University of California, Davis
April 28 - May 2, 2008
[updated 9/18/08]
WAS THE AGENDA FOR THIS COURSE ADEQUATE AND DID IT MEET YOUR EXPECTATION?
 | Exceeded expectations. |
| The agenda was great and provided a lot of information about registration that I can use on the job. |
| It was adequate but I would have liked to go through a section 18 or 24 application. I realize that many of the old timers would have been bored but for the many newbee’s it would have been helpful. |
| Absolutely! All of the talks were pertinent to what I do and it was perfect for someone in my position and level of experience. |
| Yes, I especially learned the value of SLITS. I also really enjoyed the state-specific presentations. In general, I learned a lot throughout this course. I will be able to take all this information back and make improvements to our registration program. The networking opportunities were also very valuable. Also, keep the field trips - they bring perspective to the in-class talks. |
| Yes the agenda met my expectations and more. I’ve learned valuable information, biopesticides and pollution contact, EPA information in the various branches, the labeling evaluation and interaction was great. |
| Adequate in every way. It met my expectations since my last attendance in 2005. There has been progress in many areas since 2005. |
| The agenda was varied and touched on a wide variety of registration subjects. It was well organized and very enjoyable. The lunches were also very enjoyable. Thanks to everyone for all the hard work that went into the preparation for this program. |
| Exceeded my expectations. |
| I expected the course to be a little more in-depth and provide some more discussion time after talks. Overall, I thought the course was very informative and I learned a tremendous amount, especially from the EPA perspective. |
| The agenda was complete and useful for me. |
| Yes, I think the EPA overview talks could have been shorter. Field trip was good and broke up the week. Food has been good, facility was good. |
| Yes, this training course was very helpful and informative. I was introduced to new things that can be taken back to my job and be a guidance tool for everyday regulatory tasks. One suggestion would be maybe have another field trip. I found the field trip to be an interesting and useful activity. |
| Yes, covered aspects of registration well. |
| Yes, it was a good balance of all the levels of experience of pesticide registration. |
| Expanded networks as always. |
| Yes, I know a lot of things that were presented, but this was a chance to refresh my knowledge and fill the gaps I had about what other OPP divisions do and how they do it. I learned a great deal from the state representations and I plan to present all this information to my colleagues to make sure our approved labels are correct. |
| Was more than I expected. |
| Overall a good meeting. |
| While it was adequate, I did expect more practical training instead of overview of various EPA programs. |
| The overall agenda was very good. I was surprised how well the teleconference session went - I am not proposing that we phone-in the whole course-but that portion worked better than even the previous video conference. |
| The overall agenda was good, lots of information to take in! |
| Yes, many useful topics. As an experienced pesticide regulator, I learned more than I expected. |
| It was good. A complete book of slides and detail in book was good. References were the heart of its value. |
| I thought the course was exceptional. The program was very well organized and run. |
| Yes. This was a great course to learn the overall responsibilities of the EPA and how my job relates to them. |
| Yes, really appreciated the open and frank discussions. |
| I believe the agenda was more than adequate - course covered a wide range of issues that states and the EPA face. I think the level of detail regarding risk assessment and management was just right. |
| I feel that the session’s topics were of value. Structurally they could have been a bit more organized to address the needs of "new" registration managers. Many of the nominees were new to this position and were a bit lost for the first few days. The overall course was very well organized logistically placing certain sessions in the first few days, followed by sessions which used the previous discussions to build on. |
| Overall, agenda of the course was meeting my expectations. Presentations on Day One and Two were a little too technical, too much focus on particular regulations repeated many times. The field trips were informative, always good to see what’s done in the real world. |
WHAT COULD THE PREP PLANNERS HAVE DONE TO MAKE THIS COURSE MORE USEFUL TO YOU?
| I don’t know about making it more useful, but I have a general recommendation. Most excellent to require phones/pagers silenced, but take the next step and disallow text messaging and laptop use during presentations. The speakers and PREP organizers and other students are owed the complete attention of everyone to what is being presented. If you can’t break away from your text messaging and lap topping long enough to pay attention in class, you shouldn’t be here! (Sorry to preach!) |
| Some subjects could have been geared more toward those starting out in registration. There was a diversity of regulators, both new and experienced. Some sessions were a little over my head, being one of the new ones! |
| More talk about section 18 and 24c requirements. It was covered quickly and not adequately. |
| A little more time for questions would be nice. |
| It would have been helpful to have more time for state-specific presentations and discussion after presentations. It would be nice to include more specific examples, ex. walk us through a summary of an actual pesticide registration, when explaining the components of the pesticide review process. |
| It was well planned and organized. The presenters were well organized and interacted with participants. |
| My suggestion would be to add a 1-hour forum to the course in the middle of the week, where you would have EPA, a state, and a CA pesticide registrant discuss a labeling issue. The participants would really benefit from such an interaction. |
| Not much. The CD is a good useful tool that can be used to help remember specifics in the training. It also helps in passing information to others at work. |
| Had more hands-on interaction with audience. The breakout sessions were most informative in relation to my job. |
| Provide more time for questions and discussion. I think most people gain the most learning from the question and answer and discussion sessions. For example, I think the discussions with Vivian on 25(b)s were the most valuable of the whole course. |
| Update the acronym listing and have the speaker(s) use the complete names, at least at the beginning of their talk. Possibly send out information on attendees and speakers prior to the class. |
| I would like some hands-on training for the Section 18 and 24c requests. Maybe going through the application for a section 18 emergency exemption. |
| If more focus could have been placed on issues the states were dealing with. If the course could be condensed into 4 or 4 ½ days. The breakout groups were a good way to learn more "hands-on" techniques. |
| Almost too much sitting time - break outs, really good but almost too much lecture. Only suggestion would be more interactive sessions and also Section 18 and 24c examples. |
| History of FIFRA would have been useful for this group - including some of the personalities - include AAPCO. PDF version of label review manual and of 40 CFR are tools that all would use, should be included on the CD. Special attention should be paid to how the state registration process works so participants can compare and contrast. |
| Keep presentations to one hour. |
| Less EPA information at front end (make more concise!) |
| Go more in-depth on preparation of Section18(s), review and submission of 24(c)s; areas of consideration in registration review of states level. Spend less time on structural overview (organization charts) and more time on application of regulations and understanding of registration portion. |
| The visit to the aerial applicator was great - field trips to see growers or applicators - maybe have some faculty from Davis give some perspective on environmental issues affecting CA. |
| Actually working through more hands-on exercises on processing registrations (Section 18, 24c, risk assessments) would help. |
| On occasions, the speakers seemed unsure as to why they were asked to cover specific topics. State presentations were good to get all participants more involved. |
| A set of complete presentation recordings could help provide refreshers later in the year especially for some of the presentations that were not quite loud enough to hear. |
| More breakout sessions and exercises and less PowerPoint would help with alertness level, but I can’t think what to cut! |
| I can’t think of anything. Everyone was helpful and friendly. The networking was fantastic. |
| It would have been more helpful to begin the course with the end activities. It was interesting to see where we stood in relation to each other. Also, more interactive activities to develop our level of understanding of each topic rather than just a lecture session. The last day of the course was very rewarding and the sessions solidified their content through the hands-on activities. |
| I enjoyed the portions of the course which included "hands-on" portions. I know that rules are important, but a little less repetition would be helpful. |
IF THIS COURSE WAS TO BE HELD AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, CAN YOU SUGGEST FACULTY WHO COULD SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE THE AGENDA?
| Possibly Don Stubbs. I’m not familiar enough with other EPA personnel to suggest other faculty. I would highly recommend this course to anyone, using existing faculty. Especially great: Meredith Laws, Dennis Edwards, David Stangel, Jim Roelofs, and Arty Williams. |
| I think the faculty you chose were excellent. |
| Invite Jim Roelofs back, he has excellent presentation skills and delivers very useful information. Invite Arty Williams again and hopefully she can be here in person. Include a speaker from the inerts registration branch next time. |
| None I can think of. |
| This was a good choice of staff. Very knowledgeable and individuals who can impact their programs at EPA. The committee members did a great job. |
| Linda Arrington or someone else who can explain the process for notifications at the EPA. |
| Maybe an industry view on the registration process. These speakers were the first people I have heard speak on these topics, so do not have suggestions for speakers. |
| All the speakers did a great job. |
| Probably any of the registration managers from the states. |
| I thought having HQ staff was great: Dennis, Jim, Dave, Vivian and Meredith were great the depth of knowledge is amazing. I think EPA folks are the best to provide registration training to the states. |
| I think you need to incorporate how to use EPA’s website to obtain info from each of the presentation areas rather than a separate presentation. |
| Tom Brennan, the branch chief of Environmental Stewardship branch. |
| Try to include a few EPA region folks. |
| Suzanne Forsyth and her crew made everything run smoothly from start to finish. I sincerely appreciate the support from EPA for this program. |
| Dan Rosenblatt or Tony Britten or one of the reviewers of Section 18s. Don Stubbs. Same people that were here this week should again participate. |
| Too bad Meredith and Tom couldn’t stay through Friday. |
| Dr. Michael Weaver, VA Tech. Mike is always ahead of the curve in technical tools available. |
| I really enjoyed Mr. Roelofs’ lecture and would enjoy another series including him. Also, Dennis Edwards is incredibly knowledgeable and extremely easy to listen to. Included in this was Mr. Harris, great resource, knowledgeable and excellent speaker. |
| I would like to see one session where a registration person from a company presents on a registration topic. It would be helpful to hear what companies have to deal with. |
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
| Evening - have an additional "networking" event?? |
| I liked the label review session it was vey helpful. Occasionally the OPP folks got boring. I liked the tag team that Meredith and Tom did to break up the monotony. |
| This course was great and I hope to participate in the future. I don’t often get to chat with regulators from other states so this was a great opportunity for me. Suzanne, the planning was unbelievable. |
| This course was very well-organized starting with the welcome package mailed to each state to the binder provided at the beginning of the session. I especially enjoyed the lunches provided each day. The organizers made the entire experience very comfortable. The info I am bringing home was generally overwhelming and will take some time to digest but I am sure I will use my notes and comments well into the future. |
| Is it possible to shorten the course to 3 days? The hands-on label reading and discussion was really a great learning tool for new beginners in the program. |
| I really enjoyed my 5th participation at PREP. It was refreshing and new. I learned a great deal during the session. Meeting new people in state registration programs. |
| I would have liked to have more time for the state presentations, maybe 10 minute for each presentation. |
| This course really needs more breaks or shorten the speakers’ times to present. 1 ½ to 2 hours is extremely too long, seriously… overall, I did enjoy the course and hope to come again. |
| Dea did a wonderful job of keeping everyone on tasks. Very enjoyable class. I never was bored with any of the speakers. I found this class very helpful and have a lot of information to take back and share. Suzanne did a great job helping everyone and always with a smile. |
| Dea and UC Davis staff did a great job hosting this program. Thanks for a great job done! |
| Overall this was a very effective training course. |
| 1. I think more time for open forum by states to brainstorm or present situations they are in would be helpful. Probably more towards the end of the week. 2. I’m wondering if this 5 day program could be condensed into 4 days (5 days of training is a lot). 3. Really enjoyed the breakout sessions. |
| Good job! |
| Suzanne - great job to you and your staff, as always. Dea - very nice meeting you! I think you are the perfect next PREP-maven! Look forward to seeing you and working with you in the future - great job! |
| I really think that the training should be developed by videos and other digital media and renewed periodically I can see training for registration issues developed in the same way that inspector training is developed and delivered. |
| Lunch menu was great! But maybe a little too good! One or two evening activities in addition to graduation and reduce to 3-4 day work week (some homework/group activity during week after hours). Discontinue the binders (waste of paper) and just issue a CD plus limited handouts and a pad of paper. No more cloth laptop cases or hand bags. |
| I loved not having a pirate themed graduation dinner. |
| No theme dinner is good. Need to find way to politely deal with rude participants (there was one person who was having loud sidebars while presentations were in progress). Overall, this was a great program! |
| This is a hard course to sit through and absorb all of the information. Anything to avoid 8 hours of sitting in the dark would allow us to get the same information (i.e. label issues where we actually visit an orchard or grown/applicator trying to comply with a requirement). Good job Dea on your first PREP! |
| A great thank you for the opportunity to attend this course. Reference material will be used many times. |
| OPP folks need to be kept informed of PREPs so they can include in travel budget. |
| Great job Dea!! Tours very good. Thank you so much for the opportunity to attend and take part in the discussions. Please add NPIRS to acronyms. We’re the source of NPIC’s pesticide data. National Pesticide Information Retrieval System. |
| I think it would be better to do more interactive exercises. Looking at PowerPoints all day can make it hard to concentrate and stay focused. |
| Great facility and food. Great speakers. Thank you for keeping the teleconference presentations to just 2. They worked ok, but it’s just not as engaging. |
| I truly enjoyed the course and find that I have so much information going home with me. I’d like to see labels taken from the beginning of the process to the end at the beginning of the class. This is a registration class and the impression was to fit the needs of this registration group. I am leaving with a deeper understanding of the importance of my position in my home state for my fellow New Hampshire people. Also, it would have been nice to interact during class time with more experienced managers and coordinates. I found sitting next to Cary Giguere a great value and discussions with several EPA members, including Mr. Edwards, invaluable to my aspirations to mostly labeling and registration. Thank you. Interacting during lunch and dinner was a necessary social activity. It would have been nice to have more break-out sessions during the week course i.e. let’s take a Section 18, 24c and 25(b) and run it through the group. ½ activity per subject. |
| Overall, course was very useful. Made me think about steps again when dealing with registration. Breakout sessions were very helpful for tasks I do at work; this could be expanded to other topics in PREP course. |