From ???@??? Wed Apr 09 13:27:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from slist@localhost) by are.berkeley.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA19642; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 05:11:02 -0800 From: Roy Rutz To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu, srsutter@UCDAVIS.EDU Subject: train-the-trainer bottleneck -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Resent-Message-ID: <"poY0HD.A.8uE.JW-Sz"@are.Berkeley.EDU> Resent-From: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/16 X-Loop: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Precedence: list Resent-Sender: wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU X-UIDL: 230160920f45ea26ebaa2680c64a86b2 Status: RO Content-Length: 2323 Lines: 66 Steve I am sure that we all agree that this was not the direct purpose of the revised private applicator certification process. However, I can't see how anyone who goes in can't be run through the process. I would hope that the CACs wouldn't try to dwelve into a person's intent. I don't know how tight they are holding to the definition of private applicator but couldn't a person say he intended to hire on as one? After all isn't it good to have the information most widely diseminated? I suppose if it got really out of hand there could be a workload problem. It should work as a safety valve where necessary. Have you run it past any commissioners? What does the Enforcement Branch have to say? >>> Stephen R Sutter 04/09/97 10:46am >>> This is Steve Sutter, UC Farm Advisor ... I keep getting calls statewide (couplre a week) asking when the next WPS train-the-trainer class is. (Wish I had the same interest in I-9s.) I understand UC IPM at Davis will pull back in here in November. In the meantime, do the large custom harvesters and farm labor contractors I work with (who aren't "growers") face a risk of being cited by county ag commissioners for failure to have a "qualified" trainer on staff (or in the vicinity) at the time of a new worker's hiring. We Californios don't have a grace period (although there are publications circulating here that "mislead" employers on that matter). Possible solution? ... In 1997, California's Department of Pesticide Regulation renovated the private applicator certification process. County ag commissioners now issue "Private Applicator Certificate" cards to "persons" who successfully complete an examination with 70 percent or higher score. (UC IPM at Davis is completing the study guide.) During the 3-year renewal cycle card holders must acquire 6 hours of continuing education. I'd be happy to offer 2 hours of CEUs to introduce in detail fieldworker safety standards and training requirements (and DPR would have the recordkeeping). Can I refer FLC and custom harvester safety coordinators, their foremen, and various consultants to their county ag commissioner of choce to schedule a private applicator examination (by appointment I presume)? That would help us sleep better. "Fresno Clear." . From ???@??? Tue Apr 08 09:52:45 1997 From: cefresno@UCDAVIS.EDU Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 07:56:02 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: scope of fieldworker training Content-Length: 654 Lines: 6 This is Steve Sutter, UC Farm Advisor ... A representative of a major food processor (and contract harvester) in Turlock, CA called to ask if the company's mechanical harvest crew workers fall within the "fieldworker" definition -- in need of WPS fieldworker training. As part of their work, a couple crew members do take turns on the ground picking up onions or garlic that falls off the machine. The harvest machines pick up onions and garlic after they are machine dug and windrowed. Plant tops are gone. Can I advise my reader the ground workers aren't performing "cultural" tasks but are instead doing "post-harvest" work? "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Wed Apr 09 13:27:50 1997 Date: 9 Apr 1997 11:50:43 U From: "Pat Marer" Subject: WPS Train-the-Trainer Progr To: "Forum WPS" Content-Length: 3180 Lines: 64 4/9/97 11:00 AM WPS Train-the-Trainer Programs Steve Sutter's recent posting has prompted me to provide this information about the WPS Train-the-Trainer programs in California. During the past 2 1/2 years, the UC Statewide IPM Project has conducted 140 train-the-trainer programs, and has held programs in nearly every crook and cranny of the state. Over 3,300 trainers have received certificates through our program and those conducted by Steve Sutter and Gregory Billikopf, under our auspices. We have just completed our latest round of programs (English and Spanish) held in Lakeport, Parlier, and Winters. We have scheduled several more programs in 1997 and 1998 (schedule listed below). Our programs were, and continue to be, publicized widely throughout the state through the media, direct mailing, and through UC Cooperative Extension, Agricultural Commissioner, and Farm Bureau offices. In addition, there have been 6 other train-the-trainer programs approved by DPR and two others are almost approved. There should be no lack of programs for people to become qualified as trainers. The only problem people looking for train-the-trainer programs may encounter would be convenient location and time. It's impossible for anyone #004#to hold programs in every community. Our office also maintains a listing of qualified trainers who are willing to provide training to agricultural workers or pesticide handlers. This listing is also available through DPR and I believe it has been made available to County Agricultural Commissioner offices. Employers who do not have qualified trainers on staff can arrange to hire outside trainers to perform these tasks. By necessity, the UC IPM Pesticide Education Program has had to cut back on the numbers of train-the-trainer programs it will offer during 1997 and 1998. Our staff of three instructors have many other resposibilities that urgently need to be balanced with conducting train-the-trainer programs. We had to let many of these responsibilites slide during our 2 1/2 year schedule of conducting train-the-trainer programs on a monthly basis. Our current schedule reflects an attempt to serve the needs within regions of the state and to conduct programs at times most convenient to agricultural operations. Schedule of future UC IPM Train-the-Trainer Programs (all programs are 8-hour courses for trainers of pesticide handlers and agricultural fieldworkers): Salinas November 4, 1997 English Salinas November 5, 1997 Spanish Parlier November 11, 1997 English Parlier November 12, 1997 Spanish Winters January 7, 1998 English Winters January 8, 1998 Spanish Carlsbad January 13, 1998 English Carlsbad January 14, 1998 Spanish In addition, arrangements are being made to conduct programs in Indio. Dates will be announced when the location can be confirmed. Patrick J. O'Connor-Marer Pesticide Training Coordinator UC Statewide IPM Project (916)752-5273 From ???@??? Wed Apr 09 13:27:43 1997 Date: 9 Apr 97 9:50:25 From: Kay Rudolph Subject: Re: fieldworker training scope To: cefresno Content-Length: 1975 Lines: 49 Steve: Whether the workers are mechanically harvesting the agricultural plant, or harvesting by hand, they are covered by the WPS. An activity does not become post-harvest until the harvested product leaves the field (this is the division betwen OSHA and WPS). Lettuce packing crews working on the packing lines pulled through the field are covered by WPS, because they are part of the harvesting operation. A packing crew in a packing shed off the field would not come under the WPS. WPS is fairly straightforward in this regard: it is geared to cover the potential exposure agricultural workers face from fieldwork, hence any agricultural work they do in the field is covered by the WPS. Picking up the agricultural product is harvesting. Alternatively, if a truck driver drives a truck loaded with packed crates and does no agricultural work in the field (no filling the crates or other field activity), the truck driver would not fall under the WPS. But if the truck driver is also picking up produce in the field, then this would bring him/her under the WPS. Kay Rudolph US EPA Region 9 San Francisco 415-744-1065 cefresno @ ucdavis.edu 04/08/97 04:56 AM To: wps-forum @ are.berkeley.edu @ IN cc: cefresno @ ucdavis.edu @ IN (bcc: Kay Rudolph) Subject: fieldworker training scope This is Steve Sutter, UC Farm Advisor ... A representative of a major food processor (and contract harvester) in Turlock, CA called to ask if the company's mechanical harvest crew workers fall within the "fieldworker" definition -- in need of WPS fieldwor ker training. As part of their work, a couple crew members do take turns on the ground picking up onions or garlic that falls off the machine. The harvest machines pick up onions and garlic after they are machine dug and windrowed. Plant tops are gone. Can I advise my reader the ground workers aren't performing "cultural" tasks but are instead doing "post-harvest" work? "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Wed Apr 09 13:27:47 1997 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:43:06 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: train-the-trainer bottleneck Content-Length: 1537 Lines: 39 This is Steve Sutter, UC Farm Advisor ... I keep getting calls statewide (couplre a week) asking when the next WPS train-the-trainer class is. (Wish I had the same interest in I-9s.) I understand UC IPM at Davis will pull back in here in November. In the meantime, do the large custom harvesters and farm labor contractors I work with (who aren't "growers") face a risk of being cited by county ag commissioners for failure to have a "qualified" trainer on staff (or in the vicinity) at the time of a new worker's hiring. We Californios don't have a grace period (although there are publications circulating here that "mislead" employers on that matter). Possible solution? ... In 1997, California's Department of Pesticide Regulation renovated the private applicator certification process. County ag commissioners now issue "Private Applicator Certificate" cards to "persons" who successfully complete an examination with 70 percent or higher score. (UC IPM at Davis is completing the study guide.) During the 3-year renewal cycle card holders must acquire 6 hours of continuing education. I'd be happy to offer 2 hours of CEUs to introduce in detail fieldworker safety standards and training requirements (and DPR would have the recordkeeping). Can I refer FLC and custom harvester safety coordinators, their foremen, and various consultants to their county ag commissioner of choce to schedule a private applicator examination (by appointment I presume)? That would help us sleep better. "Fresno Clear." . From ???@??? Wed Apr 09 13:27:49 1997 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:30:21 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: fieldworker training scope and hold the e-mail Content-Length: 834 Lines: 17 -- Thanks Kay. I do appreciate you setting me straight. Doug Edwards, deputy ag commissioner, told me the same thing earlier this morning (in person). One of our farm advisors though did say the "dry-down" period for garlic or onions (during which pesticides are generally not applied) would often exceed REI plus 30 days, giving the harvesting company an "out" concerning formal fieldworker pesticide safety training (which I suspect he'll take). -- I just opened my U.S. mail to learn my own "personalized" WPS fieldworker train-the-trainer course has been approved. Thank you Chuck Andrews. Thank you Bob Chavez. (DPR, Sacramento). Believe it or not, writing this e-mail was interrupted by a phone call from an FLC asking -- you know what. He congratulated me. I told there would be a class "soon." "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Wed Apr 09 13:27:51 1997 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 12:16:22 -0700 From: "A. R. MarvinGallo" To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu, srsutter@UCDAVIS.EDU Subject: fieldworker training scope and hold the e-mail -Reply Content-Length: 182 Lines: 2 Hi Steve, So šnext time I drive THROUGH Fresno, there won't be bottleneck to worry about? Congratulations on your TOT program, Good luck in your training. THere is a need. ADOLFO From ???@??? Wed Apr 09 13:27:52 1997 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 12:18:00 -0700 From: "A. R. MarvinGallo" To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu, ROYR@cdpr.ca.gov, srsutter@UCDAVIS.EDU Subject: train-the-trainer bottleneck -Reply -Reply Content-Length: 2453 Lines: 103 Yo Roy, I'm interested in what enforcement has to say about it too. ADOLFO >>> Roy Rutz 04/09/97 11:57am >>> Steve I am sure that we all agree that this was not the direct purpose of the revised private applicator certification process. However, I can't see how anyone who goes in can't be run through the process. I would hope that the CACs wouldn't try to dwelve into a person's intent. I don't know how tight they are holding to the definition of private applicator but couldn't a person say he intended to hire on as one? After all isn't it good to have the information most widely diseminated? I suppose if it got really out of hand there could be a workload problem. It should work as a safety valve where necessary. Have you run it past any commissioners? What does the Enforcement Branch have to say? >>> Stephen R Sutter 04/09/97 10:46am >>> This is Steve Sutter, UC Farm Advisor ... I keep getting calls statewide (couplre a week) asking when the next WPS train-the-trainer class is. (Wish I had the same interest in I-9s.) I understand UC IPM at Davis will pull back in here in November. In the meantime, do the large custom harvesters and farm labor contractors I work with (who aren't "growers") face a risk of being cited by county ag commissioners for failure to have a "qualified" trainer on staff (or in the vicinity) at the time of a new worker's hiring. We Californios don't have a grace period (although there are publications circulating here that "mislead" employers on that matter). Possible solution? ... In 1997, California's Department of Pesticide Regulation renovated the private applicator certification process. County ag commissioners now issue "Private Applicator Certificate" cards to "persons" who successfully complete an examination with 70 percent or higher score. (UC IPM at Davis is completing the study guide.) During the 3-year renewal cycle card holders must acquire 6 hours of continuing education. I'd be happy to offer 2 hours of CEUs to introduce in detail fieldworker safety standards and training requirements (and DPR would have the recordkeeping). Can I refer FLC and custom harvester safety coordinators, their foremen, and various consultants to their county ag commissioner of choce to schedule a private applicator examination (by appointment I presume)? That would help us sleep better. "Fresno Clear." . From ???@??? Wed Apr 09 13:27:53 1997 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 12:24:33 -0700 From: "A. R. MarvinGallo" To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu, pat.marer@wserver.ipm.ucdavis.edu Subject: WPS Train-the-Trainer Progr -Reply Content-Length: 3771 Lines: 114 HI Pat, Good message. Regarding CAC's knowing about DPR approved TOT programs, I cc CAC's when I approve a program; they get a copy of the final approval letter that is sent to the applicant. iN addition, I've forwarded your prior schedules to our DPR district offices in an attempt to get the word out. I don't recall if I've eELmailed your TOT schedules to CAC's or not because it's relatively recent that they've come on line to our system, but I intend to provide them a copy of this schedule. Thanks ADOLFO >>> "Pat Marer" 04/09/97 12:10pm >>> 4/9/97 11:00 AM WPS Train-the-Trainer Programs Steve Sutter's recent posting has prompted me to provide this information about the WPS Train-the-Trainer programs in California. During the past 2 1/2 years, the UC Statewide IPM Project has conducted 140 train-the-trainer programs, and has held programs in nearly every crook and cranny of the state. Over 3,300 trainers have received certificates through our program and those conducted by Steve Sutter and Gregory Billikopf, under our auspices. We have just completed our latest round of programs (English and Spanish) held in Lakeport, Parlier, and Winters. We have scheduled several more programs in 1997 and 1998 (schedule listed below). Our programs were, and continue to be, publicized widely throughout the state through the media, direct mailing, and through UC Cooperative Extension, Agricultural Commissioner, and Farm Bureau offices. In addition, there have been 6 other train-the-trainer programs approved by DPR and two others are almost approved. There should be no lack of programs for people to become qualified as trainers. The only problem people looking for train-the-trainer programs may encounter would be convenient location and time. It's impossible for anyone #004#to hold programs in every community. Our office also maintains a listing of qualified trainers who are willing to provide training to agricultural workers or pesticide handlers. This listing is also available through DPR and I believe it has been made available to County Agricultural Commissioner offices. Employers who do not have qualified trainers on staff can arrange to hire outside trainers to perform these tasks. By necessity, the UC IPM Pesticide Education Program has had to cut back on the numbers of train-the-trainer programs it will offer during 1997 and 1998. Our staff of three instructors have many other resposibilities that urgently need to be balanced with conducting train-the-trainer programs. We had to let many of these responsibilites slide during our 2 1/2 year schedule of conducting train-the-trainer programs on a monthly basis. Our current schedule reflects an attempt to serve the needs within regions of the state and to conduct programs at times most convenient to agricultural operations. Schedule of future UC IPM Train-the-Trainer Programs (all programs are 8-hour courses for trainers of pesticide handlers and agricultural fieldworkers): Salinas November 4, 1997 English Salinas November 5, 1997 Spanish Parlier November 11, 1997 English Parlier November 12, 1997 Spanish Winters January 7, 1998 English Winters January 8, 1998 Spanish Carlsbad January 13, 1998 English Carlsbad January 14, 1998 Spanish In addition, arrangements are being made to conduct programs in Indio. Dates will be announced when the location can be confirmed. Patrick J. O'Connor-Marer Pesticide Training Coordinator UC Statewide IPM Project (916)752-5273 From ???@??? Mon Apr 14 09:41:32 1997 From: PHASPOWELL@aol.com Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:24:10 -0400 (EDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: scope of fieldworker training Content-Length: 146 Lines: 2 I would suggest that they are "workers" and must be trained as such. Harvesting is specifically mentioned in the "How to Comply" manual. All, CCP From ???@??? Thu Apr 17 12:48:49 1997 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 12:32:52 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: wps fieldworker instructor training program Content-Length: 829 Lines: 19 -- A WPS Fieldworker train-the-trainer workshop will be conducted in English on May 29, 1997 at the UC Cooperative Extension office in Hanford, CA (680 N. Campus Drive). The workshop will start at 8 a.m. and conclude at Noon. A $14 fee will be charged for materials. Preregistration is required. Call Steve Sutter, UC Area Farm Advisor, Personnel Management, on (209) 456-7560. -- The training program developed by Sutter was approved by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation on April 7, 1997. Training programs for prospective fieldworker pesticide safety trainers are now offered through two of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources' Statewide Programs; the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program, and the Agricultural Personnel Management Program (APMP). -- "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Mon Apr 21 09:28:19 1997 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:43:11 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: california worker pesticide safety standards Content-Length: 1079 Lines: 21 On February 4, 1997, California's Department of Pesticide Regulation sent to County Agricultural Commissioners final regulations that incorporate the federal Worker Protection Standard requirements in the California Code of Regulations (CCR). As a public service to the agricultural community, I prepared a 29-page booklet "California Pesticide Worker Safety Regulations - Revised 1997." It includes an introduction, table of contents, all of the CCRs 6700-6795 (Subchapter 3 Pesticide Worker Safety), and a directory of California's Ag Commissioners. In the margin I indicate if the section is new, revised, or unchanged (pre-WPS). It has quickly become a "hot" item, with requests coming from deputy ag commissioners in Fresno, Monterey, and Santa Cruz counties. For a copy of the booklet, send $4 payable to "County of Fresno," to Steve Sutter, UC Area Farm Advisor, 1720 S. MAple Ave., Fresno, CA 93702. The document is also on our UC Agricultural Personnel Management Program (APMP) web site at the URL http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pestregs.html "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Mon Apr 21 09:28:19 1997 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:57:10 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: worker safety penalties reported Content-Length: 810 Lines: 16 California's Department of Pesticide Regulation issues an annual "Agricultural Civil Penalty Report," a public document disclosing, for each enforcement case, the company's name, the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section(s) violated, and the proposed and final penalties assessed by the county ag commissioner. Request a copy on (916)-445-3920. Based on penalty actions for the year ended June 30, 1995, the "top 4" CCR Sections violated within "Subchapter 3 - Pesticide Worker Safety" were: (1) Section 6738 (Personal Protective Equipment), (2) Section 6724 (Handler Training), (3) Section 6726 (Planning Emergency Medical Care for Employees Handling Pesticides), and (4) Section 6736 (Work Clothing, Coveralls). The same ranking occurred in both of the 2 previous fiscal years. "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:00:49 1997 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 08:21:03 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: audio cassettes? Content-Length: 457 Lines: 10 I just received a draft bilingual "Farm Labor Contractor Safety and Health Guide" to review from Elizabeth Manzo, Associate Safety Engineer, Cal/OSHA Consultation Service, Sacramento. Her letter says "similar information will be available on audio cassettes to address the farm workers with very low literacy and non-readers." ... What a novel idea! ... Can anyone see USEPA approving such an instructional tool as an audio cassette?? "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:01:08 1997 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:13:00 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: zero training grace period in CA Content-Length: 486 Lines: 10 In speaking with a Ventura reader last week, I was disappointed to learn he thought California had a fieldworker pesticide safety training grace period of 5 days. But then I noticed my June 1995 newsletter said US EPA set a 5-day "partial" training grace period, effective January 1, 1996. My May 1997 newsletter, just off the press, will set the record straight for California readers -- full training must occur before a fieldworker works in a "treated" field. "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:01:10 1997 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:39:46 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: CA Fieldworker Instructors Guide Available Content-Length: 707 Lines: 14 "Qualified" fieldworker pesticide safety trainers in California may find my new 24-page "Pesticide Safety Fieldworker Instructors Guide" helpful in conducting their training programs. The booklet, which contains my train-the-trainer class outline, may also be of interest to individuals wishing to become "DPR-authorized" fieldworker trainers-of-trainers. I'll send it without charge to WPS-forum participants upon request. I'll need your mailing address. Request California's Department of Pesticide Regulations "Criteria for Instructor Training" (minimum standards) for evaluating instructor training programs from Bob Chavez, DPR, 1020 N St., Rm. 300, Sacramento, CA 95814-5624. "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:01:13 1997 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:19:32 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: fieldworker training compliance help Content-Length: 1263 Lines: 36 A San Diego nursery operator just called. Today she learned, through her county deputy ag commissioner, about WPS fieldworker training requirements. She expressed concern that inclusion of instruction about flu-like poisoning symptoms, and chronic and delayed effects of pesticide exposure might lead some of her long-time workers to get ideas the next time they have the flu -- "or to worry about impotence." She said the (fieldworker) training (except for personal hygiene and clothes washing) "doesn't seem very useful." I sent her my 4-page "Pesticide Safety Guide For Agricultural Workers" which Charles M. Andrews, Chief, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, in a personal letter June 13, 1996, said "covers the 12 required concepts." Even before then, Kay Rudolph, USEPA, San Francisco, admitted in a meeting with local farm organization representatives, that my Guide appeared to contain (in somewhat fewer words, fewer illustrations) the concepts covered in USEPA's 43-page "Protect Yourself from Pesticides - Guide for Agricultural Workers." In any event, I advised the nurserywoman my bilingual training document was as "toned-down" as I could legally tone (moderate) it. "Fresno Clear." in the 43-page USEPA the e , From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:01:40 1997 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:59:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen R Sutter To: ag-hrnet@ucdavis.edu Subject: fieldworker training compliance help Content-Length: 1385 Lines: 27 >Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:21:30 >To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu >From: Stephen R Sutter >Subject: fieldworker training compliance help > > >A San Diego nursery operator just called. Today she learned, through her county deputy ag commissioner, about WPS fieldworker training requirements. She expressed concern that inclusion of instruction about flu-like poisoning symptoms, and chronic and delayed effects of pesticide exposure might lead some of her long-time workers to get ideas the next time they have the flu -- "or to worry about impotence." She said the (fieldworker) training (except for personal hygiene and clothes washing) "doesn't seem very useful." > >I sent her my 4-page "Pesticide Safety Guide For Agricultural Workers" which Charles M. Andrews, Chief, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, in a personal letter June 13, 1996, said "covers the 12 required concepts." Even before then, Kay Rudolph, USEPA, San Francisco, admitted in a meeting with local farm organization representatives, that my Guide appeared to contain (in somewhat fewer words, fewer illustrations) the concepts covered in USEPA's 43-page "Protect Yourself from Pesticides - Guide for Agricultural Workers." > >In any event, I advised the nurserywoman my bilingual training document was as "toned-down" as I could legally tone (moderate) it. "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:01:45 1997 From: gdaniels@cfbf.com Date: Thu, 24 Apr 97 11:33:07 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: audio cassettes? Content-Length: 1516 Lines: 39 Steve Actually it's not such a new idea. FELS discussed a WPS training program with Kay at EPA a couple years ago. We proposed a training program that had the material recorded on audio cassette tapes. She wasn't too hot on the idea. We already have a program that has been reviewed by DPR that includes a training program with illustrations, an exam, forms to document the training and hand outs. It was developed to help growers comply with the state Haz Com for Pesticide requirement that was implemented in 1992. We are putting the final touches on an update to the Haz Com Program to incorporate the December 1996 Title 3 changes. The update version will be ready for distribution in May. "Sacramento Clear." George Daniels ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: audio cassettes? Author: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU at INTERNET Date: 4/22/97 9:24 AM I just received a draft bilingual "Farm Labor Contractor Safety and Health Guide" to review from Elizabeth Manzo, Associate Safety Engineer, Cal/OSHA Consultation Service, Sacramento. Her letter says "similar information will be available on audio cassettes to address the farm workers with very low literacy and non-readers." ... What a novel idea! ... Can anyone see USEPA approving such an instructional tool as an audio cassette?? "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:02:04 1997 From: rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us (Rafael Paonessa) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu, wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: audio cassettes? Date: 25 Apr 97 00:30:16 GMT Content-Length: 1065 Lines: 24 This is a good idea. We have a similar concept here in Texas with our crop sheet requirement. Since they must be read aloud to the workers in their language, we prepared a cassette tape that labor contractors play in the background over and over as they hand out the crop sheets. How about preparing one that includes the EPA-required info that must be given to the workers before they enter the field? > I just received a draft bilingual "Farm Labor Contractor Safety and Health > Guide" to review from Elizabeth Manzo, Associate Safety Engineer, Cal/OSHA > Consultation Service, Sacramento. Her letter says "similar information will > be available on audio cassettes to address the farm workers with very low > literacy and non-readers." ... What a novel idea! ... Can anyone see USEPA > approving such an instructional tool as an audio cassette?? "Fresno Clear." > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides tel: 512/463-1102 fax: 512/475-1618 From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:02:11 1997 From: rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us (Rafael Paonessa) To: Wps-Forum@are.berkeley.edu (Wps-Forum), wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: audio cassettes? Date: 25 Apr 97 05:33:30 GMT Content-Length: 481 Lines: 12 Kay, As I mentioned in my reply to Steve's message, I think that the pre-entry information required for untrained workers, contained in that pocket book EPA put out (735-F-95-002) is perfect for cassette playback. It is short enough that the workers would not "tune out" and would indeed get the message. _______________________________________________ Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides tel: 512/463-1102 fax: 512/475-1618 From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:02:17 1997 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:17:30 +0000 From: Kay Rudolph Subject: re: audio cassettes To: wps-forum Content-Length: 1516 Lines: 23 Rafael replied back that he had a problem with my earlier message, so I am resending. I expect the attachment was simply a copy of your original message, Rafael -- our system here (Lotus Notes) is a bit odd. ***************************************************************************************************************** Rafael raises a point worth clarifying: the WPS does not set any requirements for the format of the "pre-entry" information (this is information provided to untrained workers who will be entering areas within thirty days of the expiration of the restricted entry interval -- worker entering areas during the restricted entry intervals may do so only under specific circumstances and must receive the full pesticide safety training before such entry.) Providing the pre-entry information using audio cassette would be perfectly acceptable. As Steve points out, the pre-entry information does not apply in California, since California requires that all workers receive full pesticide safety training before the first day of entry into an area where a pesticide had been applied or REI had been in effect within the previous 30 days. In other parts of the country, a worker may accumulate 5 days of working in such areas on an establishment before the employer must provide the full training, and the WPS requires only that workers be provided certain basic information before the first entry -- what Rafael calls "pre-entry" information. Kay Rudolph US EPA Region 9 415-744-1065 From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:02:07 1997 Date: 25 Apr 97 8:53:13 From: Kay Rudolph Subject: Re: audio cassettes? To: Wps-Forum Content-Length: 907 Lines: 17 Audio cassettes are a great supplement to training -- they are simple to use, as you can just pop them in and let them run on in the background. As a primary training mechanism though, an audio tape tends not to engage the listener deeply enough to assure that the message is received and understood. Given that pesticide safety training is only required once every five years, that training needs to be engaging enough to make an impression -- for this reason the WPS requires that the training be either from a live trainer or from an audio/video cassette (it's amazing how video images draw people in -- how many times have you found yourself mesmerized by a TV screen, even if it's some show you hate?). I think it's a great idea to use audio tapes to reinforce training, and would love to hear about materials that have been prepared. Kay Rudolph US EPA Region 9 San Francisco 415-744-1065 From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:02:08 1997 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:30:27 -0700 (PDT) To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Stephen R Sutter Subject: Re: audio cassettes? Content-Length: 1902 Lines: 41 > >This is a good idea. We have a similar concept here in Texas with >our crop sheet requirement. Since they must be read aloud to the >workers in their language, we prepared a cassette tape that labor >contractors play in the background over and over as they hand out the >crop sheets. How about preparing one that includes the EPA-required info that >must be given to the workers before they enter the field? > -- Rafael and other WPS netters, This is "Fresno" (Steve Sutter) again. Interesting that the State pesticide regulatory agencies in the two largest ag States actually "condone" audio cassettes to instruct or impart information. Back before WPS, I had the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation's Hazard Communication Leaflets A-8 and A-9 narrated in Spanish on audio cassette, as we too had (have) a requirement that the leaflets, upon request, be read by the employer in a language understandable to that employee. DPR's Chief (at the time) and many of his subordinates thought it was a good idea. I sold close to 300 (at $4) before the WPS made the script out of date. (Californians note: the PSIS A-8 and A-9 were revised 11/20/96.) I also gave the cassettes away as "door prizes" at English/Spanish pesticide safety meetings. Brown hands reached for them like they were $50 bills. George ... George Daniels are you there? (George Daniels, Farm Employers Labor Service, Sacramento). ... George, your (video)cassette was US EPA approved Nationwide. Did US EPA farm it out to a review committee. Were they academics? Professors? Did you get a firm written approval on US EPA letterhead? How many revisions? (Couldn't have been perfect on the first take.) You can answer me on the side or by phone if you like. Rafael, I'd jump at the chance to work with you on a WPS fieldworker audio cassette. Maybe we can get it approved in Region 6. "Fresno Clear." From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:02:16 1997 From: Rudolph.Kay@epamail.epa.gov To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:25:05 -0700 Subject: Re: audio cassettes? Content-Length: 2258 Lines: 59 Rafael raises a point worth clarifying: the WPS does not set any requirements for the format of the "pre-entry" information (this is information provided to untrained workers who will be entering areas within thirty days of the expiration of the restricted entry interval -- worker entering areas during the restricted entry intervals may do so only under specific circumstances and must receive the full pesticide safety training before such entry.) Providing the pre-entry information using audio cassette would be perfectly acceptable. As Steve points out, the pre-entry information does not apply in California, since California requires that all workers receive full pesticide safety training before the first day of entry into an area where a pesticide had been applied or REI had been in effect within the previous 30 days. In other parts of the country, a worker may accumulate 5 days of working in such areas on an establishment before the employer must provide the full training, and the WPS requires only that workers be provided certain basic information before the first entry -- what Rafael calls "pre-entry" information. Kay Rudolph US EPA Region 9 415-744-1065 (Embedded image moved wps-forum @ are.Berkeley.EDU to file: 04/25/97 11:35 AM PIC29344.PCX) To: Wps-Forum @ are.berkeley.edu, wps-forum @ are.berkeley.edu cc: (bcc: Kay Rudolph) Subject: Re: audio cassettes? Kay, As I mentioned in my reply to Steve's message, I think that the pre-entry information required for untrained workers, contained in that pocket book EPA put out (735-F-95-002) is perfect for cassette playback. It is short enough that the workers would not "tune out" and would indeed get the message. _______________________________________________ Rafael Paonessa (rpaoness@agr.state.tx.us) Texas Dept. of Agriculture, Pesticides tel: 512/463-1102 fax: 512/475-1618 Attachment converted: howpow:PIC29344.PCX (????/----) (0001733B) From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:02:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from slist@localhost) by are.berkeley.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA12817; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:50:21 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: x1stone@exnet.iastate.edu (Janis Stone) Subject: Interpretation of glove chart Resent-Message-ID: <"PUpCC.A.5DD.ZgRYz"@are.Berkeley.EDU> Resent-From: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/37 X-Loop: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Precedence: list Resent-Sender: wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU X-UIDL: 8af75b79468c529592708b1429d894c2 Status: RO Content-Length: 971 Lines: 23 WPS Friends and Co-workers: I have looked at the EPA Chemical Resistance Category Selection Chart many times, but today was the first time that the qualification under category A came to my consciousness in a way that raised questions. Category A has underneath it in parens: "(dry and water-based formulations)" Does this mean that the rating of the materials as "high" applies only to dry and water-based formulations? What about the other categories B through H? Do they include solvent based chemicals? Is it your understanding that the B-H categories include dry, water based, AND solvent based? How is this supposed to be interpreted? Can someone at EPA or elsewhere provide an answer? Thanks. Jan Stone,ISU Janis Stone, Extension Professor Telephone: 515-294-6712 Textiles and Clothing Fax: 515-294-6364 Iowa State University e-mail: jfstone@iastate.edu Ames, Iowa 50011-1120 Exnet: x1stone From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:02:47 1997 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 07:33:56 -0700 From: Paul Andre To: Janis Stone Subject: Re: Interpretation of glove chart Content-Length: 632 Lines: 19 Janis et al, The way I have interpreted the chart is that "A" are the "weaker" chemicals and "H" are the "stronger" chemicals. Therefore, "A" include only dry and water based chemicals and any of the materials will provide high protection. As solvents (and other factors) are added into the equation, some material will not provide as much protection. -- Key ya later, Paul Paul Andre Program Coordinator Bureau of Pesticide Control Missouri Dept. of Agriculture P.O. Box 630 - 1616 Missouri Blvd. Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-9198 FAX 0005 From ???@??? Tue Apr 29 17:03:30 1997 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:37:00 -0400 From: "Tammy L. Gould" To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Non-WPS Products Content-Length: 994 Lines: 22 My question is for EPA or a registrant: Is there a requirement for registrants to place a statement on the label of non-WPS products limiting their use to "home use", "non-commercial use", or "non-agricultural use"? An example would be a typical-homeowner product, such as Sevin, which could be used by a market gardener. On homeowner products, there are no WPS statements. Is there any requirement for a label statement which would warn this market gardener when he/she went into their local Home Depot that the product should not be used on the crops which they intend to sell on the roadside? -- Tammy Gould Tel: 207-287-2731 Maine Board of Pesticides Control Voice Mail: 207-287-7593 28 State House Station FAX: 207-287-6558 Augusta, Maine 04333-0028 ----- Email: aftgoul@state.me.us -or- Tammy.Gould@state.me.us Visit us at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/bpcpage.htm From ???@??? Wed Apr 30 10:01:59 1997 From: "Steven E. Newman" To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 08:44:03 +0000 Subject: Sulfur use in a greenhouse Content-Length: 429 Lines: 14 A question was posed to me yesterday. Vaporized sulfur in a greenhouse is a reliable control for powdery mildew in a greenhouse. What is the label status of this activity? What would the worker protection guidelines be? Steve Newman Steven E. Newman, Ph.D. Extension Greenhouse Crops Specialist Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523-1173 Tel: (970) 491-7118 Fax: (970) 491-7745 e-mail: newman@lamar.colostate.edu From ???@??? Wed Apr 30 10:01:56 1997 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 07:20:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Interpretation of glove chart To: Janis Stone Content-Length: 2388 Lines: 43 The Chemical Resistance Category Selection Chart is a guide for pesticide users in selecting an appropriate "chemical-resistant" material for a particular pesticide-related task. Research indicates that a material's chemical resistance to a liquid pesticide product depends on the type of solvent in the formulation and the length of exposure. (A solvent for this purpose is defined as any liquid, inert ingredient that constitutes more than 5 percent of the contents of an end-use product.) Some materials will be resistant to the product for only a short time; other materials will be resistant for several hours. For dry and water-based end-use products, all the listed materials provide high chemical-resistance. If an end-use product contains a solvent other than water OR if the bulk of the end-use product is a liquid active ingredient (such as dormant oil or Telone), a chemical-resistance category (B through H) is selected based on the solvent class of the solvent(s) it contains. When PR Notice 93-7 first instituted the chemical-resistance category on pesticide labels, category A was not included. If gloves were required on the labels of dry or water-based end-use products, the phrase "waterproof gloves" was used, rather than "chemical-resistant gloves, such as . . . (naming highly resistant materials)." However, EPA determined that this (waterproof) language lead to confusion for users and enforcement officials, particularly when the labeling also required "chemical-resistant footwear" or "chemical-resistant apron." Questions quickly arose as to which materials were chemical-resistant and why "waterproof" was used to describe gloves, but "chemical-resistant" was used to describe aprons, footwear, headgear, etc. Consequently, in subsequent labeling actions related to personal protective equipment (particularly through reregistration actions), EPA is gradually using the term "chemical-resistant gloves" universally and is adding category A to the labels of dry and water-based end-use products. A typical glove statement on a wettable powder label, for example, would be: "chemical-resistant gloves, such as any waterproof material." As an alternative, the registrant may list all the materials from the chemical-resistance category chart. Hope this helps! Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From ???@??? Wed Apr 30 10:01:56 1997 From: TOMPKINS.JIM@epamail.epa.gov Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 07:03:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Non-WPS Products To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Content-Length: 2797 Lines: 62 From wps-forum-request@are.berkeley.edu X-Envelope-From: wps-forum-request@are.berkeley.edu Received: from are.berkeley.edu by epamail.epa.gov (PMDF V5.1-8 #22480) with ESMTP id <0E9ERYY7B00F3U@epamail.epa.gov>; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by are.berkeley.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA00123; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Resent-date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:37:00 -0400 Resent-from: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: "Tammy L. Gould" Subject: Non-WPS Products Resent-sender: wps-forum-request@are.Berkeley.EDU To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Resent-message-id: <"L9BHPC.A.8SH.KPiZz"@are.Berkeley.EDU> Message-id: <336623AC.250D@state.me.us> Organization: Maine Board of Pesticides Control MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/40 X-Loop: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU My question is for EPA or a registrant: Is there a requirement for registrants to place a statement on the label of non-WPS products limiting their use to "home use", "non-commercial use", or "non-agricultural use"? There is no requirement for registrants to place a ststement on the label of a non-wps product limiting their use to "Home Use" if it is clear from the label that the product is primarily intended for home use. Criteria were spelled out in PR 93-7 and 93-11. If it is not clear from the label that the product meets the criteria spelled out in 93-7 & 93-11 then they were required to put an exclusionary statement on the label (examples given in PR 93-11). Some States require that a product be specifically restricted to "residential use only" on the label to get out from under WPS. Jim Tompkins Registration Division US EPA An example would be a typical-homeowner product, such as Sevin, which could be used by a market gardener. On homeowner products, there are no WPS statements. Is there any requirement for a label statement which would warn this market gardener when he/she went into their local Home Depot that the product should not be used on the crops which they intend to sell on the roadside? -- Tammy Gould Tel: 207-287-2731 Maine Board of Pesticides Control Voice Mail: 207-287-7593 28 State House Station FAX: 207-287-6558 Augusta, Maine 04333-0028 ----- Email: aftgoul@state.me.us -or- Tammy.Gould@state.me.us Visit us at http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/bpcpage.htm From ???@??? Wed Apr 30 10:01:59 1997 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:31:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: Non-WPS Products To: "Tammy L. Gould" Content-Length: 1392 Lines: 36 On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Tammy L. Gould wrote: > Is there a requirement for registrants to place a statement on the label > of non-WPS products limiting their use to "home use", "non-commercial > use", or "non-agricultural use"? > > Is there any requirement for a label statement which would warn this market gardener when he/she went into their local Home Depot that the product should not be used on the crops which they intend to sell on the roadside? > Tammy, as Jim Tompkins states in an earlier reply, products that meet the tests in PR Notices 93-7 and 93-11 for "primarily intended for home use" need not include the WPS reference statement or other WPS-mandated requirements on their labeling. One point of further clarification, however. As I understand the WPS, users need to comply with the WPS only if the WPS reference statement is on the labeling. There is no independent duty for users to comply with the WPS. Therefore, gardeners who apply "homeowner" products to their gardens need not comply with the WPS - even if they intend to sell the produce in a roadside stand -- as long as the labeling for the product being used (1) contains directions for use on the fruit or vegetable, (2) doesn't prohibit commercial use, and (3) doesn't contain the WPS reference statement. Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From ???@??? Wed Apr 30 11:35:28 1997 From: gburgess@UTKUX.UTCC.UTK.EDU Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:58:16 -0400 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Posting Content-Length: 880 Lines: 22 Would someone confirm the following: A commercial custom applicator sprays a field on a farm. The farmer is responsible to post the field for his/her farm workers. It is not the responsibility of the employer of the commercial pesticide handler. Thanks. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Edward E. (Gene) Burgess University of Tennessee Pesticide Coordinator Entomology & Plant Pathology P. O. Box 1071 Telephone: (423) 974-7138 Knoxville, TN 37901 Fax: (423) 974-8868 E-mail: gburgess1@utk.edu UT Home Page: http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~utext E&PP Home Page: http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~utext/epp/epp.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From ???@??? Wed Apr 30 12:21:39 1997 From: md To: "'gburgess@UTKUX.UTCC.UTK.EDU'" , "'wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu'" Subject: RE: Posting Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 15:41:38 -0400 Content-Length: 1210 Lines: 20 On page 33 of the "How To Comply" manual, it states that the employer of the commercial pesticide handler must notify the operator of the establishment about the following: 1) Area location and description of the application. 2) Time and date of application. 3) Product names, EPA reg numbers, and active ingreds. 4) REIs. 5) If oral notification is required. 6) Special warnings on the labels. 7) Corrected dates and times if there is a schedule change. The handler must provide the establishment with this information so the operator can comply with the posting requirements. Since the handler must provide all of this anyway, he can this just as easily post it himself. Note however that it is the responsibility of the operator of the establishment to make sure this is done, and not the responsibility of the commercial handler (nor the owner of the property!). Marc Donovan Home of the: 10-4 Systems Office Wizard - Office Management System 8401 9th St. N. Suite E AMS - Pesticide Tracking System St. Petersburg, FL 33702 www.OfficeWizard.com (813)579-0000 marc@OfficeWizard.com From ???@??? Wed Apr 30 17:41:02 1997 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:13:44 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: Howard Rosenberg Subject: speaking of glove charts . . . Content-Length: 3145 Lines: 69 [Federal Register: April 30, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 83)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 23426] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 170 [OPP-250119; FRL-5599-1] Worker Protection Standard, Glove Requirements; Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture a proposed regulation under 40 CFR part 170 (the Worker Protection Standard). This action is issued under the authority of section 25(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The proposed rule would, first, revise the Worker Protection Standard to allow separable absorbent liners to be worn beneath chemical-resistant gloves. Second, it would eliminate the requirement that chemical-resistant gloves be worn by pilots when entering or exiting aircraft used to apply pesticides. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Joshua First, Certification and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Field Operation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm. 1114, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, Telephone: (703) 305-7437, e-mail: first.joshua@epamail.epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 25(a)(2) of FIFRA provides that the Administrator shall provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of any proposed regulation at least 60 days before signing it for publication in the Federal Register. If the Secretary comments in writing regarding the proposed regulation within 30 days after receiving it, the Administrator shall issue for publication in the Federal Register, with the proposed regulation, the comments of the Secretary, if requested by the Secretary, and the response of the Administrator concerning the Secretary's comments. If the Secretary does not comment in writing within 30 days after receiving the proposed regulation, the Administrator may sign the regulation for publication in the Federal Register anytime thereafter. As required by FIFRA section 25(a)(3), a copy of the proposed regulation has been forwarded to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate. Dated: April 21, 1997. Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp, Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 97-11152 Filed 4-29-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Howard Rosenberg Cooperative Ext Specialist, Ag Personnel Mgt 320 Giannini Hall Dept of Agricultural and Resource Economics Berkeley, CA 94720 University of California, Berkeley 510/642-7103 http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~