North Dakota State
University
NDSU Extension Service
Volume 22, No. 4, OCTOBER 2004
North Dakota Adopts New Pesticide
Rules Effective July 1, 2004
Coordinator's Comments
The Worker Protection Standard:
from education to enforcement
Workshops to Focus on the
Worker Protection Standard
Tons of waste pesticides removed from state
EPA Revises the Worker Protection
Standard Glove Requirements for Workers, Handlers and Pilots
Certified Crop Adviser Credits Available
North Dakota Section 18 Exemption and
Pesticide Registration Meeting Slated
The Montreal Protocol Decides on
Methyl Bromide Use
Phosphine fumigant stakeholders meet
with EPA on new labeling implementation
Pesticide Spraying for West Nile Virus
Control and Emergency Department Asthma Visits in New York City, 2000
FBI and the Department of Homeland
Security are requesting suspicious activity reporting
2004-05 Commercial Pesticide
Certification Calendar
CAST Releases New Special Publication
Commercial Pesticide Certification Form
Alabama man sentenced to 41 months
in counterfeit pesticide case
Some important changes have been made to the state administrative rules on pesticides in North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) Chapter 60-03-01 and the Worker Protection Standard, NDAC Chapter 60-03-03.
Definitions (60-03-01-02) now include "competent" and "under the direct supervision." The latter is very important in considering the exemptions from certification contained in the North Dakota Century Code (NDCC), Section 4-35-19. Please read this new definition if you are a commercial applicator with uncertified help making applications under your direct supervision. It also requires that the supervisor be within 30 minutes of the application site when the application is being made by the uncertified applicator.
"Competent" means properly qualified to perform functions associated with pesticide applications, the degree of capability required being directly related to the nature of the activity and the associated responsibility, including receiving proper training to know and understand the pesticide label, the product name and rate to be applied, proper application techniques, recordkeeping requirements, identifying workplace hazards, worker protection standard, and emergency response.
"Under the direct supervision" means the act or process whereby the application of a pesticide is made by a competent person acting under the instructions and control of a certified applicator who is responsible for the actions of that person and who is available if and when needed, even though the certified applicator is not physically present at the time and place the pesticide is applied. The certified applicator must be able to arrive at the location of a supervised applicator within 30 minutes.
Some individuals were caught trying to cheat during a commercial pesticide certification test in spring 2003, so changes were made in the rules to specify that cheating will not be allowed on certification exams. The resulting change in NDAC Section 60-03-01-05.3 (2) covers several results that may follow cheating, so a close reading of this change is warranted.
1. An individual who seeks certification under sections 60-03-01-05.1 or 60-03-01-05.2 may not, while taking a written examination, give or receive information or assistance to or from any other person, utilize the assistance of any electronic device capable of storing data, or consult any written materials unless expressly authorized in advance by the board or its designee. The written examination, and any other writings made during the examination period, must be provided to the board or its designee at the end of the examination period.
2. Cheating by an applicant in applying for or taking the examination may result in the invalidating of examination grades, expulsion from the examination room, disqualification from taking the examination for a specified period of time, and other penalties the board may impose. When the board believes that cheating has occurred, the applicant or certified individual must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard pursuant to N.D.C.C. Chapter 28-32 before imposing any penalties.
Certification also can be denied to an applicant whose certification was suspended or revoked under certain circumstances. See Section 60-03-01-05.4.
1. The board, or its designee, may refuse to issue a pesticide certification, including an applicant for reciprocal certification under N.D.C.C. Chapter 4-35-18, to an individual who has had their certification suspended or revoked in the past three years in any state or province.
2. The board, or its designee, may require an additional demonstration of applicator qualification if the applicator has had a license suspended or revoked or has otherwise had a history of pesticide violations.
Recordkeeping for dealer sales has been amended to include the certification category and expiration date of all certifications for purchasers. The intended application site or crop must be listed for all Section 18 purchases and, finally, each purchaser of a Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP) must be positively identified.
(6) Certification category and expiration date of the certification.
(7) Intended application site or intended crop for all pesticides used under Section 18 of FIFRA.
(8) Dealers shall positively identify all purchasers of restricted use pesticide products.
Commercial and public applicators now must keep application records for pesticide rinsate or records for its disposal by other methods, and all records must include the Environmental Protection Agency registration number.
Commercial or public applicators shall keep a record of all pesticide applications and of the use or disposal of all pesticide rinsate.
The posting requirements of NDAC 60-03-01-06 have been removed. Posting requirements now are based exclusively on the federal label and no longer on state rules.
All applicators except aerial applicators must have a label at the application site when applying; aerial applicators are required to have a label at the loading site.
The product label(s), a legible reproduction of the label(s), or a specimen label of the pesticide(s) that is being applied must be at the application site during the time of application. Aerial applicators must have a label available at the loading site.
Private applicators must keep application records for all RUPs, Section 18 exemptions and Section 24c (special local needs) applications. The private record requirements for the above applications are expanded to include the hour of the day the pesticide was applied and the applicator's signature.
The changes in the "Report of Loss" requirements are as follows:
60-03-01-07.1 Report of loss records. Any applicator receiving alleged pesticide damage claims shall notify the claimant, by certified mail (return receipt requested) of the verified report of loss notification required by North Dakota Century Code sections 4-35-21.4, 4-35-21.1, and 4-35-21.5 and shall retain the return receipt(s) and a photocopy of the notice for a period of three years.
The provisions of the federal Worker Protection Standard have been adopted by the state to simplify that program's administration. There have been no substantive changes in the provisions of that law as adopted.
The complete text of the North Dakota Century Code and North Dakota Administrative Code provisions on pesticides can be found at the NDSU Pesticide Training and Certification home page at http://ndsupesticide.org .
Hard copies will be made available at all pesticide certification trainings this winter and spring and also will be available upon request from the North Department of Agriculture no later than Dec. 1, 2004.
It has been a busy summer and now we are gearing up for an ambitious training season. This Pesticide Quarterly is chockfull of news, notices and opportunities, so read it carefully, especially if you will need to participate in trainings this year to maintain your certificate.
Some of the high points you should take note of are:
• If your certification category expires April 1, 2005, you will need to participate in a training session or take a monitored exam to obtain a new three-year certificate.
• New pesticide rules came into force July 1, 2004.
• Pre-registrations are required for all trainings in 2004-05. Registrations at the door will be taken on a space-available basis only.
• We are holding an agricultural pesticide training in mid-November this year. This is new. We are doing this to spread our workload and cater to applicators who migrate south in the wintertime.
• Worker Protection Standard workshops are being offered for owners and managers of businesses that apply agricultural-use pesticides.
• Certified crop adviser credits again will be offered for 12 of our commercial trainings this year.
Tammy Erdmann, an administrative secretary with the NDSU Pesticide Program for the past couple of years, moved to a new position with the NDSU Art Department in August. She did a swell job for us and her efforts will be missed. We wish her well in her new endeavor. As a result, we are a bit understaffed at the time of this writing, but we hope to be up to full strength again in mid to late October.
Finally, one other tidbit: In September we started issuing new plastic certification cards for commercial pesticide applicators and dealers. These cards have a slightly different style when compared with the paper laminated cards that we have traditionally used. The advantages of these new cards are cost, ease of use and durability (they will tolerate washing and cannot be adulterated). So, do not be surprised when you get your new card or if you see one of these cards being produced to buy pesticides. If you have any questions on the validity of a particular certificate, please do not hesitate to call us at (701) 231-7180.
All the best,
Andrew A. Thostenson
Pesticide Program Specialist
Pesticide users in the agricultural sector have had to contend with the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) since the early 1990s. The law was conceived to protect migrant workers from the adverse effects of pesticide exposures, but by the time it was ratified, it also included people who participate in mixing and loading pesticides (handlers). Early efforts to implement the law focused on education, but about five years ago advocacy and other interest groups convinced Congress to open an investigation into the perceived lack of enforcement of the WPS by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The General Accounting Office (GAO) report was highly critical of EPA. The full report, entitled "Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farm Workers and Their Children," can be found at: www.gao.gov/archive/2000/rc00040.pdf.
One of the recommendations GAO called for in the report was to:
Improve EPA's oversight of the states' implementation and enforcement of the Worker Protection Standard by, among other things, (1) clearly defining what constitutes a worker protection inspection for the purposes of the cooperative agreements, (2) establishing goals for the minimum number of worker protection inspections that states should conduct annually under their cooperative agreements, (3) examining whether the resources states dedicate for this function under the cooperative agreements are adequate to achieve the goals established, (4) clarifying the roles and responsibilities of EPA's regional offices to ensure consistency in their oversight of the program, and (5) taking the necessary steps to obtain and analyze data on the results of the states' worker protection inspections, including the number and types of actions taken in response to worker protection violations.
Those recommendations are coming home to roost, particularly in the enforcement arena. This past year EPA took harsh and unprecedented action against repeated WPS violations in Colorado. The fines in several cases totaled considerably more than a quarter of a million dollars.
Closer to home, the North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) has been feeling the pressure from this relatively new EPA stance. During the summer, inspectors (for the first time) began formal WPS inspections across the state. What they found was all over the board, but generally they discovered numerous WPS deficiencies. Some of these deficiencies, if left unaddressed, could lead to serious consequences for the business or farm. While NDDA and EPA could exact significant fines for this lack of compliance (and probably will in the near future), this would pale in comparison with civil litigation expenses should a high-profile exposure incident occur.
As a consequence, North Dakota State University will be working more closely with NDDA to educate the industry on why following through with the WPS is essential. You will be hearing more about WPS at certification trainings in the agricultural categories this winter, and workshops outside of the certification program will be offered to focus specifically on WPS.
The NDSU Pesticide Program and the North Dakota Department of Agriculture will be sponsoring four workshops this winter on the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). The workshops will be targeted toward managers and owners of businesses that custom apply agricultural-use pesticides.
These workshops are not part of the certification program but are stand-alone educational opportunities designed to help participants be in compliance with WPS. The tentative agenda will include:
• WPS: what it is and why it is relevant
• Regulatory requirements for protecting workers
• WPS components for workers
• WPS pesticide application notification responsibilities for the custom applicator, client and worker
• What inspectors have found and what they are looking for in workers
• Regulatory requirements for protecting handlers
• WPS components for handlers
• What inspectors have found and what they are looking for in handlers
• Enforcement policy for noncompliance
• Resources for complying with WPS
The workshops will be held:
• Dec. 8, 2004, from 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. in Fargo and Minot
• Jan. 13, 2005, from 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. in Bismarck and Grand Forks
If you are interested in participating in these workshops, put these dates on your calendar. More details and registration information will be forthcoming through direct mailings, news releases and postings on the NDSU Pesticide Program Web site in mid-November.
BISMARCK _ Despite a curtailed collection schedule, nearly 65 tons of unusable pesticides, including DDT, mercury, arsenic, chlordane, toxaphene and other dangerous chemicals, were collected and shipped out of state through Project Safe Send in 2004.
"More than 325 people brought in a total of 129,994 pounds of waste chemicals," said Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson. "I think it is obvious that if we had been able to conduct a full collection schedule, the total would have been much higher, maybe even a record amount."
The 2003 Legislature reauthorized Project Safe Send but cut its funding in half, although the program uses no taxpayer dollars and had been funded through the fees pesticide manufacturers pay to register their products in the state. This year's collection was made possible by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"I hope the Legislature will revisit Project Safe Send in the upcoming session and restore full funding to the program," Johnson said. "This year's collection clearly demonstrates that dangerous, unusable pesticides are still out there, and that the need for this program continues."
Project Safe Send collections were conducted in eight communities this year, compared with 16 collections in 2002, when a record 190,759 pounds of unusable pesticides were collected.
The West Fargo collection, on July 20, was the largest in 2004 with 71 people bringing in 47,218 pounds of unusable pesticides. At Cavalier, 60 people brought in 21,009 pounds, and in Devils Lake, 18,509 pounds were brought in by 50 people. Other collection sites were Hettinger, Jamestown, Mohall, Oakes and Underwood.
Onyx Environmental Services of Blaine, Minn., collected the pesticides and transported them to Wisconsin, where they will be bulk packaged and then transported to federally approved incinerators.
For more information, call Judy Carlson at (701) 328-4997.
On Sept. 1, 2004, the federal Environmental Protection Agency published the final rule amending the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides to make the following two changes: (1) All agricultural workers (harvesters, cultivators, pesticide handlers) are permitted to wear separable glove liners beneath chemical-resistant gloves; and (2) Agricultural pilots do not have to wear chemical-resistant gloves when entering or exiting aircraft.
Workers may choose when to wear the liners. The liners may not be longer than the chemical-resistant glove, and they may not extend outside the glove. The liners must be disposed of after 10 hours of use or whenever the liners become contaminated. Lined or flocked gloves, where the lining is attached to the inside of the chemical-resistant outer glove, remain unacceptable.
The EPA also took regulatory action to reduce the discomfort of unlined chemical-resistant gloves, especially during hot or cold periods. Additionally, chemical-resistant gloves do not add any appreciable protection against minimal pesticide residues found around the cockpit of an aircraft.
The WPS applies to workers performing hand labor activities in fields treated with pesticides; workers on farms and in forests, nurseries and greenhouses where pesticides are used; and pesticide handlers who mix, load, apply or otherwise handle pesticides.
The effective date of this rule is Nov. 1, 2004. The Federal Register notice containing the final rule is available at www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/index.htm . More information on EPA's Worker Protection Standard is available at www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm .
Certified pesticide applicators who also want certified crop adviser credits can get them by paying $5 per credit in addition to their typical commercial pesticide certification fee. Certified crop advisers who are attending our trainings only for CCA credits and not pesticide certification will be charged $10 per credit.
Our trainings in agricultural-related categories have been approved by the North Dakota Certified Crop Adviser Board. The credit schedule approved includes:
• One-day trainings _ 6 credits approved
_ 1.5 credits in soil and water management
_ 2.0 credits in pest management
_ 2.5 credits in professional development
• One-and-a-half-day trainings _ 9 credits approved
_ 2.5 credits in soil and water management
_ 3.0 credits in pest management
_ 3.5 credits in professional development
Need help with pesticide certification or general pesticide use issues?
Contact:
NDSU Pesticide Training and Certification Program
Box 5051, Fargo, ND 58105-5051
Tel: 701-231-7180
Fax: 701-231-5907
E-mail: pesticid@ndsuext.nodak.edu
Internet: www.ndsupesticide.org
The fifth annual North Dakota fall Section 18 exemption and pesticide registration meeting has been scheduled from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004. As in previous years, the meeting will be in the Brynhild Haugland Room in the North Dakota State Capitol in Bismarck. This meeting is open to the public, and anyone who has an interest in FIFRA Section 18 emergency exemptions and pesticide registrations is invited.
The primary purpose of this meeting is to:
1. Discuss the Section 18 exemptions from the 2004 growing season. This usually includes discussions of product performance and the effectiveness of each exemption in controlling the target emergency pest problem.
2. Identify new or emerging pest problems in North Dakota or the region that may require a Section 18 exemption for the following growing season.
3. Prioritize and plan our Section 18 exemption requests for the 2005 growing season.
4. Discuss and update meeting participants on recent and pending pesticide registration actions with an impact on North Dakota agriculture.
5. Discuss federal court orders on endangered species for the Pacific Northwest and the orders' implications for North Dakota.
To ensure that commodity group representatives have ample opportunity to participate, this year's meeting will keep the same format that was used last year. The goal is for North Dakota Department of Agriculture staff and NDSU Extension personnel to listen more and talk less, and to provide growers with the opportunity to identify their pest management needs. Commodity groups are asked to bring their Section 18 "wish lists" for the 2005 growing season and be ready to discuss the effectiveness of the 2004 exemptions in controlling the target emergency pest(s). Commodity group representatives also are asked to help meeting participants identify new and emerging pests. NDSU Extension personnel will be present to brief participants on their observations and help facilitate these discussions.
Like last year, we also have allocated time for pesticide industry representatives to brief participants on recent and pending pesticide registration actions with an impact on North Dakota agriculture. These discussions may include recent or pending Section 3 registrations, permanent tolerances that may facilitate issuance of Special Local Needs (SLN) registrations, or other pertinent information. In many cases, these registration actions may preclude the need for a Section 18 exemption to address a pest in 2005.
To date, this meeting has been a big success, and the high rate of approval of our Section 18 exemption requests is directly linked to the planning that occurs each fall. I hope this success continues. Please contact me, Jim Gray, the pesticide registration coordinator, at (701) 328-1505 with any questions or concerns.
Editor's note: The following news release originated from Great Lakes Chemical, the largest U.S. supplier of methyl bromide.
Montreal, Canada - March 30, 2004 — It was a long wait but . . .
At almost midnight on the 17th day of formal discussion spread over 10 months, the 181 nations of the Montreal Protocol (MP) finally decided how much methyl bromide would be granted for critical uses in developed nations in 2005. The final decision applies to all developed nations including Canada, the United States, European Community (EC), Japan, New Zealand and Australia. A group of 40 methyl bromide stakeholders participated in the final three days of negotiations at the extraordinary meeting of the Montreal Protocol.
Key elements of the deal as it affects the United States:
• 19.6 million pounds of critical-use exemptions (CUEs) were granted for 2005, (equivalent to 35 percent of the 1991 baseline).
• With appeals from some consumers pending, the amount could be up to 1.7 million pounds higher.
• A production allowance was set at 30 percent of the 1991 baseline for 2005 (the same amount that was made in 2004).
• The difference between CUE and production allowances, about 2.8 million pounds in 2005, will be filled from existing inventory.
• There will be flexibility in allocation of the CUE amounts among categories.
• The production allowance is in addition to amounts for quarantine uses previously agreed upon.
In the European Community, users had applied for CUEs at 25 percent of the 1991 baseline for 2005, and were granted 21 percent. Farmers in Italy, Portugal and France suffered the reduction primarily because of Europe's centralized decision making process. These farmers will be more directly engaged in the 2006 process. Despite this, the 2005 CUE volume in Europe is much higher than might have been expected, reflecting agriculture's lack of confidence in alternatives
The developing nations began negotiating to delay their own phaseout schedule. They are concerned about the failure of developed nations to find alternatives for large quantities of methyl bromide. Guatemala led the discussion by introducing some broad guidelines for developing nations to use when they find that alternatives do not work.
With the outcome for 2005 known, methyl bromide stakeholders in developed nations immediately must turn their attention to creating an effective program to manage the critical-use exemptions. The allocation and recordkeeping process will be highly complex and is further complicated by the Montreal Protocol's decision to force a reduction in field inventory. Significant effort will be required to make sure the process is fair.
Methyl bromide users are working hard to minimize emissions, develop alternatives and comply with the Montreal Protocol. However, where alternatives are not technically or economically feasible, users need relief from the phaseout schedule. The agreement reached last week provides that relief.
• The Montreal Protocol acknowledged that alternatives were not available for many applications and increased by 2.8 million pounds the amount of methyl bromide that U.S. farmers can use next year (vs. 2004).
• The Montreal Protocol did not reduce the amount that can be produced for the United States in 2005, even though production was supposed to stop Jan. 1, 2005.
• Significant volumes of methyl bromide were to be made available in 2005 for the European Community and other developed nations.
• These decisions signal that methyl bromide will continue to be available beyond 2005 until viable alternatives are available.
As a result, methyl bromide availability in 2005 will be very similar to 2004. This outcome should reinvigorate methyl bromide stakeholders on all sides of the debate. Environmentalists and government will redouble their efforts to achieve a faster phaseout. Methyl bromide stakeholders from the use community must continue the fight for fairness and balance between economy and environment.
Members of the phosphine producer/user community met with federal and state regulators June 29, 2004, to discuss several issues that have come to light since the implementation of the new labeling. These issues revolve primarily around the requirements for certified applicators and the handling of in-transit rail cars.
The meeting was moderated by Dan Barolo, who, before his retirement, guided the re-registration process as a consultant to the phosphine coalition. Those attending or represented:
• Registrants
Degesch America Inc. Pestcon Systems Inc.
United Phosphorus
• State Regulators
California Dept. of Ag Colorado Dept. of Ag
Hawaii Dept. of Ag Iowa Dept. of Ag
Minnesota Dept. of Ag Wisconsin Dept. of Ag
• Federal Regulators
USDA EPA
EPA Enforcement Division
• Industry
Cargill ConAgra
Frito-Lay General Mills
Kraft Foods
• Miscellaneous
Oklahoma State University
National Pest Management Association
North American Millers AssociationIFC
Dan Barolo informed the group that there are no incidents regarding the use of product under 6(a)2 reporting requirements and that the registrants are available and responsive to any questions or problems. He also noted that states can make laws and regulations more stringent than the Environmental Protection Agency label. If individual states do not have laws, the federal label applies.
Everyone seemed to be pleased with the statement on the manual cover — "Consult with your state lead pesticide regulatory agency to determine regulatory status, requirements and restrictions for fumigation use in that state."
The representative from Colorado questioned the need for a fumigation plan for prairie dog colonies and was advised that Fumigation Management Plans (FMP) are required for all fumigations. Who can receive and open rail cars was discussed. Several states indicated that only "certified applicators" would be acceptable in their respective states. The group seemed to indicate that the training provided by individual companies for their employees is equal to or better than available state training.
Does an Applicator's Manual need to accompany each rail car? No, but the receiver needs to have the Applicator's Manual and label on the other end. If the shipment of cars is split, again you need to know that the receivers have the Applicator's Manual and the label.
The interpretation of "Under the direct supervision" also was discussed. Monitoring and who can perform monitoring was discussed. Some state regulators indicated that monitoring requirements are not part of their regulations. Others noted that some companies do monitoring above the requirements of state regulation.
USDA also noted that 30,000 to 40,000 rail cars are fumigated each year, as well as 3,000 to 4,000 ships and barges. Aeration is done at port of receipt for ships and barges. USDA developed a FMP years ago and monitoring is part of this procedure.
A question about the number of Applicator Manuals in each case of product was discussed. George Luzaich responded referencing an EPA letter stating that one manual should accompany each case. He also advised those present that this material was available on our (company) Web site.
EPA's comments can be summed up as follows:
• EPA does not want to open labels (Applicator Manuals) again for total rewrite.
• EPA is willing to review a Question & Answer (Q&A) document (to provide more guidance to users).
• EPA, in collaboration with USDA, plans to draft a national Fumigation Training Manual.
• Barolo stated that he felt the Q&A needed to be completed within one to two months and that there should be an annual review. The registrants will send a rough draft of the Q&A to EPA for review.
Adam M. Karpati, Mary C. Perrin, Tom Matte, Jessica Leighton, Joel Schwartz and R. Graham
Pyrethroid pesticides were applied via ground spraying to residential neighborhoods in New York City during July-September 2000 to control mosquito vectors of West Nile virus (WNV). Case reports link pyrethroid exposure to asthma exacerbations, but population-level effects on asthma from large-scale mosquito control programs have not been assessed. We conducted this analysis to determine whether widespread urban pyrethroid pesticide use was associated with increased rates of emergency department (ED) visits for asthma. We recorded the dates and locations of pyrethroid spraying during the 2000 WNV season in New York City and tabulated all ED visits for asthma to public hospitals from October 1999 through November 2000 by date and ZIP code of patients' residences. The association between pesticide application and asthma-related emergency visits was evaluated across date and ZIP code, adjusting for season, day of week, daily temperature, precipitation, particulate and ozone levels. There were 62,827 ED visits for asthma during the 14-month study period across 162 ZIP codes. The number of asthma visits was similar in the three-day periods before and after spraying (510 vs. 501, p = 0.78). In multivariate analyses, daily rates of asthma visits were not associated with pesticide spraying (rate ratio = 0.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.80-1.07). Secondary analyses among children and for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease yielded similar null results. This analysis shows that spraying pyrethroids for WNV control in New York City was not followed by population-level increases in public hospital ED visit rates for asthma. Key words: asthma, obstructive airway disease, ozone, particulates, pesticides, pollutants, pyrethroids, West Nile virus. Environ Health Perspectives 112:1183-1187 (2004). [Online 8 July 2004]
The full article, published by the National Institute of Health, is available online at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov .
The Department of Homeland Security and FBI encourage recipients of this request to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to their local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) _ the regional phone numbers can be found online at www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm — and the Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) or the National Infrastructure Coordination Center (NICC), a sub-element of the HSOC in support of the private sector and critical infrastructures. The HSOC can be reached via telephone at (202) 282-8101 or by e-mail at HSCenter@dhs.gov; and the NICC/HSOC can be reached via telephone at (202) 282-9201 or via e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov .
Each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of surveillance, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company and a designated point of contact (POC).
DHS and FBI request that the owners and operators of the nation's critical infrastructure/key resource facilities (see Appendix) provide reporting to the above offices on the following types of suspicious activities potentially indicative of pre-operational terrorist planning:
• Report attempts to test or conduct reconnaissance of security operations at critical infrastructure/key resource facilities, high-profile venues or sector-specific events.
• Report anyone showing uncommon interest in security measures or personnel, entry points or access controls, or perimeter barriers such as fences or walls.
• Report anyone showing uncommon interest in critical infrastructure/key resource facilities, networks, or systems (e.g. photographing or videotaping assets).
• Report any theft of or missing official company identification documents, uniforms, credentials or vehicles necessary for accessing critical infrastructure/key resource facilities or sector-specific events.
• Report all suspicious attempts to recruit employees or people knowledgeable about key personnel or critical infrastructure/key resource facilities, networks or systems.
• Report any theft, purchase or suspicious means of obtaining plans, blueprints, alarm system schematics or similar physical security-related or sensitive information related to a facility with critical infrastructure/key resource facilities and systems.
• Report any discovery of documents (particularly foreign language products) containing pictures or drawings of critical infrastructure/key resource facilities or systems.
• Report anyone near critical infrastructure/key resource facilities who do not fit the surrounding environment, such as individuals wearing improper attire for conditions or not normally present in the area (such as homeless people, street vendors, demonstrators or street sweepers).
• Report pedestrian surveillance near critical infrastructure/key resource facilities involving any surveillance activity of sensitive operations, including photography, videotaping or extensive note-taking/use of audio recorder (regardless of the number of individuals involved), or mobile surveillance by cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats or small aircraft.
• Report all threats/warnings that could affect the reliability and operation of the nation's critical infrastructures/key resources.
• Report discoveries of Web site postings that make violent threats specific to critical infrastructures or sector-specific events.
For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this memorandum, please contact the DHS/Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate's Requirements Division at DHS.IAIP@DHS.GOV .
Critical Infrastructures and Key Resource Facilities1
Critical Infrastructures
• Banking and Finance
• Chemical
• Defense Industrial Base
• Electric Power
• Emergency Services
• Food/Agriculture
• Information Technology
• National Monuments and Icons
• Oil and Natural Gas
• Postal and Shipping
• Public Health
• Telecommunications
• Transportation (Rail/Mass Transit, Maritime, Aviation, Highway)
• Water
• Commercial Facilities
• Dams
• Government Facilities
• Nuclear Reactors/Materials
1 Under the Homeland Security Act, which references the definition in the USA Patriot Act, the term "critical infrastructure" means "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters." The act defines `key resources" as "publicly or privately controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government."
Here are schedules you can use for planning your training needs over the next several months.
Pre-registration is required for all trainings. Registrations at the door will be taken on a space available basis.
If you pre-register you will receive a $10 discount. A Training Registration/Non-Training Study Material Form is included in this issue of the PQ. Pre-registration forms must be postmarked 10 days prior to the training date to receive the discount.
Online pre-registration is also available on the Web through our secure server. Electronic pre-registration forms can also be found for downloading and printing at www.ndsupesticide.org .
Initial trainings are designed for new applicators or dealers needing to prepare to take certification exams. Recertification trainings are structured to give currently certified applicators the information necessary to maintain or renew their certificates. Nontraining home study materials are available for those categories that are not on the training calendar.
Please note the EXAM DAYS the NDSU Extension Pesticide Program state office is offering in the upcoming training season. Commercial exams will be administered for all categories.
| AgPest, Right of Way, Seed Treatment, and Research & Demonstration Categories | ||||
| Date | Type | Time | Location | Exams |
| November 16, 2004 | Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Dickinson, Knight of Columbus Club, 1531 W Villard | NO |
| December 1, 2004; Northern Ag Expo | Recertification | Registration 7:30 a.m., Training 8 a.m. | Fargo, Fargodome, 1800 University Dr N | NO |
| February 1, 2005 | Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Mandan, Seven Seas, 2611 Old Red Trail | NO |
| February 2-3, 2005 | Initial | 2/2-Registration 1 p.m., Training 1:30 p.m.; 2/3-Training 8:30 a.m. | Mandan, Seven Seas, 2611 Old Red Trail | NO |
| February 4, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Mandan, Seven Seas, 2611 Old Red Trail | YES |
| February 7, 2005 | Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Williston, Research Extension Center, 14120 Hwy 2 | NO |
| February 16-17, 2005 NDAAA Convention | Aerial App. ONLY, Recertification | TBA* | Mahnomen, MN, Shooting Star Hotel & Even Center | NO |
| February 23, 2005 | Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Devils Lake, Ramsey County Courthouse, 524 4 Ave | NO |
| March 1, 2005 | Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Minot, International Inn, 1505 N Broadway | NO |
| March 9, 2005 | Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Jamestown, Farmers Union State Office, 1415 12 Ave SE | NO |
| March 16-17, 2005 | Initial | 3/16-Registration 1 p.m., Training 1:30 p.m.; 3/17-Training 8:30 a.m., Test Review 4 p.m. | Fargo, NDSU, Memorial Union Ballroom | NO |
| March 18, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Fargo, NDSU, Memorial Union Ballroom | YES |
| March 21, 2005 | Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Grafton, St.John's Catholic Parish Center, 1515 Western Ave | NO |
| March 30 , 2005 | Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Fargo, Ramada Plaza Suites, 1636 42 St SW | NO |
| Fumigation Category | ||||
| Date | Type | Time | Location | Testing |
| December 21, 2004; Interactive Video | Initial, Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. | Bismarck, Burleigh County Extension Service, Testing 1-5 p.m. 3715 E Bismarck Expressway; Devils Lake, Ramsey County Couthouse, 524 4 Ave; Fargo, NDSU, Hultz Hall 104; Mohall, Renville County Extension Office, 205 E Main | YES |
| January 25, 2005; Interactive Video | Initial, Recertification | Registration 12:30 p.m., Training 1 p.m. (Central) | Dickinson, Stark County Courthouse, 51-3 St E; Carrington, Research Extension Center, 663 Hwy 281 N; Grand Forks, Grand Forks County Extension Office, 151 4 St S #S30 2; Williston, Research Extension Center; 14120 Hwy 2 | NO |
| February 4, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Mandan, Seven Seas, 2611 Old Red Trail | YES |
| March 18, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Fargo, NDSU, Memorial Union Ballroom | YES |
| Greenhouse, and Ornamental & Turf Categories | ||||
| Date | Category Type | Time | Location | Testing |
| January 27, 2005 Interactive Video | Initial, Recertification | Registration 8:30 a.m., Training 9 a.m. | (Central) Minot, Research Extension Center, 5400 Hwy 83 S; Dickinson, Stark County Courthouse, 51-3 St S | NO |
| February 4, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Mandan, Seven Seas, 2611 Old Red Trail | YES |
| February 22, 2005; NCTGA Convention | Initial, Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Fargo, Doublewood Inn, 3333 13 Ave SW | NO |
| March 18, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Fargo, NDSU, Memorial Union Ballroom | YES |
| March 23, 2005; Interactive Video | Initial, Recertification | Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. | Bismarck, Burleigh County Extension Office, 3715 E Bismarck Expressway; Grand Forks, Grand Forks County Extension Office, 151 4 St S #S30 2 | NO |
| Home, Industrial & Institutional | ||||
| Date | Type | Time | Location | Testing |
| November 4, 2004 | Recertification | Registration 8:30 a.m., Training 9 a.m. | Fargo, NDSU, Hultz Hall 104 | |
| February 4, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Mandan, Seven Seas, 2611 Old Red Trail | YES |
| March 18, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Fargo, NDSU, Memorial Union Ballroom | YES |
| Public Health Categories | ||||
| February 4, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Mandan, Seven Seas, 2611 Old Red Trail | YES |
| March 18, 2005; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Fargo, NDSU, Memorial Union Ballroom | YES |
| May 18, 2005; Interactive Video | Registration 9 a.m., Training 9:30 a.m. | TBA* | NO | |
| Right of Way Category ONLY | ||||
| May 2005; NDWCA Annual Sprayer School | Recertification | TBA | TBA*, Western N.D. | NO |
| May 2004; NDWCA Annual Sprayer School | Recertification | TBA | TBA*, Eastern N.D. | NO |
| Public Health ONLY |
| Mosquito Control Interactive Video training the week of May 24. Specific date and locations will be announced in a future issue of the Pesticide Quarterly newsletter. |
| Exam Days | ||||
| February 4, 2004; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Williston, Williston REC, 14120 Hwy 2 | YES |
| March 19, 2004; EXAM DAY | ALL Categories | 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. | Fargo, NDSU, Memorial Union Ballroom | YES |
| *To Be Announced in a future issue of the Pesticide Quarterly newsletter. | ||||
These trainings have been approved for Certified Crop Advisor Credits (CCA)
The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) this summer released "Management of Pest Resistance: Strategies Using Crop Management, Biotechnology and Pesticides," a special publication of presentations and discussions from a national symposium April 10-11, 2003, in Indianapolis, Ind. The CAST-convened symposium, the first U.S.-based multidisciplinary stakeholder meeting on pest resistance management (PRM) in nearly a decade, provided the opportunity for stakeholders involved in insect, weed and pathogen pest management to come together in an effective discussion of issues, laying the foundation for future collaborations addressing PRM.
"The overall goal of the symposium was to provide a collective framework in which more effective and preventive PRM could be developed," says Barry J. Jacobsen, Montana State University, symposium chairman. The major objectives were to:
• Identify common issues related to PRM across disciplines
• Identify ways to remove barriers that hinder more effective and preventive resistance management (RM)
• Provide opportunities for further discussions on PRM
• Identify research activities in RM
• Provide this information to lawmakers, federal agencies, academia, Extension, industry, consultants and the public
In keeping with these objectives, the agenda was developed by a steering committee representing the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, industry (Resistance Action Committees), academia, Extension, consultants and the public. Forty-seven speakers gave a total of 55 presentations, 52 of which are included in the publication. Jacobsen and Sharlene R. Matten, EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, proceedings chairwoman, worked together to organize the symposium program and subsequent publication into eight major sections:
• The Scope of North American Pest Resistance Problems in 2003
• Issues in Pest Resistance Management
• Lessons Learned I: Balance between Industry, Academia, Users and Regulators
• Lessons Learned II: Have Models Helped?
• The Role of Stakeholders
• Lessons Learned III: How Can We Work to Remove Barriers to Comprehensive Resistance Management Implementation? How Can We Work Together Better?
• Pest Resistance Management Goals
• Symposium Conclusions and Recommendations
"The overall conclusion of the meeting was that PRM is very important to the sustainability of agricultural production systems," says Matten. "Achieving proactive or preventive RM is a desirable goal, but how to achieve it is a complex process that requires extensive input and commitment by all stakeholders. The keys to effective RM are strong science; environmentally benign, feasible and cost-effective strategies; and education about the benefits of implementation."
Participants made several RM recommendations and suggestions in a discussion held at the end of the symposium. These recommendations focused on four areas:
• Science
• Research and Extension
• Education
• Policy
The 52 papers contained in this newest CAST publication represent research in the fields of PRM; entomology; plant production, breeding and disease; organic cropping; turf development and maintenance; pesticides, herbicides and fungicides; and producer-consumer-regulator interactions.
"It seems clear from the research presented at this symposium and subsequently published in Special Publication No. 24 that significant progress is made when stakeholders meet together to identify issues and generate recommendations," says Teresa A. Gruber, CAST executive vice president. "And because bringing ideas into effective action reflects a major part of CAST's mission, we will continue to encourage and support the development of such timely, critical discussions at the interface of agriculture and technology."
The complete special publication, "Management of Pest
Resistance: Strategies Using Crop Management, Biotechnology and Pesticides," 191 pp.,
is available online at
www.cast-science.org, along with many of CAST's
other scientific works. CAST is an international consortium of 37 scientific and
professional societies. CAST assembles, interprets and communicates
science-based information regionally, nationally and internationally on food,
fiber, agricultural, natural resource and
related societal and environmental issues to its stakeholders — legislators, policy-makers, the media, the
private sector and the public.
• Barry J. Jacobsen phone (406) 994-5161 e-mail: uplbj@montana.edu
• Sharlene R. Matten phone (703) 605-0514 e-mail: matten.sharlene@epa.gov
• Teresa A. Gruber phone (202) 675-8333 e-mail: tgruber@cast-science.org
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 4420 West Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50014-3447, USA. Phone: (515) 292-2125; fax: (515) 292-4512; e-mail: cast@cast-science.org Web: www.cast-science.org
• D.C. office: CAST, 505 Capitol Ct. NE, Suite 200, Washington, D.C., 20002-3937,
USA. Phone: (202) 675-8333;
fax: (202) 675-8334.
For questions, contact the NDSU Extension Pesticide Program Office—phone701/231-7180;fax701/231-5907
This past spring, William C. Murphy of Glencoe, Ala., was sentenced to serve 41 months in prison and pay a $45,305 fine for his conviction on 17 counts of violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and 11 counts of trafficking in counterfeit goods.
Operating under the company name of Sierra Chemical, the defendant sold counterfeit, misbranded, adulterated and/or mislabeled pesticides to municipalities in Alabama and Georgia. The towns applied these products to control mosquitoes and the spread of the West Nile virus.
Selling altered, counterfeit or improperly branded and labeled pesticides can present a significant public health risk because the substances may not protect people from disease-carrying insects. The unauthorized substances in counterfeit pesticides also can pose an environmental risk, especially when sprayed over large areas.
The case was investigated by the Jacksonville and Atlanta area offices of EPA's Criminal Investigation Division; the FBI; EPA's Office of Inspector General; EPA Region 4 Pesticide and Toxics Division; and the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industry. It was prosecuted by the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of Alabama and the Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice. For more information on this case, contact: Suzanne Ackerman, (202) 564-7819, ackerman.suzanne@epa.gov .