Download:
pdf |
pdfUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
OFFICE OF
PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
February 14, 2017
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Regional Pesticide Supervisors
FROM:
Lance Wonnell, Chief
/ · • '-
~
Govenunent and lntematio~s Branch
Field and External Affairs Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
u#AA~L .
ti~
Elizabeth Vizard, Chief
Pesticides, Waste and Toxi~~~1'
Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
SUBJECT:
I
JOINT OPP/OECA FY2018-2021 FIFRA COOPERAT;+E AGREEMENT
GUIDANCE AND FIFRA WORK PLAN ANO REPOR TEMPLATE
1
Anached is the final version of the joint OPP/OECA 2018-202 1 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
as well as the updated FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template. Please share he guidance and template with
the states, tribes and territories in your region. All applicants should use he updated FIFRA Guidance and
Template in negotiating cooperative agreements for FY2018.
The 2018-202 1 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance is made up of he main guidance document (21
pages), and 13 appendices, which provide additional information. While e document is large, the main
portion of the guidance, and particularly the matrices, provide most of th~ key information needed to
understand EPA ' s expectations for National Pesticide Program Cooperadve Agreements. Key changes
between the FY2015-2017 FfFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance and the FY2018-2021 FIFRA
Cooperative Agreement Guidance include:
I. Updated worker protection standard requirements as the result of changes to the rule;
2. Updated applicator certification requirements as a result of changes t the rule;
3. Updated the required list to move the container/containment program area to be part of the basic
pesticide program requirements;
4. Updated the required list to move soil fumigants program area to a br ad pick-list program area that
includes all fumigants;
5. Added product integrity as a required program area;
6. Added border compliance as a required program area;
7. Added emerging public health pesticide issues to the pick-list;
8. Added the Compliance Monitoring Strategy as an appendix;
9. Updated Appendix 13: Reporting and Coordination of High Level esticide Incidents;
10. Added a section to the FIFRA Report and Work Plan Template for retired/inactivated" program areas,
and added an explanation of this section to the main body of the g~Ciance (retired/inactive pick-list
program areas include imports, supplemental distributors, contract anufacturers and the national data
system); and
11. Changed the guidance from a three-year to a four-year document to etter align with the NPM
guidance development process.
This cover letter, final guidance and appendices, and the FIFRA templa e and instruction manual will be
uploaded to the EPA compliance website: htt s://v.rv..·w.e a. 1 ov/com Ii nce/state-oversieht-resources-and
euidance-documents. All files will be Adobe PDF except for the tempi te which is in Excel.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments during the review cycle. If ydu have any questions, please
contact either Lance Wormell at 703-603-0523 for pesticide program q estions, or Liz Vizard at 202-564
5940 for pesticide compliance monitoring and enforcement related ques ·ons.
Thank you.
Attachments
2018-2021 FIFRA
Cooperative
Agreement
Guidance
February 14, 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................1
A.
National Pesticide Program Goals .............................................................................................................1
B.
Guidance Framework ................................................................................................................................2
C.
Multi-Year Agreements.............................................................................................................................3
D.
Applicability of Guidance to Tribes ..........................................................................................................3
E.
Work Plan and Reporting Framework .......................................................................................................3
F.
EPA Oversight Responsibilities ................................................................................................................3
II. REQUIRED PROGRAM AREAS.....................................................................................................................5
III. GRANTEE PROGRAM AREA PICK-LIST ...................................................................................................9
IV. SUPPLEMENTAL AND INACTIVE PROGRAM AREAS .........................................................................13
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................................13
A. Standard Application Forms ........................................................................................................................13
B. Performance Partnership Grants ..................................................................................................................14
C. Budget Requirements...................................................................................................................................14
1. OPP and OECA Cost-Sharing..................................................................................................................14
2. Budget Detail............................................................................................................................................15
D. Work Plans...................................................................................................................................................15
E. Accountability of State/Tribal Cooperative Agreement Funds ....................................................................16
F. Quality Management Plans (QMPs) and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs)...................................17
G. Laboratory Competency ..............................................................................................................................17
H. Sustainability Considerations.......................................................................................................................18
I. Certification Concerning and Disclosure of “Influencing Activities” ...........................................................18
J. Debarment and Suspension Certification ......................................................................................................19
VI. APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES...................................................................................................19
VII. ALLOTMENT OF STATE/TRIBAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FUNDS .......................................19
VIII. REPORTING and ENFORCEMENT MEASURES....................................................................................19
A.
Reporting .................................................................................................................................................19
Table 1, Summary of Reports and Annual Due Dates ..................................................................................20
1. High -Level Pesticide Incidents and FIFRA Referrals .............................................................................20
Table 2, Comparison Chart of FIFRA Referrals...........................................................................................21
2. Enforcement Measures/Measures eReporting ..........................................................................................21
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas ...................................................................... 22
Appendix 2: FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template Description and Links................................................. 54
Appendix 3: State Primacy under FIFRA and EPA Oversight Questions and Answers ........................... 55
Appendix 4: Enforcement Priority Setting Guidance ................................................................................ 58
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy.......................................................................................... 60
Appendix 6: OPP Guidance for Submission of State and Tribal Water Quality Monitoring Data............ 83
Appendix 7: Base List of Pesticides of Interest ......................................................................................... 87
Appendix 8: FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Application Review Checklist ........................................... 88
Appendix 9: EPA Pesticide State/Tribal Cooperative Agreement Application Review Procedures ......... 95
Appendix 10: Guidelines for EPA Form 5700-33H within the Work Plan-Report Template.................. 99
Appendix 11: Guidelines for WPS EPA Form 5700-33H within the Work Plan-Report Template.........106
Appendix 12: Guidelines for Container/Containment Form 5700-33H within Template ........................108
Appendix 13: Reporting and Coordination of High Level Pesticide Incidents.........................................110
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
iii
I. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or Agency) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) are issuing the national FY 2018-2021 Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Cooperative Agreement Guidance (Guidance), to be
used by the EPA regional offices in negotiating and overseeing cooperative agreements with states,
territories and Indian tribes (“grantees”), as authorized under Sections 23(a)(1) and 23(a)(2) of FIFRA. 1
The purpose of this Guidance is to identify pesticide program and compliance and enforcement program
areas that must be addressed in state and tribal cooperative agreements and to provide information on work
plan generation, reporting and other requirements.
OPP provides funds to support “program activities” for pesticide program development and implementation,
including: education, outreach, training, technical assistance and evaluation activities. OECA provides
funds to support “compliance and enforcement activities,” which include compliance assistance, compliance
monitoring, case development and enforcement. This joint Guidance is intended to help coordinate the
pesticide program and compliance and enforcement activities in support of the goals of the National
Pesticide Program. Thus, the two sets of activities are interconnected, but may be handled either
independently or under a single cooperative agreement.
National Pesticide Program Goals
The goal of the National Pesticide Program, consistent with FIFRA, is to ensure that pesticides are made
available for use, and are properly sold, distributed, and used, in a way that is protective of human health
and the environment. The National Pesticide Program protects people and ecosystems that may be exposed
to pesticides, through its pesticide product registration and registration review program, outreach, technical
assistance, and compliance and enforcement programs. Achieving these protective outcomes requires
collaborative efforts by citizens, pesticide users, states, tribes, territories, regions, OPP, OECA, and other
partners. As co-regulators, states, tribes and territories serve an essential role as the EPA’s “eyes and ears”
on the ground to identify pesticide concerns; to provide EPA feedback from the field to determine if
intended risk mitigation measures are effective; to monitor compliance with the regulated community; and
to take appropriate enforcement action when necessary.
The National Pesticide Program areas reflected in this Guidance are developed by OPP, OECA and the EPA
regional offices with extensive input from states and tribes, and are consistent with EPA’s Strategic Plan and
Agency priorities. To that end, the program areas listed in this Guidance reflect both national and regional
1
Section 23(a)(1) of FIFRA, as amended, authorizes the EPA to enter into cooperative agreements with states,
territories and Indian tribes (“grantees”) to conduct pesticide enforcement programs and Section 23(a)(2) provides for
certification and training programs. Pursuant to the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for FY1999 (Pub. L. No. 105-276, Title III, 112 Stat.
2499 (1998)), pesticide program implementation grants under Section 23(a)(1) of FIFRA are available for “pesticide
program development and implementation, including enforcement and compliance activities. The regulations
governing cooperative agreements are in Title 40 CFR Part 30 for institutions of higher education and Part 35 for states
and tribes.
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
1
pesticide concerns. However, the degree to which a particular pesticide issue, program area or activity is of
concern in a particular state or tribe may vary. This Guidance attempts to recognize that reality and balance
support for National Pesticide Program priorities, goals and performance measures, with providing grantees
flexibility to focus on those national program areas which present the greatest concerns locally. Through
this approach, we believe all national priorities will be addressed, although not by each grantee or with the
same level of effort, and local pesticide resources will be directed to where they are most needed.
Guidance Framework
The framework of the national Guidance is structured to ensure usability, and clearly communicate
expectations to grantees. The charts in Sections II and III concisely summarize the OPP and OECA
program areas and activities that each grantee is required to support, and a pick-list of national program
priorities that the grantee must choose from to support. For many grantees, these charts will provide most of
the information needed to understand EPA’s expectations for National Pesticide Program Cooperative
Agreements. However, more details and context for each program area can be found in Appendix 1,
Supplemental Information for Program Areas.
Programs areas listed in Sections II and III are designated as either required or pick-list program areas. The
grantee and the EPA regional office will negotiate the acceptable performance level and resources necessary
for all activities included in the work plan.
• Section II: Required Program Areas – These areas are of particular importance during the cooperative
agreement guidance period. While the level of effort invested in each required program area is
negotiable between the grantee and EPA region, some level of effort is mandatory and must be reflected
in grantee work plans.
• Section III: Grantee Program Area Pick-List – Grantees must select a subset of the listed program
areas from the “pick list”, based on regional and local considerations. All program areas on the pick-list
are national priorities; however, EPA recognizes that the relative importance of each of these program
areas may vary for each grantee based on their pesticide risk concerns. Grantees must include activities
in their work plans to support one program area on the pick-list funded by OPP, and one program area
funded by OECA. The selected program areas can either be aligned (i.e., activities for both OPP and
OECA from the same program area) or from different program areas.
Most program areas and their associated activities are described broadly to allow grantees and regions the
flexibility to negotiate specific work plan activities that reflect the grantee’s needs, concerns and resources.
However, in a few cases such as Worker Safety and Applicator Certification, the required activities are very
specific and must be included in the work plan. For these program areas, it is felt that completion of the
specific activities by the grantee is needed to meet the national goals of the program.
The EPA acknowledges that certain activities and functions of a pesticide program are not predictable. For
example, throughout a given period, a situation may arise whereby the cooperative agreement recipient must
act to address a crisis or EPA may be required to obtain certain information or institute certain activities in
the field. To the extent possible, this Guidance allows regions and grantees latitude within the agreements to
account for such unforeseen circumstances. And if necessary, work plans can be amended and re
negotiated.
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
2
Grantees may negotiate a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) in lieu of pesticide program and
enforcement cooperative agreements. Under the PPG system, regions and grantees should continue to use
this Guidance to ensure that program areas are addressed consistent with this Guidance. More information
on PPGs can be found on page 13 of this Guidance.
Multi-Year Agreements
Regions are encouraged to pursue multi-year cooperative agreements and work plans for the period of this
Guidance where both the region and grantee agree that such an approach would reduce administrative
burden. However, such agreements and work plans are subject to availability of funds and changing
priorities or current events. While multi-year work plans span the life of the agreement, work plans will still
need to be renegotiated annually to make sure any new issues are addressed.
Applicability of Guidance to Tribes
EPA recognizes that available resources, program capacity and needs for many tribes are not comparable to
those of most state pesticide programs. Therefore, all required program areas or activities listed in this
Guidance may not be appropriate for all tribes and do not necessarily need to be included in tribal
cooperative agreements. Regions may negotiate the tribal cooperative agreements and work plans on a
case-by-case basis to focus on program and enforcement areas and levels of attainment relevant to the
capacity and needs of the tribal pesticide program. A January 2011 document, Guidance for Funding
Development and Administration of Tribal Pesticide Field Program and Enforcement Cooperative
Agreements, provides more detail on funding tribal cooperative agreements. This can be viewed at:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100AVNU.txt In addition, the FIFRA Project Officer
Manual has a chapter on managing tribal grants.
Work Plan and Reporting Framework
EPA has developed a FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template (FIFRA template) for
work plans and reports for cooperative agreements awarded under this Guidance. The FIFRA template,
which is an Excel spreadsheet, was developed by EPA with extensive input and a considerable amount of
support from states with the goal of significantly reducing the administrative burden associated with work
plan development and accomplishment reporting for both the grantee and EPA regional personnel. The
FIFRA template also promotes clarity in work plan expectations and end-of-year results, makes work plans
and reports more consistent throughout the country, and facilitates compilation and review of national yearend data.
As of FY 2017, all FIFRA Cooperative Agreements must be reported via the FIFRA template. A link to the
FIFRA template, instructions for its use, and a brief description can be found in Appendix 2, FIFRA
Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template Description and Links. Reporting requirements are
summarized in Section VIII, Table 1, Summary of Reports and Annual Due Dates.
EPA Oversight Responsibilities
EPA’s collaboration efforts with states and tribes began in the 1970’s when FIFRA was amended to allow
EPA to enter into cooperative agreements with states and tribes (FIFRA Section 23) and was further
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
3
broadened to allow states to obtain primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations (FIFRA
Section 26).
The Regional EPA Offices are substantially involved in the implementation of state and tribal FIFRA
programs. Regional project officers will negotiate work plans, monitor the progress of work plan
commitments, and provide fiduciary oversight. Regional offices, OPP and OECA communicate regularly
on all aspects of FIFRA implementation. EPA also ensures that states can maintain primacy. Appendix 3,
State Primacy under FIFRA and EPA Oversight Questions and Answers, provides more information
concerning “primacy” and EPA’s role in overseeing a state’s program where primacy has been granted.
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
4
II. REQUIRED PROGRAM AREAS
REQUIRED program areas represent areas of work that are important at a national level during this Guidance period. While all listed activities below are
required, the level of effort invested in each required program area and activity is negotiable between the grantee and EPA region and must be reflected in
grantee work plans. Note each program area is followed by a unique number that links to the FIFRA Template. In some cases, the numbers are not
sequential due to activities that are no longer active. See section IV for more information. Each of these program areas support the Agency’s Strategic Plan,
to ensure the safety of chemicals, prevent pollution, and enforce environmental laws.
Work Expectations
Specific Activities Negotiated between Grantee and Region
Goal
Activities Supported by OPP Funding
Activities Supported by OECA Funding
Required Program Area: Basic Pesticide Program (01)
Maintain a basic level of pesticide
program implementation,
compliance assistance, and
enforcement to ensure a viable
pesticide regulatory and
enforcement program, achieve
environmental results, and
maximize success with the
Agency’s performance measures.
The basic program includes
previously required program areas
such as container containment and
soil fumigation; these areas are
now part of the overall pesticide
program.
Required Activities:
01.00.01 Complete administrative/management, fiduciary and reporting requirements associated with this cooperative agreement.
01.00.02 Build or maintain staff and management expertise on pesticide program issues and enforcement (e.g., attend training opportunities through
PREP, PIRT, in-service training, etc., or other appropriate activities).
01.00.03 Respond to pesticide inquiries, concerns, tips, and complaints from the public.
Required Activities:
01.01.01 Provide outreach, communication, and training as
appropriate as a result of new emerging issues, rules,
regulations, and registration and registration review
decisions.
01.01.02 Report information on all known or suspected pesticide
incidents involving pollinators to OPP ([email protected])
with a copy to the regional project officer.
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
Required Activities:
01.02.01 Project inspection numbers, and report inspection and enforcement
accomplishments using the 5700 forms, and the performance
measures form contained in the FIFRA template.
01.02.02 Maintain adequate pesticide laws, rules, and associated
implementation procedures.
01.02.03 Provide outreach and compliance assistance.
01.02.04 Maintain and use a priority setting plan for inspections &
investigations, addressing grantee and EPA- identified priorities (see
Appendices 4 and 5).
01.02.06 Develop/maintain a searchable inspection/investigation and case
tracking system and track all inspections/investigations and cases.
01.02.07 Ensure a minimum of one state employee obtains and maintains an
EPA inspector’s credential. Where state authority is inappropriate or
inadequate, or at EPA’s request, conduct FIFRA inspections with
EPA credentials, according to EPA procedures and guidance
documents.
01.02.08 Refer all inspections conducted with federal credentials to the region.
5
01.02.09 Refer cases to the region for enforcement consideration according to
a mutually identified referral priority scheme.
01.02.10 Maintain and follow an enforcement response policy to develop and
issue enforcement actions.
01.02.11 Follow up on significant or grantee and region agreed upon pesticide
incidents referred by EPA as required by FIFRA Sections 26 and 27.
01.02.12 Conduct inspections as negotiated and consistent with the FIFRA
Inspection Manual.
01.02.13 Maintain and follow a Quality Management Plan for the overall
pesticide enforcement program.
01.02.14 Maintain and follow Quality Assurance Project Plan(s) for pesticide
sample collection and analysis.
01.02.15 Maintain access to adequate laboratory support capacity.
01.02.16 Assist EPA in enforcing regulatory actions and monitoring Section 18
Emergency Exemptions, Section 24(c) Special Local Needs, and
Section 5 Experimental Use Permits.
Required Program Area: Pesticide Worker Safety: Worker Protection Standard (02)
Prevent or reduce occupational
pesticide exposures, incidents and
illnesses from pesticides, especially
ones that pose high risks or
potentially high exposures to
workers.
Required Activities:
02.01.01 Implement the November 2, 2015, rule revisions to the
Part 170 Worker Protection Standard (WPS) rule, and
carry out WPS program implementation activities in
accordance with this and other applicable EPA guidance.
02. 01.02 Conduct WPS-related outreach, education and technical
assistance on the revised rule’s requirements to the
regulated and impacted community.
02.01.03 Support WPS worker & handler training:
a) Assist in the development (as needed) and distribution
of EPA approved WPS training materials for workers
and handlers to ensure that employers and trainers can
comply with new WPS training requirements;
b) Facilitate adoption of WPS Train-the-Trainer (TTT)
programs to improve the quality and effectiveness of
WPS trainers/training;
c)
Update existing state/tribal-level WPS training or
educational materials and/or use updated materials as
applicable/appropriate.
02.01.04 Assure mechanisms and procedures are in place to enable
coordination and follow-up on reports of occupational
pesticide exposure, incidents or illnesses that may be
related to pesticide use/misuse or WPS violations.
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
Required Activities:
02.02.01 Monitor compliance with the WPS requirements associated with use.
In targeting and prioritization within this activity, focus on high risk
pesticides, large numbers of workers, high exposure scenarios, or
repeat offenders.
02.02.03 Monitor compliance for WPS label language by comparing the
product label against the Section 3 accepted label.
02.02.04 Update as needed: WPS inspection manuals, checklists, SOPs, case
development procedures, and ERPs consistent with the revised WPS.
6
02.01.05 Attend and participate in any WPS training efforts
initiated by HQ or EPA Regions, and /or other WPS
trainings taking place in a state or Indian country.
Required Program Area: Pesticide Worker Safety: Pesticide Applicator Certification (03)
Prevent or reduce pesticide
exposures and incidents to humans
and the environment by increasing
the competence and expertise of
applicators/handlers of restricted
use pesticides.
Required Activities:
03.01.01 Implement the January 4, 2017, rule revisions to the Part
171 Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule, and carry
out the pesticide applicator certification program
implementation activities in accordance with this and
other applicable EPA guidance.
03.01.02 Meet state and tribal certification plan requirements for
certification plan maintenance and annual reporting using
the Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD)
03.01.03 Monitor applicator training programs to ensure quality
and that training programs comply with revised rule
requirements and applicable standards/guidance.
03.01.04 Develop and submit to EPA revised certification plans
that meet the requirements of the revised certification
rule. This includes making any necessary regulatory and
legislative changes and establishing requisite policies or
procedures to comply with the revised rule requirements
and all applicable Part 171 program guidance regarding
development, submission, approval and maintenance of
certification plans.
03.01.05 Provide outreach, education and technical assistance on
the revised Part 171 rule requirements to the regulated
and impacted community.
03.01.06 Update existing state/tribal-level applicator training and
certification materials as applicable/appropriate.
03.01.07 Attend and participate in any program-related training
efforts initiated by HQ or EPA Regions, and /or other
trainings taking place in the state or Indian country.
Required Activities:
03.02.01 Monitor compliance with the pesticide applicator certification
requirements. In targeting and prioritization within this activity, focus
on sale/distribution of restricted use pesticides (RUPs) to applicators;
in particular, structural fumigants and other fumigation sector(s) of
concern.
Required Program Area: Pesticides in Water (06)
Ensure that pesticides do not
adversely affect the nation’s water
resources.
Required Activities:
06.01.01 For pesticides scheduled for registration review, submit
existing water quality monitoring data not already
provided to EPA, housed in the USGS National Water
Information System (NWIS), entered into EPA's
STORET Data Warehouse, or otherwise readily/publicly
accessible to the EPA via the web. See OPP Guidance for
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
Required Activities:
06.02.01 Monitor compliance with pesticide water quality risk mitigation
measures, and respond to pesticide water contamination events
especially where water quality standards or other reference points are
threatened.
7
06.01.02
06.01.03
06.01.04
06.01.05
06.01.06
06.01.07
06.01.08
06.01.09
Submission of State and Tribal Water Quality Monitoring
Data, Appendix 6.
Evaluate: Identify pesticides of concern (POC) by
evaluating a list of pesticides of interest (pesticides which
have potential to threaten local resources) to determine if
those pesticides may be found at concentration levels
locally that are approaching or exceeding reference
points and therefore are a threat to local water quality.
The base list of pesticides of interest can be found in
Appendix 7.
Manage: Actively manage pesticides of concern beyond
the label to reduce or prevent further contamination of
local water resources.
Demonstrate progress: Show the management strategy has
effectively reduced the risk that concentrations will
exceed reference points.
Re-evaluate pesticides if there is new information that
could affect risk (e.g., new hazard data, significant
increase in use, a new OPP risk assessment or registration
decision involving a water quality concern).
Report progress of activities in 06.01.02 – 06.01.05 in
POINTS.
Where appropriate, consult with and/or coordinate
prevention and protection of water resources with other
agencies responsible for water resource protection.
On request from OPP, and in negotiation with your
region, evaluate additional pesticides of interest that have
water quality concerns. Grantees can add requested
pesticides to the Additional Pesticides of Interest list in
POINTS, and evaluate to determine whether they are
pesticides of concern.
Identify and evaluate additional pesticides of interest that
are not on the base list on an as needed basis. These
pesticides should be added to the Additional Pesticides of
Interest section of POINTS.
Required Program Area: Product Integrity (19)
The pesticide registration process
is intended to ensure human health
and environmental risks are
adequately mitigated. Safeguard
the basic integrity of the pesticide
registration process to protect
human health and the environment.
Required Activities:
N/A
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
Required Activities:
19.02.01 Conduct pesticide establishment inspections. Focus on supplemental
distributor products, contract manufacturers, fumigants, RUP or Tox
1 pesticides or other pesticides of regulatory concern to address
composition, registration and labeling issues.
8
19.02.02
In support of 19.02.01, collect samples and submit to laboratory for
formulation analysis to ensure product composition complies with
terms of registration.
Required Program Area: Border Compliance (20)
Prevent and reduce risks of unsafe
products entering the United States
by eliminating the distribution of
unregistered, misbranded or
adulterated pesticides
Required Activities:
20.02.01 At the region’s request, conduct inspections of imported products at
the point of importation or at the point of destination and collect
physical samples when appropriate.
20.02.02 At the region’s request, conduct PEIs to monitor imported products
being used as source materials in the production of new products.
Required Activities:
N/A
III. GRANTEE PROGRAM AREA PICK-LIST
The table below is a “pick list” of eight program areas. Grantees must, in negotiation with the region, include activities in the work plan that support one
program area for OPP, and one program area for OECA. The selected program areas can be aligned (i.e., activities for both OPP and OECA from the same
program area) or can be selected from different program areas, depending on regional and local considerations. Activities listed under each program area are
examples of activities that help achieve the program goal. If there are other activities that are more appropriate and help reach the intended goal, then they can
be used instead. Note each program area is followed by a unique number that links to the FIFRA Template. Each of these program areas support the Agency’s
Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals, prevent pollution, and enforce environmental laws.
Work Expectations
Specific Activities Negotiated between Grantee and Region
Goal
Activities Supported by OPP Funding
Activities Supported by OECA Funding
Pick-List Program Area: Fumigation and Fumigants (5)
Prevent or reduce incidents
resulting from fumigation
exposures.
N/A
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
05.02.02 Monitor compliance with fumigation labels with a focus on structural
fumigation and fumigants. Other fumigant uses of interest may
include rodent control, granaries, warehouse commodities, etc.
9
Pick-List Program Area: Endangered Species Protection (07)
Limit potential effects from
pesticide use to listed species,
while at the same time not
placing undue burden on
agriculture or other pesticide
users.
07.01.01 Provide outreach and education on the Endangered
Species Protection Program to current and potential
pesticide users and pesticide inspectors.
07.01.02 Provide risk assessment and risk mitigation support using
EPA’s stakeholder engagement process at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA
HQ-OPP-2012-442-0038
a) Provide information such as crop data, pesticide use
data, and species location data to OPP for use in
listed species-specific risk assessments for upcoming
registration review cases.
b) Comment on exposure assumptions used in risk
assessments.
c) Comment on the feasibility of proposed, listed
species-specific mitigation measures during OPP’s
standard processes of registration and registration
review.
d) Review draft bulletins if any are developed in a
state’s area.
07.01.03 Establish and maintain relationships with local and
regional fish and wildlife agencies.
07.01.04 Work with certification and training staff and cooperative
extension services to provide endangered species
information for pesticide applicator training.
N/A
Pick-List Program Area: Bed bugs (08)
Minimize the potential for
pesticide misuse/overuse and
spread of bed bug infestations by
increasing understanding of bed
bug prevention and control
approaches, and ensuring
compliance with accepted
control approaches.
08.01.01 Provide education, outreach and technical assistance on
pesticide safety and integrated pest management control
approaches, and guidance for responses to bed bug
infestations.
08.01.02 Develop partnerships and cooperation with other federal,
state, tribal, and local government agencies, and industry
associations to address the bed bug epidemic.
N/A
Pick-List Program Area: Pollinator Protection (09)
Ensure pollinators are protected
from adverse effects of pesticide
exposure.
09.01.01 Establish/maintain relationships with federal, state, tribal
and local agencies, beekeeper organizations, grower
organizations (e.g., commodity groups), crop advisors,
pesticide manufacturers (registrants), and other
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
N/A
10
09.01.02
09.01.03
09.01.04
09.01.05
09.01.06
stakeholder groups within the region to assist where
needed in combined pollinator protection activities.
Provide continuing educational opportunities and
outreach to keep growers, applicators, and handlers up-to
date on the most recent methods to protect pollinators,
such as IPM, BMPs, or softer applications.
Develop and implement managed pollinator protection
plans and/or pollinator protection plans focusing on
managed bees, as well as monarch butterflies or other
native pollinators.
Work with co-regulators and stakeholders to develop
measures to determine the effectiveness of these plans in
reducing pesticide risk to pollinators.
As appropriate, provide technical assistance, education
and outreach to support habitat restoration efforts to
enhance/supplement forage for bees and other pollinators,
such as the monarch butterfly.
Promote the use of BMPs, integrated roadside vegetation
management, and mowing best practices in roadsides,
rights-of-ways, or managed natural areas which may
support pollinator habitat and in turn support foraging
honeybees, monarch butterflies, and other pollinators.
Pick-List Program Area: School Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (10)
Decrease unnecessary exposure
of children in schools (grades K
12) to pests and pesticides
through increased adoption of
Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) programs.
10.01.01 Provide education, outreach and/or training on IPM
approaches to school districts or organizations with
influence in schools.
10.01.02 Forge partnerships with state and tribal agencies and/or
local chapters of national organizations to increase the
adoption of IPM in schools with a focus on the 2016
School IPM Roundtable Participants.
N/A
Pick-List Program Area: Spray Drift (11)
Reduce spray drift incidents by
increasing awareness and
adoption of spray drift reduction
techniques and technologies.
11.01.01 Conduct education and outreach activities that increase
awareness and adoption of spray drift reduction
techniques and technologies.
11.01.02 Gather spray drift incident data from the past 2-3 years to
form an incident baseline and then gather additional
incident data during the grant period. See Appendix 1 for
the type of information that should be gathered.
11.01.03 Minimize environmental and non-target risks from public
health pesticide applications, and report gathered data
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
11.02.01
Monitor compliance with spray drift label language and report
investigation findings as part of year–end reporting.
11
annually in a separate file attached as part of the end-of
year report.
Pick-List Program Area: State and Tribal Coordination and Communication (12)
Where appropriate, support
tribal pesticide program capacity
building and efficient use of
state resources by improving
coordination, communication
and cooperation between tribes
and states to advance pesticide
program implementation and
increase program efficiencies.
12.01.01 When conducting FIFRA-related training, involve state
and tribal staff and managers in training as appropriate in
an effort to share expertise and understanding.
12.01.04 Inform tribes of state-issued FIFRA Section 24(c) or
applications for a Section 18 registration.
12.02.01
12.02.02
12.02.03
12.02.04
12.02.05
When training FIFRA inspectors, involve state and tribal inspectors in
the training as appropriate in an effort to share expertise and
understanding.
Offer tribes an opportunity to ride along with state pesticide
inspectors, and vice versa, for training purposes.
Share information between states and tribes on tips, complaints,
violators, and/or incidents that may be relevant in or near Indian
country.
Provide lab support to tribes.
Work with tribes to identify establishments within tribal boundaries.
Pick-List Program Area: Emerging Public Health Pesticide Issues (21)
Minimize pesticide risk while
protecting human health from
emerging public health issues.
21.01.01 Conduct outreach and education to impacted communities
on methods to minimize pesticide risk while protecting
human health.
21.01.02 Coordinate with EPA regions and OPP on pesticide
issues related to human health, including Section 18 and
24(c) requests.
21.01.03 Coordinate with all federal, state and local agencies on
activities needed to protect human health from pesticide
risk, and minimize environmental and non-target
21.02.01
Respond to clearly identified public health pesticide issues by
providing compliance monitoring and enforcement.
risks from public health related pesticide
applications.
21.01.04 Identify ways to minimize environmental and nontarget risks from public health pesticide
applications; promote IPM methods to minimize
pesticide applications.
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
12
IV. SUPPLEMENTAL AND INACTIVE PROGRAM AREAS
The FIFRA Template includes a section to record additional activities which use regional discretionary
funds. This section follows the pick-list section with rows titled “Supplemental/Special Project Activity”
and “Regional Guidance Activity” for both program and enforcement work. This section should be
completed if the region is providing regional discretionary funds for specific work the region has negotiated
with the grantee.
For those program areas that were either required or on the pick-list previously and have been “retired”
beginning in FY 2018, reporting on activities associated with these programs can still occur in the FIFRA
template. Inactive program areas will be captured at the bottom of the work plan tab following the
Supplemental/Special Project section. This allows those grantees with multi-year agreements to complete
work committed to previously. Please note that reporting on inactive program areas is only required for
those grantees that have negotiated with their region to continue working on a program area that is no longer
active. Grantees may choose to do this if they are continuing work that is important to their state or tribe.
For the purposes of the FIFRA Template, inactive program areas will retain their unique numbers.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
For the purpose of this section, “grantees” are referred to as “applicants” during the cooperative agreement
application process. To ensure an orderly administrative review, programmatic evaluation, and funding of
cooperative agreement applications, 40 CFR Part 35.105 requires applications to be received by the
Regional Grants Management Offices at least 60 days prior to the beginning of the proposed budget period,
or by the date the regional offices provide as a result of EPA’s updated budget guidelines. Awards and
funds will be made and distributed as promptly as possible once federal budget figures are finalized.
In accordance with 40 CFR Part 35.113, the EPA will not reimburse applicants for costs incurred before the
date of award, unless it is a continuation award and the application was submitted by the applicant prior to
the expiration of the previous budget period. If applications for continuation awards are not received in a
timely manner, it will be necessary to request a formal deviation, approved by the Grants Administration
Division, before any pre-award costs may be approved. Applicants should be aware that a request for
formal deviation may further delay the award. If you have any questions, contact your project officer and
the Regional Grants Management Office for clarification.
In addition to this Guidance document, regions and applicants should consult the appropriate regulations in
40 CFR Parts 31 and 35, the Administrator’s Policy on Performance-Based Assistance, and the Assistance
Administration Manual when preparing, negotiating, and evaluating applications. Applicants can find more
information on grants policy, grants competition, regulations, and so forth at:
http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/how_to_apply.htm. In addition, a FIFRA Cooperative Agreement
Application Review Checklist is included in Appendix 8.
A. Standard Application Forms
Application kits including all the necessary application forms may be obtained from the EPA website at:
https://www.epa.gov/grants/application-kit-federal-assistance. All applications must be submitted via the
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
13
grants.gov website: www.grants.gov . The FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template
discussed in Appendix 2 must be used as the work plan during submission.
B. Performance Partnership Grants
In the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321,
1321-299 (1996) and EPA’s FY 1998 Appropriation Act, Pub. L. 105-65, 111 Stat. 1344, 1373 (1997),
Congress authorized the award of PPGs in which states, interstate agencies, tribes, or intertribal consortia
can choose to combine two or more environmental program grants. A recent grants policy created in
partnership between the Office of Grants and Debarment and the Office of Intergovernmental Relations (the
National Program Manager for PPGs) clarifies that universities are also eligible for PPGs, if they are
instruments of the state. See Grants Policy Issuance (GPI) 15-01: Performance Partnership Grants for States
for more information about university eligibility.
Under a PPG, a recipient can achieve cost and administrative savings through reductions in the amount of
grant paperwork as well as simplified accounting requirements that do not require the recipient to account
for expenditures in accordance with their original funding sources. With PPGs, recipients can negotiate
work plans with EPA that direct federal funds where the recipients need them most to address environmental
and public health problems. Recipients also can try new multimedia approaches and initiatives, such as
children’s health protection programs, multimedia inspections, compliance assistance programs, and
ecosystem management that were difficult to fund under traditional categorical grants.
Sections 35.130 through 35.138 of 40 CFR contain requirements that apply only to PPGs for states.
Sections 35.530 through 35.538 of 40 CFR contain the requirements for tribes or tribal consortia applying
for PPGs.
In negotiating a PPG, regions and applicants should continue to use this FIFRA Cooperative Agreement
Guidance to ensure that program and enforcement priorities are met. States and tribes may apply for PPGs
for a multi-year budget period not to exceed five years. The application must use the FIFRA template for the
FIFRA portion of the work plan under the PPG, and must include core performance measures or
accountability measures, as defined by appropriate environmental statutes, regulations and EPA or state
policy. PPGs are subject to the same reporting, joint evaluation and other accountability requirements
described in 40 CFR Part 35.
Under a PPG applicants have a consolidated PPG budget for accounting and reporting purposes. This means
that there is just one budget tracked and reported on annually. This gives applicants the flexibility to realign
resources among environmental programs based on negotiated work plan priorities. In some cases, approval
from EPA may be required prior to shifting resources. This also allows recipients to meet PPG match
requirements from a combination of program sources rather than with program-by-program matches. Match
requirements for states can be found in 40 CFR Part 35.136(a) and (b). Match requirements for tribes are
described in 40 CFR Part 35.536(b) and (c).
C. Budget Requirements
1. OPP and OECA Cost-Sharing
For Certification Programs, FIFRA, Section 23(a)(2), limits EPA’s share of the “total project costs” to not
more than 50% of the total funding level. [Note: For tribal applicants, applying for a PPG the cost share is
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
14
limited to no more than 10%. (See 40 CFR Parts 35.530 - 35.538.)]
For other field programs activities and enforcement work, a 15% match by applicants is recommended. This
may include in-kind services.
2. Budget Detail
Budget details must conform to cooperative agreement requirements. As available, the applicant should
include supportive itemized statements or factsheets to expand upon the expenditures proposed for all
required and applicant pick-list program areas and activities. This includes program maintenance for the cost
categories of personnel, travel, equipment and supplies. For multi-year assistance agreements, budget detail
must be provided for all years the assistance agreement covers, and then modified during annual
negotiations as appropriate. Specific information regarding the level of detail can be obtained from your
project officer and Regional Grants Management staff.
D. Work Plans
Each cooperative agreement application must be accompanied by a FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work
Plan-Report Template which is consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 35.107. The FIFRA template
must specify:
• The work plan components to be funded under the grant;
• The estimated work years and the estimated funding amounts for each work plan component;
• A performance evaluation process and reporting schedule in accordance with 40 CFR 35.115; and
• The roles and responsibilities of the applicant and EPA in carrying out the work plan commitments.
EPA’s Grants Policy Issuance 11-03 requires negotiated work plans to include three “essential elements”
that link the work plan commitments to EPA’s Strategic Plan. These essential elements are:
1. Strategic Plan Goal: all FIFRA cooperative agreement work plans are linked to two Agency goals in
the Agency’s FY14-18 Strategic Plan. OPP program work is linked to Goal 4: Ensuring the Safety of
Chemicals and Preventing Pollution. OECA enforcement work is linked to Goal 5: Enforcing
Environmental Laws.
2. Strategic Plan Objective: OPP program work is linked to Goal 4, Objective 1: Ensure Chemical Safety.
OECA enforcement work is linked to Goal 5, Objective 1: Enforce Environmental Laws.
3. Work Plan Commitments and Timeframe: all cooperative agreements must include the commitments for
each work plan component and a timeframe for their accomplishment.
This policy supplements or reinforces, but in no way supersedes, existing requirements in 40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart A. A current version of EPA’s Strategic Plan can be found on EPA’s website at:
https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan
In addition, all work plans must discuss the drawdown frequency for each budget year to comply with
EPA’s Grants Policy Issuance GPI 12-6: Timely Obligation, Award and Expenditure of EPA Grant Funds.
The FIFRA template is compliant with both these directives.
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
15
As indicated above, the cooperative agreement must include a timeframe and evaluation plan that is
mutually acceptable to EPA and applicants. At a minimum, the plan should include a schedule for
conducting timely end-of-year evaluations (EOY reports), preferably on-site (if the regional office’s budget
allows). While mid-year evaluation reports are not required, informal mid-year discussions are encouraged
to ensure work plan commitments are on track. This is an opportunity for the project officers and grantees to
assess progress and make any needed mid-year adjustments.
The applicant and the project officer should work closely together to ensure activities in the work plan
support national, state, tribal, and local priorities, and are consistent with applicable federal statutes,
regulations, circulars, and Executive Orders, as well as EPA delegations, approvals, or authorizations. The
Agency recognizes that activities may change as national and local conditions and priorities are updated.
Therefore, an updated work plan must be submitted annually for review and approval. This should be done
with the application if applying for funding annually.
The work plan is negotiated between the applicant and project officer. Please note that if an applicant or
project officer proposes a work plan that differs significantly from the program areas, goals, activities, or
performance measures in this Guidance, the region must consult with the appropriate National Program
Manager (OPP and/or OECA) before agreeing to the work plan. The components of the work plan are
specified in the FIFRA template.
E. Accountability of State/Tribal Cooperative Agreement Funds
According to 40 CFR 31.20, applicants must expend and account for funds awarded in accordance with
state/territory/tribal laws and procedures. Fiscal control and accounting procedures must be sufficient to:
1) Track the expenditure of funds separately for at least the certification program, the other required
program areas, and for each additional program area activity funded;
2) Permit preparation of Financial Status Reports required by the regulations; and
3) Permit the tracing of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been
used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes.
Applicants must state in their application that they will ensure that the activities detailed in 40 CFR 31.20
will be followed.
Applicants must maintain accounting records for funds awarded for each component under each agreement
including: receipts, matching contributions, and expenditures in accordance with all applicable EPA
regulations and generally accepted accounting principles.
For continuing programs, a proper filing system should be in place to maintain accounting information at the
start of the project period. New applicants must submit a description of the accounting filing system with
their cooperative agreement application and the system should be evident within three months of the start of
the project period.
The expenditures under the agreement must follow cost categories (i.e., budget line item or program
elements) established in the original agreement, except as provided for in 40 CFR 31.30, recipients and
sub-recipients can re-budget within the approved direct cost budget. Certain types of changes require prior
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
16
approval [see 40 CFR 31.30(c) through 31.30 (f)]. The regional project officer can provide more
information on re-budgeting requests.
F. Quality Management Plans (QMPs) and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs)
All state and tribal environmental programs that receive EPA assistance agreement funds and generate data,
must have a quality system in place conforming to the American National Standard Institute ANSI/ASQC
E4-2004, Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs-Requirements with Guidance
for Use. This quality system must be applied to all environmental programs within the scope of the
assistance agreement. Environmental programs are those that include direct measurements or data
generation, environmental modeling, compilation of data from literature or electronic media, and data
supporting the design, construction, and operation of environmental technology.
DOCUMENTATION NEEDED FROM APPLICANT:
1. All applicants applying for EPA assistance must submit a Quality Management Plan (QMP) prepared in
accordance with the specification provided in EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans
(QA/R-2) http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r2-final.pdf, which describes the quality system
implemented by the grantee.
2. The QMP will be reviewed and approved by the EPA Project Officer and the EPA Quality Assurance
Manager as a condition for award of any assistance agreement. The QMP must be submitted as part of
the application. If the QMP is not submitted as part of the application and the Agency decides to fund
the project, the EPA will include a term and condition in the assistance agreement. This term and
condition requires the applicant to submit the QMP within a specified time after award of the agreement
and notifies the applicant that work involving environmental programs cannot begin until the EPA
Project Officer informs them that the QMP has been approved.
The Assistance Agreement requires the applicant to submit Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) to
the EPA for review and approval by the EPA Project Officer and EPA Quality Assurance Manager
before undertaking any work involving environmental measurement or data generation. QAPPS must
be prepared using EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5)
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/finalqaappver9.pdf
3. Approval of the applicant’s QMP by the EPA Project Officer and the EPA Quality Assurance Manager,
may allow delegation of the authority to review and approve QAPPs to the applicant based on
procedures documented in the QMP.
AGENCY DOCUMENTATION:
The QMP for the EPA organization providing the financial assistance must define the process to be used to
ensure that the assistance agreement adequately addresses Quality Systems issues. In addition, the QMP
must describe how the EPA organization will conduct oversight of the assistance agreement to assure its
implementation as documented. The QMPs and associated QAPPs are submitted to the regional Quality
Assurance offices for review and approval; then reviewed and approved by the FIFRA project officers.
G. Laboratory Competency
Agency Policy Directive Number FEM-2012-02, Revision 1 requires that organizations performing
activities involving the use or generation of environmental data under covered assistance agreements must
provide the Agency with demonstration of competency in the field(s) of expertise. This policy applies to
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
17
competitive and non-competitive assistance agreements expected to exceed a total maximum value of
$200,000 (in federal funding)
Demonstration of lab competency may include but is not be limited to:
• Ongoing participation by the organization in proficiency testing or round robin programs conducted by
external organizations; and
• Other pertinent documentation that demonstrates competency (e.g., appropriate ISO certification, and
past performance to similar statement of work).
It should be noted that whomever is paying for the data specifies the accepted demonstration of competency.
For example, a region paying for the laboratory to do FIFRA residue samples for enforcement gets to
specify what certification they will accept, if they want proficiency samples, whether or not the QMP and
QAPP are acceptable, and what quality assurance and quality control is required. Additional information can
be found at:
(https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/competency-policy-aaia-new.pdf)
H. Sustainability Considerations
Beginning January 1, 2017, Grants Policy Issuance (GPI) 17-01: Sustainability in EPA Assistance
Agreements goes into effect for all assistance agreements. This policy encourages the integration of
sustainability considerations into assistance agreements awarded by EPA. Sustainability considerations will
depend upon the technical and programmatic nature of, and statutory/regulatory framework for, the program
and may include, as appropriate, the following:
1.
Develop a Green House Gas emissions inventory and a climate action plan
2.
Implement sustainable water infrastructure practices
3.
Utilize clean energy or implement other energy efficiency practices
4.
Implement sustainable construction practices (green building)
5.
Remediate contaminated sites with a reduced environmental footprint
6.
Utilize fuel efficient vehicles
7.
Purchase or lease more sustainable equipment, supplies, and services
8.
Implement sustainable materials management practices (reduce, reuse, recycle)
9.
Convene green conferences/meetings and alternatives to traditional travel
10. Consider other practices that directly reduce water, materials, climate, energy, or air impacts
This policy furthers the goals of the EPA’s Strategic Plan and the cross-agency strategy and Administrator’s
goal of Working toward a Sustainable Future.
I. Certification Concerning and Disclosure of “Influencing Activities”
All applicants (including state agencies) who request or receive grants or cooperative agreements exceeding
$100,000 must file a form with the awarding agency certifying that the applicant has not used, and will not
use, federal funds to influence the award of the grant or cooperative agreement. The applicant must also file
a disclosure form if they used, or have agreed to use, non-federal funds to influence the award of the
cooperative agreement. Both the certification and the disclosure forms can be found in the application kit
online at: https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-grantee-forms .
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
18
J. Debarment and Suspension Certification
Recipients must fully comply with Subpart C of 2 CFR Part 180 entitled, “Responsibilities of Participants
Regarding Transactions Doing Business with Other Persons,” as implemented and supplemented by 2 CFR
Part 1532. Recipients are responsible for ensuring that any lower tier “covered transaction” includes a term
or condition requiring compliance with Subpart C. A covered transaction is defined as a nonprocurement or
procurement transaction and is described in Subpart B of 2 CFR Part 180, entitled “Covered Transactions.”
Recipients are responsible for further requiring the inclusion of a similar term or condition in any
subsequent lower tier covered transactions. Recipient acknowledges that failing to disclose the information
required under 2 CFR 180.335 may result in the delay or negation of this assistance agreement, or pursuance
of legal remedies, including suspension and debarment.
Recipients may access suspension and debarment information on the System for Award Management
(SAM) website located at: https://www.sam.gov/portal/SAM/#1#1 . This system allows recipients to
perform searches determining whether an entity or individual is excluded from receiving Federal assistance.
VI. APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES
All applications must be submitted via the Grants.gov website: www.grants.gov . Regions will receive these
applications from the Grants.gov site, and then review the application to ensure all of the required elements
have been addressed. For additional information, see Appendix 9, EPA Pesticide State/Tribal Cooperative
Agreement Application Review Procedures.
VII. ALLOTMENT OF STATE/TRIBAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FUNDS
Both program and enforcement allotments for states and tribes are based on formulas for many of the
program areas. Allotments are made annually and distributed to the regions. Actual final state allocations
awarded by the EPA regions may vary from those calculated by the national formulas due to the fact that
regions are authorized to shift funds between grantees and across non-enforcement pesticide programs to
address local conditions, priorities and special projects not considered in the national formulas. The only
exception to this is funding allocated for applicator certification programs. The reasons for varying from the
allocations determined by national formulas must be documented by the regions. For more information
about the program and enforcement allotment formulas, contact your region, OPP or OECA.
VIII. REPORTING AND ENFORCEMENT MEASURES
A. Reporting
Recipients of cooperative agreement funding must submit reports as required by the EPA assistance
agreement regulations or as negotiated with the regions. The FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work PlanReport Template must be used for grantee reporting for all FIFRA cooperative agreements. The FIFRA
template includes the 5700-33H Forms, and the performance measures form. Grantees will also enter data
into the Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) for worker safety, and enter data into the
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
19
Pesticides of Interest Tracking System (POINTS) database for pesticides in water. Information entered into
CPARD and POINTS does need not to be repeated in the FIFRA template.
Table 1, Summary of Reports and Annual Due Dates
TEMPLATE REPORTING FORMS
& DATABASES
GRANTEE SUBMISSION
DATE TO REGION
End-of-year Cooperative Agreement
Evaluation Reports1
Annually, as negotiated with
the region; within 90 days
after project period ends.
Annually, as negotiated with
the region; within 90 days
after project period ends.
Annually, as negotiated with
the region; within 90 days
after project period ends.
Annually, as negotiated with
the region; within 90 days
after project period ends.
Annually, as negotiated with
the region; within 90 days
after project period ends.
December 31st
Performance measures form
EPA 5700-33H Form2
EPA 5700-33H WPS2
EPA 5700-33H2
Container/Containment
REGION
SUBMISSION DATE
TO FIFRA GRANTS
MAILBOX1
GUIDANCE IN
APPENDIX
February 28th
2
February 28th
N/A
February 28th
10
February 28th
11
February 28th
12
Certification Plan and Reporting
N/A
Database (CPARD)
Pesticides of Interest Tracking
December 31st
N/A
System (POINTS)
Existing Pesticide Water Quality
As specified on a case by case As specified on a
Monitoring Data for consideration in basis.
case by case basis.
Pesticide Registration Review
1
Regions should submit a copy of their end-of-year reports to the grantees at the same time.
2
Information contained in these forms must be provided through the FIFRA template.
N/A
N/A
6
Information contained in these reports is used to ensure accountability of resources, verify that cooperative
agreements are consistent with this FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance, ensure support of the
National Pesticide Program goals and performance measures, and provides feedback from the field on the
success of regulatory requirements.
Grantees will use the FIFRA template to submit their end-of-year reports and inspection forms to the regions
annually as negotiated with the regions, within 90 days after the grant project period ends. Once project
officers receive the end-of-year reports contained in the FIFRA template, they will review the reports and
discuss their findings during the end-of-year meeting with grantees. The project officers will then finalize
their end-of-year reports, send them to the grantees to check for accuracy, and then submit the FIFRA
template electronically to a joint OPP/OECA mailbox: [email protected] by February 28th each
year.
1. High -Level Pesticide Incidents and FIFRA Referrals
Recipients are required to report to the regions “high level pesticide incidents” involving serious adverse
effects to human health or the environment which may require close cooperation with EPA or other agencies
to conduct an investigation or bring the incident under control or to a resolution. Reportable high level
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
20
pesticides incidents may occur with pesticides, pesticidal devices and treated articles. These high level
incidents may be in addition to section 26 and 27 referrals. See Table 2, Comparison Chart of FIIFRA
Referrals/Reports below. The region will then forward this information to the Branch Chief of the
Government and International Services Branch in OPP, the Branch Chief of the Pesticides, Waste, and
Toxics Branch in the Office of Compliance in OECA, and the Branch Chief of the Pesticides and Tanks
Enforcement Branch in the Office of Civil Enforcement in OECA. See Appendix 13, Reporting and
Coordination of High Level Pesticide Incidents, for more information.
Information on high-level incidents is useful to OPP to determine if there are patterns of incidents requiring
new risk mitigation, such as label changes or additional regulation. For the FY18-21 grant period,
investigations involving pollinators are considered high level and should be routinely reported because of
the information they may provide as to the causes of pollinator decline. All known or suspected pesticide
incidents involving pollinators, should be reported to OPP at: [email protected] with a copy of the reported
incident to the regional project officer.
Table 2, Comparison Chart of FIFRA Referrals/Reports
INFORMAL REFERRALS
FIFRA SECTION 27
REFERRALS
What
are
they?
Referrals containing
information/tip of a possible
violation of federal or
state/tribal laws to a FIFRA
grantee that may or may not
result in the grantee
conducting an inspection.
An informal referral may lead
to a Section 27 referral.
Where
defined?
Intent of
the
referral?
Are they
tracked?
1983 Final Interpretive Rule
(FR Vol. 48, No.3, 1/5/1983,
pages 407-411)
Provide information/tip to a
grantee concerning a possible
FIFRA violation.
Tracking of informal referrals
is determined by the region on
a case by case basis.
HIGH LEVEL INCIDENTS/
REPORTS
In accordance with FIFRA Section
27, EPA in consultation with each
state identifies, in writing, criteria
for formal referrals to the state
known as “significant incidents.”
The negotiated agreement contains
criteria for the selection of
significant pesticide use cases. The
criteria can vary from state to state.
FIFRA grantees are required to report
to the regions “high level pesticide
incidents” involving serious adverse
effects to human health or the
environment which may require close
cooperation with EPA or other
agencies. Regions then report to OPP
and OECA, who reach out to other
offices/agencies as appropriate.
A Section 27 referral may also be a
high level incident report.
FIFRA Section 27; 1983 Final
Interpretive Rule
A high level incident is not necessarily
a Section 27 referral.
Appendix 13 of the FY18-21 FIFRA
Cooperative Agreement Guidance
Ensure an appropriate investigation
is conducted and enforcement, if
necessary, is taken by a state
concerning a “significant” pesticide
misuse.
Section 27 referrals are formally
tracked by the regional offices.
Communicate information to all EPA
offices who need to know about high
level FIFRA incidents and ensure
appropriate follow-up/coordination
within EPA and other agencies.
High level incident reports are not
formally tracked unless they qualify as
Section 27 referrals.
2. Enforcement Measures/Measures eReporting
Performance measures are a vital part of running a program. Measures allow a program to determine and
analyze what they do well; if resources are used as planned; inform future investments; inform legislators
and the public on the impact and value of the program and provide insight on how to make the pesticide
program more effective. The Pesticide Enforcement Measures are included in the FIFRA Work Plan and
Report Template.
FY 2018-2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance
21
APPENDIX 1:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR PROGRAM
AREAS
Table of Contents
REQUIRED PROGRAM AREAS.................................................................................................................. 23
A. Basic Pesticide Program ....................................................................................................................... 23
B. Pesticide Worker Safety: WPS ............................................................................................................. 27
C. Pesticide Worker Safety: Pesticide Applicator Certification................................................................ 31
D. Pesticides in Water ............................................................................................................................... 35
E. Product Integrity ................................................................................................................................... 41
F. Border Compliance............................................................................................................................... 42
GRANTEE PROGRAM AREA PICK-LIST ........................................................................................................... 43
G. Fumigants and Fumigation ................................................................................................................... 43
H. Endangered Species Protection............................................................................................................. 44
I.
Bed Bugs............................................................................................................................................... 46
J. Pollinator Protection ............................................................................................................................. 47
K. School Integrated Pest Management (IPM).......................................................................................... 48
L. Spray Drift ............................................................................................................................................ 50
M. State and Tribal Coordination and Communication ............................................................................. 51
N. Emerging Public Health Pesticide Issues ............................................................................................. 52
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
22
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR PROGRAM AREAS
This document provides additional information on required and grantee pick-list program areas to
supplement the information listed in Sections II and III of the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance.
The goal of this appendix is to provide background information that clarifies the expectation for each
program area.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This appendix has two sections “Required Program Areas” and “Grantee Program Area Pick-List.” The
program areas in these sections are listed in the order they appear in the Guidance, and contain background
information that may be useful. The goal, program description and enforcement considerations are listed for
each program area.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Recipients are required to report annually on all required program areas, and those program areas selected
from the Grantee Program Areas Pick-List. The FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report
Template should be used for grantee reporting under the FIFRA cooperative agreements. In some cases,
there are additional reporting requirements noted in the program area descriptions below. Some of these
program areas may also require specific information for performance measures associated with that
program.
REQUIRED PROGRAM AREAS
There are six required program areas described below which correspond with Section II of the FY 2018
2021 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance on page 5.
A. BASIC PESTICIDE PROGRAM
Goal
The Basic Pesticide Program and the activities described in this section of the Guidance supports the
Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals, prevent pollution, enforce environmental
laws.
Program Description
The baseline activities mandated for the “Basic Pesticide Program” are those activities that are
considered regular, routine work which is unlikely to change much from year to year. However, these
activities are also those that EPA believes are necessary to maintain a viable and credible pesticide
regulatory and enforcement field program, to achieve environmental results and support the National
Pesticide Program’s performance measures.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
23
All grantees are expected to invest some level of effort to support Basic Pesticide Program activities and
these activities must appear in grantee work plans. The level of effort and resources devoted to the basic
program activities may be negotiated between the grantee and EPA regional offices.
Enforcement Considerations
The pesticide compliance and enforcement activities grantees perform help monitor, identify, correct,
and deter noncompliance and reduce chemical risks. Compliance monitoring activities help support
other Agency goals including reducing chemical risks and protecting underserved and vulnerable
populations. Grantee activities should be consistent with the national Compliance Monitoring Strategy
(Appendix 5).
i. Compliance Assistance
Compliance assistance should not be performed in lieu of enforcement. Potential violations should be
thoroughly documented. The region and grantee should agree on the compliance assistance activities to
be conducted where appropriate. These activities may include:
• Provide outreach materials to improve compliance, for example, in areas where regulatory
requirements are new or violations are occurring due to a lack of understanding;
• Conduct seminars or public meetings with the regulated industry to explain requirements or answer
questions;
• Provide remedial training for violators; and
• Develop programs which reflect the EPA's policies on self-audits.
When new EPA policies are issued, grantees are encouraged to reflect such policies within their
programs as warranted.
Grantees are encouraged to use the National Agriculture Center (Ag Center) services to support
compliance assistance. The Ag Center was developed by OECA to help producers of agricultural
commodities comply with all environmental requirements, prevent pollution before it occurs, and reduce
costs associated with compliance by identifying flexible, common-sense ways to achieve compliance.
The Ag Center provides information to state regulatory programs to assist them in meeting the
compliance assistance needs of their regulated agricultural communities.
The Ag Center relies on existing distribution mechanisms, such as USDA-Extension, state pesticide
regulatory agencies, and crop consultants to communicate information to the agricultural community.
Grantees are encouraged to provide feedback to the Ag Center on its services to ensure their needs are
being met. For more information, visit the Ag Center website at: https://www.epa.gov/agriculture
ii. Types of Inspections
Common inspections include the following:
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
24
Producer Establishment Inspections (PEIs): These inspections should be targeted with the intention of
conducting inspections at all PEIs over an extended period of time on a routine cycle. Emphasis on
PEIs focuses resources at the source of the product and therefore, ensures product label changes have
been incorporated, products are registered, product labels and labeling are in conformance with their
registrations, and ensures the integrity of the products. Grantees should request that the regions provide
name, address and products reported as produced at that establishment for each PEI prior to an
inspection. Because pesticide production data is generally treated as confidential business information
(CBI), grantees should not attempt to collect production data on the amount produced at the
establishment if the inspection is conducted utilizing FIFRA credentials and citing FIFRA inspection
authority. State and tribal inspectors may request that production information be sent to the regional
office for verification. If the establishment reports unregistered pesticides being produced for export the
inspector should document Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statements (FPAS) for the
unregistered products.
Contract Manufacturers: Contract manufacturing is a common practice within the industry. Any person
producing a pesticide under contract to the registrant, whether as a toll manufacturer, supplemental
registrant, or refilling establishment is an agent of the registrant and as such, is held to the standards
imposed on the registrant at the time of registration. Contract manufacturing is typically carried out
through contractual agreements but often without rigorous oversight by the registrant. This lack of
oversight can lead to adulterated, misbranded or even unregistered products being sold or distributed.
The resulting pesticide products may pose unreasonable risk to health or the environment. Inspections
targeted at contract manufacturing facilities will help ensure that all pesticide production at such
facilities is appropriately regulated.
Dealer/Distributor/Retailer (Marketplace) Inspections: These inspections should be conducted on a
routine basis to ensure product packaging and labeling compliance as well as compliance with
container/containment regulations, custom blending policies, and requirements for the sale of restricted
use pesticides. In addition, potential violations found in advertisements, including e-commerce ads, as
well as tips/complaints, may require investigation and enforcement action.
E-Commerce: EPA developed e-commerce compliance/enforcement strategy documents. Contact the
regional office for more information on these documents. They ensure that pesticides and pesticide
services are marketed in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations. The goal is to ensure
that pesticides that are distributed and sold in e-commerce are treated the same as pesticides marketed in
the more traditional manner. Grantees should include inspections of websites selling pesticides and
pesticidal products as part of their core marketplace inspections.
Misuse: Most states and territories with cooperative agreements have primary responsibility under
FIFRA for pesticide use violations (primacy) pursuant to FIFRA Section 26. Tribes are not eligible for
primacy. However, tribes with pesticide enforcement cooperative agreements with the EPA will be
accorded the same responsibility to investigate and take enforcement action in instances of pesticide use
violations as states have under FIFRA’s primacy provisions, if they have tribal laws and regulations
governing use violations on tribal lands. Investigations conducted by tribal inspectors using the EPA
credentials must be turned over to the regional office for enforcement action. States should continue to
address pesticide use violations, particularly as it relates to WPS, food safety, structural pest control, and
drift.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
25
Imports: When requested by a region, grantees should conduct inspections for imported pesticides with
special emphasis on determining if a pesticide is registered in the United States, and the uses on the
label are consistent with the FIFRA approved label. These may include shipments detained at ports of
entry or foreign trade zones that the region has determined through Notices of Arrival or other
information may be in violation of FIFRA. Import inspections conducted by states or tribes must be
done using federal EPA credentials and EPA forms.
Certified Applicator Inspections: These inspections monitor the applicators compliance with
certification requirements and whether required records are being maintained. Additionally, to the
extent possible through a record review, the inspector should determine whether the applicator is
applying pesticides only in those areas for which certification has been issued and whether the records
indicate that all applications have been made in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Antimicrobial Pesticides: Antimicrobials are used in homes, hospitals, cafeterias, restaurants, and many
other institutions. While all pesticide products are required to work as claimed by the manufacturer, the
EPA is particularly concerned about the effectiveness of antimicrobial pesticides because their efficacy
is not easily observable, and because of the public health implications. Grantees may be asked to collect
samples as needed to ensure efficacy of these products.
Cancellations, Suspensions, Other Major Regulatory Actions, Recalls, and National High Risk
Initiatives: Grantees are required to implement cancellation or suspension orders, National Compliance
Strategies for canceled or suspended pesticide products and other major regulatory actions. Grantees
will conduct inspections and other compliance monitoring activities to assure compliance with major
pesticide regulatory actions within the time frames specified in the nationally issued Compliance
Monitoring Strategies. Inspections and other compliance monitoring activities may address: (a) major
cancellation actions; (b) all suspensions under FIFRA Section 6; (c) FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(B)
suspensions; and (d) other major pesticide regulatory actions (e.g., label improvement programs, etc.).
EPA may require registrants and distributors to recall pesticide products which have been both
suspended and canceled. Once these recall requirements are effective, grantees will need to inspect for
compliance and enforce where applicable. This applies only to pesticides suspended under Section 6.
Once these recall requirements are effective, the grantees and regional offices should discuss the relative
priority of the different activities being conducted under their enforcement cooperative agreement and
renegotiate work activities as appropriate. Recommended procedures for recalls and disposal are found
in 40 CFR Part 165. Violations of EPA recalls should be referred to the appropriate region.
Grantees may also be requested to participate in national initiatives to address specific risks. OECA will
work with regions and grantees to develop and implement such initiatives. Because the workload in this
area cannot be anticipated in advance, it is understood that grantees may renegotiate the outputs in the
cooperative agreement upon receipt of requests to conduct activities in the above areas.
iii. Monitoring Section 18 Emergency Exemptions, Section 24(c) Special Local Need Registrations,
and Section 5 Experimental Use Permits
Both federal and state agencies may be exempted from any provision under FIFRA by the Administrator
if an emergency condition exists. Each work plan should reflect how the grantee plans to monitor and
follow-up on Section 18 Emergency Exemptions to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of
Section 18s within the state, especially suspected misuse violations. The number of Section 18
inspections should be negotiated between the region and the grantee.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
26
Section 24(c) Special Local Needs allows the state to register additional uses of currently registered
pesticides in their state. If the 24(c) uses proposed by the state are approved by EPA, the state shall
monitor the sale, distribution and use of the particular pesticide in accordance with the 24(c)
requirements. Each cooperative agreement work plan should reflect how the state plans to monitor and
follow-up on Section 24(c) registrations to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of Section
24(c)s within the state, especially suspected misuse violations. The number of Section 24(c)
inspections should be negotiated between the region and the grantee.
Section 5 allows any person to apply for an Experimental Use Permit (EUP) to accumulate information
necessary to register a pesticide. If approved, the EUP contains terms and conditions for the distribution
and use of the experimental pesticide. Each work plan should reflect how the grantee plans to monitor
and follow-up on EUPs to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the EUP, especially
suspected misuse violations. The number of EUP inspections should be negotiated between the region
and the grantee.
iv. Section 27 Referrals
Section 27 of FIFRA requires EPA to refer to the states any information the Agency receives indicating
a significant violation of pesticide use laws. In accordance with the Final Interpretive Rule governing
FIFRA Sections 26 and 27, EPA in consultation with each state should identify, in writing, criteria for
formal referral to the state. These criteria should consider those pesticide activities in the state that
present the greatest potential for harm to health and the environment. The negotiated written agreement
between the state and the region should contain the criteria for the selection of significant pesticide use
cases.
All pesticide use cases identified as “significant” will be referred to the state by EPA in writing, and will
be formally tracked as set forth in the OECA’s Final Interpretive Rule. All other cases will be referred to
the state and will not be formally tracked under Section 27.
v. Laboratory Support
Each year, EPA provides a small grant on a rotating basis to state labs that support pesticide monitoring
and enforcement activities. Traditionally, the funds have been used to support the purchase of lab
equipment. The funds may now be used to support the pesticide monitoring and enforcement activities
of the lab beyond the purchasing of equipment. The funds cannot be used by other parts of a state’s
pesticide enforcement program, and must comply with all appropriate grant regulations and policies.
B. PESTICIDE WORKER SAFETY: WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD
Goal
The goal of this program area is to prevent or reduce occupational pesticide exposures, incidents and
illnesses from pesticide use, especially uses that pose high risks or high exposures to workers and
handlers. Ensuring effective implementation of the Agency’s pesticide worker safety program remains a
high priority for EPA and is important to the Agency’s overall strategy to ensure chemical safety,
prevent pollution, advance environmental justice and protect children’s health. The principal means for
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
27
accomplishing the Agency’s worker safety program goals is through implementation of the Worker
Protection Standard (WPS) and Pesticide Applicator Certification regulations (40 CFR Parts 170 and
171). Additional information of the pesticide worker safety program can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety.
Program Description
The Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS, 40 CFR Part 170) program priority area is also a
key part of OPP’s overall work to support the Agency’s Environmental Justice efforts. In effect since
1992, the WPS regulations are intended to protect agricultural farmworkers and pesticide handlers on
farms, forests, nurseries, and enclosed space production facilities from occupational exposure to
pesticides. Agricultural workers are exposed to pesticide residues on plants or when mixing, loading or
applying pesticides. More than 2 million farmworkers nationwide receive protections under this
regulation. The WPS program is critical to assuring that agricultural farmworkers, which represent some
of the most economically disadvantaged people in the U.S., are protected from occupational pesticide
hazards. Grantee activities, such as outreach and education efforts to this environmental justice
community, are important to help protect this vulnerable population from occupational pesticide hazards
and ensure their safety in the workplace.
i. Part 170 Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Rule Requirements and Changes
On November 2, 2015, EPA published final rule revisions to the WPS that address pesticide safety
training, notification, hazard communication, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and
decontamination supplies. These revisions are intended to reduce the number and severity of pesticide
exposure incidents and prevent unreasonable adverse effects among agricultural workers, pesticide
handlers and vulnerable groups, including minority and low income populations, farmworker children,
farmworker families and the general population.
The principal Pesticide Worker Safety Program activities for the WPS program area for State and Tribal
grantees in FY 2018-21 will be to implement the November 2, 2015, rule revisions to the Part 170 WPS
rule, and carry out WPS program implementation activities in accordance with this and other applicable
EPA guidance (e.g., WPS Inspection Manual, FIFRA Project Officer Manual, FIFRA Project Officer
Manual, WPS Interpretive Policy guidance, Region- and program-specific WPS guidance, etc.).
Specific activities include:
• Conduct WPS-related outreach, education and technical assistance on the revised rule’s
requirements to the regulated and impacted community:
a. Provide outreach on the key requirements and impacts of the revised rules to the regulated and
protected communities, and key stakeholder groups in the state or Indian country (e.g.,
agricultural employers, commercial pesticide handler employers, farmworkers, agricultural
organizations, crop/commodity groups, farmworker advocacy groups, migrant health care
providers, regulatory partners, key NGO stakeholders, and other affected agencies and/or
organizations). This includes continuing to communicate information about existing WPS rule
requirements to the regulated community and other program stakeholders.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
28
b. Disseminate national and state/tribal outreach and training materials to growers and
stakeholders via compliance assistance visits, attendance at grower meetings, etc.
c. Leverage State Land Grant Universities/University Extension/Tribal Education networks and
online resources to reach growers, ag producers.
d. Provide compliance assistance to WPS-affected growers and employers.
e. Update state/tribal webpages and social media with relevant information and links to key WPS
materials.
• Support WPS worker & handler training activities:
a. Assist in the development and distribution of EPA approved WPS training materials for workers
and handlers to ensure that employers and trainers can comply with new WPS training
requirements.
b. Facilitate adoption of EPA-approved WPS Train-the-Trainer (TTT) programs to improve the
quality and effectiveness of WPS trainers/training.
c. Update existing state/tribal-level training or educational materials as applicable and/or
/appropriate.
• Ensure mechanisms and procedures are in place to enable coordination and follow-up on reports of
occupational pesticide exposure, incidents or illnesses that may be related to pesticide use/misuse or
WPS violations.
• Attend and participate in any WPS training efforts initiated by HQ or EPA Regions, and /or other
WPS trainings taking place in the state or Indian country.
ii. Supplemental Activities to Support WPS Implementation
As resources allow, grantees are encouraged to undertake work on one or more of the supplemental
activities listed below. The Agency believes these optional activities will enhance program implementation
and lead to better overall protection for pesticide workers. Grantees with high populations of farmworkers
or unique pesticide worker safety issues should consider a higher level of activity in this program area.
•
Establish EPA-approved WPS Train-the-Trainer (TTT) Programs. The EPA encourages grantees to
support the establishment of state/tribal WPS TTT programs that will improve the quality of WPS
trainers and WPS training programs. In association with a cooperative agreement partner, EPA is
supporting the development of national WPS TTT materials and programs, and encourages grantees to
promote and use these materials to establish WPS TTT programs in the state or Indian country and
support existing WPS TTT programs.
• Support programs and provide resources to facilitate employer compliance with the new WPS
requirements related to respirator use (e.g., medical evaluation, fit-testing and respirator training). This
may include developing partnerships with medical providers, regulatory partners, grower and
commodity groups, and/or NGOs to support understanding and adoption of the requirements as well as
providing resources and mechanisms for fulfilling the requirements.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
29
• Work with Community-Based WPS Training Providers. Grantees should work with community-based
training providers, such as AFOP/Americorp and other groups, to assure training providers are meeting
WPS requirements and any applicable grantee requirements. Training providers should also be
appropriately linked with members of the agricultural community so their services can be utilized more
effectively.
• Develop Cooperative Relationships with Farmworker Service Organizations. Grantees should identify
groups that provide services to farmworkers to establish cooperative relationships and better
communications and linkages. Establishing such relationships could result in more productive
communication networks that will support the objectives of the program and promote better
coordination on occupational pesticide incidents and/or WPS complaints.
• Support the National Strategy for Outreach to Health Care Providers. The National Strategy for
Outreach to Health Care Providers is an important component of the Agency’s pesticide worker safety
program. It is the cornerstone of the EPA’s effort to improve recognition and management of pesticide
poisonings by health care providers, and is key to facilitating better communications regarding pesticide
incidents.
Enforcement Considerations
EPA’s goal for the Worker Protection requirements is to help create a safer work environment in which
agricultural workers, their employers, and pesticide handlers can perform tasks without concern about
pesticide exposure during and after an application. For this reason, grantees must conduct agricultural
use inspections focused on WPS compliance. Enforcements activities include:
• When reporting WPS inspections on the WPS 5700 Form, states should follow the criteria set forth
in the EPA WPS Agricultural Inspection Manual. State enforcement actions should be reported on
the WPS 5700 Form in the FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template with a brief narrative description
about each noteworthy civil or criminal penalty enforcement action resulting from a WPS
inspection. The EPA believes that it is important to communicate to the public the impact of the
WPS compliance and enforcement program to protect pesticide workers beyond numerical targets.
• Routine Tier I WPS use inspections should be conducted to ensure coverage of agricultural
establishments regulated under the WPS. Grantees should focus their worker protection compliance
monitoring activities on the types of establishments where high risk pesticides are used or high
exposure scenarios are encountered (i.e., areas that have the highest likelihood of pesticide worker
and handler risk). Examples include: (1) timing inspections during periods of pesticide application
to ensure compliance with key worker provisions; (2) visiting sites with labor-intensive crops; (3)
visiting employers with large numbers of workers; (4) timing inspections during the growing season
to coincide with high-risk labor practices and worker exposure scenarios; and (5) timing inspections
during times when high-risk pesticides would be applied at a specific time of year as a matter of
general crop practice.
• Particular attention should be given to follow-up inspections at agricultural establishments where
prior enforcement actions for WPS violations were taken. Follow up inspections should occur in a
timely manner as the grantee deems appropriate.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
30
•
States should provide information on the number of other enforcement actions resulting from WPS
inspections such as stop sale/use orders and warning letters in each of the reporting categories.
C. PESTICIDE WORKER SAFETY: PESTICIDE APPLICATOR CERTIFICATION
Goal
The goal of this program area is to prevent or reduce occupational pesticide exposures, incidents and
illnesses from pesticides, especially ones that pose high risks or high exposures to workers and handlers.
Ensuring effective implementation of the Agency’s pesticide worker safety program remains a high
priority for EPA and is important to the Agency’s overall strategy to ensure chemical safety, prevent
pollution, advance environmental justice and protect children’s health. The principal means for
accomplishing the Agency’s worker safety program goals is through implementation of the Worker
Protection Standard (WPS) and Pesticide Applicator Certification regulations (40 CFR Parts 170 and
171). Additional information of the pesticide worker safety program can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety.
Program Description
Implementation of the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule (40 CFR Part 171) and corresponding
certification and training (C&T) program is also a key part of OPP’s overall work to ensure chemical
safety, prevent pollution, advance environmental justice and protect children’s health. The C&T
program is critical to ensuring that persons using or supervising the use of restricted-use pesticides
(RUPs) are competent to use these products without causing unreasonable adverse effects to human
health or the environment and to provide a mechanism by which states, tribes, and federal agencies can
administer their own programs to certify applicators of RUPs as competent. The C&T program also
plays a vital role in ensuring that important pesticide tools remain available to pest control officials and
users to address critical pest management needs.
i. Part 171 Pesticide Applicator Certification Rule Requirements and Changes
On January 4, 2017, EPA published final rule revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule
(40 CFR Part 171) that address private applicator competency, standards for recertification programs,
standards for supervision, competency requirements for noncertified applicators applying RUPs under
the supervision of a certified applicator, minimum age for certified and noncertified applicators,
application-method specific categories, requirements for state, tribal and federal agency certification
plans, and implementation requirements. These revisions are intended to reduce the number and severity
of pesticide exposure incidents associated with the use of RUPs, and prevent unreasonable adverse
effects among certified applicators, noncertified persons applying under the supervision of a certified
applicator, and vulnerable groups, including minority and low income populations, and the general
population.
The principal Pesticide Worker Safety Program activities for the C&T program area for State and Tribal
grantees for the FY 2018-2021 grant cycle will be to implement the January 4, 2017, rule revisions to
the Part 171 rule, and carry out C&T program implementation activities in accordance with this and
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
31
other applicable EPA guidance (e.g., FIFRA Inspection Guidance, FIFRA Project Officer Manual,
National Part 171 Program guidance, Region-specific C&T guidance, etc.). Specific activities include:
• Grantees must ensure pesticide applicator certification programs are being implemented and
maintained in accordance with their EPA approved certification plans. Grantees should continue
implementing pesticide applicator certification programs in accordance with current EPA-approved
certification plans and Part 171 requirements until revised, EPA-approved certification plans
complying with the new revised Part 171 rule requirements are in place.
• Meet state and tribal certification plan requirements for certification plan maintenance and annual
reporting using the Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD). Grantees must ensure their
State/Tribal Certification Plans are entered, submitted, maintained, and updated within the
Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD) in accordance with the requirements in 40
CFR Part 171. Grantees should submit revised certification plans through CPARD in accordance
with program policy and guidance, and update their plans in CPARD annually, making any
necessary updates and all pertinent information to reflect any changes to their Certification
programs and plans made during the year. Additionally, grantees must use the database system for
submitting their required annual Certification Program accomplishment reporting information.
Grantees should work with their region if any technical assistance is needed for using CPARD.
• Monitor applicator training programs to ensure quality and that training programs comply with
revised rule requirements and applicable standards/guidance. Grantees will monitor initial
certification and recertification training programs, as well as training programs for noncertified
applicators applying RUPs under the supervision of a certified applicator (as applicable and
appropriate), to assure the quality and consistency of training programs. Grantees should participate
in applicator training programs as resources permit. Grantees should work with training providers
to ensure training programs meet the revised rule’s requirements and are providing the information
required to ensure applicator knowledge and competency.
• Develop and submit to EPA revised certification plans that meet the requirements of the revised
certification rule. This includes making any necessary regulatory and legislative changes and
establishing requisite policies or procedures to comply with the revised rule requirements and all
applicable Part 171 program guidance regarding development, submission, approval and
maintenance of certification plans. Certification plans and programs should be updated and revised
as needed to address current competency and exam administration standards in the revised rule,
national security concerns, and other emerging regulatory issues addressed in the revised rule’s
requirements. As part of this activity, grantees should ensure applicator exams are updated as
needed, and they should coordinate with training providers to ensure applicator training
materials/programs are updated as needed.
a. The final Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule is effective [insert date 60 days after the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. The final rule adjusts the proposed
implementation timeframe to provide certifying authorities additional flexibility.
b. Existing certification plans approved by EPA before the effective date of the rule will remain in
effect until three years after the effective date of the final rule; if a certifying authority submits
an amended certification plan to EPA for approval within three years of the effective date of the
final rule, its existing certification plan will remain in effect until EPA has reviewed and
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
32
responded to the amended certification plan, but no longer than two more years, unless EPA
authorizes further extension in its approval of an amended certification plan.
c. In its approval of an amended certification plan, EPA will specify how much longer the existing
plan may remain in effect while the certifying authority prepares to implement its amended
certification plan.
d. EPA will base each certifying authority’s implementation period on the particular circumstances
of that jurisdiction, but anticipates that most certifying authorities will be allowed two years
from the date of EPA approval to implement the plan.
• Provide outreach on the key requirements and impacts of the revised rules to the regulated and
protected communities, and key stakeholder groups in the state or Indian country (e.g., certified
applicators, RUP dealers, non-certified applicators applying RUPs under the supervisions of a
certified applicator, commercial pesticide application businesses, agricultural organizations,
crop/commodity groups, training organizations, regulatory partners, key NGO stakeholders, and
other affected agencies and/or organizations)
a. Disseminate national and state/tribal outreach and training materials to growers and
stakeholders via compliance assistance visits, attendance at applicator training meetings, etc.
b. Leverage State Land Grant Universities/University Extension/Tribal Education networks and
online resources to reach affected pesticide applicators.
c. Provide compliance assistance to affected certified applicators, RUP dealers, and supervisors of
non-certified applicators.
d. Update state/tribal webpages and social media with relevant information and links to key
applicator training information and materials.
• Update existing state/tribal-level applicator training or educational materials as applicable and/or
appropriate.
• Attend and participate in any program-related training efforts initiated by HQ or EPA regions, and
/or other trainings taking place in the state or Indian country.
ii. Supplemental Activities to Support C&T Program Implementation
As resources allow, grantees are encouraged to undertake work on one or more of the supplemental
activities listed below. The Agency believes these optional activities will enhance C&T program
implementation and lead to better overall protection for pesticide applicators, especially noncertified
applicators applying RUPs under the supervision of a certified applicator. Grantees with large numbers
of certified applicators, noncertified applicators applying RUPs under the supervision of a certified
applicator, or unique pesticide applicator certification issues should consider a higher level of activity in
this program area.
• Suggest project ideas that would support the implementation of the revised Certification rule to the
Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative (PERC), a cooperative agreement between the Office
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
33
of Pesticide Programs and University of California Davis Extension, in collaboration with Oregon
State University. Projects could include the development or revision of manuals, exam banks or
other materials. Proposed project ideas can be submitted on PERC’s web site:
http://pesticideresources.org/.
• Promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) concepts in applicator certification programs. The EPA
encourages grantees to promote voluntary adoption of IPM concepts and principles in their pesticide
applicator certification and recertification training materials and programs to raise awareness about
and adoption of IPM. Grantees should consider the following activities to promote IPM:
review/revise initial certification programs to assure adequate coverage of IPM; and review/revise
recertification training programs to assure adequate coverage of IPM concepts and principles, and
making IPM-related outreach and education materials and resources available to applicators.
• Support Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG) projects. The Agency continues to
actively work on projects and activities stemming from the CTAG process and recommendations.
Grantees should keep abreast of the ongoing CTAG projects and activities and identify potential
opportunities for collaboration with the EPA and CTAG. Grantees should also provide input and
comment on CTAG issue papers and other CTAG documents. NOTE: Visit the CTAG website for
more information about activities and opportunities for involvement (http://www.ctaginfo.org).
• Undertake efforts to measure program outcomes. Grantees should consider conducting program
assessments or developing program measures that help document certification program outcomes.
These efforts may include developing processes to document positive behavior change as a result of
training and/or certification, or developing pre- and post-test evaluations for certified applicators
that may help document the increased competency that resulted from certification and training.
• Use exam development and validation principles. Where resources permit, grantees should use
exam development and validation principles to revise their applicator exams which lead to improved
competency of applicators.
Enforcement Considerations
Monitor compliance with certification requirements, and focus on sale/distribution of restricted use
pesticides (RUPs) to applicators in fumigation sector(s) of concern due to the high potential for severe,
acute incidents from exposure.
Specific Reporting Requirements
The annual Certification Program accomplishment reporting information must be entered into CPARD
annually by December 31st of each calendar year regardless of the actual grant project period. By
properly and completely filling out the reporting section of the CPARD system, states/tribes will
provide the annual C&T accomplishment reporting information that contains all of the information
required by Part 171. States and tribes should work with their regional office to get any technical
assistance needed to assure they can access and properly use the CPARD system.
Each grantee should continue reporting according to its existing EPA-approved certification plans until
EPA has approved the revised certification plan and the grantee has implemented the revised plan.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
34
D. PESTICIDES IN WATER
Goal
The goal of the Pesticides in Water Program is to ensure that pesticides do not adversely affect the
nation’s water resources and pose a risk to human health or the environment. Reducing the
concentration of pesticides in urban and agricultural watersheds is part of the Agency’s Strategic Plan
(see Section E below). Work in this program area will protect the environment by implementing EPA’s
statutes and taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides do not pose undue risk when used in
accordance with the label.
Program Description
Grantees are required to conduct the following activities consistent with the level of effort negotiated
with the EPA regional office and reflected in the work plan. Note, existing data can be used as new
monitoring data is not required. Program steps include:
1. Submit Existing Data: Provide OPP any existing water monitoring data for pesticides that are
undergoing registration review and that were not already submitted to EPA or readily accessible to
OPP.
2. Evaluate Pesticides of Interest: Identify pesticides of concern (POC) over time by evaluating a
list of pesticides of interest (pesticides which have potential to threaten local resources) to
determine if those pesticides may be found at concentration levels locally that are approaching or
exceeding reference points and therefore are a threat to local water quality.
3. Manage Pesticides of Concern: Over time, actively manage pesticides of concern beyond the
label to reduce or prevent further contamination of local water resources.
4. Demonstrate Progress: Show the management strategy has effectively reduced the risk that
concentrations will exceed reference points.
5. Report Progress: Enter progress of evaluations, management of pesticides of concern, and
effectiveness of management strategies into POINTS annually.
These terms and activities are more fully explained below.
Where appropriate, grantees are encouraged to consult with or coordinate prevention and protection of
water resources with other agencies with responsibilities for water resource protection.
i.
Submit Existing Data
Grantees should provide OPP with any existing water monitoring data they may have collected for
pesticides that are undergoing registration review and that has not already been submitted to EPA,
available in the Agency’s STORET (short for STOrage and RETrieval) Data Warehouse, linked in the
Pesticide of Interest Tracking System (POINTS), or available through other data sources readily
accessible to OPP. Providing OPP access to existing water quality monitoring data will help ensure that
the Agency has the best available information when conducting its pesticide risk assessments and
making registration review decisions.
Ideally, monitoring data sets should be provided in electronic format, i.e., a readable database format
that is easy to import into a spreadsheet. Grantees may submit a link to a website, forward electronic
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
35
data files to OPP’s water monitoring mailbox at: [email protected], or submit data
through another method mutually agreed upon by the grantee and EPA. The Agency would like access
to all water monitoring data a state or tribe may have collected relevant to pesticides going through
registration review. However, water monitoring data would be most useful for risk assessment purposes
if it included the following:
• Location (latitude & longitude, if possible, or other reliable location information);
• Sample media (e.g., water, filtered water, bed sediment, tissue);
• Water body type (stream, river or other flowing body; lake, reservoir, or other static body; ground
water, nature of aquifer, e.g., surficial or confined);
• Date sampled (month/day/year), and time if available;
• Chemical analyzed and reported concentration;
• Analytical method used and detection limit or limit of quantitation;
• Study objective (i.e., purpose and design of the monitoring study); a copy of a report describing the
purpose and design of the monitoring study or internet web address leading to this information
would be useful if available;
• Depth to water level for groundwater;
• Well characteristics including well depth, screened interval, and aquifer type if known (e.g.,
confined vs. unconfined); and
• Well purpose (e.g., ambient vs. drinking water).
A complete set of desirable data characteristics and procedures for submitting water quality monitoring
data can be found in Appendix 6, OPP Guidance for Submission of State and Tribal Water Quality
Monitoring Data.
ii.
Evaluate Pesticides of Interest
Over time, grantees must conduct an evaluation of all pesticides of interest to determine whether a
human health or environmental reference point is likely to be approached or exceeded in localized areas
of a state or tribe, and the pesticide should be elevated to a pesticide of concern. Pesticides that are
determined to be a pesticide of concern will need to be managed by the grantee as described in
subsection 3 below. Note, new monitoring data does not need to be generated for this evaluation.
Pesticides of interest are those pesticides that have the potential to occur in ground or surface water at
concentrations approaching or exceeding a human health or ecological reference point. A pesticide of
interest could be an active ingredient alone or the active ingredient collectively with degradates of
toxicological concern. For the purposes of this FIFRA Grant Guidance, pesticides of interest are those
pesticides that have been identified by the states in the survey conducted by SFIREG in 2005 (listed in
Appendix 7), plus any others that are the cause of water quality impairments under CWA §303(d) within
the state or tribe, those identified by OPP as a water quality concern during registration review, and any
other pesticides a grantee has identified. In addition, grantees can evaluate additional pesticides of
interest that have water quality concerns on request from OPP. As an example, OPP can select
pesticides from the Registration Review list, from new pesticide registration actions, or in consultation
with the SFIREG EQI working committee. Pesticides will be added to the Additional Pesticides of
Interest list in POINTS, and evaluated to determine whether they are pesticides of concern.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
36
The reference point is used to judge the severity of contamination with regard to potential human health
or aquatic life effects. Human health reference points may be based on values such Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCL: http://water.epa.gov/drink/standards/hascience.cfm), Health Advisory
Levels (HAL); human health benchmarks, or state/tribal water quality criteria or standards. Aquatic life
reference points may be based on values such as EPA Office of Water aquatic life criteria
(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm), OPP aquatic life
benchmarks, or state/tribal water quality criteria or benchmarks.
In most cases, evaluations of pesticides of interest can be based on available monitoring data from
within a state or tribe. An evaluation may also be based on the pesticide’s environmental fate and use
patterns, performance in the field, available prospective monitoring studies, peer-reviewed scientific
literature, modeling data, or monitoring results and experience from other states or tribes with
comparable conditions.
In reviewing the list of pesticides of interest (base list plus those added to the Additional Pesticides of
Interest list), states or tribes can be considered having conducted an evaluation if no reasonable
exposure is expected for a particular pesticide due to factors such as soil type, use pattern, or volume of
use. The pesticide would not need to be elevated to a pesticide of concern, and no further management
would be required. If a state or tribe previously conducted an evaluation of a pesticide of interest prior
to this Guidance, this will also be considered having completed an evaluation.
An evaluation is considered complete once the grantee makes a conclusion that the pesticide of interest
is either likely to exceed a human health or environmental reference point in localized areas of a state or
tribe and therefore should be elevated to a pesticide of concern and managed, or is not likely to approach
a reference point and does not need to be managed. For purposes of the performance measures described
in the sections below, a pesticide can only be counted as "evaluated" once. However, grantees should
re-evaluate the pesticide if there is new information (e.g., new hazard data, new EPA risk assessment
indicating a pesticide water quality concern), new use patterns, or increased risk of exposure for the
pesticide. Typically, regions do not need to negotiate specific commitments in the work plans for re
evaluations. However, the number of re-evaluations should be reported by the grantee as described in
the sections below entitled, “Reporting Requirements” and “Performance Measures.”
After evaluation, if a grantee finds the pesticide that is the cause of a water quality impairment under
CWA §303(d) is not of concern, this information should be shared with the state water agency with
responsibility for managing the list.
Any data sets or technical reports used in support of the listing decision or which may be of value in
delisting the pesticide should be shared with OPP for consideration in the registration review process.
A list of active ingredients that are scheduled for registration review can be viewed at:
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/explanation-registration-review-schedule
Over time, EPA will be looking for states and tribes to evaluate 100% of the pesticides of interest
including those added to the Additional Pesticides of Interest list in POINTS. Grantees will negotiate
the schedule of evaluations and level of effort with the regions to reflect differences in their
capabilities, available information, program authorities, resources available, and the relative priority
of their pesticides in water concerns in relation to other pesticide concerns that may exist. However,
grantees should place priority on evaluations of pesticides of interest for which water quality concerns
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
37
are identified in FIFRA reregistration or registration review.
iii.
Manage Pesticides of Concern
Pesticides that are identified as a concern following the evaluation must be managed. At the state or
tribal level, a pesticide is actively managed when extra or focused activities are carried out to prevent or
reduce contamination of water by a particular active ingredient so that it is prevented from reaching the
water quality standard or other reference point, or brought below the reference point. Where
appropriate, grantees are encouraged to consult with or coordinate prevention and protection of water
resources with other agencies with responsibilities for water resource protection.
The following examples of active management were identified by the EPA/State Workgroup that
developed the national pesticide water quality measures in 2005. They are not meant to be exclusive and
regions can negotiate other activities with states and tribes to manage pesticides of concern:
• Applicator or user education, hands-on training, or public outreach on practices that minimize the
amount of the pesticides of concern that enter water;
• Water quality assessment to identify vulnerable water resources and conducting outreach to
applicators and growers on locally-specific management practices that should be taken to protect
water quality in these sensitive areas;
• Promotion and adoption of voluntary BMPs judged to prevent or reduce contamination by a
particular pesticide e.g., riparian buffer zones, filter strips, no-till cultivation;
• Management control decisions based on spatially and temporally focused surveillance monitoring;
• Targeted inspections and enforcement of existing water quality-related label restrictions and
cancellation notices;
• Designation as state or tribal “Restricted Use” due to water quality concerns;
• Imposition of other use or label restrictions designed to reduce contamination of a pesticide;
• Denial of state registration due to water quality concerns;
• Activities specific to assessing and addressing CWA § 303(d) “impaired waters.”
• Activities specific to assessing and addressing urban and agricultural watersheds that exceed USGS
NAWQA benchmarks for pesticides.
The schedule, priority and level of effort assigned to managing pesticides of concern should be
negotiated in consideration of the resources available to the state or tribe and the relative priority of
pesticide in water issues in relation to other pesticide issues the state or tribe is facing. However, OPP
recommends that grantees and regions consider placing priority on managing pesticides of concern that
have also been identified as water quality concerns in FIFRA reregistration or registration review.
Overtime, EPA will be looking for 100% of pesticides of concern to be managed.
iv.
Demonstrate Progress
Overtime, states and tribes should be able to demonstrate that the management actions they have taken
have been successful at reducing pesticide risk to water. Examples for how grantees might demonstrate
progress toward reduction of pesticide risk includes:
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
38
• Targeted monitoring of water samples from vulnerable use areas that determines that mitigation
measures are preventing residue levels from approaching or exceeding a reference point;
• Downward trends in concentration levels established by monitoring data in geographic areas where
the pesticide of concern is being used (data from USGS, registrant, USDA, or other sources);
• Results of targeted surveys or inspections that document the wide adoption of voluntary or
regulatory measures which have been proven via research to protect water quality; and
• Cancelled registrations.
v.
Report Progress
Grantees must report their progress of evaluations, management of pesticides of concern, and
effectiveness of management strategies into POINTS annually as described in Section D below.
Enforcement Considerations
States and tribes are expected to monitor compliance with pesticide water quality risk mitigation
measures, and respond to pesticide water contamination events especially where water quality standards
or other reference points are threatened. Label compliance issues should be reported utilizing the
Pesticide Enforcement Performance Measures, Measure 3: Compliance with label language for
protection of water, soil, and non-target species.
Reporting Requirements
Grantees must annually report the national water quality measures listed in the performance measures
section below in the Pesticides of Interest Tracking System (POINTS). POINTS can be found at
http://points.wsu.edu . If available, states should also submit any data from water monitoring acquired
during the grant year to EPA via the OPP’s water monitoring mailbox at:
[email protected]. All states and tribes must submit the measures data by
December 31st of each grant year regardless of the actual grant period, including any available
new information from monitoring. In addition to the data sets themselves or links to data on the web,
states and tribes are encouraged to cite other studies, reports, literature or information on water quality
monitoring to improve or upgrade baseline data on pesticide effects on human health and the
environment. If no progress on the performance measures is made, grantees should roll over their data in
POINTS from the previous reporting year.
From the POINTS system data, OPP expects to be able to:
• Determine how pesticides of interest were evaluated;
• Determine which pesticides of concern have been identified by states and tribes;
• Identify pesticides of concern that are being actively managed by states and tribes, what
management strategies are demonstrating success, and which pesticides may need more effective
management at the national level e.g., label changes, special studies;
• Identify pesticides for which national water quality standards, aquatic life criteria, or other national
regulatory standards or reference points are needed;
• Demonstrate that state and tribal water quality management programs are effective at reducing
pesticide risks to water quality locally; and
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
39
• Identify states in which the FIFRA lead agency is using its resources to address pesticide impaired
waters under CWA §303(d).
EPA access to this information will not only further inform and influence its risk assessment and risk
management process leading to better registration decisions, it will also provide information the Agency
can use to measure its progress in protecting human health and the environment from pesticide risk to
water quality.
Programmatic Performance Measures
The pesticides in water program area supports the Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of
chemicals, prevent pollution, and enforce environmental laws.
The programmatic performance measures listed below that will be used to track the performance of the
National Pesticides in Water Program. These measures are automatically calculated from data reported
annually by grantees into POINTS. This approach is designed to measure the pesticide lead agency’s
progress in: 1) identifying Pesticides of Concern by evaluating a list of Pesticides of Interest that may
have the potential to threaten water quality locally; 2) taking actions to manage Pesticides of Concern;
and 3) can demonstrate improvement in water quality related to pesticides.
Measure 1: Pesticides of Interest Evaluated to Identify Pesticides of Concern
Over time, EPA will be looking for states and tribes to evaluate 100% of the Pesticides of Interest. The
metric is:
Evaluated Pesticides of Interest X 100
Number of Pesticides of Interest
Measure 2: Pesticides of Concern Managed
The second measure is aimed at quantifying state and tribal efforts to manage Pesticides of Concern.
The schedule and priority of which pesticides need further management is a state or tribal decision to be
negotiated with the region. Over time, EPA will be looking for 100% of Pesticides of Concern to be
managed. The metric is:
Number of Pesticides of Concern managed
Number of Pesticides of Concern identified
X 100
Measure 3: Demonstrated Progress
The third measure is aimed at quantifying the number of pesticides for which some form of management
has demonstrated progress toward keeping (or returning) pesticide concentrations in water to below a
reference point. The metric is:
Number of Pesticides of Concern managed for which
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
40
there is demonstrated progress toward reduction or
maintenance of concentrations below the Reference Point
Number of Pesticides of Concern managed
X 100
Measure 4: Re-Evaluations
A pesticide can only be counted as "evaluated" once. However, grantees should re-evaluate a pesticide
if there is new information/data (e.g., new hazard data, new EPA risk assessment indicating a pesticide
water quality concern), new use patterns, or increased risk of exposure for the pesticide. A grantee may
report a re-evaluation in POINTS when they have considered the new information and documented a
conclusion as to whether there are concerns locally that pesticide levels are approaching or exceeding a
reference point. The number of re-evaluations will not typically be a negotiated commitment.
However, in order to get credit for this work, grantees should track the number of evaluations done
annually in POINTS.
Measure 5: No Longer a Pesticide of Concern
Ultimate success in the Pesticides in Water Program is that the state/tribe has managed the pesticide of
concern so well that it is no longer a pesticide of concern. That is, the levels of the pesticide in local
water resources are no longer approaching or exceeding the reference point because of cancellation,
restriction, or another effective management strategy. Therefore, states and tribes must report in
POINTS the number of pesticides of concern that have been managed and after re-revaluation, are no
longer considered a pesticide of concern for their state or tribe. This measure is merely a reporting
measure and another means to demonstrate progress. Grantees will not be expected to make
commitments on this measure and EPA will not set any targets.
E. PRODUCT INTEGRITY
Goal
The goal of this program area is to ensure that human health and environmental risks are adequately
mitigated through the Agency’s registration and related labeling process. The Pesticide Product Integrity
focus area supports the Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals, prevent pollution,
and enforce environmental laws.
Program Description
Pesticides are registered after undergoing a significant review and risk/benefit analysis intended to
ensure that human health and environmental risks are adequately mitigated through the Agency’s
registration and labeling process. Grantees should conduct compliance monitoring activities, in order to
determine composition compliance, label and labeling compliance and product registration. In some
cases, grantees may engage in product efficacy activities to verify the integrity of pesticide product
registration and labeling.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
41
Enforcement Considerations
Grantees should focus on producer establishment inspections known to produce supplemental distributor
products, RUPs, Tox-1 pesticides, or pesticides of regulatory concern such as fumigants and
antimicrobial pesticide products. Grantees should collect product samples and submit these physical
samples to their laboratory for formulation analysis to ensure product composition complies with the
terms of the registration.
F. BORDER COMPLIANCE
Goal
The border compliance program area supports the EPA OECA National Program Managers
Guidance, and the Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals, prevent pollution, and
enforce environmental laws.
Program Description
Grantees selecting this program area are expected to assist regions when necessary to monitor
movement of imported pesticides within states, territories or tribal lands, and may occur during
pre or post-entry. For pre-entry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may refer
examinations (e.g., inspections) of pesticide and device shipments prior to entry into the
customs territory of the United States to EPA regions, allowing EPA to conduct product label
reviews, validation of information provided by importers and brokers prior to arrival (such as
with the Notice of Arrival (NOA)), and collection of retail size product and samples from bulk
product, as appropriate.
Depending on the regional office’s coordination with CBP’s port offices, state, tribal and
territory inspectors may be able to assist with import inspections that are in geographical
proximity to the destination location. In this scenario, the import shipment would be under a
“Hold Intact” order by CBP until EPA or its state, tribal or territorial partner has inspected the
shipment and the EPA Regional office can make an admissibility determination. This approach
would assist our CBP partners by moving hazardous chemicals out of the ports and to what we
would assume to be a safer location for storage.
For post entry, inspectors may look at the product at ultimate consignee’s establishment
(producer establishments or marketplace establishments) as follow up establishment
inspections. Many manufacturing use pesticide products are imported as source materials by
producers of end-use pesticide products.
Some of these activities may be generated in response to these requests and targeting from the
regional office whereas other activities can be initiated based on the states own targeting.
Enforcement Considerations
Pre-entry Inspections
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
42
Grantees should conduct inspections for imported pesticides upon regional request. It is important that
the region establish the appropriate steps necessary to meet the “Hold Intact” or “Detain” for inspection
requested by CBP in accordance with FIFRA section 17(c) and 19 CFR 12.110-117. The specifics of
these inspections should be defined through coordination with the regional office. The inspections
should be conducted with federal credentials if EPA has requested the inspection. The inspections may
include shipments detained at ports of entry, foreign trade zones, bonded warehouses, CBP central
examination centers, or other designated locations as coordinated by the region with CBP.
Post-Entry Inspections
Inspections may be coordinated with the EPA regional office and be conducted at producer facilities
and/or retail and distribution centers where the imported products have been delivered.
Reporting Requirements
None.
GRANTEE PROGRAM AREAS PICK-LIST
The following section corresponds with Section III of the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance on page
9. There are eight Grantee Pick-List Program Areas which are listed in the order they appear in the
Guidance.
G. FUMIGANTS AND FUMIGATION
Goal
The goal of this program area is to prevent or reduce incidents resulting from fumigation exposures
which is consistent with the Agency’s Strategic Plan to ensure the safety of chemicals, prevent
pollution, and enforce environmental laws.
Program Description
Grantees selecting this program area should conduct inspections to ensure product compliance and
proper use of fumigant products. Grantees may also conduct producer establishment inspections where
fumigants are being produced, or use inspections to monitor compliance with the use of these
products. Special emphasis should be placed on structural pest control applications as well as other
situations involving fumigants such as rodent control, granaries, warehouse commodities, and other
fumigation scenarios where potential human exposure is of concern.
Enforcement Considerations
Reducing risk is ultimately accomplished through compliance with and enforcement of product
labels. Grantees should focus on structural fumigant product compliance, as well as related fumigation
use activities by conducting use and/or producer establishment inspections to ensure compliance.
Grantees should also consider establishing relationships with other federal, state, tribal and local
agencies within their region to assist in compliance and enforcement activities.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
43
H. ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION
The focus of EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) is to evaluate whether pesticide use
in a certain geographic area may affect any listed species. If enforceable, pesticide use restrictions are
necessary to protect listed species in that area, and the information is relayed through Endangered
Species Protection Bulletins.
Goal
Through risk assessment and mitigation, the goal under the ESPP is to limit any potential effects from
pesticide use to federally listed threatened or endangered species, while at the same time, placing no
undue burden on agriculture or other pesticide users.
The ESPP supports the Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals, prevent pollution,
and enforce environmental laws.
Program Description
If selected from the Grantee Program Area Pick-List, state and tribal pesticide lead agencies may select
from the following list of activities to support the ESPP. A grantee can choose to do one or more of the
activities or to do part of an activity, in accordance with the need, level of resources and expertise
available in their state or tribe.
i.
Outreach and Education
During the term of this grant Guidance, states and tribes can educate current and potential pesticide
users and pesticide inspectors about the ESPP. Topics that could be covered include field
implementation aspects of the Program as described in the Federal Register notice (70 FR 66392, Nov.
2, 2005).
For pesticide users, the topics could include:
• the generic endangered species label statement referring pesticide users to Bulletins;
• how to find a Bulletin, including the use of OPP’s dedicated website at
https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/ , “Bulletins Live”;
• what a Bulletin is, what it conveys and how to use it; and
• information about inspections and enforcement per the OECA grant Guidance (e.g., Bulletins are
part of the label and will be enforced under FIFRA through routine pesticide use inspections).
For pesticide inspectors, the topics could include:
• how to read Bulletins;
• how to access historic Bulletins for inspections;
• familiarity with local Bulletins and the species addressed in them; and
• the goals of the Program; i.e., to protect listed species from possible harm due to pesticide use,
while at the same time, not placing unnecessary burden on agriculture or other pesticide users.
In the event that no Bulletins are available for a particular area, education efforts could focus on one or
more of the following:
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
44
• habitat protection training sessions for pesticide applicators, inspectors and others who must follow
the provisions of the program;
• concepts and benefits of integrated pest management (IPM); and
• ways to reduce pesticide spray drift and pesticide runoff to avoid exposure to endangered species.
ii. Risk Assessment and Risk Mitigation Support
Support provided by states and tribes can be in response to litigation, registration review or other
registration activities. Information can be provided to EPA using OPP’s Stakeholder Engagement
Process. Activities may include:
• providing information such as crop data, pesticide use data, monitoring data, and listed species
range data to OPP for use in listed species-specific risk assessments for upcoming registration
review cases. These cases may be identified on EPA’s website at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide
reevaluation/explanation-registration-review-schedule . A registration review docket is opened and
a work plan developed for each pesticide case. The work plans articulate data EPA believes it needs
and discusses the assessments that will be conducted and the time frames for those assessments.
OPP would find it most useful for grantees to provide any relevant endangered species information
they may have 18 months prior to the projected date for completing a risk assessment;
• commenting on exposure assumptions used in risk assessments;
• commenting on the feasibility of proposed, listed species-specific mitigation measures during OPP’s
standard processes of registration and registration review; and
• reviewing draft Bulletins, should any be developed in a state’s area.
iii. Establish and Maintain Relationships
Build and maintain relationships with local and regional fish and wildlife agencies. Activities may
include:
• providing draft Sec. 18 and 24(c) submittals for review and comments;
• evaluating site-specific listed species/pesticide concerns (e.g., water sampling);
• reporting to EPA any wildlife incidents suspected of being pesticide-related;
• collaborating on certification & training presentations and workshops; and
• developing joint outreach materials.
iv. Work with Certification and Training Staff and Cooperative Extension Services
Provide endangered species information to Certification and Training Staff and Cooperative Extension
Services for Pesticide Applicator Trainings. Activities may include:
• incorporating endangered species information such as Bulletins into certification and training. This
activity will help keep state staff up to date on the progress of EPA's Endangered Species Program.
Reporting Requirements
Grantees should annually collect, summarize, and report to EPA compliance and non-compliance
information for all inspections where Endangered Species Bulletins are applicable as described in
Section E below (this information should be provided whether or not this program area is selected from
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
45
the pick-list). To help OPP assess the effectiveness of endangered species risk mitigation requirements
and Endangered Species Bulletins, please include some information on the pesticide products and
bulletin provisions that were violated. The Endangered Species Inspections Report Form can be found in
the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template.
The FIFRA template must be used to submit an end-of-year report that documents endangered species
activities conducted as agreed to in the cooperative agreement work plan. Grantees providing risk
assessment and risk mitigation support for use in listed species-specific risk assessments for upcoming
registration review cases should do so by commenting on the open dockets using the Stakeholder
Engagement Process identified at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP
2012-0442-0038
Performance Measures
To determine the effectiveness of the ESPP and the approaches listed above to limit potential effects
from pesticide use on federally listed threatened or endangered species, OPP will use compliance
information submitted annually (when available) to apply to the following formula to measure progress:
Yearly percent of inspections where endangered species requirements were in place and followed =
(a-x)/a, where:
• a is the number of use and for cause inspections where it could be determined that the pesticide
product was labeled requiring the applicator to follow the pesticide use limitations and any
applicable Endangered Species Protection Bulletins; and
• x is the number of use and for cause inspections where the pesticide applicator was alleged to be in
violation of the Endangered Species labeling requirements, including any applicable Endangered
Species Protection Bulletins.
This is a program-specific performance measure.
I. BED BUGS
Goal
The goal of this program area is to minimize the potential for pesticide misuse/overuse and spread of
bed bug infestations by increasing understanding of bed bug prevention and control approaches. Efforts
to provide bed bug outreach and assistance supports the Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of
chemicals, prevent pollution, and enforce environmental laws.
This priority also supports the Agency’s environmental justice goals because economically-challenged
segments of the population may have more trouble controlling an infestation due to the relatively high
cost of effective treatment, living in more densely populated and multifamily housing, and limited
access to information.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
46
Program Description
Bed bug complaints and infestations have increased markedly in some areas of the country, and bed bug
infestations are predicted to remain on the rise. People seeking effective, cheap and rapid solutions have
in some cases resorted to the use of unregistered pesticide products or the misuse of registered products.
To address this issue, grantee efforts should focus on:
1) Establishing relationships with local HUD offices that provide housing and homeless shelter
services to provide outreach and training on bed bug prevention and management;
2) Establishing relationships with local health departments on cooperative efforts to educate and
respond to public beg bug inquiries and pesticide misuse issues;
3) Promoting the use of integrated pest management (IPM) for bed bug control;
4) Encouraging use of registered pesticides considered effective against bed bugs that do not pose
unreasonable risks to people or the environment;
5) Discouraging the use of unregistered pesticides or the overuse of registered pesticides as measures
to control bed bugs;
6) Providing information to the public on bed bug infestations including IPM methods for control;
7) Collaborating with other agencies and stakeholders to share information on bed bug control; and
8) Promoting product and user compliance, focusing on illegal bed bug control claims and the illegal
use of products not registered for control of bed bugs.
Where feasible, grantees should use outreach materials already developed and available at the EPA Bed
Bug Clearinghouse on the EPA website (https://www.epa.gov/bedbugs/bed-bug-information
clearinghouse ). However, if grantees are considering developing additional bed bug outreach materials,
they should take steps to avoid duplication of existing materials by consulting with their project officer
first, followed by discussions with OPP and the EPA Bed Bug Clearinghouse. Bed bug outreach
materials developed by the grantee should also be added to the EPA Bed Bug Clearinghouse.
Enforcement Description
None.
J. POLLINATOR PROTECTION
Goal
Though risk assessment, mitigation, education, and outreach, EPA’s goal under the Pollinator Protection
Program is to ensure pollinators are protected from potential adverse effects of pesticide exposure. This
Pollinator Protection Program supports the Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals,
prevent pollution, and enforce environmental laws.
Program Description
Grantees selecting this Grantee Pick-list Program Area will focus activities on education and outreach to
growers, applicators, pesticide handlers, beekeepers and other landscape resource managers to
encourage adoption of methods and practices, such as IPM, stewardship, and best management practices
(BMPs), intended to protect bees, monarch butterflies, and other pollinators and the resources they rely
upon. Grantees should establish and develop relationships within their state or tribe (e.g., state or tribal
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
47
agencies, beekeeper and grower organizations, crop advisors, NGOs, government and university
researchers, pesticide registrants, and federal government offices or installations (e.g., DOD, USDA,
USGS, DOI)) to promote and assist where needed in pollinator protection activities as they relate to the
use of pesticides.
As part of these activities, grantees are encouraged to develop and implement managed pollinator
protection plans (MP3s) and/or plans for protection of non-managed pollinators, which may include
actions to develop pollinator habitat through broad-reaching efforts with local stakeholders. Grantees
should work collaboratively to identify metrics for evaluating the impact of MP3s and broader pollinator
protection efforts toward promoting/enhancing the health of honey bees and other pollinators. Grantees
are also encouraged to promote the use of best management practices, integrated roadside vegetation
management, and mowing best practices in roadsides, rights-of-ways, or managed natural areas which
may support pollinator habitat.
Enforcement Description
While there is no enforcement requirement for pollinator protection, grantees should follow the EPA
Bee Incident Investigation Guidance, or similar state or tribal guidance, (available online at:
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/guidance-inspecting-alleged-cases-pesticide-related-bee-incidents)
when investigating a bee incident.
Specific Reporting Requirements
Pollinator incidents and investigations provide OPP valuable information regarding the degree to which
pesticides may impact pollinator health, and are associated with pollinator declines. Therefore, grantees
must report the results of investigations of all known or suspected pesticide incidents involving
pollinators to OPP at: [email protected] with a copy to the regional project officers.
Basic elements of an incident report are explained in the Guidance referenced above. Useful baseline
information includes the location and date of the incident, the species affected, the approximate total
number of each species affected, the suspected pesticide(s), whether the pesticide(s) was/were in use at
the time of the loss, the crop/area on which the pesticide was applied, and whether residues were
detected.
K. SCHOOL INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM)
Pest control and pesticide use in schools poses special challenges and concerns. Our nation’s children
spend a considerable amount of their time in schools, as do teachers and school support staff. The
National Center for Education Statistics estimates that in 2010, nearly 50 million students attended
public elementary and secondary schools, with enrollment rates steadily increasing every year. With this
in mind, the Agency is pursuing a program to encourage the adoption of integrated pest management
(IPM) practices as a means to reduce unnecessary exposure to, and risk from pests and pesticides in
schools and on school grounds. The focus of this program is schools at the elementary through
secondary levels (grades K-12). More information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/managing
pests-schools .
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
48
Goal
The goal of this program is to decrease unnecessary exposure of children in schools (grades K-12) to
pests and pesticides through increased adoption of verifiable and ongoing IPM programs. Activities to
advance school IPM support the Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals and prevent
pollution. This activity also supports EPA’s children’s health goals. See the approaches and regional
roles and responsibilities listed in the Agency’s “Strategic Plan for School Integrated Pest Management:
Federal Fiscal Years 2016-2017,” found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016
02/documents/2016-2017_school_ipm_strategic_plan.pdf .
Program Description
Efforts under this program area should increase the adoption of verifiable IPM practices in schools,
including the use of reduced risk pesticides, biopesticides, cultural, and physical tools to reduce sources
of food, water, and shelter for pests in school buildings and grounds. Verifiable school IPM is an
ongoing activity that includes all of these documented elements: understanding pests; setting action
thresholds for key pests, i.e., knowing when to take action against key pests; monitoring for pests, their
locations and populations; removing conditions that allow pest infestation; and using one or more
effective pest control methods including sanitation, structural maintenance, and nonchemical methods in
place of or in combination with pesticides.
Key activities for this program area include:
• Support existing and/or develop new relationships, through partnerships, coalitions, and networks
that promote and support school IPM, foster the efficient transfer of information, encourage
collaboration, reduce duplication of effort and accelerate school IPM adoption within a state (e.g.,
state departments of education, health, or environment; state associations of school administrators;
state PTAs; state associations of school boards; state structural pest control boards; and the local
Service Employees International Unions).
Forge partnerships with state agencies and/or state chapters of national organizations to increase the
adoption of IPM in schools with a focus on the 2016 School IPM Roundtable Participants. A list of
participants can be found on EPA’s webpage: https://www.epa.gov/managing-pests
schools/roundtable-school-integrated-pest-management
• Disseminate existing educational and outreach materials to the states’ school systems and conduct
educational programs on IPM for school administrators, facility managers, custodial and kitchen
staff, school nurses, teachers, students and other key players as appropriate. The EPA’s Center of
Expertise for School IPM is a great resource for training materials, brochures, presentations, and
other educational and outreach materials that may be needed.
Where feasible, grantees should use outreach materials already developed and available from the EPA’s
Center of Expertise for School IPM or the EPA-funded iSchoolPest Manager website. If grantees are
considering developing additional school IPM outreach materials, they should take steps to avoid
duplicating existing materials by consulting with the EPA’s Center of Expertise for School IPM and by
communicating plans with the School IPM Coordinator in your EPA regional office. School IPM
outreach materials developed by the grantee should also be contributed to the EPA’s Center of Expertise
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
49
for School IPM and iSchoolPest Manager website. For more information about EPA’s School IPM
program and available resources, visit https://www.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools.
Enforcement Considerations
None.
L. SPRAY DRIFT
In 2014, EPA initiated the voluntary Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) Program to encourage the
identification and use of pesticide spray application technologies verified to substantially reduce spray
drift. Such technologies may include spray nozzles, shrouds and shields and drift-reducing adjuvant
chemicals used for aerial or ground boom applications to row and field crops. OPP will encourage
manufacturers to test their technologies to verify and quantify drift reduction potential, and OPP will
encourage registrants to label their agricultural pesticides for application with these technologies. As a
result of this program, OPP expects to see an increased adoption of drift reduction technologies on
pesticide labels and by pesticide applicators.
Goal
Reduce spray drift incidents by increasing awareness and adoption of spray drift reduction techniques
and technologies. The Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) Program supports the Agency’s Strategic
Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals, prevent pollution, and enforce environmental laws.
Program Description
Grantees that select this program area should conduct education and outreach activities that increase
awareness and promote adoption of spray drift reduction techniques and technologies.
Additionally, grantees should gather agricultural spray drift incident data from the past 2-3 years to form
an incident baseline and then gather additional incident data during the grant period. This agricultural
spray drift incident data, collected over time, can help the EPA the effectiveness of DRT Program. The
key parameter to collect is number of incidents investigated by the grantee related to spray drift of
agricultural pesticides. More detailed information includes:
• State or tribe where the incident occurred;
• Aerial or ground application;
• Wind speed at time of application;
• Release height at time of application;
• DRT equipment used, and identification of the technology used;
• Indication the DRT was used improperly;
• Droplet size at time of application;
• Weather conditions at time of application including humidity, temperature, and inversion conditions
if applicable;
• Pesticide product(s) used;
• Target site (e.g., row/field crop or orchard), and drift site (e.g., home, school, crop, wetland);
• The distance from the target site to the site where effects were observed;
• Observed effects;
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
50
• Determination of how likely is it that drift, and not volatilization or wind-blown soil particles, was
the cause of the exposure; (Not likely, likely, very likely or unknown); and
• Determination of any symptomatic human cases involved; was the state Department of Health or
regional project officer contacted?
In addition, it would be helpful to indicate if the spray drift incident investigated was a concern due to
smell, seeing the application, or a result of adverse health effects.
Enforcement Considerations
Grantees should investigate alleged incidents of spray drift and take appropriate enforcement action.
Grantees should also provide information on the actions taken as a result of their investigations as part
of their end-of-year report. If there were adverse health effects, document the symptoms as well as the
number of cases, and who was affected such as field workers, residents or bystanders. Finally,
enforcement actions should also be documented (e.g., no action, notice of warning, civil penalty,
criminal penalty).
Reporting Requirements
The data as described above will help inform the EPA and states/tribes about the success of the new
DRT program and provide ideas for making further improvements to reduce spray drift incidents. This
information should be reported annually in a separate file attached to the end-of-year report.
M. STATE AND TRIBAL COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION
It is a goal of the Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC) to encourage tribes, where appropriate and
feasible, to increase their communications and coordination with state pesticide programs as a resource
to build capacity for tribal pesticide programs.
Increased coordination can be low-cost and low effort, and can reap many benefits for tribes and states
while still respecting tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction. It can improve tribal access to programmatic
and technical expertise, support and training. It can also provide states with greater assurance of
adequate pesticide program protection in Indian country within or contiguous to their borders and
resources.
Goal
Where appropriate, support tribal pesticide program capacity building and efficient use of resources by
improving communication and cooperation between tribes and states to advance pesticide program
implementation and increase program efficiencies. Efforts to build tribal pesticide program capacity
through this approach supports the Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals, prevent
pollution, and enforce environmental laws. This priority can also support the Agency’s tribal and
environmental justice goals, including the Administrator’s commitment to enhance state, tribal and local
partnerships. This approach is also consistent with Principle #6 of the agency’s 1984 Indian Policy
which can be viewed online at: https://www.epa.gov/tribal/epa-policy-administration-environmental
programs-indian-reservations-1984-indian-policy .
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
51
Program Description
Grantees selecting this program area will work with tribes within their borders to strengthen
relationships, increase understanding and respect of jurisdictional issues, and identify areas for capacity
building. All efforts and approaches must support and respect tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction.
Examples of areas where state pesticide programs may be able to offer low-cost support to tribal
pesticide programs, or vice-versa, include:
• Involving state and tribal staff and managers in FIFRA-related training as appropriate in an effort to
share expertise and understanding;
• Sharing tools, templates, checklists or databases between states and tribes;
• Having states routinely inform tribes when they issue a FIFRA Section 24(c) or request a FIFRA
Section 18 from the EPA;
• Sharing pesticide monitoring data; and
• Establishing state and tribal technical and program expert contacts for pesticide personnel.
Enforcement Considerations
Examples of areas where state pesticide enforcement programs may be able to offer low-cost support to
tribal pesticide enforcement programs, or vice-versa, include:
• When training FIFRA inspectors, involve state and tribal inspectors in the training as appropriate in
an effort to share expertise and understanding;
• Offer tribes an opportunity to ride along with state pesticide inspectors, and vice versa, for training
purposes;
• Share information between states and tribes on tips, complaints, violators, and/or incidents that may
be relevant in or near Indian country;
• Provide lab support to tribes; and
• Work with tribes to identify establishments within tribal boundaries.
This approach does not authorize state compliance assurance or enforcement in Indian Country.
N. EMERGING PUBLIC HEALTH PESTICIDE ISSUES
This program area recognizes that there may be local public health concerns that will require grantees to
focus their resources to address public health crises involving insects or microbial pests such as Zika,
Lyme Disease and West Nile Virus. Public health leaders will need to turn to the EPA to provide
current, accurate, and specific information about pesticides, including antimicrobials, and pest control
practices. By carefully targeting technology, information, and process improvements, the EPA
headquarters and regional offices can be more agile, using fewer resources to react more rapidly and
efficiently to our local, state, tribal, and federal public health partners.
Goal
The goal of this program area is to protect human heath while addressing an emerging public health
concern. This program area supports the Agency’s Strategic Plan, to ensure the safety of chemicals,
prevent pollution, and enforce environmental laws.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
52
Program Description
Grantees selecting this program area will need to provide training and information on pesticides and
IPM approaches specifically designed to respond to the public’s concerns, and the needs of the public
health agencies to effectively address emergencies. Grantees will first identify the best approach for
their pesticide program based on the type of emerging public health issue and the related pesticide
needs. Once this has been identified, grantees will need to:
• Conduct outreach and education to affected communities on methods to minimize pesticide risk
while protecting human health;
• Coordinate with EPA regions and OPP on pesticide issues related to human health, including
section 18 and 24(c) requests;
• Coordinate with all federal, state and local agencies on activities needed to protect human health
from pesticide risk;
• Identify ways to minimize environmental and non-target risks from public health pesticide
applications. Promote IPM methods to minimize pesticide applications; and
• Provide other negotiated activities as appropriate.
This program area will require close coordination between EPA project officers and their grantees. The
regional project officer will need to notify OPP and OECA of the public health concern to make sure it
meets the intent of this program area.
Enforcement Considerations
Respond to clearly identified public health pesticide issues by providing compliance monitoring and
enforcement as needed. Monitor the sale/distribution of pesticidal products and devices that claim to
control public health pests, and take appropriate enforcement, or refer to the Region, against those
products which are unregistered or making false claims. Closely monitor FIFRA Section 25(b) products
that have public health claims.
Appendix 1: Supplemental Information for Program Areas
53
APPENDIX 2:
FIFRA WORK PLAN-REPORT TEMPLATE
DESCRIPTION AND LINKS
FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template
EPA developed a FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template (“FIFRA template”) for work
plans and reports for cooperative agreements awarded under this Guidance. Mandatory use of the FIFRA
template began for all FIFRA grantees in FY17, and continues as a requirement today. Both grantees and
regions must submit their reports as an Excel file and not a PDF. This will allow regions to complete their
portion of the template, and OPP and OECA offices to tabulate the reported information.
The FIFRA template, which is an Excel spreadsheet, was developed by EPA with extensive input and a
considerable amount of support from states with the goal of significantly reducing the administrative burden
associated with work plan development and accomplishment reporting for both the grantee and EPA
regional personnel. The FIFRA template also promotes clarity in work plan expectations and end-of-year
results, makes work plans and reports more consistent throughout the country, and facilitates compilation
and review of national year-end data.
The FIFRA template incorporates proposed work activities from the national FIFRA cooperative agreement
Guidance, provides space for proposed and negotiated grantee work activities, space for grantee progress
reports on negotiated work, and space for EPA comments and recommendations as part of the grantee
evaluation by EPA regional project officers. It also allows for additional narrative information to be
attached. The FIFRA template contains all forms needed for annual reporting, and allows additional data
files to be attached. The FIFRA template can be accessed online at:
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act-state-and-tribal
assistance-grant
The FIFRA template does not change the type of information reported or the processes used by regional
offices and grantees in submitting cooperative agreement applications, negotiating work plan commitments,
and reporting on the progress of those commitments. This template is not intended to change the normal
workflow process between the grantee and the EPA project officer.
FIFRA Work Plan-Report Instructions
With any new tool, there will be a period of learning and adjustment. This instruction manual focuses solely
on explaining how to use the FIFRA template within the Excel environment. The link for the manual is:
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act-state-and-tribal
assistance-grant
Software Needs
The FIFRA template was designed using Microsoft Office’s Excel 2007, and should run on any newer
version of Excel as well.
Appendix 2: FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template Description and Links
54
APPENDIX 3:
STATE PRIMACY UNDER FIFRA AND EPA OVERSIGHT
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q 1 What does primacy mean under FIFRA and how does it relate to program oversight?
FIFRA provides that states, which have met certain criteria, shall be granted primary enforcement
responsibility for pesticide use violations. Specifically, Section 26 (a) reads:
“In General. For the purposes of this Act, a State shall have primary enforcement responsibility for
pesticide use violations during any period for which the Administrator determines that such State –
(1) Has adopted adequate pesticide use laws and regulations, except that the Administrator may
not require a State to have pesticide use laws that are more stringent than this Act;
(2) Has adopted and is implementing adequate procedures for the enforcement of such State laws
and regulations; and
(3) Will keep such records and make such reports showing compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2)
of this subsection as the Administrator may require by regulation.”
Section 26 (b) continues on to explain how primacy may also be obtained through a cooperative agreement
with the Agency or if the state has an approved Section 11 certification plan that meets the criteria set forth
in section 26(a).
While these three mechanisms for obtaining primacy represent differing paths, the underlying criteria that
need to be met to obtain and retain primacy are essentially the same.
The EPA published its Final Interpretive Rule in the Federal Register on January 5, 1983, (48 FR 404 – 411)
for state primary enforcement responsibilities under FIFRA. This interpretive rule indicates that states with
FIFRA primacy will be the entities with primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use violations.
EPA will refer any significant reports of pesticide misuse to the states for follow-up. While EPA retains the
authority to conduct pesticide use/misuse inspections and enforce against pesticide misuse, EPA will defer
conducting pesticide use/misuse inspections or enforcement proceedings for pesticide misuse to states with
primacy unless the state fails to meet specific criteria described in the interpretive rule, or the state requests
or defers the inspection or enforcement to EPA.
EPA’s oversight of state programs does not end once a state has primacy. Primacy is the basis of a
continuous relationship between the state and EPA for successful implementation of FIFRA. This requires
EPA to provide ongoing review of state programs to assure that states maintain an adequate pesticide
regulatory program. This requirement is reflected in the language from section 26, such as “during any
period”, “adopted and is implementing” and “will keep such records and make such reports showing
compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2)”. Expectations regarding the level and types of ongoing or
continuing program oversight activities do not differ between the various mechanisms to obtain primacy.
Section 27 (b) and 40 CFR 173 each discuss that the Agency may rescind primary enforcement authority in
whole or in part when it determines that a state is not carrying out such responsibility. This language further
Appendix 3: State Primacy Under FIFRA and EPA Oversight Q&A
55
conveys the intent that the Agency must provide ongoing evaluations of state programs on which to base
any such determination.
The expectation and importance of ongoing EPA evaluations to assure state program adequacy has been re
emphasized via various GAO and/or OIG reports. The most recent and notable review of EPA oversight of
state enforcement programs (https://www.epa.gov/office-inspector-general/report-epa-must-improve
oversight-state-enforcement ) was critical of EPA‘s oversight of state air, RCRA, and water programs.
While this report focused solely on the air, water, and RCRA programs, its findings are important
considerations for all EPA programs. Over time, all programs, including various aspects of the pesticide
program, have been and will continue to be, subject to various levels of review by the GAO and/or the OIG.
EPA’s ongoing reviews to assess program adequacy are critical to assuring both state and national programs
are viewed as credible, transparent, and effective. In the current budget environment, where programs
viewed as non- or under- performing may be subject to additional reductions in resources, the imperative for
states and regions to work together to assure each of our programs continue to meet these obligations is even
more important.
The framework established in FIFRA for pesticide regulation gives primacy to states, and provides for
oversight by EPA, requiring both parties to work together for effective pesticide regulation to occur.
Communication and cooperation are essential to success. If communication is incomplete or irregular, or
cooperation does not happen, pesticide regulatory programs will not perform well at either the state or
federal level.
Q 2. What should I expect from EPA in terms of program oversight? What are the types of items that will
be looked at regarding primacy and the cooperative agreement?
EPA reviews of state FIFRA programs are required to be undertaken for the following purposes:
1. Program Reviews.
Verifying that the state program continues to meet the requirements for maintaining primacy;
identifying areas of concern that represent potential problems for maintaining primacy; and offering
suggestions to address problem areas.
2. Grant Reviews.
Assuring that federal funds are managed appropriately to accomplish the goals of the grant; that
activities/products meet expectations relative to the scope, numbers, and/or quality as described in the
work plan; and identification of assistance needed to meet these goals.
While not required under either review, EPA may use those processes to identify shared opportunities to
improve program implementation or ways to work together to improve pesticide regulation.
The oversight activities of grant reviews and program reviews can intersect and often the reviews occur at
the same time. The Interpretive Rule and 40 CFR 173 discuss EPA’s criteria for assessing the need for the
rescission of primacy under Section 27(b) of FIFRA. The Interpretive Rule states that “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 II to the performance of the State during the time
the State had primacy.” These criteria are what EPA will examine as a part of its obligations to assure the
implementation of state programs continue to meet the requirements for primacy. The criteria include:
Appendix 3: State Primacy Under FIFRA and EPA Oversight Q&A
56
1. Adequate laws and regulations. To be considered “adequate,” a state’s legislation must address at least
the following areas:
a. Same use prohibitions as contained in FIFRA (FIFRA 12(a)(2)(G), 12(a)(2)(H), 12(a)(2)(P) and
12(a)(2)(F));
b. Authority to enter premises or facilities to inspect and collect samples; and
c. Flexible array of enforcement remedies suitable to the gravity of a violation.
d. In addition to the initial determinations required to obtain primacy, ongoing reviews will evaluate
any changes to laws and regulations to assure these do not adversely impact a state’s ability to
implement a program consistent with FIFRA.
2. Adequate procedures for enforcing the laws. The Agency will examine the efficacy of procedures
adopted by the state to implement its pesticide laws and the state’s adherence to these procedures. This
may include reviews of SOPs, tracking systems, etc., but as reflected in the Interpretive Rule on pages
409-410, the Agency will be particularly interested in the remedies the state has actually applied to
various use violations. This aspect of the review will be used to determine whether there is sufficient
correlation between the gravity of a use violation and the severity of the enforcement response to assure
that the state’s arsenal of remedies is being applied in a flexible yet effective manner. More specifically,
and as more thoroughly discussed in the Interpretive Rule, this examination of procedures will include
an evaluation of the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
State training programs for state enforcement personnel;
Sampling techniques and laboratory capabilities;
Complaint processing to assure timely response;
Compliance monitoring and enforcement; and
State education programs to determine if the programs are informing its constituencies of applicable
pesticide use restrictions and responsibilities and promoting voluntary compliance.
Appendix 3: State Primacy Under FIFRA and EPA Oversight Q&A
57
APPENDIX 4:
ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY SETTING GUIDANCE
An effective priority-setting process will enable grantees to concentrate their compliance monitoring,
enforcement programs, and training on specific pesticide production, distribution and use activities which
pose the greatest risk to health and the environment. In applying for pesticide enforcement cooperative
agreement monies, states and tribal priority-setting plans will be expected to include: 1) a list of the
priorities; 2) an explanation of the criteria for establishing priorities; 3) a review of information sources and
listing of problem areas; 4) a ranking of problem areas to be dealt with; and 5) a distribution of the available
resources to the problem areas based upon the magnitude of the problem. The required content and the
recommended format are discussed below.
A priority-setting plan can either be addressed in the work plan or attached as a separate document. Once it
is approved by EPA, grantees need not submit the entire plan again as part of their cooperative agreement
applications. They only need to reference the plan, include any amendments to the plan, and resubmit an
updated list of priorities annually. However, the plan must be revised every 5 years.
I. CONTENT
The priorities to be addressed by the grantee must include the National Enforcement Priorities.
Grantees must evaluate these priorities as part of their own priority-setting process and assign
resources to them according to their ranking in their overall priority-setting scheme. The prioritysetting plan should identify the type of inspections to be conducted in support of the national
priorities, and why these categories were selected. Additional non-inspectional enforcement and
compliance activities addressing the national priorities should be identified as well.
The priority setting plan should provide an explanation of the criteria used for setting priorities and how
these criteria are weighed in establishing priorities (for example, the criterion of harm to human health
would, likely weigh more than property damage).
Priorities should be based on the following criteria, in addition to any other criteria pertinent within the
state. The greatest emphasis should be placed on items “A” and “B.”
A. Degree of harm to human health and the environment: grantees should take into account the degree of
harm to human health or the environment, whether actual or potential, when setting priorities. With
regard to this criterion, grantees should use the National FIFRA Enforcement Response Policy which
can be found on EPA’s website at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/fifra
erp1209.pdf and the FIFRA Worker Protection Standard Penalty Policy at:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/fifrawps.pdf. It is important to factor in the
degree of harm associated with the violation, even if there are a low or declining number of violations
recorded. For example, 8-10 violations with a low level of harm may be less of a priority than 2-3
violations with a higher level of harm.
Appendix 4: Enforcement Priority Setting Guidance
58
B. Identification of violations: For new priority-setting submissions, grantees will be expected to submit
information on the types of violations and where violations are occurring. Once this information is
systematically evaluated, grantees will be able to use it in concert with degree of harm to the
environment and human health as a basis for determining priorities. In the meantime, grantees should
use the full range of violations data currently at their disposal. Specifically, grantees should consider
what if any, recommendations they should make with regard to needed changes in the certification and
training programs to follow-up on trends in the violations data.
C. Follow-up to federal priorities or state regulations or requirements: EPA national enforcement
priorities for pesticides, state regulations, public pressure or political exigencies may alter the
priorities arrived at in A, B and C, and should be accounted for in the priority-setting plan, if
possible.
D. Economic loss (optional): Economic loss due to a pesticide violation may be measured by dollars
or by other criteria. The method chosen to measure economic loss must be explained in the
priority-setting plan.
E. Environmental indicators such as relevant ecological studies (optional): When available, relevant
ecological data or environmental assessments should be factored into the priority-setting procedure. A
groundwater survey may reveal, for example, high levels of groundwater contamination from
pesticides used in center-pivot systems.
F. Maintaining a Regulatory Presence (optional): Certain inspectional activities, such as marketplace or
producer inspections, may have a low violations rate and are seldom driven by complaints. They are
therefore more difficult to justify in the priority-setting process. A criterion for determining priorities,
therefore, can be based on a state's need to maintain a minimum enforcement presence in selected
parts of the pesticide community.
It is recognized that a sizable number of inspections throughout the course of the fiscal year will be devoted
to following up on tips and complaints, and unforeseen emergencies. The criteria above should be used in
prioritizing follow-up to tips and complaints, using primarily criteria A and B as the determining factors.
(Follow-up to tips, complaints and referrals could be listed as a priority.)
II. FORMAT
The priority setting plan can either be included in the grantee’s work plan or as an attachment. It should
include the fiscal years the plan covers and information on the priority areas. For each priority area, provide
the information sources (i.e. a review of violations data, toxicity data, tips and complaints, etc.) that were
used in establishing priorities. Discuss why the area was identified as a priority. As an example, there was a
high degree of actual or potential harm to human health or the environment or both.
Identify the number of inspections to be conducted to follow-up on this priority area. Also state under which
categories (e.g., agricultural use, etc.) these inspections fall and why these categories were selected. Identify
non-inspectional and/or training enforcement activities, if any, (i.e., enforcement fact sheets to be
distributed) as follow-up to a given priority area.
Appendix 4: Enforcement Priority Setting Guidance
59
APPENDIX 5:
COMMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY
For the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)
2015
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
60
I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
A. Introduction
EPA works with its federal, state, territorial, and tribal regulatory partners to implement and assure
compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to protect
human health and the environment. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) mission under FIFRA is to ensure that the environmental and public health protections
provided by our nation’s environmental pesticide laws are realized through activities to monitor
compliance, civil and administrative enforcement to address noncompliance, and criminal
enforcement actions when necessary. The ten regional offices carry out EPA’s programs and
negotiate and oversee cooperative agreements with the states, territories, and tribes for the
implementation and enforcement of FIFRA.
The primary goals of FIFRA compliance monitoring include:
• Targeting compliance monitoring activities in accordance with priorities;
• Providing a visible field presence that will encourage compliance and deter
noncompliance;
• Assessing and documenting compliance with FIFRA, the implementing regulations,
pesticide labels and pesticide registrations;
• Identifying problem areas requiring resolution through regulatory actions by the Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP);
• Collecting evidence to document and support enforcement actions; and
• Monitoring compliance with enforcement orders.
Generally, states 2 and tribes conduct pesticide use monitoring and enforcement, certify and license
commercial pesticide applicators, certify private pesticide applicators who use restricted use
pesticides (RUPs) and conduct marketplace and pesticide producing establishment inspections on
behalf of EPA to assure label and product integrity. Which states and tribes conduct these
activities, and the extent of activity, will vary depending upon who has obtained primacy
(explained below), the applicability of FIFRA provisions to the states and tribes as well as specific
obligations set forth in negotiated agreements. Through State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG), there is a working partnership among EPA, states, and tribes to cooperatively enforce
federal, state, and tribal pesticide laws and regulations. The success of this national pesticide
program is dependent upon good communication and cooperation among all partners.
2
Hereafter, references to “states” includes territories, as well.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
61
B. Purpose of CMS
This Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) works in conjunction with the OECA National
Program Manager Guidance (NPMG) and the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance (CAG) to
provide national pesticide enforcement program expectations to EPA regions, states, and tribes.
This CMS provides a multi-year framework and national guidance for the FIFRA compliance
assurance program to achieve the goals of FIFRA compliance monitoring and enforcement.
Specifically, this CMS is intended to:
• Promote an understanding of, and compliance with, minimum program requirements;
• Promote national consistency in program implementation while acknowledging and
allowing appropriate flexibility;
• Provide a strategy for setting priorities that focus on the greatest risks to health and the
environment;
• Articulate guiding principles of the strategic approach to help EPA headquarters, regions,
states, and tribes allocate resources across the FIFRA compliance assurance program;
• Provide inspection frequency goals;
• Clarify the intersections of compliance monitoring for the ongoing FIFRA core program,
the national areas of focus, and state or tribal priorities;
• Enhance the use of data collected for priority setting and inspection targeting; and
• Clarify requirements for reporting national program results.
It is increasingly challenging to monitor compliance and maintain adequate enforcement response
capabilities in the face of a regulated community that continues to grow in size and complexity
(See, Appendix – Universe of the FIFRA Regulated Community). While still important, our
traditional approach of conducting on-site inspections and pursuing enforcement cannot keep up
with expanding responsibilities. It is imperative that compliance monitoring and enforcement
agencies be flexible and creative in designing approaches to identify and address violations that
pose risk to human health and the environment while maximizing available resources. Therefore,
EPA is expanding the range of compliance monitoring activities, promoting the use of advanced
monitoring and electronic reporting, expanding transparency and sharing of data, and using
innovative enforcement approaches to increase compliance with environmental requirements as
part of its “Next Generation Compliance” efforts. Next Generation Compliance promotes
electronic reporting, advanced monitoring, and transparency to allow the public greater access to
pollution and compliance information.
C. Background
FIFRA was enacted originally as the Federal Insecticide Act in 1910 as a pesticide licensing act. In
1947, Congress broadened the federal government's control of pesticides by passing the original
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. FIFRA required the Department of
Agriculture to register all pesticides prior to their introduction in interstate commerce. In 1964,
amendments to FIFRA authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to refuse registration to pesticides
that were unsafe or ineffective and to remove them from the market. In 1970, Congress transferred
the administration of FIFRA to EPA. This was the initiation of a shift in the focus of federal policy
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
62
from the control of pesticides for reasonably safe use in agricultural production to control of
pesticides for reduction of unreasonable risks to human health and the environment.
This new policy focus was expanded by the passage of the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act of 1972 (FEPCA), which amended FIFRA by specifying methods and standards of
control in greater detail. Also in 1972, Congress amended FIFRA to provide a mechanism to
delegate enforcement responsibilities to states by providing for federal/state cooperative programs.
In 1978, Congress further strengthened the responsibility of the states by granting states primary
use enforcement authority under certain circumstances. Subsequent amendments have clarified the
duties and responsibilities of EPA. In general, the emphasis has shifted from pesticide efficacy
issues to minimizing risks associated with toxicity and environmental degradation.
D. Primacy
Section 26 of FIFRA sets forth the conditions for state primary enforcement responsibility
(primacy) for pesticide use violations. Section 26 provides for primacy under certain criteria that
differ from relationships states or tribes have with EPA in other programs. Section 27 of FIFRA
authorizes the Administrator to override or rescind primacy in certain situations. Currently, all
states have primacy with the exception of Wyoming. EPA provides oversight to ensure the
adequacy of the overall state program and an equal level of protection of human health across the
country. In addition, a state may, at any time, request EPA to act upon a pesticide misuse violation
utilizing the remedies available under FIFRA. 3
EPA issued two Federal Register notices governing how the Agency oversees the states with
respect to primacy and rescission of primacy: FIFRA State Primacy Enforcement Responsibilities:
Final Interpretive Rule, and Procedures Governing the Rescission of State Primary Enforcement
Responsibility for Pesticide Use Violations. Within the parameters of Sections 26 and 27 of
FIFRA, the interpretive rule on primacy, and the rule on the procedures governing rescission, EPA
may conduct compliance monitoring inspections and initiate enforcement actions for pesticide use
violations.
FIFRA does not authorize tribes to be granted primacy. Some tribes participate in the federal
FIFRA enforcement program by receiving a pesticide enforcement grant to conduct inspections
utilizing EPA inspection credentials. Tribes refer enforcement cases to the EPA regional office;
although, a few tribes take enforcement action using their tribal pesticide codes.
3
FIFRA State Primacy Enforcement Responsibilities: Final Interpretive Rule. 48 Fed. Reg.407, (Jan. 5, 1983).
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
63
II. FIFRA INSPECTIONS
A. Federal Inspector Credentials and Training
Inspections to assess compliance with FIFRA regulations must be conducted utilizing EPA
credentials and FIFRA inspection authority. All grantees must have at least one inspector with
EPA credentials. To be issued EPA inspector credentials, EPA, state, and tribal inspectors must
comply with EPA Orders 3500.1 and 1440.2. EPA Order 3500.1 requires, among other things,
media specific training requirements and specific training on emerging topics. EPA Order 3500.1
also specifies requirements for supervisors of EPA and state inspectors with EPA credentials. EPA
Order 1440.2 provides requirements for health and safety training for inspectors before they can be
issued and use EPA credentials.
The Pesticide Inspector Residential Training (PIRT) program trains state and tribal pesticide
regulatory inspectors and their supervisors. Objectives of the PIRT program include:
• Providing information on new regulations, technologies and tools to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of all pesticide inspections.
• Training a core group that can train others (“train the trainer”).
• Providing feedback that would offer important information that can be used in future
updates of inspection procedures and protocols.
• Networking that would allow for the exchange of information regarding routine or unique
inspections.
• Providing a forum for discussion of inspection protocol improvements and “lessons
learned.”
• Sharing valuable field information on emerging issues.
The Pesticide Regulatory Education Program (PREP) trains managers, supervisors, and senior staff
of state and tribal agencies who are responsible for FIFRA regulatory programs. The program is
governed by a Steering Committee that decides the annual themes of the courses, based on the most
pressing needs of the states. The objective of the program is to provide training on all aspects of
the pesticide program and improve consistency and efficiency in the national program as a whole.
Course themes include topics on core work, as well as new regulatory/enforcement initiatives, and
emerging issues in science and technology. A major benefit of the program since its inception in
1990 has been the networking and exchange of information among the states, tribes, and EPA.
B. Inspections
Inspections conducted under FIFRA authority must be consistent with EPA’s FIFRA Inspection
Manual.
To conduct an inspection, the inspector needs the informed consent to enter from the owner of the
property or from a person in control of the property in the absence of the owner, such as an
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
64
operator or agent-in-charge. If consent is denied and a warrant is necessary, the request for a
warrant can be based on “probable cause” or a “neutral administrative inspection scheme.”
“Probable cause” is a reasonable suspicion that a violation has occurred or is occurring and is
commonly referred to as a “for-cause” inspection. EPA conducts inspections pursuant to a neutral
inspection scheme when it is not doing “for cause” inspections. A neutral inspection scheme allows
for a non-arbitrary method of identifying inspection targets and the neutral selection of
establishments for inspection.
1. For-cause Inspections
Under FIFRA, a for-cause inspection is initiated as a follow-up to an on-going investigation or in
response to a tip or complaint, damage report, or referral of a known or suspected violation. Due to
the potential for harm to human health and the environment, it is important that a “for-cause”
inspection be initiated as soon as possible after receiving information of a suspected violation of
FIFRA or state law.
2. Neutral Scheme Inspections
A neutral scheme inspection monitors compliance based on a set of criteria rather than based on
information that a violation has occurred or is occurring. The plan must be neutral, and applied in a
neutral manner to the particular establishment. To establish the requisite neutrality, the plan can
rely on random selection, or selection by relevant statistics that have no individual human
component. The statistics cannot have an individual human component because this would
impermissibly allow a subjective input into the equation. An inspection cannot be the product of
an agency’s arbitrary decision. This CMS, in conjunction with the NPMG and the FIFRA
Cooperative Agreement Guidance, constitutes a critical part of the neutral scheme inspection plan
for FIFRA. See Chapter V for information on targeting neutral scheme inspections.
C. Specific Types of FIFRA Inspections
1. Producer Establishment Inspections
A producer establishment inspection (PEI) is an inspection of an establishment where pesticides or
devices are produced and held for distribution or sale. There are a variety of activities that are
conducted during a PEI inspection, including, but not limited to, the examination of products,
product labels, refillable and non-refillable containers, containment and records to determine
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.
2. Import Inspections
An import inspection is an inspection of a pesticide product being imported into the United States
to determine whether the product is in compliance with FIFRA. Inspections of imported pesticide
products can be conducted at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection central examination sites
located in designated ports or Customs bonded warehouses associated with the ports. Some import
inspections may also be conducted post-entry at a designated destination facility, as indicated on
the imported product’s entry documents. When EPA, state, or tribal credentialed inspectors
conduct an import inspection, it is initiated at the request of the EPA regional office.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
65
3. Use Inspections
A use inspection is an observation of an actual pesticide application or an inspection following an
application. Use inspections include the many facets of pesticide use, including storing, handling,
mixing, loading, and disposal. Pre- and post- application activities are appropriate for inspection.
Use inspections should be used to determine label comprehension and directions for use
compliance by applicators. Use inspections can also detect non-compliant labels in the channels
of trade or being used by consumers. An experimental use permit (EUP) inspection is conducted to
determine compliance with an experimental use permit and may be an actual observation of an
application or an inspection of records.
Use inspections are generally classified as agricultural or non-agricultural:
• Agricultural inspections include the inspection of pesticide applications in conjunction with
the production of agricultural commodities. Agricultural commodities are defined in 40
CFR section 171.2(a)(5) as, “[a]ny plant, or part thereof, or animal, or animal product,
produced by a person (including farmers, ranchers, vineyardists, plant propagators,
Christmas tree growers, aquaculturists, floriculturists, orchardists, foresters, or other
comparable persons) primarily for sale, consumption, propagation, or other use by man or
animals.” Worker Protection Standard (WPS) inspections are a type of agricultural
inspection conducted to monitor compliance with the WPS requirements.
• Non-agricultural inspections include the inspection of non-agricultural pesticide
applications such as pest control in industrial or residential settings.
4. Certified Applicator Inspections
The purpose of the certified applicator inspection is to determine if the applicator is properly
certified and/or licensed and whether the required records are being maintained. Additionally, to
the extent it is possible through a record review, the inspector will determine whether the applicator
is applying pesticides only in those areas for which certification has been issued; and whether the
records indicate that all applications have been made in compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations.
5. Restricted-Use Pesticide Dealer Inspections
This type of inspection is conducted on-site at dealers who sell restricted-use pesticides. The
purpose of the inspection is to determine if: (1) the dealer is properly licensed or certified (if
required) and maintaining the required records and (2) restricted-use pesticides are being sold only
to certified applicators or other properly authorized persons by reviewing the dealer’s records.
6. Marketplace Inspections
A marketplace inspection is conducted at the retail, distribution, wholesale, or user level for the
purpose of determining product registration status, proper storage and display, any labelling
violations, any product decomposition, and for collecting official samples.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
66
7. Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Inspections and Data Audits
GLP inspections and data audits focus on compliance with GLP regulations and the quality and
integrity of test data submitted to EPA by a registrant to ensure compliance with the FIFRA
requirements. A GLP inspection and data audit is the process by which EPA verifies that the data
from a completed study is consistent with the final report that was submitted to the Agency. This is
accomplished by documenting GLP practices and by examining raw data and other records
generated during a study and comparing them with results provided in the study report. GLP
inspections and data audits are conducted by EPA inspectors under a separate compliance
monitoring strategy.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
67
III. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
A. Background
Historically, EPA has relied upon on-site inspections as the primary activity to monitor compliance
with FIFRA. This CMS, however, suggests the consideration of a wider range of activities to
provide EPA, states and tribes with increased flexibility to monitor compliance and reach more
regulated entities effectively and efficiently. Compliance monitoring activities that are part of a
Cooperative Agreement must be documented in the state or tribe’s cooperative agreement work
plan and reported to the relevant EPA data system to ensure transparency, accountability, and
appropriate follow-up.
To qualify as a compliance monitoring activity:
• The activity must be conducted for the purpose of making compliance determinations;
• “On-site activities” must be conducted by an authorized inspector (consistent with
appropriate federal, state, or tribal authority);
• “Off-site activities” must be conducted by an authorized inspector (consistent with
appropriate federal, state or tribal authority) or other EPA, state or tribal representative
with sufficient knowledge, training, or experience to conduct the activity.
Compliance monitoring does not include:
• Compliance assistance 4;
• Compliance incentives, such as Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) initiatives; or
• Case Development and Enforcement (e.g., preparing notices of violation, warning letters, or
formal complaints; or developing evidence where an area of concern or potential violation
has been identified).
B. On-site Compliance Monitoring Activities
On-site activities may include inspections designed to assess compliance of the establishment as a
whole, or inspections targeted to focus on a specific pesticide product, pesticide, or regulatory
requirement. During an inspection, an inspector may conduct the following activities:
• Make observations, take notes and pictures;
• Gather information from witnesses or establishment representatives;
• Review records, including establishment records, dealer records as well as applicator
license and records;
4
Agency policy limits the extent to which an inspector may provide compliance assistance in connection with an
inspection. See National Policy: Role of the EPA Inspector in Providing Compliance Assistance During Inspections
(June 25, 2003), http://kodiak.r07.epa.gov/intranet/enviroprograms/role_of_inspector.pdf.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
68
• Collect samples of pesticide products;
• Collect residue and environmental samples;
• Use advanced monitoring technologies, when available, at sites of suspected pesticide
drift.
C. Off-Site Compliance Monitoring Activities
Off-site activities may include compliance evaluations designed to assess compliance of the
establishment as a whole, but generally will be targeted to focus on only a portion of an
establishment, such as a specific process, pollutant, or regulatory requirement. Off-site evaluations
may include any of the following activities:
• Review of establishment reports or other documents, such as annual production reports
required by FIFRA Section 7 or notifications under FIFRA Section 6(a)(a);
• Review of agency-gathered testing, sampling and monitoring data, such as results of
formulation and efficacy analysis of samples of anti-microbial pesticides;
• Review of relevant process and inventory information, such as records documenting a
registrant’s implementation of a pesticide recall plan;
• Review of records produced under FIFRA Section 8; and
D. Other Activities
Regions, state and tribes may conduct other activities that are not compliance monitoring activities
but which may create a FIFRA compliance presence in the regulated community which encourages
and facilitates compliance, although these other activities are not considered compliance
monitoring. For example, the region may:
• Employ integrated strategies that include compliance assistance and compliance incentives
in combination with traditional inspection and enforcement approaches.
• Partner with OPP to combine outreach with compliance and enforcement, particularly in
specific requirements, geographic areas/watersheds and/or vulnerable populations.
• Employ ambient environmental screening using advanced monitoring technologies for a
group of facilities or geographic area of interest for use in subsequent compliance
evaluations and determinations, such as analysis of pesticides in vulnerable watersheds.;
and
• Review company website wherein internet sites are examined for potential FIFRA
violations.
If EPA regions, states, or tribes have other ideas of additional compliance monitoring activities
they are encouraged share them with OECA.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
69
IV. INSPECTION FREQUENCIES
Inspection frequencies are intended to help EPA, the states and tribes to understand and meet
today's challenges by providing benchmarks that set aspirational compliance monitoring goals. The
frequencies presume adequate funding and resources and, therefore, the actual number of
inspections conducted may differ from the frequencies set forth below.
At this time, inspection frequencies are not being offered for Marketplace, Certified Applicator,
Use and WPS inspections. The size of those regulated communities coupled with clear
regional/state differences, make one, standard inspection frequency challenging for these
inspection types without further delineation. Strategic targeting is particularly important where an
inspection frequency is not proposed to ensure the greatest possible deterrent effect. For example,
a strategic plan may focus on key times of the growing cycle, the applicator type (i.e. aerial), a
particular pesticide or a certain geography. The relative size of a particular sector of the regulated
community may also be considered. States should consider how to balance inspections and
potential risk in developing a plan for these inspection types. For the WPS program, critical to the
protection of human health, EPA will work with states to develop criteria and expectations to guide
the WPS inspection program.
Actual annual program commitments for ALL inspection types are negotiated as part of the
cooperative agreement process or are subject to the annual commitment system process. Individual
regional, state and tribal circumstances, including resource and workload issues, are addressed
during those processes. The inspection frequencies listed below are goals for an important subset
of all FIFRA inspections, and can serve as a starting point for cooperative agreement negotiations,
knowing that there needs to be flexibility to adapt to particular situations, as necessary.
Cooperative agreement negotiations address the unique mix of regulated entities and pesticide
issues in particular states or tribes.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
70
Type of Inspection
Proposed Inspection
Frequency
PEI
All at least once every
5 years
2% of all annually
All annually
All at least once every
5 years
Imports
EUP
RUP Dealers
Marketplace*
Certified
Applicators*
Use *
WPS*
No inspection
frequency at this time
but must be part of a
balanced state
inspection plan.
No inspection
frequency at this time
but must be part of a
balanced state
inspection plan.
No inspection
frequency at this time
but must be part of a
balanced state
inspection plan.
No inspection
frequency at this time
but must be part of a
balanced state
inspection plan.
Approximate
Size of Regulated
Community
14,000
# of Inspections
Needed Nationally to
Meet Frequency/Year
2,800
24,000 NOAs
760
Exact # Unknown.
Some states maintain
data; ex. 1412 in
Iowa. Assume
approximately
50,000.
Large. Everywhere
pesticides are sold.
Retail, wholesale,
etc.
480
760
10,000
900,000
Large; Everywhere
pesticides are used;
Large; Every
farm/nursery that
hires farmworkers.
* No inspection frequency is listed at this time but may be offered in the future.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
71
V. PRIORITY SETTING AND TARGETING
Priority setting, targeting and commitments are part of a dialog between EPA, states and tribes.
This dialog is the foundation of cooperative agreement negotiations. Decisions made as to
priorities, targets and commitments should be reflected in cooperative agreement work plans. As
part of that process, regions need to assess their own resource levels in relation to each state and
tribe’s identified priorities, targets and commitments. Work plans should be made available to
OECA, upon request, to provide a picture of compliance monitoring activities in a given year.
A. Priority Setting
The goal of priority setting is to focus compliance monitoring efforts on program areas with the
greatest need first. Consistent with the NPMG and the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance,
priorities should be based on risk to human health and the environment. Regions, states and tribes
should use the criteria listed below to determine risk-based priority setting. Once the greatest
needs are identified, a holistic compliance monitoring strategy must be developed that addresses
priorities but also provides an overall deterrent effect for the FIFRA program as a whole.
1. Priority Setting Criteria
Risk-based prioritization should reflect the following criteria:
a. Potential harm to human health or the environment.
Take into account the degree of harm to human health or the environment, whether actual or
potential, when setting priorities. Factors to consider are the toxicity of the pesticide, whether it is
a restricted use pesticide (RUP), the amount of the pesticide used, the occurrence and use patterns,
and the potential impact on health or the environment if misuse occurs. Pesticide risks can be
ranked by their relative contribution to harm that may result from pesticide use or misuse.
Reducing chemical risks and protecting underserved and vulnerable populations is of particular
concern; in particular, the disparate exposure in environmental justice communities and the
likelihood of exposure to children and workers. Consideration of newly implemented regulatory
requirements is also part of this criteria.
b. Types and number of violations that occur.
The types and number of violations is an indicator of the level of compliance with formulation and
labeling requirements. It provides real-time information about regulatory issues that need to be
addressed. The criteria used to evaluate violations include: violations that resulted in injury to
humans, animals or the environment; facilities or users with major violations as determined by the
FIFRA Enforcement Response Policy; and facilities or users with multiple violations, repeat
violations, patterns of violations, violations involving highly toxic pesticides or violations that
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
72
caused economic harm. Pesticides may be ranked by their relative contribution to use or product
related violations.
c. Health and environmental indicators.
The analysis should consider relevant ecological and health studies when available. For example, a
groundwater survey may reveal high levels of contamination from pesticides used in center-pivot
systems. A health survey may reveal unacceptable levels of pesticide exposure.
2. Maintaining a Deterrent Effect
EPA, states, and tribes can provide a deterrent effect by maintaining a visible presence in the
FIFRA regulated community as a whole. Core areas for deterrence purposes include:
• Producer establishment inspections (PEIs);
• Dealer, distributor, and retailer inspections;
• Worker Protection Standard;
• Use and misuse;
• Cancellations, suspensions, other major regulatory actions, recalls, and national high risk
initiatives;
• Imports;
• Exports;
• Section 18, Section 24(c), and experimental use permits monitoring;
• Antimicrobial pesticides;
• e-Commerce;
• Container/containment inspections.
B. Targeting
The goal of targeting is to focus on the most significant environmental problems within a priority
area by identifying specific pesticide products/producers, applicators and use patterns that may
pose the greatest risk of harm to human health or the environment due to noncompliance. Risk
mitigation is achieved, in part, through targeting activities to deter unlawful pesticide production,
distribution, sale, or use. Targeting may be for inspections or other activities that are designed to
raise compliance rates (e.g., screening activities conducted by other media inspectors that may
provide useful information for the FIFRA program, working with manufacturers or retail food
producers to set up audit programs for pesticide users and crop growers). Targeting also may
include off-site activities such as record reviews that do not have to take place on-site.
Generally, targeting should consider:
• Collaborative discussion between co-regulators;
• Review of relevant data and information, e.g., monitoring and violations data, toxicity data,
and tips and complaints;
• Location factors, such as proximity to underserved and vulnerable populations, as well as to
impaired watersheds;
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
73
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pesticide products labeling and the chemical composition of registered pesticides
distributed or sold in the United States;
Prevention of unlawful formulations, unapproved claims, or adulterated and misbranded
pesticides from being distributed, sold, or subsequently used;
Improper or inadequate use directions or safety precautions on the product labeling which
may constitute misbranding or where the accepted labeling has been determined inadequate;
Improper use of pesticide products that may result in serious exposure incidents potentially
leading to death or hospitalization;
Production factors (including production volume, and product);
Use/application factors (including use patterns of concern and volume or frequency of use);
PEIs which focus on high toxicity pesticides;
Use compliance in application settings (e.g., agricultural sites, structural, grain, or soil
fumigation) with a focus on chemicals with a high risk for exposure or harm;
Worker safety.
Compliance history.
Specific targeting strategies for any given time period should be influenced by priorities
emphasized in National Program Management Guidance as well as state and tribal priorities.
Targeting strategies need to include three types of inspection components: for cause, neutral
scheme, and pesticide formulation sampling.
1. “For-Cause” Targeting
For-cause inspections are typically time-sensitive. Any strategy that is intended to help prioritize
for-cause inspections should provide for expeditious referrals and coordinated effort among EPA
and state and tribal partners towards specific sectors of the regulated community, non-compliant
behavior in the marketplace or by pesticide users. For-cause compliance monitoring often focuses
on specific and suspected non-compliant situations and is conducted primarily by the regional
offices for targeted products and by the state and tribal partners for pesticide misuse.
2. Neutral Scheme Targeting
Targeting strategies for neutral scheme inspections should consider the length of time since the last
inspection, with longer times increasing the priority of the inspection, and emphasize specific
sectors of the regulated community including:
• Pesticides that are highly toxic or are potentially hazardous to human health or the
environment;
• Pesticides with disinfectant or antimicrobial claims;
• Pesticides produced in foreign establishments and imported into the United States;
• Pesticides packaged, labeled, and released for distribution, sale, and use by persons other
than the primary registrant;
• Pesticides that are marketed and sold and found to be unregistered;
• Pesticides that have undergone significant registration amendments to address human health
or environmental concerns;
• Pesticides whose registrations include the requirement for efficacy testing and submission;
and
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
74
•
Pesticides whose registrations or specific uses have been cancelled and are subject to
specific existing stocks provisions.
3. Pesticide Formulation Sampling
To gain the most benefit from a pesticide establishment inspection program, a formulation
sampling strategy is necessary to identify which products should be collected. Both the
establishment inspection program and the formulation sampling strategy should be developed
jointly through negotiations among the state and tribal program offices, the state laboratories, and
the EPA regional offices.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
75
VI. DATA MANAGEMENT AND UTILIZATION
Data must be collected in accordance with an approved Quality Management Plan (QMP) and
collection must follow QA/QC requirements. Data quality, accuracy and completeness are
essential. Regions should ensure federal data is entered into ICIS in a timely fashion. States and
tribes must provide data and information to EPA in a timely and accurate manner, as set forth in
state cooperative agreements.
A. Data Management and Reporting Requirements
1. Agency Enforcement Databases
EPA regional offices report pesticides enforcement information into two Agency electronic data
systems:
a. Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)
Federal case information, including the environmental benefits of enforcement, is reported into
ICIS. Data from ICIS help monitor and track the status of ACS measures for FIFRA compliance
monitoring activities and target future activities. Accurate and timely ICIS data entry is of the
utmost importance to monitor progress toward goals for FIFRA compliance monitoring activities.
b. Annual Commitment System (ACS)
The ACS assists National Program Managers (NPMs) and Regional managers in negotiating and
agreeing on annual regional performance commitments. The ACS captures key program measures
identified in National Program Guidance documents and is used to facilitate agreement on the final
annual regional commitments that are made for each measure. The Regions report in ACS the
number of inspections conducted using EPA credentials twice a year.
B. Targeting and Evaluation Tools
There are several targeting and evaluation tools available to EPA’s pesticide compliance and
enforcement program:
1. Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)
The Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) is the Agency’s primary website for
providing public access to regulatory compliance and enforcement data. ECHO includes
information to determine whether compliance inspections have been conducted by EPA, states, or
tribes, if violations were detected or enforcement actions taken, and any penalties assessed in those
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
76
actions. This database has limited application for FIFRA since it only includes federal inspections
and enforcement actions, which are obtained from ICIS.
2. Agency Databases
A wide variety of government databases and data systems support regulatory programs or serve as
inspection targeting and compliance assessment tools. Some databases have limited access. The
list below describes some of the databases available.
a. Section 7 Tracking System (SSTS)
The Section 7 Tracking System (SSTS) includes registration information about domestic and
international pesticide producing establishments. Additionally, the database includes the type and
amount of pesticide production for each establishment. SSTS includes the name and address of the
producing establishment and the company which operates the facility. Currently, facility data
recorded in SSTS does not include latitude/longitude information. The system has been transferred
into the OPP data system PRISM.
b. Pesticide Registration Information System (PRISM)
The Pesticide Registration Information System (PRISM) has comprehensive electronic pesticide
registration information. PRISM acts as a gateway to all pesticide registration information for the
Agency’s partners and stakeholders.
c. Office of Pesticides Programs Information Network (OPPIN)
The Office of Pesticides Programs Information Network (OPPIN) contains information about the
registration status of products, data submission information, and correspondence with registrants
and pesticide labeling. Because the data system contains FIFRA Confidential Business
Information, access is limited.
d. Pesticide Product Labeling System (PPLS)
PPLS is a collection of images, in multi-page PDF format, of pesticide labels that have been
accepted by OPP. The collection contains initially accepted labels for pesticide products registered
under FIFRA, subsequent versions of labels that have changed via amendment or notification and
associated correspondence about the terms of registration, specifying any changes which the
registrant was required to make in the final printed label. Regional staff, states, tribes, and the
public have access to information in PPLS.
e. State Labeling Information Tracking System (SLITS)
Currently, states and tribes use the State Labeling Information Tracking System (SLITS) to identify
label issues to EPA for compliance evaluation. This database has the potential for broad use by
states and tribes to facilitate compliance monitoring of individual regulated pesticide products. The
database also is a useful tool for EPA regions.
f. Public Health Tracking Network
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
77
The National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network is a system of integrated health,
exposure, and hazard information and data from a variety of national, state, and city sources. It
includes information on pesticide exposure.
3. Other Data Sources
a. National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS)
The National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS) is a collection of pesticide-related
databases available by subscription. NPIRS is under the administration of the Center for
Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems (CERIS) at Purdue University. The system
contains labeling information about pesticides registered by EPA and many states. The PPLS is
accessible to the public through NPIRS. A subset of NPIRS is the National State Pesticide
Information Retrieval System (NSPIRS) that focuses on state registrations.
b. State Inspection Data
State inspection data is currently collected on Form 5700-33. Many states have electronic data
systems to track inspections, enforcement, other field activities, and results.
c. Performance Measures
In 2012, a workgroup of EPA, state, and tribal pesticide regulators began efforts to develop new
performance measures to replace the 2006 Government Performance and Results Act
measures.
The process and procedures for reporting data on the final new performance measures have been
incorporated into the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance.
d. Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR)
Operated by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Center for Disease Control,
SENSOR offers data on acute occupational pesticide-related illness and injury.
e. American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS)
The NPDS is a comprehensive poisoning exposure surveillance database maintained by the
American Association of Poison Control Centers containing information from the human poison
exposure case phone calls taken by all 55 poison centers across the country.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
78
VII. OVERSIGHT OF STATE AND TRIBAL PROGRAMS
Regions conduct state and tribal enforcement program oversight as part of the state and tribal
cooperative agreements, performance partnership agreements (PPAs) and/or performance
partnership grants (PPGs). Cooperative agreement reviews, including reviews of performance
under this CMS, must be conducted at least annually. End-of-year reports received from the state
and tribe typically form the basis for the review. The purpose of these reviews is to determine
whether cooperative agreement commitments were met and evaluate the adequacy of the state or
tribal pesticide program. These reviews also aid in determining how state and tribal programs have
targeted monitoring and enforcement activities in their respective programs. Regional reviews of
state information should include an evaluation of pesticide monitoring and enforcement case files
to determine whether actions taken by the state or tribe were consistent with the national and state
policies approved as part of the pesticide program delegation.
It is recommended that regions conduct joint or oversight inspections with state or tribal pesticide
inspectors to monitor the quality of field work and expand the knowledge base. EPA regions
should review state and tribal inspection reports to ensure that inspections are conducted properly,
appropriate inspection procedures are followed, and sufficient evidence is collected as part of
EPA’s routine actions. This review should be conducted as part of EPA’s routine oversight of the
cooperative agreement program during mid-year and end-of-year reviews, but, ideally would be
conducted more frequently.
Where states and tribes are not meeting performance expectations, regions should take action to
address serious shortcomings. Regions need to take action when necessary to communicate what
needs attention to achieve the goals of federal environmental laws and ensure a level playing field
among states.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
79
CMS APPENDIX – UNIVERSE OF THE FIFRA
REGULATED COMMUNITY
The definition of a pesticide is very broad and includes: (1) any substance or mixture of substances
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest; (2) any substance or mixture
of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant; and (3) any nitrogen
stabilizer.
The FIFRA regulated community is very broad and includes pesticide registrants, producers,
retailers, distributors, and pesticide applicators. Regulated products include, but are not limited to,
pesticide products used in commercial production of agricultural crops, products for landscaping,
disinfectants and other antimicrobials, pesticides for structural and indoor pests, and pesticide
products purchased and used by homeowners.
EPA has primary responsibility for compliance monitoring of products and establishments. States
have primary responsibility for use enforcement. In addition to providing guidance and
establishing priorities, EPA Headquarters plays a large role in enforcement activities, which relate
to the registration, cancellation, and labeling of pesticides (OPP) and compliance (OECA). The
regions’ resources are mainly directed at compliance monitoring and enforcement of pesticide
product registrations and establishment requirements under FIFRA Sections 7 and 8. A significant
portion of the national pesticide compliance and enforcement program’s resources are directed at
use activities, primarily by the states and tribes working under cooperative agreements.
As the regulated universe is so vast, a targeted approach is used to focus efforts on those segments
that pose the greatest potential risk to human health and the environment.
EPA is able to quantify much of the regulated universe, but not all. For instance, certification
requirements enable EPA to track the number of certified applicators licensed to apply restricted
use pesticides. However, the Agency can make only general estimates of the much greater number
of individuals who apply general use pesticides for which no certification is required.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
80
The universe of regulated entities and products is described in the following table.
Type
Registrants
Number
1,709a
Registered Pesticide Products
18,681a
Active Distributor Registrations
58,035a
Pesticide-Producing and DeviceProducing Establishments
Pesticide
Retailers/Dealers/Marketplaces,
including web-only dealers
14,162b
Comments
Companies holding at least one active section 3 or
24(c) registration.
Distributor registrations are based on section 3
registrations. A single section 3 registration may have
many distributor registrations associated with it, thus
the large number of distributor registrations in
comparison to section 3 registrations.
Including foreign and domestic establishments.
Very large The exact number is unknown. This segment of the
regulated universe is so large and includes every
location where general use pesticides (insect repellants,
disinfectants, rodenticides, etc.) are sold. Some states
maintain a database of all dealerships, retailers, and
other marketplaces at which restricted use pesticides
(RUPs) and general use pesticides (GUPs) are sold.
Applicators certified to use RUPs
Certified applicators are licensed to use restricted use
•
Private
481,008
pesticides.
•
Commercial
413,361
Total
894,369c
Laboratories Conducting FIFRA 1,400d
1,400 labs have submitted studies to EPA in the last 3
Studies
years.
Imports: Notice of Arrivals
24,246e
Received
Exports: Exports Notices
2402f
Foreign Purchasers’ Acknowledgement Statements.
a
Experimental Use Permits
760
Section 18 Exemptions
4,456a
Emergency Use Exemptions are granted by the
Emergency Use Exemptions
Administrator upon application from a state if certain
criteria are met.
a
Section 24(c) Registrations –
2,589
A state may provide registration for additional uses of
Special Local Needs
federally registered pesticides formulated for
distribution and use within that state to meet special
local needs if the registration for such use has not
previously been denied, disapproved, or canceled.
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
81
Section 25(b) Product
Very
largeg
Farms
2,226,956h
These products are exempted from FIFRA registration
although some states my require registration. The
regulatory and compliance monitoring status of this
segment of the universe is very diverse and complex.
Thirty seven states regulate these products with
varying levels of oversight; some states require a
complete product data review and/or efficacy testing,
while others only require a registration fee, and yet
others review some portions of the label for
compliance issues.
This number represents the number of farms in the
states and territories. Information on farms on tribal
lands is collected under a separate process by USDA
beginning in 2007. The data on tribal farms is limited
at this time.
a—Data through July 2009 from the Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, OPP
b—Data through June 2013 from the Section Seven Tracking System, Pesticides, Waste and Toxics
Branch, OC
c—Data for 2011 from the Certification and Worker Protection Branch, OPP
d—Data from the Laboratory Data Integrity Section, MAMPD, OC
e—Data estimates from Regions, in general through July 2009
f—Data as of calendar year 2008 from the Field and External Affairs Division, OPP
g—Information and comment from the Policy and Regulatory Services Branch, OPP
h—Data from the 2007 USDA Ag Census
Appendix 5: Compliance Monitoring Strategy
82
APPENDIX 6:
OPP GUIDANCE FOR SUBMISSION OF STATE AND
TRIBAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Inclusion of Water Quality Monitoring Data in OPP's Registration Review Risk
Assessment & Management Process
Goal:
This Guidance describes the process for the submission of state and tribal surface and groundwater
monitoring data, including but not limited to Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) & 305(b) data, for
consideration in exposure characterizations for ecological and human health risk assessments and in risk
management decisions for pesticide registration review.
Target Audience: State and Tribal Pesticide Lead Agencies; State and Tribal Water Agencies.
Background:
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) published the final rule for Pesticide Registration Review on
August 9, 2006 with an effective date of October 10, 2006. This program ensures that all pesticides continue
to meet current health and safety standards. The Congressional goal is to review all existing pesticides every
15 years. To support this process, OPP is interested in obtaining all available pesticide monitoring data that
states and tribes may have for surface water and groundwater.
How Does OPP Use Water Monitoring Data from States and Tribes?
Monitoring data provide snapshots of pesticide concentrations in time at specific locations. In order for OPP
to make the best use of this data, we need supporting information that will allow us to put the results in
context with the larger picture of pesticide exposures in the environment. The more likely the monitoring
sites reflect areas that have a likelihood of pesticide occurrence in water (based on pesticide use as well as
local runoff and/or leaching vulnerability), sampling occurs during the time frame in which pesticides are
expected to be used, and the sampling is frequent enough to estimate exposures for the endpoints of concern,
the more likely OPP will be able to incorporate that data quantitatively in its risk assessment.
Typically, monitoring data is screened to identify any detection above modeled values and is not evaluated
in a comprehensive manner unless the screening/Tier 1 assessments identify a risk of concern that triggers
more refined/Tier 2 assessments. For Tier 2 assessments, when OPP uses monitoring data quantitatively it
means that the data can be used as a direct measure of exposure in an ecological or human health dietary
assessment. This is a high hurdle to clear because much of the monitoring data available are often not
targeted to a particular use pattern or of sufficient frequency to capture durations of concern. How
monitoring data is used quantitatively is dependent on the ancillary data and key among these is sample
frequency. Sample frequency relative to the duration of concern (e.g., daily peak vs. annual mean) is a key
Appendix 6: OPP Guidance for Submission of State and Tribal Water Quality Monitoring Data
83
driver in determining how monitoring data is used quantitatively. However, with adequate ancillary data,
monitoring data may be used as direct inputs into risk assessment models. Also, it is possible that while a
data set may not be national in scope, it may provide a quantitative measure on a regional or local scale in
which case it could be used as a local refinement to national modeling.
If OPP cannot use a monitoring data set quantitatively, it may still be valuable in providing context to the
exposure assessments. For instance, detections of a given pesticide can provide a measure of a lower bound
estimate of exposure for purposes of risk assessment. While the data may not be robust enough to ensure a
high-end exposure has been observed, the detections do indicate that transport has occurred in the study. At
a minimum, qualitative data can provide a balance against modeled estimates and can be useful for
characterization of risk conclusions. For example, refinements to modeling sometimes use alternative
assumptions that may reduce predicted concentrations. However, if these predicted concentrations approach
or are lower than those seen in monitoring data, then this may call into question the appropriateness of the
refinement.
For more information on how OPP uses water quality monitoring data in its aquatic exposure assessments, see
the document Evaluation and Use of Water Monitoring Data in Pesticide Aquatic Exposure Assessments
located on OPP’s website at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/evaluation-and-use-water
monitoring-data-pesticide-aquatic-exposure
What are the Most Important Elements Needed for OPP to Use the Data?
OPP recognizes that the types of water quality data collected might be different among monitoring
programs. Water monitoring data would be most useful for risk assessment purposes if it included the
following elements for surface water and groundwater:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Study objective (i.e., purpose and design of the monitoring study); a copy of a report describing the
purpose and design of the monitoring study or internet web address leading to this information would
be useful if available
Location description (latitude & longitude, if possible, or other reliable location information)
Water body type (stream, river or other flowing body; lake, reservoir, or other static body;
groundwater; nature of aquifer, e.g., surficial or confined)
Date sampled
Sample media (e.g., water, filtered water, bed sediment, tissue)
Chemical analyzed and reported concentration
Analytical method and detection limit (LOD) or limit of quantitation (LOQ)
Depth to water level for groundwater
Well characteristics, such as well depth, screened interval, and aquifer type if known (e.g., confined
vs. unconfined)
Well purpose (e.g., ambient vs. drinking water)
What Other Important Information Aids in Interpreting Monitoring Data?
•
•
•
Quality assurance (QA)/quality control for sample collection and analytical methods, including a
discussion of any limitations of the data
Time of sample [e.g., date, time; duration (if a composite), timing to stream hydrograph( if flowweighted sample)]
Sample collection method (e.g., grab or composite)
Appendix 6: OPP Guidance for Submission of State and Tribal Water Quality Monitoring Data
84
•
•
•
•
•
•
Time frame and duration of monitoring sampling
Land use, including cropping pattern, agriculture/urban, etc. preferably in immediate vicinity of
sample site though general information on specific pesticide use sites would be useful
Pesticide usage that could affect water quality at sampling location
Did the sampling methodology and analytical methods go through a formal QA process? If yes, is
this process documented (e.g., in a report or on a website address)?
For pesticides that adsorb to sediments: percent organic carbon, bulk density, etc.
For some chemicals, environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, pH, hardness, turbidity) may
affect mobility and persistence. If this is known to occur, information on the parameter would be
helpful in interpreting the data.
Should I Submit Data that are already Publicly-Available?
As a matter of routine, OPP typically checks and reviews the following sources for pesticide monitoring
data: 1) United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program;
2) EPA’s STORET (short for STOrage and RETrieval) Data Warehouse; 3) United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program Drinking Water Monitoring. If a state’s or tribe’s monitoring
data are already contained within these sources, then simply let OPP know. If your data are available on
another publicly-accessible website, please send us the link.
How Do I Know Which Pesticides OPP is Re-evaluating?
1. Federal Register (FR) Notification:
a. Registration Review Initial Docket Openings for Comment: At the beginning of a review
cycle, OPP notifies the public of docket openings through an FR Notice and seeks comment
on OPP’s anticipated chemical-specific work plans and data needs. [Dockets are generally
opened for comment in the months of September, December, March, and June]
b. Registration Review Draft Risk Assessments for Comment: In general, OPP expects to
release draft risk assessments on a quarterly basis for public comment through an FR notice.
c. Registration Review Proposed Decisions: OPP will announce the release of proposed
decisions for public comment through an FR notice.
2. E-mail Notification: In addition to notification through the FR, OPP also notifies the EPA Office of
Water (OW) and EPA Regional pesticides and water staff of pesticide cases undergoing re
evaluation in order to facilitate communication with state and tribal partners regarding these actions.
The schedule for chemicals currently in review and those scheduled for review over the next four years can
be found on EPA’s website at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/registration-review-schedules
When Should I Submit Data to OPP?
Data can be submitted to OPP at any time during the registration review process, which generally takes
about six years. However, data are of most value approximately six months prior to initiating work on a
draft risk assessment. OPP and OW will notify EPA Regional pesticides and water staff on a yearly basis,
targeting the first quarter of the fiscal year, of the draft risk assessments that OPP intends to release for
public comment that year. Regions will work with state and tribal water and pesticide agencies to submit
identified data. OPP will publish draft risk assessments for public comment (generally for 60 days) and ask
for comment, as well, on possible/practical risk management options for identified risks.
Appendix 6: OPP Guidance for Submission of State and Tribal Water Quality Monitoring Data
85
Where Should I Submit the Data?
1. Submit to [email protected]
2. If file sizes are too large to send via e-mail, contact your EPA Regional office
Who Do I Contact for Further Information?
EPA Headquarters: Tracy L. Perry, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
telephone number: (703) 308-0128; fax number: (703) 308-8090; email address: [email protected]
EPA Regions:
Region 1: Rob Koethe, [email protected], (617) 918-1535
Region 2: Stephanie Tougas, [email protected], (732) 321-4436
Region 3: Christine Convery, [email protected], (215) 814-2249
Region 4: Melba Table, [email protected], (404) 404-562-9086
Region 5: Bruce Wilkinson, [email protected], (312) 886-6002
Holly McDonald, [email protected], (312) 886-6012
Region 6: Jerry Collins, [email protected], (214) 665-7562
Region 7: Shawn Hackett, [email protected], (913) 551-7774
Region 8: Peg Perreault, [email protected], (303) 312-6286
Region 9: Patti TenBrook, [email protected], (415) 947-4223
Region 10: Dirk Helder, [email protected], (208) 378-5749
Appendix 6: OPP Guidance for Submission of State and Tribal Water Quality Monitoring Data
86
APPENDIX 7:
BASE LIST OF PESTICIDES OF INTEREST
State List of Pesticides of Water Quality Concern Source: This list was developed by a state survey for
Water Resource Monitoring Programs and Analytical Parameters in October 2005. The survey was
conducted by the SFIREG Water Quality/Pesticide Disposal Working Committee (now known as the
Environmental Quality Issues Working Committee). This list includes chemicals of concern for both
ground and surface water.
Active Ingredient
2,4-D
Acetochlor (+ ESA, OXA)
Alachlor (+ ESA)
Aldicarb (+ degradates)
Atrazine (+ DEA, DIA, DACT,
Hydroxy)
Azinphos-methyl (cancelled
9/30/2012; existing stock 9/2013)
Bentazon
Bromacil
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Chlorothalonil
Chlorpyrifos (+ TCP)
Clopyralid
Copper Pesticides
Dacthal (+ degradates)
(cancellation being prepared)
DBCP
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dimethenamid
Diuron
Endosulfan (7/31/16 last use date on
several minor crops)
Esfenvalerate
Ethoprop
Glyphosate (+ AMPA)
Hexazinone (+ Metabolite B)
Imazamethabenz
Imazapyr
Imidacloprid
Isoxaflutole
Reg. Review
Docket
Opening
Dec-14
Jun-14
Jun-14
Jun-14
Jun-14
Cancelled
Mar-14
Jun-14
Sept-14
Cancelled
Mar-14
Mar-14
Mar-14
Sept-14
Jun-14
Cancelled
Jun-14
Dec-14
Jun-14
Mar-14
Cancelled
Dec-14
Dec-14
Jun-14
Mar-14
Jun-14
Jun-14
Dec-14
Jun-14
Appendix 7: Base List of Pesticides of Interest
Active Ingredient
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Lindane (voluntarily cancelled, use of
existing stocks permitted until 10/1/09)
Malathion
Mesotrione
Metalaxyl
Metolachlor (+ ESA, OXA, SMetolachlor)
Metribuzin ( + DA, DADK, DK)
Metsulfuron Methyl
MSMA + other arsenical herbicides
Napropamide
Norflurazone ( + degradates)
Pendimethalin
Phenoxy herbicide group
Phosmet
Picloram
Reg. Review
Docket
Opening
Dec-14
Cancelled
Jun-14
Jun-14
Dec-14
Sept-14
Dec-14
Sept-14
Mar-14
Sept-14
Sept-14
Sept-14
12/2013
6/2014
Jun-14
Dec-14
Prometon
Prometryn
Propazine
Propiconazole
Simazine ( + DACT, DIA)
Sulfometuron (et. al.)
Mar-14
Mar-14
Jun-14
Dec-14
Jun-14
Jun-14
Tebuthiuron
Terbacil
Thiamethoxam
Tralkoxydim
Triallate
Triclopyr
Trifluralin
Dec-14
Mar-14
Dec-14
Sept-14
Sept-14
Jun-14
Jun-14
87
APPENDIX 8:
FIFRA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT APPLICATION
REVIEW CHECKLIST
This optional checklist is provided as a reference only to assist new grantees in completing the
budget and work plan requirements related to the cooperative agreement application. The FIFRA
Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template must be used as your work plan. The EPA
application kit contains a separate budget sheet for the application. Regional staff may also want to
use this checklist to make sure the work plan is complete.
State or Tribe and Lead Agency: _____________________________________________
Project Period:
_____________________________________________
A.
Budget
1.
Is there a proposed budget for the following areas if the grantee requests funds in these
areas? Does the proposed budget follow the cost categories and include itemized
statements per grant Guidance?
certification (minimum 50% match)
enforcement (minimum 15% match)
other specific program areas (minimum 15% match)
additional program activities
pesticide management program maintenance
Quality Management Plan review (as appropriate)
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Comments:
2.
Are the costs reasonable in relation to the projected outputs or outcomes for the following
areas?
certification
enforcement
other specific program areas
additional program activities
Appendix 8: FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Application Review Checklist
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
88
pesticide management program maintenance
YES
NO
Comments:
B.
Narrative Statement
1.
Is there a discussion of performance to date regarding areas for which the grantee
requests funding?
YES
NO
Comments
2.
Has the grantee certified that there are no impediments to carry out the proposed
program? The grantee must have:
Authority to conduct the proposed program?
Authority to accept federal funds?
Designation as the Lead Agency?
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
Comments:
3.
Are expected benefits to both the grantee and
EPA identified?
C.
General Work Plan Components
1.
Has the grantee addressed each of the applicable work plan activities, as described in the
attached Guidance?
OPP
OECA
YES
YES
NO
NO
2.
Has the grantee provided the information contained in the Guidance to support
requests for funding for additional program activities?
YES
NO
Comments:
3.
Has the grantee provided a schedule for all work plan activities related to:
the specific program areas?
meeting QMP requirements?
Appendix 8: FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Application Review Checklist
YES
YES
NO
NO
89
additional program activities?
YES
NO
Comments:
4.
Is there an evaluation plan which includes a schedule for mid-year (if required) and end
of-year cooperative agreement evaluations?
YES
NO
Comments:
5.
For new grantees, is there a description of the accounting and filing system?
YES
NO
Comments:
D.
1.
Enforcement
Identification of Work Years and Funding.
Federal
State
Total
Work years*
Inspectional
Administrative
Clerical
Analytical
Other
Total
*Include only those work years actually performing outputs under the cooperative
agreement and funded with the dollars indicated above.
a. Are work years to be funded identified by type of activity (inspectional,
administrative, clerical, analytical, or other) and cost?
YES
NO
Comments:
Appendix 8: FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Application Review Checklist
90
2.
Is a minimum of 50 percent of the total work years directed to inspectional activities?
YES
NO
Comments:
3.
Are the budgeted inspectional/analytical work years reasonable in relation to the
projected outputs?
YES
NO
Comments:
4.
Has the need for a pesticide enforcement program been adequately addressed?
YES
NO
Comments:
5.
Has the grantee submitted/referenced a priority-setting plan which addresses the
national enforcement priorities and state/tribal priority problem areas?
YES
NO
Comments:
6.
Has the grantee submitted a completed projected inspection commitments?
YES
NO
Comments:
7.
Has the grantee agreed to conduct targeted inspections?
YES
NO
Comments:
8.
Does the grantee commit to consistency with national compliance monitoring
strategies?
YES
NO
Comments:
Appendix 8: FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Application Review Checklist
91
9.
Does the grantee commit to using the Guidance provided in EPA's updated Pesticides
Inspection Manual when conducting inspections?
YES
NO
Comments:
E.
Quality Assurance
1.
Does the grantee have an EPA approved Quality Management Plan (QMP)?
YES
NO
Comments:
2.
Are the following quality assurance practices addressed in the application/QMP?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Submittal of Updated Quality Assurance Plan;
Use of standard analytical methods;
Cross-contamination screening program;
Performance evaluation sample program;
Back up Analysis Procedure;
Training of Analytical Chemists;
Laboratory Reviews;
Provisions of Analysis Results;
Submission/Retention of Reports;
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Comments:
F.
Enforcement Capability
1.
Has the grantee submitted procedures for forwarding inspection reports with suspected
violations to EPA?
N/A
YES
NO
Comments:
2.
Does the application provide for an annual written agreement between the state and EPA
for the selection, referral, and tracking of significant pesticide use cases under FIFRA
Sections 26 and 27?
N/A
YES
NO
Comments:
Appendix 8: FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Application Review Checklist
92
3.
Does the application provide as an attachment or reference an up-to-date enforcement
response policy (ERP) which the grantee is following? (Note: If EPA has the current
ERP, then resubmittal is unnecessary.)
YES
NO
Comments:
Does the state agree (in the application) to follow the ERP?
YES
NO
Comments:
4.
Is there any reference to procedures for resolving cross jurisdictional issues between
states and tribes?
N/A
YES
NO
Comments:
5.
Tracking/Management System:
(a)
Does the grantee have a management system for tracking all inspections,
violations, and enforcement actions, and rapid identification of the status of a
case?
YES
NO
Comments:
(b)
For new grantees, is there a description of the system?
YES
Comments:
NO
(c)
Does the work program or Quality Management Plan address
maintenance of tracking documents and associated files and length of
time maintained?
YES
NO
Comments:
Appendix 8: FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Application Review Checklist
93
G.
Reporting
1.
Does the application provide for the timely submittal of accomplishment reporting?
YES
NO
Comments:
2.
For new grantees, is there a description of the accounting filing system?
YES
NO
Comments:
3.
Is there an evaluation plan which includes a schedule for timely completion of mid-year
(if required) and end-of-year evaluations?
YES
NO
Comments:
4.
Does the application address any unresolved issues identified in the most recent mid
year and end-of-year evaluations?
YES
NO
Comments:
5.
Does the application address submittal of the annual reporting requirements as
required by the FY15-17 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance?
YES
NO
Comments:
Appendix 8: FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Application Review Checklist
94
APPENDIX 9:
EPA PESTICIDE STATE/TRIBAL COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES
A.
General
In determining the amount of assistance to award each grantee, the regional office will consider the
grantee’s annual allotment, the extent to which the grantee’s work plan is consistent with this Guidance
document, and the reasonableness of the anticipated cost of the grantee’s program relative to the
proposed outputs or outcomes.
The Regional Administrator will review each cooperative agreement application received and will either
approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application within 60 days of receipt (40 CFR Part
35.110 - 113).
B.
Application Review Panel
The regional office should ensure that a copy of the application be provided to the following for
review and evaluation:
•
•
•
Regional program office
Regional Grants Administration Office
Other regional office as appropriate to the regional procedures
The region has responsibility for reviewing all applications to ensure adequacy and compliance with the
grant Guidance and applicable cooperative agreement regulations. If a regional program office wishes to
consult with headquarters regarding an application, input can be sought as follows:
For questions concerning Worker Safety Programs:
Kevin Keaney, Chief
Certification Worker Protection Branch
Field and External Affairs Division (7506P)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Phone - 703/305-7666
For questions concerning all other OPP Program Activities:
Lance Wormell, Chief
Government and International Services Branch
Field and External Affairs Division (7506P)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Phone: 703/603-0523
Appendix 9: EPA Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Application Review Procedures
95
For concerning Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Activities:
Elizabeth Vizard, Chief
Pesticides, Waste and Toxics Branch
Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division
Office of Compliance (2227A)
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Phone: 202/564-5940
C.
Technical and Programmatic Review
A technical and programmatic review will be made by the application review panel to determine the
merit of the proposed outputs and outcomes in view of the national pesticide program areas in this
Guidance, and any additional regional priorities. In reviewing applications, the Regions may wish to use
the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Application Review Checklist (Appendix 8) as a means of
consistently recording whether major, basic administrative requirements have been met. The review
should evaluate the pesticide program cooperative agreement application to determine whether:
• The application contains work plan commitments, and time frames for accomplishing the
commitments, in accordance with the national Guidance, and any regional guidance as appropriate.
• The grantee’s objectives and expected results for any supplemental programmatic or enforcement
activities are consistent and compatible with the national Guidance, and any regional guidance as
appropriate.
• The resources (funds and work years) requested are reasonable when compared to the projected
outputs and outcomes in the work plan for the specific program areas, or any additional
programmatic or enforcement supplemental activities.
The region should also determine if successful completion of the work plan is possible in view of
the grantee’s existing program and enforcement authority, resources, quality system and other
applicable, known issues.
D.
Time Factor Guidelines
As a result of a survey conducted in 1997, EPA, in consultation with SFIREG, developed the following
output time factors for use as a guide in evaluating pesticides enforcement cooperative agreement
applications with regard to inspection and sample analysis activities. These time factors are used for
comparing the number of inspectional and/or analytical work hours to be funded with the number of
inspections to be conducted and the number of samples to be collected and/or analyzed.
Appendix 9: EPA Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Application Review Procedures
96
Activity
Agriculture Use Inspection
Agricultural Follow up Inspection
Nonagricultural Use Inspection
Nonagricultural Follow up Inspection
Experimental Use Inspection
Producer Establishment Inspection
Marketplace Inspection
Import Inspection
Export Inspection
Applicator License and Records Inspection
Dealer Records Inspection
Sample Collection and Preparation
Sample Analysis
Residue
Formulation
Work hours to
Complete Activity
20
20
15
20
15
15
05
10
10-15
05
05
05
25
11
The time factor values should take into account all inspection or analytical time spent to complete an
activity, including travel time, document preparation, sample shipment, etc. The work hours should also
include the prorated time for administrative activities of inspectors and chemists. In general, only the
inspection and analytical work hours should be used to calculate productivity levels. Additional time
spent by staff other than inspectors or chemists for administrative, case preparation, legal, clerical, and
program planning activities time may be charged if the activities are prerequisites to conducting the
activity.
Regions will use the time factors as a guide for negotiating and evaluating pesticide enforcement
applications. With regard to inspection and sampling activities, the projected number of inspections,
samples, and analyses multiplied by the established time factors should approximately equal the number of
work hours which each grantee requested to complete the projected outputs under the cooperative
agreement. The Agency considers productivity levels between 85% and 115% of the established standard
to be in the acceptable range. It is understood that deviations from these time factors may occur because
of differences in travel time, local procedures, etc. To ensure equal treatment of all grantees, a normal
work year consists of 1800 hours after allowing for leave and holidays.
E. Administrative Review
The Regional Grants Management Office will perform an administrative review and evaluation to determine
whether the application meets the requirements of the EPA Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; Title 2 CFR, Parts 200 and 1500. Additional
references which may be helpful when developing or reviewing an application include specific sections of
40 CFR, Part 35 below:
Appendix 9: EPA Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Application Review Procedures
97
For States:
Pesticide Enforcement: 40 CFR Part 35.230 - 35.235
Certification & Training: 40 CFR Part 35.240 - 35.245
Pesticide Program: 40 CFR Part 35.250 - 35.252
For Tribes:
Pesticide Enforcement: 40 CFR, Part 35.640 -35.645
Certification and Training: 40 CFR Part 35.646-35.649
Pesticide Program: 40 CFR Part 35.650-35.659
At each stage of the evaluation, the grantee may be required to provide further information, or may need
to amend the application to satisfy the concerns of the Agency.
Appendix 9: EPA Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Application Review Procedures
98
APPENDIX 10:
GUIDELINES FOR EPA FORM 5700-33H WITHIN THE
FIFRA WORK PLAN-REPORT TEMPLATE
Every pesticide enforcement cooperative agreement, negotiated between EPA and the state or tribe, must
include a work plan, which includes output projections broken down into eleven inspection categories.
The FIFRA template must be used for this purpose. The work plan must also specify that participating
states and tribes are to report back to the Agency, at least annually or as negotiated with the region, on the
actual number of inspections conducted by inspection category, and the resulting enforcement actions,
also by standard categories [e.g., civil complaint, criminal action, number of warnings].
All grantees participating in the FIFRA cooperative agreement program must project and report
accomplishments for the pesticide enforcement program using EPA Form 5700-33H in the FIFRA
Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template (FIFRA template).
The guidelines and definitions below should be followed to insure uniform reporting.
A.
Reporting Under the Cooperative Agreement
The Agency encourages grantees to provide the Agency with summaries of their total yearly pesticide
inspection and enforcement accomplishments. The Agency believes that this summary will not only
provide a more accurate picture of grantee inspection and enforcement programs, but also give a more
realistic national view as well. Total program accomplishments include all activities conducted under the
cooperative agreement, including those completed with “state/tribal funds.”
B.
Output Projections
Output projections must be submitted in the work plan and included with the cooperative agreement
application. These numbers represent the grantee’s annual commitments under the cooperative
agreement.
When asked, states should negotiate with their regional office and commit to conducting an agreed-upon
number of federal facility inspections. These would fall under the other categories of inspections listed
on the reporting form, but would be conducted at federal facilities. The number of inspections to be
conducted at federal facilities must be negotiated and included in cooperative agreement applications.
Grantees are not asked to make projections for activities to be conducted outside of the cooperative
agreement program.
C.
Accomplishments
In order to evaluate performance under the pesticide enforcement cooperative agreement work plan,
accomplishments must be reported annually. The accomplishments reported must include inspections
conducted, samples collected, and enforcement actions taken. Reports must be submitted to the regional
office by the grantee as indicated in the FY18-21 FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance.
Appendix 10: Guidelines for EPA Form 5700-33H within the FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template
99
Grantees must submit their inspection information to the regions annually, as negotiated with the regions,
within 90 days after the project period ends. Regions will then review the information for completeness
and submit it to a joint OPP/OECA mailbox: [email protected] by February 28th each year.
The following are uniform reporting requirements for reporting accomplishments:
1. Inspections should be reported only if an appropriate inspection report is completed.
2. The initial reason for the inspection determines the appropriate inspection category for reporting.
3. If more than one type of inspection is conducted for the same visit, and each inspection is completely
documented, then each inspection can be counted as a separate inspection.
4. Grantee enforcement actions resulting from inspections are reported on Form 5700-33H in the FIFRA
template. This includes enforcement actions for both federal and state/tribal violations.
5. Enforcement actions should be reported for the period in which they are issued, regardless of when
the inspection was conducted.
6. Enforcement actions are to be reported under the inspection category heading for the initial inspection
which led to the enforcement action.
7. Enforcement actions which are not the result of inspections in the field are to be reported in the
narrative portion of the report.
See Section D, Inspection Category Definitions, below for additional uniform reporting requirements for
use and follow-up inspections.
D.
Inspection Category Definitions
The eleven standard inspection categories listed on EPA Form 5700-33H are defined, for uniform
reporting purposes, as follows:
It is understood that many states/tribes conduct inspections which are not specified as separate inspection
categories on Form 5700-33H or defined in these guidelines. Grantees should consult with their regional
office to determine which inspection categories most closely match such inspections. Inspections that do
not fall within one of the eleven standard inspection categories of the form should be reported in the
narrative portion of the accomplishments report. Inspection reports of all inspections conducted using
EPA credentials must be forwarded to EPA.
Use Inspections
A use inspection may be initiated as an observation of an actual pesticide application or as an inspection
following an application. This type of inspection is usually selected using a neutral or routine inspection
scheme. Use inspections also include the investigation of the many facets of the use of a pesticide
including storing, handling, mixing, loading, and disposal. Section 18 and Section 24(c) use inspections
will be included in this category for reporting purposes. Uniform reporting requirements are:
• Use inspections are differentiated from for cause inspections by the initial reason for the inspection.
• Use inspections are initiated without a reason to believe that a violation has occurred or is occurring.
Appendix 10: Guidelines for EPA Form 5700-33H within the FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template
100
• Use inspections remain use inspections even if a violation is encountered.
• A use inspection requiring multiple visits should be reported as only one use inspection even though
many sites may be visited.
For example, in a use inspection all of the following sites may be visited: application site, adjoining
property, dealer where the pesticide was purchased to review sales records, and place of business of
certified applicator to review records. The visits to the dealer and applicator should not be reported as
separate inspections if these visits were part of the use inspection.
a. Agricultural Use Inspections
Agricultural use inspections include the inspection of pesticide applications in conjunction with the
production of agricultural commodities as defined in 40 CFR Section 171.2(a)(5) as follows:
The term “agricultural commodity” means any plant, or part thereof, or animal, or animal product,
produced by a person (including farmers, ranchers, vineyardists, plant propagators, Christmas tree
growers, aquaculturists, floriculturists, orchardists, foresters or other comparable persons) primarily
for sale, consumption, propagation or other use by man or animals.
b. Non-agricultural Use Inspections
Non-agricultural Use Inspections include the inspection of non-agricultural pesticide applications.
For Cause Inspections
A For Cause inspection is usually initiated in response to a complaint, damage report, referral, tips, etc.
following a pesticide application. Section 18 and 24(c) follow-up inspections will be included in this
category for reporting purposes. Due to the potential for harm to human and the environment, it is
important that the inspector initiate For Cause inspections as soon as possible after the receipt of an
alleged misuse.
Uniform reporting requirements are:
• For Cause inspections are differentiated from use inspections by the initial reason for the inspection
because the inspector may be required to visit a number of sites, interview various persons and/or
collect a number of samples.
• For Cause inspections are initiated when there is reason to believe that a violation has occurred or is
occurring.
• For Cause inspections remain for cause inspections even if a violation is not detected.
Agricultural For Cause Inspections
Agricultural For Cause inspections are inspections of a suspected misuse of pesticides in conjunction with
the production of agricultural commodities as defined in 40 CFR Section 171.2(a)(5).
Appendix 10: Guidelines for EPA Form 5700-33H within the FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template
101
Non-agricultural For Cause Inspections
Non-agricultural For Cause inspections are inspections of suspected misuse of pesticides in all categories
of non-agricultural applications.
Experimental-Use Inspections
An experimental-use inspection may be an actual observation of an application or a For Cause inspection
of records to determine compliance with the experimental-use permit. All inspections must be conducted
on site; telephone calls or correspondence reviews will not be counted as inspections.
Producer Establishment Inspections
A producer establishment inspection (PEI) is an inspection of an establishment where pesticides or
devices are produced and held for distribution or sale, for the purpose of inspecting the facility’s products
and obtaining samples. While conducting PEIs, product labels, containers and records should be
examined for compliance. Inspection of the books and records required by Section 8 are also part of these
inspections. Note: inspections involving the container/containment rules are typically conducted during
PEIs.
Marketplace Inspections
A marketplace inspection is an inspection conducted at the retail, distribution, wholesale, or user level for
the purpose of determining product registration status, proper storage and display, any labeling violations,
any product decomposition, and for collecting official samples. To be counted as an output, the
marketplace inspection must be documented in accordance with the provisions set forth in the EPA
Pesticides Inspection Manual.
Import Inspections
An import inspection is an actual inspection of a product being imported into the United States to
determine whether the product is in compliance with FIFRA. Telephone calls and review of import
papers in the inspector’s office will not be counted as inspections.
Export Inspections
Export inspections are considered to be intensive Section 8 books are records inspections that will involve
the review and collection of a large number of documents and several affidavit statements by
regional/state inspector(s) from responsible company officials. Inspection activities will consist of three
(3) parts: pre-inspection document collection and review; on-site inspection activities to review and
obtain additional documents; and inspection report writing and organization of inspection documents.
An export inspection is an inspection directed toward those pesticides that are intended for export to
determine whether they are prepared and packaged in accordance with the specifications and directions of
the applicable foreign purchaser and consistent with the EPA Statement of Policy on the Labeling
Requirements for Export Pesticides, Devices, and Pesticide Active Ingredients and the Procedures for
Exporting Unregistered Pesticides.
Certified Applicator License and Records Inspections
Appendix 10: Guidelines for EPA Form 5700-33H within the FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template
102
This type of inspection is normally conducted at a pesticide applicator’s place of business. The purpose
of the inspection is to determine if: (1) the applicator is properly certified and/or licensed, (2) the required
records are being maintained, (3) the applicator is applying pesticides only in those areas for which
certification has been issued and (4) the records indicate that all applications have been made in
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Inspections of non-certified applicators, pest control operators, etc., for the purposes described above
should also be reported in this category.
Restricted-Use Pesticide Dealer Records Inspections
This type of inspection is conducted on-site at dealers who sell restricted-use pesticides. The purpose of
the inspection is to determine if: (1) the dealer is properly licensed or certified (if required) and
maintaining the required records and (2) restricted-use pesticides are being sold only to certified
applicators or other properly authorized persons by reviewing the dealer’s records.
E.
Sample Definitions
Physical samples refer to extracted volumes or other substances taken for analysis in determining product
formulation, use dilution and residue concentrations.
Documentary samples are samples collected when physical samples of pesticides or devices are not
collected. Generally they consist of a complete label, photographs of the pesticide container or the device
and all labeling accurately representing what accompanied the formulation or device in the channels of
trade.
Since the number of samples is also used for determining laboratory workload and productivity,
documentary or non-physical samples should be differentiated so as not to be reported as sample
projections on EPA Form 5700-33H. Documentary samples may be projected in the narrative portion to
accompany EPA Form 5700-33H, if a grantee would like to do so. However, as stated above, only
physical samples are required to be projected.
F.
Sample Accomplishments
With respect to samples collected, both physical and documentary samples shall be reported.
G.
Enforcement Action Category Definitions
Enforcement actions initiated as a result of an inspection may be reported on EPA Form 5700-33H within
the FIFRA Template.
It is understood that many grantees initiate enforcement actions which are not specified as one of the
standard categories for enforcement action on EPA Form 5700-33H or defined in these guidelines. The
state/tribe should consult with their regional office to determine which reporting categories most closely
match such enforcement actions. Enforcement actions not readily falling within one of the ten standard
categories on the form should be reported in the enforcement action category “Other Enforcement
Actions” and described in the narrative portion of the accomplishments report.
The eleven standard categories of enforcement actions listed on EPA Form 5700-33H are defined, for
uniform reporting purposes as follows:
Appendix 10: Guidelines for EPA Form 5700-33H within the FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template
103
1. Civil Complaints Issued
Civil Complaints include any written notice proposing a monetary penalty for a violation. These actions
should be reported during the period in which they are issued to the respondent.
2. Criminal Actions Referred
Criminal Actions are those legal actions pursued in a court of law. These actions should be reported
during the period in which the case is referred to the judicial system (e.g., State Attorney General, District
Attorney or County Prosecutor).
3. Administrative Hearings Conducted
An Administrative Hearing is when an alleged violator is required to appear before a state, tribal or
federal hearing officer to explain why the violation occurred. For purposes of the 5700-33H form,
states/tribes should only report administrative hearings that are not associated with other enforcement
actions. These actions should be reported during the period in which the hearing is conducted.
4. License/Certificate Suspension
5. License/Certificate Revocation
6. License/Certificate Conditioning or Modification
These are usually administrative actions taken to further restrict the use of restricted-use pesticides by
certified applicators by suspending, revoking or modifying the terms of the applicator’s license or
certification.
7. Number of Warnings Issued
To be counted, warnings must be a written notification pointing out the violation(s) and placing the
recipient on notice that further violation may result in additional enforcement action. Warnings should be
reported during the period in which the warning was issued.
8. Stop-Sale, Seizure, Quarantine, or Embargo
All official written orders for removing products in violation from sale or use should be reported in this
category.
9. Cases Forwarded to EPA for Action
This includes all inspection files that document violations of FIFRA and are forwarded to EPA for
enforcement action.
10. Other Enforcement Actions
This is any other written, verifiable enforcement action initiated by the state, tribe or federal agency that
is not comparable to one of the above enforcement action categories.
11. Number of Cases Assessed Fines
This figure indicates the number of enforcement cases resulting in the assessment of a monetary fine (e.g.,
civil complaint settlements, criminal court actions, or administrative hearing orders).
H.
Narrative
Accomplishment Reports should be accompanied by a narrative portion as described below:
Inspections Conducted
Appendix 10: Guidelines for EPA Form 5700-33H within the FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template
104
Inspections which do not fall within one of the eleven standard inspection categories should be reported in
the narrative.
Enforcement Accomplishments
Enforcement actions not readily falling within one of the standard categories on the form should be
reported in the enforcement action category “Other Enforcement Actions” and described in the narrative
portion.
Enforcement actions which are not the result of inspections in the field may be reported in the narrative.
Some examples of what would be included under “other enforcement actions” include the following;
advisory letters, agreements on remedial action, notices of intent to sue, consent agreements, reports of
substandard treatments, treatment correction notices, and stop work order notice.
A “field notice” would be included under the category of “other enforcement actions” (as opposed to the
“warning” category) only if it does not meet the definition of a “warning” as described in item number 7.
Appendix 10: Guidelines for EPA Form 5700-33H within the FIFRA Work Plan-Report Template
105
APPENDIX 11:
GUIDELINES FOR WPS EPA FORM 5700-33H WITHIN
THE FIFRA WORK PLAN-REPORT TEMPLATE
All grantees participating in the FIFRA cooperative agreement program must project and report
accomplishments for their pesticide enforcement program. EPA Form 5700-33H is contained in the
FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template (FIFRA template), and must be used to
provide this information to the Agency. This information will provide a more accurate picture of a
grantee’s inspection and enforcement program, and provide a more realistic national view as well.
WPS Agricultural Inspections Enforcement Reporting
Grantees must submit required information annually, as negotiated with the regions, within 90 days after
the project period ends. Regions will then review the information for completeness and submit the
information to a joint OPP/OECA mailbox: [email protected] by January 15th each year.
WPS EPA Form 5700-33H is divided into two sections. The left side of the form is divided in four
columns to collect total number of WPS inspections conducted in a reporting period:
1. WPS Tier I Inspection column: is subdivided in two columns, Use and For Cause to collect total
number of WPS Tier I agricultural use inspections, and the total number of Tier I for cause
inspections conducted during the reporting period. This includes capturing the number of inspections
conducted at facilities claiming the Immediate Family Exemption. The total number of inspections at
facilities claiming the Family Exemption, a subset of the total Tier 1 and Tier II inspections, is
recorded in the Immediate Family Exemption block.
2. WPS Tier II Inspection column: is subdivided in two columns, Use and For Cause to collect total
number of WPS Tier II agricultural use inspections, and the total number of Tier II for cause
inspections conducted during the reporting period. This includes capturing the number of inspections
conducted at facilities claiming the Immediate Family Exemption. The total number of inspections at
facilities claiming the Family Exemption, a subset of the total Tier 1 and Tier II inspections, is
recorded in the Immediate Family Exemption block.
3. Total Inspections column: is to collect total number of WPS Tier I and Tier II inspections.
4. Inspections at Facilities Claiming Family Exemption Column: is a subset of the WPS Tier I and Tier
II to collect data on inspections conducted at facilities claiming family farm exception to provide EPA
with better data on the size of this component in the regulated community.
Note: The C&T portion of the form does not need to be completed.
WPS Enforcement Actions
Some Enforcement Action Categories are deleted from the EPA Form 5700-33H because they are not
applicable to WPS enforcement. Report total number of enforcement actions taken under the inspection
heading (Tier I - Use or For cause, Tier II - Use or For cause).
Violations during WPS Inspections
The right side of the WPS EPA Form 5700-33H is for collecting violations documented during WPS
inspections. There are ten WPS Violation Categories listed in the first column.
Appendix 11: Guidelines for WPS EPA Form 5700-33H within the Work Plan-Report Template
106
The second column is for reporting number of violations. Number of WPS violations is going to be
greater than the number of enforcement actions on the left hand side of the form. The goal of this section
is to highlight areas of the WPS Rule where compliance difficulties remain, where compliance assistance
activities and enforcement targeting may be focused, and used to monitor national trends. Each state inturn should use this data to feedback into future compliance efforts and future enforcement targeting.
EPA recommends that all grantees with enforcement programs provide this information to fulfill our goal.
If you are interested in additional information, links to additional materials are provided below for your
convenience.
U.S. EPA Worker Protection Standard Agricultural Inspection Guidance
The WPS Agriculture Inspection Guidance provides useful information to inspectors on how to conduct
thorough and nationally consistent agricultural inspections under EPA’s WPS program.
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/worker-protection-standard-agricultural-inspection-guidance
Risk-Based Inspection Targeting Strategy for Worker Protection Compliance Monitoring Activities
States and tribes should verify compliance with the WPS through both routine inspections and inspections
targeted to focus on establishments or situations that pose the highest risk to pesticide workers and
handlers in agriculture. This Guidance provides a targeting approach states and tribes can use to identify
the establishments and situations in the state or area of tribal jurisdiction that represent the highest risk to
pesticide workers and/or handlers.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/wps-cm-review-2004.pdf
FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template
This link will take you to the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template which contains
all reporting forms including the WPS EPA Form 5700-33H.
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act-state-and-tribal
assistance-grant
Appendix 11: Guidelines for WPS EPA Form 5700-33H within the Work Plan-Report Template
107
APPENDIX 12:
GUIDELINES FOR CONTAINER/CONTAINMENT EPA
FORM 5700-33H WITHIN THE FIFRA WORK PLAN
REPORT TEMPLATE
Introduction
All grantees participating in the FIFRA cooperative agreement program must project and report
accomplishments for their pesticide enforcement program. EPA Form 5700-33H is contained in the
FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan-Report Template (FIFRA template), and must be used to
provide this required information to the Agency.
Grantees must submit all required information annually, as negotiated with the regions, within 90 days
after the project period ends. Regions will then review the information for completeness and forward the
information to a joint OPP/OECA mailbox: [email protected] by January 15th each year.
Types of Inspections
The left side of the Container/Containment EPA Form 5700-33H is set up to collect the number of
inspections for two types of inspections: (1) producer establishment inspections with containment and (2)
non-PEI containment only inspections. These types of inspections are described below in the definitions
section.
Container/containment information could be collected during other types of inspections, such as producer
establishment inspections (without containment) and marketplace inspections. The number of PEIs and
marketplace inspections should be reported annually as outlined in the Guidance, and must be reported on
the standard EPA Form 5700-33H within the FIFRA template.
The right side of the form is for collecting Container/Containment potential violations documented during
inspections. Nine violation categories are listed and they are defined below. The totals here should
represent the violations found during any type of Container/Containment inspection, i.e., producer
establishment inspections with containment; non-PEI containment only inspections; PEIs without
containment; or marketplace inspections.
Definitions
Producer Establishment Inspection with Containment - A producer establishment inspection (PEI) with
containment is an inspection of an establishment where agricultural pesticides are held in stationary bulk
containers prior to being repackaged (produced) and held for distribution or sale; for the purpose of
inspecting the facility’s products, obtaining samples, and ensuring that secondary containment of the
stationary containers is compliant. When conducting a PEI, product labels, containers, containment and
records should be examined for compliance. Inspection of the books and records required by Section 8
also are part of these inspections. In order for a PEI inspection to count as a containment PEI, the
inspector must inspect the containment areas. These inspections are a subset of PEIs on the general 5700
33H form and should be included in that total.
Non-PEI Containment Only Inspection – A non-PEI containment only inspection is conducted at a
facility engaged in custom blending of pesticides or commercial application of pesticides that have
stationary pesticide containers that are subject to the regulations or a pesticide dispensing area.
Appendix 12: Guidelines for Container/Containment EPA Form 5700-33H within Template
108
Containment and dispensing areas should be examined to determine if they are in compliance. These
inspections are not included under another category on the general 5700-33H. States that are
implementing state pesticide containment regulations (that provide at least equivalent environmental
protection to the federal pesticide containment regulations) are encouraged – but not required – to report
their non-PEI containment only inspections.
Violations
1. Deficient labeling (i.e. cleaning and disposal instructions) – Violations of any of the labeling
requirements for refilling statements and cleaning instructions.
2. Deficient container design (valves, openings) – Violations of the requirements for container design
(DOT regulations); marking; tamper-evident devices; one-way valves; container integrity; vent,
gauge, and/or shutoff valve standards.
3. Producing Establishment registration violations – Violations of the establishment registration,
reporting or record keeping requirements.
4. No contract manufacturing agreement, residue removal instructions, list of acceptable
containers – Failure to provide or possess a contract manufacturing agreement (or the repackaging
contract), residue removal and cleaning procedure, list of acceptable containers, or current labeling.
5. Deficient management procedures & operation – Failure to visually inspect containers prior to
refilling, clean containers prior to refilling if necessary, or securely attach labels.
6. Record keeping – Failure to keep records of the residue removal procedure, list of acceptable
containers, or contract manufacturing agreement at all or maintain them for 3 years; for each time a
container is filled, the EPA registration number, the date of repackaging, or the serial number or
identifying code of the container.
7. Secondary containment & pads – capacity/design – Violations of the requirements for design,
construction materials, appurtenances, configurations of drains, and stormwater control.
8. Secondary containment & pads – site management – Violations of the requirements for operation,
inspection, and maintenance.
9. Secondary containment & pads – record keeping – Failure to keep records of the person
conducting inspection or maintenance and date, conditions noted and maintenance performed, how
long non-stationary tanks remained at the facility, or construction date of the structure at all or
maintain them for 3 years.
Appendix 12: Guidelines for Container/Containment EPA Form 5700-33H within Template
109
APPENDIX 13:
REPORTING AND COORDINATION OF HIGH LEVEL
PESTICIDE INCIDENTS
Grantees are required to report high level pesticide incidents to EPA regions within the first 24 hours of
learning about the event. It is understood that not all details will be available immediately, but will need
to be reported as they are learned. As described below, high level pesticide incidents involve possible
serious adverse effects to human health or the environment and most likely require coordination between
EPA offices and other agencies. These incidents may or may not be a referral under FIFRA Section 27(a).
Definition of a High Level Incident
High level pesticide incidents involve possible serious adverse effects which may require close
cooperation with EPA offices or other agencies to conduct an investigation or to bring the incident to
resolution. Examples of high level incidents may include but are not limited to:
Human-related:
•
•
•
•
Human fatality;
Any incident involving schools, schoolchildren or minors;
Hospitalization of exposed human(s);
Confirmed exposure to 5 or more individuals (if a low risk pesticide is involved the number can be
higher);
Pet/Domestic Animals/Livestock:
• Incident involving death to livestock or another domestic animal;
• Confirmed exposure or death of a pet;
Ecological:
• Widespread environmental contamination (or potential thereof);
• Fish or wildlife incidents that meet the following threshold:
25 or more aquatic animals (fish, tadpoles, shellfish, etc.)
3 or more raptors (e.g., eagles, hawks, and owls)
10 or more non-raptor birds
1 or more large mammalian or reptilian predator(s) (e.g., wolf, coyote, mountain lion, or alligator)
or megafauna species (e.g., bison, elk, or moose)
o 5 or more mammals, reptiles, or terrestrial amphibians of types other than large predators or
megafauna
o
o
o
o
•
•
•
•
•
Any incident involving a federally listed species;
Alleged pollinator incidents involving 50 or more bees;
Significant damage to crops;
Potential for illegal food crop or commodity pesticide residues;
Significant fire, spill or improper disposal involving pesticides;
Appendix 13: Reporting and Coordination of High Level Pesticide Incidents
110
• Homeland Security issues (e.g., pesticides implicated in a situation impacting a large population,
food/water supply or livestock; or pesticides needed to control a pathogen, virus or bacteria);
Other:
• Unusually large and unexpected number of incidents involving a certain active ingredient (AI) or
product reported within a short time span;
• Potential for significant media coverage based on specific use incident.
In addition, some high-level reportable incidents may occur with federally exempt pesticides, e.g., treated
seeds, 25(b) pesticides. Each regional office, OPP-FEAD and OECA-OC and OECA-OCE shall use its
best professional judgment to identify a high level incident.
Notification Requirements and Process
When a grantee determines that an incident requires high level pesticide incident reporting, it will initiate
the process by reporting the incident to the regional point of contact (POC) who may be the project
officer, technical contact or pesticide program or enforcement supervisor. Regions should contact the
headquarters offices within the first 24 hours. Each regional and headquarters office (OPP-FEAD and
OECA-OC and OECA-OCE) will identify primary and backup points of contact (POCs) to ensure timely
transmission of incident information to each other if a high level incident occurs.
The regional POC should be contacted as soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after receiving
incident information. Grantees should not wait to notify the region until the information is complete and
confirmed, but should caveat and qualify initial information as appropriate. The initial contact should be
via phone (by direct contact, not voice mail), followed up by an e-mail. The initial information should
include the following information if available:
• Location (preference for latitude/longitude, township or other),
• Pesticide or substance involved or suspected,
• Date of incident,
• Target site/pest (if there is one),
• Source of information,
• Brief description of incident,
• Identity of future contact person(s), and
• When the reporting agency will be able to provide an update.
The regional POC will relay the information to headquarters and their own regional management as soon
as possible but no later than 24 hours after their communication was received. It is understood that not all
details may be available immediately and will need to be communicated as more information is learned.
The initial call should go to the following offices:
• OPP-FEAD Government and International Services Branch Chief, Lance Wormell
• OECA-OC Pesticide, Waste & Toxics Branch Chief, Liz Vizard, and
• OECA-OCE Pesticides and Tank Enforcement Branch Chief, James Miles.
In addition, the incident should be sent to OPP’s pesticide incident mailbox:
[email protected].
The regional POC will then follow up with a brief e-mail (which includes any information from the state
or tribe) relaying basic details of the incident. At this point, the regional POC also needs to ascertain if
this is the type of incident that would require notification of the Regional Incident Management System
Appendix 13: Reporting and Coordination of High Level Pesticide Incidents
111
(this may be a Regional Incident Coordination Team (RICT) or an Emergency Response Center). Each
region has a 24/7 emergency phone number. Other federal agencies will be notified by the regional POC
when the situation warrants.
The OPP-FEAD POC will notify the OECA-OC and OECA-OCE contacts and each will disseminate the
incident report to other parts of their organization, as appropriate (e.g., upper management, human health
specialist, incident coordinator, water quality coordinator, etc). Note, incidents reported to OPP will be
used to assess future registration decisions.
If an EPA headquarters or regional office learns of an incident through a tip, via media coverage or other
source of information, EPA will implement this process in the reverse order to assure that the grantee is
aware of it.
After all affected EPA offices are informed, subsequent information may be communicated via the
original process when circumstances require, or as determined by the offices involved.
Impacts on Future Registration and Registration Review Decisions
An OPP Incident Screening Team representing all OPP divisions is actively developing a screening
system to ensure all reported high priority incidents are screened in a timely manner and included in
future registration decisions as appropriate. Based on the severity of the incident, there are three possible
outcomes: 1) The team concludes that the incident is likely a high-priority incident requiring immediate
attention by the chemical team to determine the appropriate next steps; 2) the incident is not a high
priority incident, but is of sufficient significance that the chemical team should be made aware of the
incident; and 3) the incident can wait until the next review of the chemical for either a registration action
or registration review. Generally, these incidents won’t be forwarded, but rather kept in OPP’s Incidents
Data System to be incorporated into future risk characterizations documents.
Appendix 13: Reporting and Coordination of High Level Pesticide Incidents
112
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 0000-00-00 |