregate yearly data which
does not identify individual  producers may not be confidential.
However, there is a risk,  in some cases, that the requestor may
ascertain  the identities of individual  producers when combining
the aggregate data with  other information in his possession.

     The Freedom  of Information  Act (FOIA)(5 U.S.C.  Section 552)
does not require  an Agency to create a record in respons.e to an
FOIA request.  The EPA regulations  state: "The Freedom of Infor-
mation Act does not require the  creation of new  records  in response
to a request ...  The Act establishes requirements for disclosure
of exi sting records"  (40 CFR Section 2.105(a), emphasis  added).
The UnitedStates Supreme  Court  has endorsed this reading of FOIA;
NLRB v. Sears Roebuck, 421 U.S.  132, 161-162.  Aggregation of
pesticide  production  data  submitted to EPA is clearly the creation
of new records.

     While EPA could choose to release aggregate pesticide production
data even  where not required  by  FOIA, it has decided  not to do so
due to the risk of unintended disclosure of confidential  data.
-------
                                                       2  -  10.1
     FIFRA Section 10(b) authorizes the release of certain
confidential pesticide data to other Federal agencies; however,
production data is not included.  Also, FIFRA does not .authori ze
the release of production data to States.  Therefore, EPA will
not routinely release individual or aggregate production data  to
other Federal Agencies or States.  Release of confidential  pesti-
cide data to Congress, including the General Accounting Office,
is governed by EPA-wide policy (40 CFR Part 2).  When EPA responds
to a Congressional request for confidential pesticide data, the
Office of Legal Counsel must be contacted, since that Office will
decide whether to release the data.

Reference:

     Protective Order, -October 2-2, -1981 , -Union -G-ar-b-ide- -v-. Thompson'
Hayward. FIFRA COMP. Docket Nos. 27 & 45, 40 CFR Part 2.

Key Words:

     C-;rT identi al i ty , Establishment Regi strati on ..-Product ion Data.
A. E. Con.roy, 11, D rector
Pesticides and/Toxic Substances
  Enforcement
                                              ivsion
        i-.nl
                                            0 1982
                                          Date
-------
     FIFRA COMPLIANCE  PROGRAM POLICY SECTION 12 INDEX PAGE


TITLE                                              NUMBER

Using Registered Or Experimental  Use Permit         12.1
  Pesticides In A Manner Not  Included On
  The Label  Or Permit

Pesticides Closed Transfer,  Mixing/Loading and     12.2
  Application Equipment  (Closed Systems)

Authority for Use Inspections                      12.3

Making Restricted Use  Pesticides  Available         12.4
  to Persons Without Pesticide  Applicator
  Ce rt i f i cat i on
-------
             FIFRA  COMPLIANCE  PROGRAM  POLICY  NO.  12.1

      Using Registered  Or  Experimental  Use  Permit  Pesticides
          In A Manner  Not  Included  On The  Label  Or  Permit

FIFRA Section:   12
Issue;

     May a person  legally  use
pesticide for testing purposes
permit?

Pol icy;
registered or experimental use
not authorized by the label or
     A person may legally  use  a  registered  or  experimental  use
-pest i cide--for- testing -pur-p-o-ses—i-n--a--man-rve-r  -n-o-t---a-trth-o-ri-ze-d—by—the	
label or the permit  if:

     1.  The purpose of  the  use  is  only  to  determine' the
         pesticidal  value  of the  substance  or  its  toxicity  or
         other properties, and

     2.  No one conducting the test  expects to  obtain  any
         benefit in  pest control  from  its use.

     In addition, other  specific  conditions must  be  met  for pesticide
uses as described in 40  CFR  Part  172.3(a)(l) for  land  use,  Part
172.3(a)(2) for aquatic  use  and  Pa.rt  172.3(a)(3)  for  animal
treatments.

Pi scussi on:

     The experimental use  permit  (EUP) regulations provide
at 40 CFR  Part 172.2(a)  that any  person  wishing to accumulate
data necessary to register a substance under the  Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act  (FIFRA) may apply
for an EUP for:

     o A pesticide not registered with the  Agency, or

     o A use of a registered pesticide not  previously
       approved in the registration.
1 "For testing purposes"  as  defined  in  this  policy  refers  to  pesticide
use for: a  land use as  described  in  40  CFR  Part  172.3(a)(l),  an
aquatic use as defined  in  Part  172.3(a)(2)  and animal  treatments  as
defined in  Part 172.3(a)(3).
-------
                                                       2 - 12.1

     However, those regulations also provide at 40 CFR Part
172.3(a) that a person does not need an EUP to test a substance
or mixture of substances where the only purpose of the test
is to determine Its pestiddal value, its toxlcity or other
properties, and where the persons conducting the test do not
expect to receive any pest control benefit from the tests.

     The regulations at 40 CFR Part 172.3(a)(l) state that such
a purpose is presumed for land use tests if:

     o The total  cumulative acreage treated does not exceed
       10 acres for a particular substance or mixture of
       substances against a particular pest, and

     o The food or feed crops Involved 1n, or affected by
       such tests shall  be destroyed or consumed only by
      .experimental an.imals unless a tolerance or exemption
       from the need for a tolerance has been established.
       These crops include crops subsequently grown on
       such land  which may reasonably be expected to contain
       residues of such substances or mixtures of substances.

     The regulations at 40 CFR Part 172.3(a)(2) state ti.at such
a purpose is presumed for aquatic use tests if:

     o The total  area treated does not exceed 1 surface acre
       of water for a particular substance or mixture of
       substances against a particular pest,

     o The waters used in such tests will  not be used for
       irrigation purposes, drinking water supplies or body
       contact recreational activities, and

     o No such tests may be conducted in any waters which
       contain, or which would affect, eny fish,  shellfish
       or other plants or animals  taken for recreational  or
       commercial  purposes unless  a tolerance or exem-ption
       from tolerance has been established.

     The regulations at 40 CFR Part 172.3(a)(3) state such a
purpose  is presumed for animal treatments  if:

     o The tests  are conducted only on experimental animals,
       and

     o No animals may be tested if they may be used in food
       or feed unless a  tolerance  or an exemption from tolerance
       has been established.
2 This poli cy does riot limit,  but rather supplements  the existing
policy regarding uses not authorized by the label  but allowed under
FIFRA §2(ee).
-------
                                                      3 - 12.1
     The regulations also state at 40 CFR Part 172.3(c)  that an
EUP is not required if a registered pesticide is used in a
test to determine its pesticidal  value for a use not set forth
on the label  if the requirements  at 40 CFR Part 173(a)  are met.2

     It 1s not a misuse violation of FIFRA to use a
non-registered substance in tests to determine pesticidal
value, toxlcity or other properties under the previously-cited
restrictions.  Therefore, 1t is also not a violation to  use
a substance with an EUP in a manner contrary to the provisions
of the permit, if the use is in tests which meet the conditions
at 40 CFR Parts 172.3(a), 172.3(a) (1),' 172.3(a)(2)  and  172.3(a)(3)
a s set forth  above.

See AlsoT    	    -                -                   ••

     FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No. 2.2 - Use  Recommendations

Key Words:

     Experimental  Use Permit (EUP), 2(ee), Use Recommendations.
                              'E.  Conroy  II,  Director
                         Pesticides  and  Toxi a Sub/stances
                               Enforcement  Division

                                    MAY  I 0 £8?
                                       Date
-------
          FIFRA Compliance  Program  Policy  No.  12.2

       Pesticides  Closed  Transfer,  Mixing/Loading and
           Application  Equipment  (Closed  Systems)


FIFRA Section:

     12(a)(2)(G)

I ssue:

     Will the Environmental  Protection  Agency  take an enforce-
ment action under  FIFRA Section  12(a)(2)(G)  against the operator
who uses a closed  system  to  mix,  load,  transfer or apply pesticides
without wearing the personal  protective equipment required by
the pesticide product label?

P o 1 i cy : *

     The Agency will  not  take an  enforcement action under FIFRA
Section 12(a)(2)(G) against  the  operator  of  a  closed system who
does not wear the  persons^  protective  equipment required by the
pesticide product  label,  provided the  conditions  outlined in
this poli cy are met.

Pi scuss ion:

     The FIFRA Compliance Program Policy  No. 12.2 issued May 10,
1982 said the Agency  would  take  enforcement  action under Section
12(a)(2)(G) against the operator  for  not  wearing  personal protec-
tive equipment required by  the  label  if a  closed  system was used
in transferring, mixing,  loading  or applying pesticides.

     The California Department  of Food  and Agriculture and the
Arizona Board of Pesticide  Control  petitioned  the Agency to
reconsider the May 10 policy.   They stated that the pesticide
label directs safety  requirements at  the  most  hazardous pesticide
use situations without  considering  less hazardous situations.
Further, the May 1982 policy  may  actually  hinder  the development
of new  equipment designed to  safely handle pesticides.

     The Agency's  position  is  that  wearing the personal protective
equipment required by the pesticide label  provides the greatest
level of user protection.  However, the Agency recognizes that
technological and  engineering  advancements have made significant
contributions in the  field  of  pesticide use  safety.  One such
advancement is the development  of closed  systems.
    *This policy  replaces  FIFRA  Compliance  Program Policy
No. 12.2 issued May  10,  1982.
-------
                                -2-
     For purposes  of  this  policy,  a  closed  system  is  hardware
designed to empty  and rinse  pesticide  containers,  mix or  dilute
the pesticide,  and transfer  the  pesticide,  its  diluents,  and
the container rinsing agent  to  the application  equipment  without
permitting the  pesticide  to  escape.

     Preliminary  field experiences indicate that the  incidents
of pesticide exposure to  persons  operating  a  closed  system  gen-
erally arise due  to one of the  following  conditions:

   o  Pesticide leaks at  seals,  gaskets,  hoses,  or seams  caused
      by worn or  poor quality parts,  or  by  parts eroded when  the
      chemicals are allowed  to  stand in  the container.

   o  Pesticide leaks at  the couplings  caused by high internal
      pressures or incomplete coupling  due  to non-matching  parts
      or operator  carelessness.

   o  Improper  use of equipment  due  to  disregard for  proper
      mixing/loading  proced^cs  or lack  of  training.

     There are, however,  many documented  instances when  a closed
system has been used  without resulting  in an  exposure from  its
use.  Therefore,  the  Agency  will  amend  its  May  10, 1982,  policy
and will not take  an  enforcement  action  if  the  operator  can show
the following:

   o  Records are  available  for  the  current operating year  which
      show that a  cleaning schedule  and  maintenance  program (which
      includes  flushing the  system so  that  pesticides are not
      allowed to  stand in  the system for  more than one work day)
      has been  developed  and is  administered.

   o  Records are  available  which  indicate  that  the  operator  has
      received  training (when,  by  whom)  in  operating  procedures  as
      prescribed  by the closed  system  manufacturer and  has  been
      informed  of  the potential  hazards  of  closed  system  misuse
      or improper  maintenance before using.

   o  Written instructions for  operating  the  system  are  posted  on
      or near the  closed  system.

   o  All personal protective equipment  required by  the  label  is
      available for the operator  at  all  times during  mixing and
      loading or  transfer  operations.

     Notwithstanding  the  requirements  of  this policy, if  all  of
the personal protective equipment  required  by the  label  is  not
worn while using  a closed  system  and a  pesticide exposure occurs,
the Agency may  take an enforcement action under  FIFRA Section
12(a)(2)(G) against the operator  of  the  closed  system.
-------
                                -3-
See Also:

     FIFRA Compliance  Program  Policy No. 12.2  "Closed Application
System" issued May  10,  1982.

     The Pesticide  Misuse  Review Committee  (PMRC) Advisory Opinion
Nos. 14, 18,  125,  205,  293,  and 315.

     October  12,  1982  letter from Ms. Lori  Johnston, Assistant
Director,  Pest Management,  Environmental Protection and Worker
Safety, Department  of  Food and Agriculture, State of California
to Mr. Edwin  Johnson,  Director, Office  of Pesticide Programs,
EPA.

     July  1,  1982  letter  from  Mr. R. W. Sweet, Administrator,
Board of Pesticide  Control,  State of Arizona to Mr. Phillip C.
Martinelli,  Director,  Division of Plant Industry, Nevada Depart-
ment of Agriculture, State of  Nevada.

References:

     "Closed  System Update"  by R.W. Brazelton, N.B. Akesson, and
K.T. Maddy,  January 1980.

Key Words:

     Closed  System, Personal Protective Equipment.
                                                -rr
                              A. E. Conroy M,/Director
                             Compliance M on i Wring Staff
                       Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
                                    15 DEC  1983
-------
             FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 12.2

                    Closed Application Systems


FIFRA Section; 12

Issue;

     Should EPA take enforcement action if protective equipment
required by the pesticide label  is not worn by workers when
mixing and loading pesticides into closed application systems?

Pol icy;

     EPA will  take enforcement action under Section 12(a)(2)(G)
for failure to wear protective equipment required by the label.

Discussion;

     The term  "closed application system" means a device or
combination of devices designed  to empty and rinse perticide con-
tainers, to mix and/or dilute the pesticide and to transfer the
pesticide to application equipment or a holding vessel v;1thout
permitting pesticides to escape  into the surrounding environment.

     Generally, any use of a registered pesticide inconsistent
with the product's label is a violation of FIFRA Secti on_ 12(a) (2) (G)
In the case of a closed mixing system with an automatic 'container
opening feature, failure to wear protective clothing required by
the product label  would be a violation of this section.  It is
pa'rticul arly important to wear protective clothing when using
closed systems because these systems are usually used in conjunction
with especially hazardous pesticides.

Reference:

     Pesticide Misuse Review Committee Advisory Opinion # 315

Key Word Heading:

     Closed Application System,  Misuse
                                 A. E. Conroy IV,  0/rector
                                 Pesticides  and/To/ic Substances
                                   Enforcement (Or/i si on

                                         MAY  I Q IPS?	
                                           Date
-------
              FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 12.3

                   Authority for Use Inspections


FIFRA Section:  12(a)(2)(G), 9(b)

Issue:

     May EPA conduct routine "use inspections" where pesticides
are not held for distribution or sale?

Policy;

     EPA may conduct use inspections to enforce Section 12(a)(2)(G)
of FIFRA with the consent of the owner or person in  charge of the
p r em i s e s.

Discussion:

     FIFRA Section 9(a) provides authority for EPA to inspect
establishments .or other places where pesticides are  held for
distribution or sale.   Upon a showing that there'is  reason to'
believe that the provisions of FIFRA have been violated, EPA
inspectors may obtain  warrants to inspect such establishments
pursuant to section 9(b).

     Notwithstanding the limitation of Section 9, EPA has developed
a program of pesticide use surveillance to enforce Section
!2(a)(2)(G) of FIFRA.   This Section makes it unlawful  to use a
pesticide in a manner  inconsistent  with its labeling.   To enforce
this subsection and to prevent pesticide misuse, EPA may routinely
undertake "use inspections", as  part of a neutral administrative
inspection scheme. However, inspectors must obtain the consent of
the owner or person in charge of the premises to be  inspected.
Well established Fourth Amendment principles require that the
consent be knowing and voluntary.

     Within the framework outlined  above, EPA inspectors may also
obtain samples of pesticides or  devices, and samples of any  con-
tainers or labeling for such pesticides or devices,  if necessary
for the use inspection.  Any such samples must be obtained in
accordance with the receipt procedure described in Section 9(a).
-------
                                                       2  -  12.3


Reference:

     Letter from William  L.  Hazeltine  to  Congressman  Harold T.
Johnson  dated  August  12,  1975.

Key Word Headings;

     Inspections,  Misuse,  Use  Inspections.
                                                   -ri-
                             A.  E.  Conroy  1 1 , XH rsrctor
                             Pesticides  and  T^xij/ Substances
                               Enforcement  Division
                                      MAY 10 (982
                                        _
-------
             FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No.  12.4


      Making Restricted Use Pesticides Available  to Persons
            Without Pesticide Applicator Certification


FIFRA Section:  12(a)(2)(F)

Issue:

In a State where the EPA Administrator conducts  the pesticide
applicator certification and training program,  will EPA take
enforcement action against  pesticide dealers who  make restricted
use pesticides  (RUP's) available for use to persons who are not
certified applicators?

P o 1 i cy:

In a State where the Administrator conducts the  pesticide
applicator certification and training program,*  EPA will  take
enforcement action against  any pesticide dealer  who cannot
document that the restricted use pesticide  made  available to
a person who is not a certified applicator  will  be  applied by
a certified applicator.

Discussion:
Section 12(a)(2)(F) of FIFRA states:

     It shall  be unlawful  for any  person  to  make  available  any
     registered pesticide  classified  for  restricted  use  for
     some or all purposes  other  than  in  accordance with  section
     3(d) and  any regulations thereunder;  Provided,  That  it
     shall  not be unlawful  to sell,  under  regulations  issued  by
     the Administrator,  a  restricted  use  pesticide to  a  person
     who is not a certified applicator  for application  by  a
     certified applicator.
-  This policy affects  only  pesticide  dealers  making  restricted
  use pesticides available  to  uncertified  persons  in  States  or
  on Indian reservations  where the  Administrator  conducts  the
  pesticide applicator certification  and  training  program.
  States  having approved  FIFRA §4 State  Plans  and  wishing  to
  adopt a similar procedure of making  restricted  use  pesticides
  available to uncertified  persons  shall  submit   to  the  Adminis-
  trator   a plan containing minimum standards  as  outlined  in 40
  CFR Part 171.  Such  a procedure should  contain  the  require-
  ments as outlined  in this policy  and  in  "IX.  Purchase  By
  Uncertified Persons  For Use  By Certified  Applicators"  of  the
  document entitled  "Optional  Procedures  for  Classification  of
  Pesticides Uses by  Regulation; Pesticide  Use  Restrictions"
  published in the FEDERAL  REGISTER of  February  9,  1978  (43  FR
  page 5783).
-------
                               -2-


The term "make available for use"  means  to distribute,  sell,
ship,  deliver for shipment,  or receive and (having so received)
deliver, to any person.   However,  this term excludes  transactions
solely between persons, who are pesticide producers ,•• regi strants,
wholesalers, or retail  sellers,  acting only in  those  capacities.

EPA has not promulgated  rules covering the sale of RUP's  to
uncertifed persons but  plans to  do so in the near future.   In
the meantime, EPA's policy is to ensure  that RUP's are  made
available only to persons, qua!ified to use them safely, without
making- it unduly burdensome  for  certified applicators to  obtain
RUP's.

Until  promulgation of the pertinent regulations,  the  Agency will
implement the following  policy:

The Agency will not take enforcement action under FIFRA §12(a)(2)(F)
against any person who  can document that he made  a RUP  available
to an  uncertified person for use by an applicator certified for
its use.

Adequate documentation  consists  of a record for each  transaction
either on the sales invoice  or in  a document accompanying  the
invoice, which includes  the  following information:

     (A) The name and residence  or business address  of  the person,
whether certified or uncertified,  to whom the RUP is  made  available^
     (B) The name and residence  or business address  of  the
certified applicator who will use  the restricted  use  pesticide,
if this is different from (A)^
     (C)  The certified  applicator's certification number, the
State  (or other governmental unit) that  issued  his cert-i f i cati on
card,  the expiration date of the certification, and  the categories
in which the applicator  is certified, if appropriate.
     (D) The product name, EPA registration number,  and the
State  special local need registration number, granted under
§24(c) of the FIFRA (if  any) on  the label  of the  pesticide.
     (E) The quantity of the pesticide made available for
use in trie transaction.
     (F) The date of the transaction.

At the time of each transaction, EPA recommends that  the  dealer
obtain the information  required  in (A)-(C) above  and  assure himself
that the RUP is made available for use by  a certified applicator
by examining one of the  following  sets of  documents:

         (1) The original  of the certified applicator's certifi-
             cation card,  and a  driver's license  or  other  State,
             County or  Tribal identification document issued  to
             the uncertified person to whom the restricted use
             pesticide  is  made available.
-------
                               -3-
         (2)  A photocopy or facsimile of  the certified
             applicator's certification  card,  a  statement signed
             by the certified  applicator  authorizing the
             uncertified person  to  purchase  the  restricted use
             pesticide on his  behalf, and a  driver's license
             or other State,  County or Tribal  identification
             document issued  to  the uncertified  person to whom
             the restricted use  pesticide is made available.

         (3)  A photocopy or facsimile of  the certified applicator's
             certification card,  a  copy  of a signed  contract or
             agreement between the  uncertified  person  to whom the
             product is being  made  available for use and the
             identified certified applicator which  provides  for
             the use of the restricted use pesticide by the
             identified certified applicator and a  driver's
             license or other  State,  County  or  Tribal  identi-
             fication document issued to  the the uncertified
             person to whom the  restricted use  pesticide is  made
             available.


The Agency  will take enforcement  actions  for first  time violations
of FIFRA §12(a)(2)(F) as follows:2

     1)  If  a  dealer -sells a RUP  to  a  person  who  has  never been
        certified an'd that person did not purchase  the RUP for a
        certified applicator,  a  penalty  should  be assessed fron
        the "adverse effects  highly probable"  ca-tegory of the
        FIFRA civil  penalty matrix.

     2)  If  a  dealer sells a RUP  to  a  person, for his own use,
        whose certification has  expired  more than 12 months
        prior, a penalty should  be  assessed  from the "adverse
        effects unknown" category of  the  FIFRA  civil  penalty
        matrix.
  Penalties  should  be  assessed  in  accordance  with  the  FIFRA
  Enforcement  Policy  - Interim  Penalty  Guidelines,  dated
  June 11,  1981  from A.E.  'Conroy  II,  Director,  Pesticides  and
  Toxic Substances  Enforcement  Division  to  Regional  Enforcement
  Division  Directors and  Pesticide Branch Chiefs  and the  July  31,
  1974, Federal  Notice entitled  "Guidelines  for  the  Assessment  of
  Civil Penalties  under Section  14 of the Federal  Insecticide,
  Fungicide  and  Rodenticide  Act  as amended"
-------
     3)' If a dealer sells a RUP to a person,  for his own use,
        and his certification has  expired within the past 12 months,-
        a penalty should be assessed from the "adverse effects not '
        probable" category of the  FIFRA civil penalty matrix.

     4) If a dealer sells a 'RUP to an uncertified person without
        documentation to prove the RUP is to  be used' by a certified'
        applicator, but the RUP is actually applied by a certified
        applicator, a notice of warning should be sent for the
        first violation.

     5) If a dealer sells a RUP to a certified commercial applicator
        who is not certified in the appropriate category, a penalty
        should be assessed from the "adverse  effects not probable
        category of the FIFRA civil penalty matrix.

Penalties for dealers continuing to make RUP's available for use to
uncertified persons for use by certified applicators without the
necessary documentation should be  assessed under-the "adverse effects
highly probable" category of the FIFRA civil  penalty matrix.3

See Also;

Federal Register Notice of July 31, 1974, pages 27711-22 entitled
"Guidelines for the As^ssment of  Civil Penalties under Section
14(a) of the Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
as amended" [7 U.S.C. 136 1(a)].

FIFRA Enforcement Policy - Interim Penalty Guide!ines,'dated
June 11, 1981, from A.E. Conroy 11,.Oirector, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances Enforcement Division to Regional Enforcement
Division Directors and Pesticide Branch Chiefs.

References

Memo entitled "Enforcement Policies for Products Restricted
through Regulation" dated July 20, 1978, from A.E.  Conroy II to
the Enforcement Division Directors and Pesticide Branch Chiefs.

Key Words;

Certified Applicator, Dealer, Make Available  For Use, Restricted
Use Pesticide, RUP's, Uncertified  Person.
                                   A.  E.  Conroy  In,\Director
                                  Compliance  Morn to ring  Staff
                          Office of Pesticides  and. Tj3/ic Substances

                                        MAY  1 8 1983
                                             Date
3 EPA will  take enforcement  action  under FIFRA 12(a)(2)(F)  and
  12(a)(2)(G) against any uncertified  person  who  uses  a  RUP and
  is not under the supervision  of  a certified applicator.
-------
     FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM  POLICY  SECTION 17  INDEX  PAGE

                                                 -. -NUMBER
Pesticide Processing in  Foreign-Trade Zones         17.1
Waiver of Notice of Arri val . Requi rements            17.2
-------
             FIFRA COMPLIANCE  PROGRAM  POLICY  -  No.  17.1

            Pesticide Processing 1n Foreign-Trade Zones


FIFRA Section: 17(c)

Issue:

    Are pesticides which enter a foreign  trade  zone  for  further
processing or repackagl ag. .subject ..t.o.. th.e.  r.e-qu..i rements. o.f.-E.LF-RA.?

Poli cy:

    A product which legally enters a foreign-trade  zone  for
processing or repackaging is not subject  to the  requirements  of
FIFrtA.

Discussion:
    Foreign-trade zones or "freeports" are areas within the  United
States where products may be stored, processed, manipulated, manu-
factured and reshipped without being subject to the customs  laws  of
the United States governing the entry of goods and the payment of
du ty .

    Foreign-trade zones are established under the Foreign-Trade
Zones Act and the general regulations and rules of procedure of
the Foreign-Trade Zones Board contained in 15 CFR Part 400.  The
regulations contained in 19 CFR Part 146 govern admiss-ion of
merchandise into a foreign-trade zone; manipulation, manufactur-
ing, processing, etc. in a zone; exportation of merchandise  from
a zone; and transfer of merchandise from a zone into United  States
Customs territory.

    In order to be considered exempt from the requirements of
Customs and FIFRA, a pesticide product must be in full compliance
with the laws regarding entry into the foreign-trade zone; be
processed within the zone; and be reshipped to foreign points.
Any product which enters the United States from a foreign-trade
zone is subject to Customs laws and the requirements of FIFRA.
-------
                                                      2 - 17.1
    The only products legally entering a foreign-trade zone  which
are subject to the requirements of FIFRA are those which were
produced in the United States or which entered into the United
States and subsequently enter the foreign trade zone under the
custody of United- States Customs for processing or repackaging.

References:

     19 CFR Part 146

Key Words:

    Foreign Trade Zones, Freeports, Processing, Registration,
Repackagi ng.
                       fa ' <~"
                      A.  £.  Conroy II,
                      Pesticides  and T
                        Enforcement Di
   or
 Substances
on
                                MAY I  Q  ISP
                                  Date
-------
              FIFRA  COMPLIANCE  PROGRAM  POLICY  NO.  17.2

              Waiver  of  Notice  of  Arrival  Requirements

 FIFRA  Section:  17(c). 17(e)

 Issue;

     Can  Importers  of multi-use chemicals  and  pesticides  imported
 for  non-pesticidal  purposes obtain a waiver from  "Notice  of
 Arrival"  requirements?

 Pol Icy:
      Importers  of multi-use  chemicals  and  pesticides  imported  for
non-pesticidal  purposes can  be granted a waiver  from  "Notice of
Arrival" requirements.

Discussion:

      Pesticides and devices  imported  into  the United  States must
be  in  compliance with Section 17(c) of FIFRA.  Section 17(c")
states  that  pesticides or -devices which are adulterated, mis-
branded or otherwise violate *the provisions set  forth in the
Act  or  are injurious to health or the  environment may be refused
entry  into the  country.  The Secretary of  the Treasury is'
empowered by Section 17(e) of FIFRA to prescribe regulations for
the  enforcement of Section 17(c).  19 CFR  Part 12.110 through
12.117  regulates the importation of pesticides and devices into
the  U.S.  The regulations state in part that pesticides and
pesticide products imported  into the  U.S.  will not be released
by  U.S. Customs unless accompanied by a completed Notice of
Arrival of Pesticides and Devices form (EPA Form 3540-1).  To
assist  in monitoring compliance with  this  requirement, EPA
developed a  checklist of frequently encountered  pesticides and
distributed  it  to U.S.  Customs commodity  import specialists.

      Some of the pesticide chemicals  which appear on  the list
may  be  multi-use chemicals imported for non-pesticidal uses or
pesticides imported for chemical analysis  or other testing.  As
a matter of  policy, the Agency will allow  persons importing
products for such purposes to request a waiver from the Notice
of  Arrival  requirements.  Such requests must be made  in writing
to  EPA  Headquarters and must state (1) the chemical  being
imported together with its EPA registration number,  if regis-
tered;  (2)  the  purpose for which the  product is  being imported;
(3)  the amount  of chemical  being imported; and (4)  if known, the
.port  of entry (If there is more than  one,  all  ports  of entry
should  be listed).
-------
                                                    2 - 17.2

     If EPA Headquarters approves the request, a copy of the
request and the waiver granted will be sent to each affected
Region.

     To expedite future shipments, the Regions should encourage
importers to file a copy of the waiver with Customs for each
subsequent entry of the product.

References;

     FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No. 2.4, Multi-Use Chemicals,
19 CFR Part 12.110 through 12.117.  •

Key Words:

     Imports, Multi-Use Products, Notice of Arrival.
                               A. E. Conroy 11/, Director
                               Pesticides andjToxi^/ Substances
                                 Enforcement D\ivis^on

                              	MAY . .
                                          Date
-------
     FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM PULICY SECTION 24 INDEX PAGE





TITLE                                              NUMBER



Special Local Needs Labeling                       24.1
-------
                FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 24.1

                      Special Local Needs Labeling


FIFRA Section: 24(c)

Issue:

    Wi'l 1 the Agency permit a registrant to print or affix Section
24(c) (Special Local Need) labeling on Federal labeling?

Pol icy:"'  •-	 --    -                                  ....

    The Agency will permit Section 24(c) labeling to appear on
Federal labeling under certain conditions.

Discussion:

    Sectio.n 24(c)  of FIFRA states that a State may register addi-
tional uses of federally registered pesticides for di stri buti'on and
use within that State to meet special  local  needs provided that
no such use has been previously denied, disapproved or cancelled
by EPA.  The Agency has  90 days to review such a registration.  If
the Agency does not deny a use within  this time period, the use is
considered to be registered under Section 3  for distribution and
use only within that State.  If the use is for a food  or feed
crop, a tolerance  or exemption must exist for that use.  40 CFR
Part 162.150-162.156 sets forth the regulations governing tne
registration of products under Section 24(c).

    Part 162.153(e) requires that labeling governing any State-
registered uses of a Federally registered product be made available
at the time of use.  As  a matter of convenience for both the regis-
trant and the user, Section 24(c) use  directions may appear on a
Federal label provided the directions  are clearly identified and
separate from Federal  labeling.  Either a distinct border around
the Section 24(c)  uses or a sticker which does not obscure the
information on the Federal label is an acceptable means of con-
veying Section 24(c) information.  The labeling must also clearly
identify the State in which the Section 24(c) use is allowed.   If
a  specific identical use has been registered  in a number of States,
the registrant may list  all the States which  have registered the
use.  The registrant must use the statement  "For distribution  and
use only within (name of State(s)"  on  all Section 24(c) labeling.
A  product bearing  Section 24(c) uses  on the  label  may  only be  sold
in those States listed.
-------
                                                           2 - 24.1

    This policy applies only to additional State registered uses
of a Federally registered product.  Lt does not not apply to
State registered products.

See Also:

     Section 24(c)  Registration Guidelines 40 CFR Part 162.150-162.156,
                                                                     i
References:

     Letter of June 23, 1977 from A. E. Conroy II to Mr. Arthur F.
Gohlke, Cities Service Company.
  .                       \+
Key Uords:

     Intrastate Use, Labeling, Special Local  Need, 24(c).
                                  A.  I.  Ccnroy 11 ,/OTrb'Ctor
                                  PesticHes and  Toxi
-------
    FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY SECTION 25 INDEX PAGE








HUE                                              NUMBER



Child Resistant Packaging                  '         25.1
-------
                     C h i 1 d •"> e s i' t ci n t P li c k £~ i 'i r   ...


FIFRA Section:  25(c)(3)

I ssu.e:

     Are small packages of pesticide products whicn are labeled
"For Agricultural  Use Only" or which have directions expressed
in number of pounds per: acre but which are marketed for homeowner
use automatically  excluded from the Child Resistant Packaging
( CP.P ) requi rement?

Poli cy:

     Labeling a- pesticide "For Agricultural Use Only" or expressing
the dosage rate in pounds per acre, label language usually reserved
for "agricultural" products, does not automatically remove the
pesticide from the Child  Resistant Packaging  requirements.

Discussion:

     The Child Resistant  Packaging Regulation, 40 CFR 152.15,
requires a pesticide to be in such c-ackag.i ng  if it meets certain
criteria.  One criterion  is that the product  is intended for use
in. on or around all structures, vehicles or  areas associated >> i t n
the household or homelife.

     Labeling a—product "For Agricultural Use Only" removes a
product from the CR? recui rement .only if the  label  statement is
consistent with other label language and ma r'< 2 t.i n : practices for
agricultural  use.   If, for example, the product is marketed in
     Expressing the use directions in terms of number of pounds
per acre do-33 not in or by itself preclude rc-3 i de~ t ? £ i  use.   This
also wo'j'd net affect whether cr not a prod-jc" reuu"'" = 3 Cu?.

     Therefore, where the package size is small,  the  product is
marketed, in home and garden stores,  cr "he entire net contents,
if applied at the labeled dosage rate, would only cover 3 limited
area,  such as a home garden clot, CRP wo'jlc b= requires if th3
CR? criteria are met regardless of whether the label  also states
"For A-ricu 1 tural lisa Cr.ly" or the d:sag£ rate is ixpressed  in
agricultural  terms, such as pounds per acre.
-------
                              -2-
     Additionally, a oroduct "ay be ;7n sbranded.  iccorci'in.: to
t n e proposed Registration Guidelines for Labeling, if the
dosage rate exceeds the net contents of the product.

References:

     40 CFR Part 162.16

     Memorandum to Roy P. Clark, Region IV. from A. E. Ccnroy II,
     dated July 27, 1982.

Key Words:

     Agricultural  Use Only
     Child Resistant Packaging
     Label ing
                              A . \ E . ' ;S-6 n r o y II, 0 i r ectc r
                              P e s"'t i c i d e s and Toxic Substance
                                Enforcement Division
                                           Oats
-------
     FIFHA COMPLIANCE  PROGRAM  POLICY  SECTION  26  INDEX  PAGE





TITLE                                            "  NUMBER



Transfer of Use Enforcement  Primacy  to  the  States  26.1



Referral of State Misuse Cases  to  EPA              26.2
-------
           FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY  No. 26.1

       Transfer of Use Enforcement Primacy to the States


FIFRA Section;  26

Issue:

     At what point does primary enforcement responsibility
for pesticide use violations (primacy)' transfer from EPA to
a State?

Pol 1cy:

     Primacy authority 1s transferred to a State when the State
formally accepts a written offer by the Administrator to convey
such authority.  Primacy is also transferred when a cooperative
enforcement agreement is signed by the Administrator and the
State,  unless the terms of the agreement specify ot'hirwise.

Discussion;

     Section 26 of FIFRA authorizes the Administrator to grant
primacy to a State if the State has adopted adequate laws and
adequate procedures for implementing such laws, or if'the State
has an  approved certification  plan that meets  the adequate laws
and procedures criteria.  In addition, States  may obtain primacy
by entering into a cooperative agreement for the enforcement of
pesticide use restrictions under Section 23 of FIFRA.

     To'transfer primacy through the first two mechanisms, the
Administrator will write to the Governor offering to grant
primacy to the State.  The Administrator's letter will  request
a formal  response to the offer of primacy.  The transfer of
primary use enforcement responsibility will  not be effective
until  the Governor or his representative posts a written response
accepting primacy.  With respect to the third  mechanism, when
a State signs a cooperative agreement which calls for the State
to monitor and enforce compliance with pesticide use restrictions,
such State assumes use enforcement primacy unless the terms of
the agreement specify otherwise.  Thus the signing of an agree-
ment which specifically states that the assumption by a  State of
primacy depends upon the occurrence of an event does not transfer
primacy authority until the event takes place.  Cooperative
enforcement agreements which do not contain such conditions
will serve to convey primacy to a State upon signature  of the
Governor and the Administrator or their duly designated
Representatives.
-------
Key Words:
                                                        2  -  26.1
     Certification Plan,  Cooperative  Enforcement  Agreement,
Primacy,  State Authority, Use Enforcement.
                      A.  E.  Conroy  II,.Di
                      Pesticides  and  Tox
                         Enforcement  Div
                               HAY  10 1982
                                  Date
bstances
-------
             FIFRA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM POLICY No. 26.2

              Referral of State Misuse Cases to EPA
FIFRA Section:  26

Issue:

      Is it legally permissible for the Environmental Protection
Agency to prosecute Federal pesticide misuse violations which
are based on evidence collected by State inspectors following
State procedures?

Pol icy:

     As long as States follow basic Constitutional evidentiary
procedures, evidence collected under State authority can be used
to prosecute violations of Federal pesticides laws.

Discussion:

     Pursuant to Section 26 of FIFRA, most States now exercise
primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide misuse violations.
Although the Federal government retains concurrent authority
with the States to prosecute misuse violations, this power is
not .ordinarily exercised.

     Accordingly, States with primacy generally conduct use
inspections under the authority of State law.  In the usual
pesticide misuse case, State law provides ample enforcement
authority for the State to effectively prosecute misuse violations.
Consequently, the States need not generally refer misuse cases
to the EPA for prosecution under the parallel Federal  authorities.

     However, there are two instances where the States  may choose
to refer misuse cases to EPA for Federal  prosecution:

1) When the misuse is prohibited by Federal law, but not by State
   1 aw , or,

2) When both State and Federal  law prohibit the misuse, but
   the. State lacks adequate resources to pursue prosecution.

     When either of these types of misuse cases is referred
to EPA for action, the Agency will review the case file
to ensure that the State inspection procedures adhere to basic
Constitutional  guarantees.  Information collected by State
inspectors is not excluded in court merely because it is
gathered by State inspectors; instead it is subject to  the
common law rules of evidence or to the Federal  Rules of
-------
                                                     2 - 26.2


Evidence.  The Issue of the admlsslbi1ity of evidence derived
from State inspections involves the analysis of two questions:
(1) was the information and evidence obtained by State inspec-
tors legally obtained, and (2) is that  evidence within the scope
of admissible evidence.  If both of these questions can be
affirmatively answered for any given information, then that
evidence may be properly introduced into a civil or criminal
proceeding to enforce a violation of the FIFRA.

     Accordingly, the wide variety of State inspection procedures
do not affect the capacity of the Agency to accept a misuse case
for prosecution.  States may follow their own inspection procedures
without regard to whether or not the misuse case will be referred
to the Agency.  The eventual referral of the case to the Agency
for prosecution does not require a State inspector to change  any
existing State inspection procedures.

Key Words;

     Evidence, Misuse, Privacy, State Authority .
                      A< E. Conroy II, Di^etnTor
                      Pesticides and To^fc/Substances
                         Enforcement

                               • W  I OISS2
-------
                        KEY WORD  INDEX
FCPP =  FIFRA Compliance Program  Policy
PCN  •=  Office of Pesticide Programs Policy and  Criteria  Notices
Adverti si ng
Aeri al Appli cati on
Agricultural Use Only
Aircraft, Airplane
Aluminum Phosphide Products
Amended Registration
  and Classification
2162.1 PCN, 2162.3  PCN
2190.1 PCN
25.1  FCPP
2190.1 PCN
3.3 FCPP
2460.2 PCN
Batch Parameters
2476.1 PCN
Certified Applicator
Certi fication Plan
Changed Use Patterns
Child Resistant Packaging
Chiorof1uorocarbons
Classification
Classification of Disinfectant-
  Type Products
Classification Statement
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Closed System
12.4 FCPP
26.1 FCPP
2460.2 PCN
25.1 FCPP
2300.1  PCN
2460.2 PCN
2460.1  PCN

2165.1  PCN
2155.2 PCN
2180.1  PCN
12.2 FCPP
-------
Commensual  Rodenticide Raits
Conditional  Registration
Con f i dent i ali ty
Cooperative  Enforcement
  Agreement
Contract Manufacturing
Custom Blenders
2164.1  PCN, 2164.2 P'CN
3068.2  PCN
10.1  FCPP
26.1  FCPP

3.2 FCPP, 3.6 FCPP
3.4 FCPP, 7.1 FCPP
Data Requirements
Dealer
Dimethyl Sul foxi de.
Di sclaimers
Di sinfectants
Disinfectant-Type Product
Distributor Registrations
Domestic Use
2075.1  PCN
12.4 FCPP
2475.2 PCN
2163.1  PCN
2460.1  PCN
2460.1  PCN
3.2 FCPP, 3.6 FCPP
2460.1  PCN
Emeti c
End Use Product
Environmental  Hazard Label
Establish Competency
Establishment  Registration
Establishment  Transfer
Evi dence
2161.1  PCN
2010.2 PCN
2180.1  PCN
4.1  FCPP
3.5 FCPP, 7.1 FCPP, 10.1 FCPP
3.6 FCPP
26.2 FCPP
-------
Exempti ons
Experimental  Use Permits
Eye Irritation
3.1 FCPP
12.1 FCPP, 2162".3 PCN
2161 .2 PCN
Feed and Pesticide Mixtures
Fertilizer-Pesticide Mixtures
Fi re Retardant
Food Fragrances
Foreign Trade Zones
Freeports
Fumigation
2000.2 PCN
2.1  FCPP, 3.4 FCPP, 2000.1  PCN
2475.1 PCN
2155.1 PCN
17.1 FCPP
17.1 FCPP
3.3   FCPP
Gascons Products
  (Under Pressure)
2300.1  PCN
He!i copter
2190.1  PCN
Imports
Inspecti ons
Intra State Use
17.2 FCPP
12.3 FCPP
24.1 FCPP
-------
Knowledgeable Expert
2.1  FCPP
Label ,  Labeli ng
Liability Limitations
Liquid Products
2.2 FCPP, 3.3 FCPP, 24.1 FCPP,
25.1  FCPP,
2160.1  PCN
2163.1  PCN,
2170.1  PCN,
2300.1  PCN;
2163.1  PCN
2300.1  PCN
                                              2010.1  PCN,  2076.1  PCI
                                              2161.1  PCN,  2162.1  PCf
                                              2164.1  PCN,  2165.1  PCf
                                              2130.1  PCN,  2190.1  PC!
                                              3085.2  PCN
Mail Order Advertisement
Make Available for Use
Mi suse

Multi-Purpose or Multi-Use
  Substances
Multi-Use Products
Multiple Formulations
Multiple Labels
Museum Use
2162.1 PCN
12.4 FCPP
2.1 FCPP, 1 2.2 FCPP,' 12.3  FCPP,
26.2 FCPP
2.1 FCPP, 2050.1  PCN

17.2 FCPP
2000.2 PCN
2010.1 PCN
2030.2 PCN'
New Use Patterns
Non-Crop Application
Non-Cropland
Non-Flammable
Non-Pesticidal  Purposes
Notice of Arrival
2460.2 PCN
2160.1 PCN
2160.2 PCN
2300.1 PCN
2.1  FCPP, 2050.1 -PC N
17.2 FCPP    . •;    :'
Outer Containers
2.2 FCPP
-------
  Personal Protective Equipment
  Pesticidal  Use
  Petitioner Eligibility
  Phosphine Gas
  Phostoxin
12.2 FCPP
2050.1 PCN
2100.3 PCN
3.3 FCPP
3.3 FCPP
  Point Source Discharge Products   2180.1 PCN
  Pressurized Products
  Primacy
  Private Applicator Certification  4.1 FCPP
  Processing                        17.1 FCPP
  Product Registration              3.5 FCPP
  Production Data                   10.1 FCPP
2300.1 PCN
26.1 FCPP, 26.2 FCPP
  Rail Cars
  Reentry Statements
  Reformulation
 ' Reformulation of End-Use
    Products
  Registration

-^.'Released- for Shipment
  Repackaged End-Use Products
3.3 FCPP
2076.1 PCN
2010.2 PCN
2010.2 PCN

3.4 FCPP, 3.5 FCPP, 17.1 FCPP,
2010.2 PCN, 2460.2 PCN
2030.1 PCN
2010.2 PCN
-------
Repackagi ng
Reporti ng
Reregi strati on
Restricted Use Pesticide  (RUP)
Rodenticides
 3.2 FCPP , 17.1 FCPP,  2010.2  PCM
 7.1 FCPP
 2476.1 PCN
 12.4 FCPP7 . ••  ..'.--i:
.2164.1 PCN, 2164.2  PCN
Safening Agent
Seed Treatment
Shi pping Contai ners
Shipment .
Ski n Irri tati on
Sodium Chlorate
Sol vents
Special Local  Need
State Authority
Substantially  Similar Pesticide
Supplemental Registrations
                              T
Target Pest
Tolerances
Toxicity Criteria
Trademark Names
Truck Fumigation
Truck Vans
Twenty-four (c), [24(c)]
Two (ee), [2(ee)]
 2255   PCN.   ...
 21 70.1; .PCN  '
 2.2 F.CP-P'r
 3.1 FCPP
 2161.2 PCN      >
 2475.1 PCN
 2155.2 PCN
 24.1 FCPP
 26.1 FCPP, 26.2 FCPP
 3060.2 PCN
 3.2 FCPP
                "'- >i-'
 2.1 FCPP
 2100.1 PCN, 2100.3  PCN,  2135.1  PO.
 2161.2 PCN
 2162.2 PCN
 3.3 FCPP
 3.3 FCPP
 24.1 FCPP
 2.1 FCPP, 12.1 FCPP
-------
    Uncerti fred Person
r,'cr 1. U n r e g is t
-------
V)
o
-------