From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Jan 8 18:36:41 1995 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA07974 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 1995 18:36:29 -0800 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id VAA00255; Sun, 8 Jan 1995 21:35:49 -0500 Date: 08 Jan 95 21:32:21 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Federal fresh chickens Message-ID: <950109023220_73507.555_HHB75-1@CompuServe.COM> California recently lost a battle in the fight over a federal standard that permits chickens stored at zero degrees F to be labeled as "fresh." In 1993 the state passed a law prohibiting the use of labels saying "fresh" for poultry stored below 26 degrees F. One member of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a concurring opinion: "To clarify, I would note that Congress has given a federal bureaucrat the power to order that frozen chickens be labeled 'fresh.' We affirm this absurdity by holding quite properly that the California Legislature is federally pre-empted from requiring that frozen chicken be labeled 'frozen.'" California stores can still be required to tell the truth in advertising and display frozen chickens as what they are, even though the labels on the chickens themselves are required by federal law to say "fresh." Is that going to be just a tad confusing? The U.S. Department of Agriculture is reportedly going to do something to change this standard. I guess we are making progress. Incidentally, under federal law, a piece of chicken labeled to weigh one pound can actually weigh less than 16 ounces. California weights and measures officials cannot take action against poultry packed in federally approved plants because another federal standard says the weight on the package must only be the weight when packed. Allowance must be made for reasonable moisture loss occurring during good handling practices. This has proven to be unenforceable. California law is simple and enforceable: a package labeled one pound must weigh one pound at the time of sale. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Mon Jan 9 05:09:12 1995 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (gnv.ifas.ufl.edu [128.227.242.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id FAA12020 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 05:09:11 -0800 From: ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HLMVO3W1S08ZFKYQ@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Mon, 09 Jan 1995 08:07:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 1995 08:07:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Creole Translation of Worker Safety Training Manual To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLMVO3XE028ZFKYQ@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The Pesticide Information Office at the University of Florida has completed a Creole translation of "Protect Yourself from Pesticides - A Guide for Agricultural Workers". Gempler's may print the publication, but is waiting to see if Congress takes any action regarding the WPS before printing other language versions of worker training materials. We have a limited supply of the Creole manual. We can supply one copy per request. This copy can be used for duplica- ting additional copies. Norm Nesheim Pesticide Information Coordinator Building 847, Box 110710 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32600-0710 904/392-4721 onn@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Mon Jan 9 05:54:21 1995 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA12211 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 05:54:20 -0800 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA20964; Mon, 9 Jan 95 08:51:45 -0500 Message-Id: <9501091351.AA20964@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 95 08:51 EST From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: Federal fresh chickens To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <950109023220_73507.555_HHB75-1@CompuServe.COM> Dear forum users -- Bob Roach's recent communication on poultry was somewhat interesting but I fail to see its tie-in with WPS issues. There have been similar postings in the past. Those of us out-of-staters who are members of the forum are willing to wade through the stuff that's unique to California regulations for the sake of the occasional useful discussion. However, when forum users stray from the central issue of WPS some of us get frustrated. I know a number of people who have reluctantly quit the forum because of this. From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Mon Jan 9 06:04:34 1995 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA12275 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 06:04:33 -0800 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA21185; Mon, 9 Jan 95 08:55:20 -0500 Message-Id: <9501091355.AA21185@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 95 08:55 EST From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: Creole Translation of Worker Safety Training Manual To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <01HLMVO3XE028ZFKYQ@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> > >The Pesticide Information Office at the University of Florida has completed >a Creole translation of "Protect Yourself from Pesticides - A Guide for Agricultural Workers". Gempler's may print the publication, but is waiting to see if >Congress takes any action regarding the WPS before printing other language >versions of worker training materials. We have a limited supply of the Creole >manual. We can supply one copy per request. This copy can be used for duplica- >ting additional copies. >Norm Nesheim >Pesticide Information Coordinator >Building 847, Box 110710 >University of Florida >Gainesville, FL 32600-0710 >904/392-4721 >onn@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu > Norm, I'd like a copy of your Creole WPS translation. Incidentally, I assume EPA is keeping track of all the translations that have been mentioned over the WPS-Forum; am I right? Amy Brown Entomology Dept. University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742> From CBeytes@aol.com Mon Jan 9 07:11:51 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA12603 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 07:11:50 -0800 From: CBeytes@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA26741; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 10:08:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 10:08:12 -0500 Message-Id: <950109100531_3369709@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: enforcement and penalties Now that the implementation dust has started to settle, the bigger question on greenhouse operators' minds (most have been in full compliance since last year) is enforcement and penalties. The WPS manual ignores this area completely, as far as tell. University people have told me that the EPA has given enforcement authority to the states. First, who at the state level will be enforcing WPS? Early questions to state agencies concerning WPS issues usually result in shrugged shoulders, confused looks and a response of "Beats me, ask Washington," evidence that many state agencies aren't yet familiar enough with the details of the law to make growers feel good about their ability to fairly enforce it. Second, what are the penalties for non-compliance? Are there federal guidelines that all enforcement agencies will be required to follow, or will they make it up as they go along? These are real concerns; I've already heard of a few cases going to court. I'd like to hear from someone at the federal level who has the facts, not just more questions. I'm interested in providing this information to my readers and may want help on a short article. Sincerely, Chris Beytes Managing editor, GrowerTalks P.S. Our WPS seminar at GrowerExpo was a great success, with our speakers able to provide the latest update on EPA's recent actions. However, we had a marketing seminar running concurrently, and attendance in it was three times higher, showing what's foremost in the minds of greenhouse growers today. My apologies to those who wanted to attend just the WPS seminar without having to pay for the full four day conference. I will be bringing the issue up at our Expo '96 planning meeting. From pbaker@ag.Arizona.EDU Mon Jan 9 10:30:19 1995 Received: from ag.Arizona.EDU (Ag.Arizona.EDU [128.196.42.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA15420 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 10:30:13 -0800 Received: by ag.Arizona.EDU (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04568; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 11:30:48 +0700 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 11:30:48 -0700 (MST) From: Paul B Baker To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Federal fresh chickens In-Reply-To: <9501091351.AA20964@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII content-length: 943 Amy is right. Lets please keep it to the topic at hand and that is WPS. Thanks Paul Paul Baker (602) 621-4012 Pesticide Coordinator's Office (602) 621-4013 FAX Department of Entomology pbaker@ag.arizona.edu University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 On Mon, 9 Jan 1995, ab35 wrote: > Dear forum users -- > > Bob Roach's recent communication on poultry was somewhat interesting but I > fail to see its tie-in with WPS issues. There have been similar postings in > the past. Those of us out-of-staters who are members of the forum are willing > to wade through the stuff that's unique to California regulations for the sake > of the occasional useful discussion. However, when forum users stray from > the central issue of WPS some of us get frustrated. I know a number of > people who have reluctantly quit the forum because of this. > From woodard@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 9 12:44:36 1995 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (root@mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA18736 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:44:35 -0800 Received: from ppp5.igc.org (woodard@ppp5.igc.org [198.94.6.5]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.55 ) with SMTP id MAA29372 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:44:58 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:44:58 -0800 Message-Id: <199501092044.MAA29372@mail.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: enforcement and penalties Sender: woodard@igc.apc.org >University people have told me that the EPA has given enforcement authority >to the states. First, who at the state level will be enforcing WPS? Early >questions to state agencies concerning WPS issues usually result in shrugged >shoulders, confused looks and a response of "Beats me, ask Washington," >evidence that many state agencies aren't yet familiar enough with the details >of the law to make growers feel good about their ability to fairly enforce >it. In a Sept. 30, 1994 letter from Lynn Goldman (Assistant Administrator - EPA) to Richard W. Kirchoff (VP & CEO NASDA) she states: "After proposing the revisions, the Agency intends to issue guidance to States that will describe the potential revisions and recommend enforcement discreation until the crop advisor provisions are formally revised in early 1995." This leads me to beleive that enforcement is indeed in the hands of the states, not just with respect to crop advisors. Here in Florida, enforcement is ultimately conducted through the State Department of Agriculture, albeit a sub agency/department, which I imagine will be different for each state. Along these lines, I heard a 3 second blurb on the news about congress halting enforcement of all 'unfunded federal mandates', which was rudely followed by 20 minutes of Connie Chung's oops, and Power Rangers in congress. In light of NASDA's letter to congress, I was wondering if this was indeed true, or if anyone has heard similar things concerning WPS. >Second, what are the penalties for non-compliance? Are there federal >guidelines that all enforcement agencies will be required to follow, or will >they make it up as they go along? I'll quote Kathleen Osgood, the Florida Department of Ag and Consumer Services Pesticide Compliance Supervisor, from two separate grower meetings held in November here in Florida. She stated that the fine would be $10,000 per non-compliance offense, but followed this comment by stating that a first time violation would rarely result in a fine, but rather a warning, unless the violations were blatent, and worker safety was an obvious risk. She said a first time violation would just about guarantee future and continued inspections, and that subsequent violations would be fined, but at amounts nowhere near 10K realistically. /*************************************************************************** ******************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33478 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org - jwoodard@crl.nmsu.edu - woody@taipan.nmsu.edu woody@ios.com woody0@aol.com Life is nothing but a null pointer followed by a core dump. -My opinions are my own- /*************************************************************************** ******************/ From woodard@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 9 12:44:39 1995 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (root@mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA18741 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:44:38 -0800 Received: from ppp5.igc.org (woodard@ppp5.igc.org [198.94.6.5]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.55 ) with SMTP id MAA29455 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:45:18 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:45:18 -0800 Message-Id: <199501092045.MAA29455@mail.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: Federal fresh chickens Sender: woodard@igc.apc.org Sorry to waste more bandwidth on this... Flames to /dev/null please. Although chickens stray a long ways from WPS, I saw the comment as refreshing, and a humorous comparison of other regulations with WPS. Yes, WPS in concept/theory is good, but in practice, many growers are too busy running around posting paper, filing, cross filing, training, and ordering a different set of PPE for each different chemical to comply with regulations that few people know who is actually enforcing. This makes it difficult to concentrate on 'big picture' issues like total use reduction through IPM and sustainable cultural practices. One has to stand back and chuckle every once in a while, even if it is at a fresh frozen chicken. >Amy is right. Lets please keep it to the topic at hand and that is WPS. >Thanks Paul > >Paul Baker (602) 621-4012 >> Bob Roach's recent communication on poultry was somewhat interesting but I >> fail to see its tie-in with WPS issues. There have been similar postings in >> the past. Those of us out-of-staters who are members of the forum are willing >> to wade through the stuff that's unique to California regulations for the sake ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen. /*************************************************************************** ******************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33478 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org - jwoodard@crl.nmsu.edu - woody@taipan.nmsu.edu woody@ios.com woody0@aol.com Life is nothing but a null pointer followed by a core dump. -My opinions are my own- /*************************************************************************** ******************/ From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Jan 9 21:51:01 1995 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA26555 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 1995 21:51:00 -0800 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id AAA11998; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 00:50:24 -0500 Date: 10 Jan 95 00:49:05 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Relevance of chickens to WPS Message-ID: <950110054904_73507.555_HHB40-1@CompuServe.COM> Amy, Allow me to explain myself. After returning from a long weekend I checked my mail and found that the box was empty! I just thought the forum needed a jump start. As for the relevance to the Worker Protection Standard, my point is that federal standards are sometimes absurd. I was voicing frustration at having a federal bureaucracy impose upon the states rules that are bad. Members may come and members may go but every time I hear the latest subscriber count, it is higher than the last. > Dear forum users -- > > Bob Roach's recent communication on poultry was somewhat interesting but I > fail to see its tie-in with WPS issues. There have been similar postings in > the past. Those of us out-of-staters who are members of the forum are willing > to wade through the stuff that's unique to California regulations for the sake > of the occasional useful discussion. However, when forum users stray from > the central issue of WPS some of us get frustrated. I know a number of > people who have reluctantly quit the forum because of this. > Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From <@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU:AFRENCH@ERS.BITNET> Tue Jan 10 07:30:17 1995 Received: from nak.berkeley.edu (nak.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.136.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA29883 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 07:30:17 -0800 Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by nak.berkeley.edu (8.6.8.1/1.40) id HAA12471; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 07:30:16 -0800 Message-Id: <199501101530.HAA12471@nak.berkeley.edu> Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1606; Tue, 10 Jan 95 07:31:07 PST Received: from ERS.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 7889; Tue, 10 Jan 95 07:31:07 PST Received: from ERS (AFRENCH) by ERS.BITNET (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 6695; Tue, 10 Jan 95 10:30:08 EST Date: Tue, 10 Jan 95 10:28:16 EST From: Al French Subject: WPS Proposed Rules Will Publish Tomorrow To: WPS-FORUM@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Acknowledge-To: The following five WPS proposed rules will publish in the Federal Register on January 11, 1995. Training grace period and phase-in period associated with grace period, 16 pgs. Crop advisors; exemption, 12 pgs. Exceptions to early entry retrictions; irrigation activities, 35 pgs. Exceptions to early entry retrictions; limited contact activities, 13 pgs. Reduced restricted entry intervals for pesticides; policy, 12 pgs. Al French USDA Coordinator of Agricultural Labor Affairs 202/720-4737 afrench@ers.bitnet or afrench%ers.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jan 10 11:26:58 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.103] (gia5mac23.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.103]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA05137 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 11:26:55 -0800 X-Sender: howardr@are.berkeley.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 11:27:23 -0800 To: wps-forum From: ray@acpa.org (by way of howardr@are.berkeley.edu (Howard R. Rosenberg)) Subject: EPA Press Release of 1/5/95 Last week EPA issued the following Press Release to explain the Agency's current position on WPS enforcement and actions proposed to meet NASDA's concerns. -------------------------------- FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 1995 The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) to protect the health of agricultural workers from occupational exposure to pesticides went into full effect on Jan. l. In a memorandum sent to the states and EPA Regional Offices, EPA is urging continued efforts to educate and assist the agricultural community in carrying out the provisions of the agricultural standard. In response to requests that certain elements of the standard, established in l992, be more flexible and practical for states and farmers to implement, EPA today also issued five proposed revisions to the standard. The standard is designed to protect the health and safety of approximately 3.5 million agricultural workers from occupational exposure to pesticides on farms, in forests, greenhouses and nurseries. It was slated to go into full effect on April l5, l994. However, Congress extended the effective date of some provisions of WPS until Jan. l, l995. "Our goal in moving this standard forward is twofold: to protect the public health of the nation's agricultural workers, particularly when they handle pesticides, and to provide states and farmers with a flexible, common-sense approach that will help them implement the standard on a day-to-day basis," said EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner. "We will continue to work with the states and with farmers to ensure that their needs are met as this important standard is carried out." Browner noted that the standard would prevent adverse health effects among farmworkers, and reduce both medical costs and lost work time for the nation's agricultural workers. The WPS requires that steps be taken to reduce farmworker exposure to pesticides and to inform and educate farmworkers so that they can take measures necessary to protect themselves. To prepare for the Jan. l implementation of the agricultural worker regulations, EPA has produced and distributed more than 800,000 WPS compliance manuals, nearly two million handbooks for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers and over 475,000 safety posters. Training flipcharts, a guide to preventing heat stress, a train-the-trainer program, training videos and fact sheets have been produced and are available from numerous sources at a reasonable cost. Currently, WPS training programs are under way by state agencies, cooperative extension services and private training organizations. Recognizing the unique circumstances and diversity in agricultural settings affected by the WPS, EPA is striving to address and accommodate the concerns raised regarding the WPS. During the past year, EPA met directly with many affected organizations to resolve problems and improve implementation of the standard. As a result, EPA has issued proposed changes to five areas of the WPS, many of which will provide relief to the regulated community. The agricultural community and the public will have at least 30 days to comment on the proposed changes before the Agency finalizes them, which is expected in March. The proposals include the following: A proposal to reduce the restrictions on performing certain irrigation activities following application of pesticides. A proposal to allow workers to enter areas treated with certain lower risk pesticides after four hours rather than l2 hours. Approximately 80 lower risk pesticides are potential candidates for the proposal, including many biological and microbial pesticides. A proposal to shorten the grace period before which employers must train workers in pesticide safety. The rule also proposes to shorten the interval before which workers must be retrained. A proposal to exempt crop advisors from certain provisions of the WPS regulations, particularly those that apply to early entry to treated areas following pesticide application. A proposal to reduce the requirements that apply to workers who enter areas treated with pesticides in the case of specified activities that would result in limited contact to pesticides. Persons who want to receive educational materials or other information about the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural workers should contact their state pesticide agency or EPA regional office or EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs at 703-305-7371. From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Jan 10 13:59:25 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA08603 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 13:59:22 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOSW9TSO08WZXNP@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:56:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOSSW11KW8WY1HG@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:54:19 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:49:19 EST MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:49:19 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:36:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: EPA Draft Proposal for Crop Advisors To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLOST1PQEU8WY1HG@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Posting-date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:43:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;91946101105991/2261238@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 The following document will appear in the Federal Register on January 11, 1995. Interested stakeholders are urged to comment on the document and instructions concerning mechanisms available for making comments are provided withi= n the=20 draft notice. =20 Judy Smith US EPA CT&OS Branch Field Operations Division 703-305-7666 =20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY =20 40 CFR Part 170 =20 [OPP-250100; FRL-4928-7] =20 RIN 2070-AC82=20 =20 Pesticide Worker Protection Standard; Requirements for Crop= =20 Advisors =20 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.=20 =20 ACTION: Proposed rule. -----------------------------------------------------------= ------ - =20 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the worker protection= =20 requirements for agricultural establishments, by exempting= =20 certified or licensed crop advisors from the requirements. = EPA is=20 also proposing to exempt crop advising employees of certifi= ed or=20 licensed crop advisors from the WPS requirements except pes= ticide=20 safety training. A temporary exemption for all persons doin= g crop=20 advising tasks to allow time for acquiring licensing or= =20 certification is also proposed.=20 =20 DATES: Written comments must be received on or before (inse= rt=20 date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Regist= er). (Federal Register date of publication is January 11, 1995.) =20 ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Resp= onse=20 and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (75= 06C),=20 Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agen= cy, 401 M St.,=20 SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Ro= om 1132,=20 Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA= 22202.=20 Information submitted in any comment concerning this docume= nt may=20 be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that= =20 information as ``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI).= =20 Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accor= dance=20 with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. A copy of the c= omment=20 that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion i= n the=20 public record. Information not marked confidential may be d= isclosed=20 publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written comments,= =20 including non-CBI copies, will be available for public insp= ection=20 in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given above, from 8 a.m= . to 4=20 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.=20 =20 Comments and data may also be submitted electronically= by any=20 of three different mechanisms: by sending electronic mail = (e-mail)=20 to: Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a ``Subscribe'= '=20 message to listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and once subs= cribed,=20 send your comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA El= ectronic=20 Bulletin Board by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``= DMAIL,''=20 user name ``BB_USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``M= AIL,''=20 user name ``BB_USER.'' Electronic comments must be submitte= d as an=20 ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any f= orm of=20 =0C=00 encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disk= s in=20 WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All c= omments=20 and data in electronic form must be identified by the docke= t number=20 OPP-250100 since all five documents in this separate part p= rovide=20 the same electronic address. No CBI should be submitted thr= ough e- mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule, but not t= he=20 record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many = Federal=20 Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic= =20 submissions can be found in unit VI. of this document. = =20 =20 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald E. Eckerman, Office= of=20 Pesticide Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency= , 401 M=20 Street, SW Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telep= hone=20 number: Room 1101, Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hig= hway,=20 Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: 703-305-7371. =20 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is proposing this rule in re= sponse=20 to comments received from crop advisor groups requesting ex= emptions=20 from the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Specifically, EP= A is=20 proposing to amend 40 CFR Part 170, governing worker protec= tion=20 requirements on agricultural establishments, to exempt cert= ified or=20 licensed crop advisors from the requirements of the rule. E= PA is=20 also proposing to exempt crop advising employees of certifi= ed or=20 licensed crop advisors from the WPS requirements except pes= ticide=20 safety training. A temporary exemption for all persons doin= g crop=20 advising tasks to allow time for acquiring licensing or= =20 certification is also proposed.=20 =20 I. Statutory Authority=20 =20 This proposed rule is issued under the authority of se= ction=20 25(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticid= e Act=20 (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a).=20 =20 II. Background =20 This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of= Agency=20 actions in response to concerns raised since publication of= the=20 final rule in August 1992 by those interested in and affect= ed by=20 the rule. In addition to this proposed amendment, EPA is pu= blishing=20 four other notices soliciting public comment on concerns ra= ised by=20 various affected parties. Other actions EPA is considering = include:=20 (1) modification to the worker training requirements; (2)= =20 exceptions to early entry restrictions for irrigation activ= ities;=20 (3) reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk= =20 pesticides; and (4) reduced early entry restrictions for ac= tivities=20 involving limited contact with treated surfaces. The Agency= is=20 interested in receiving comments on all options and questio= ns=20 presented. =20 FIFRA authorizes EPA to regulate the sale, distributio= n, and=20 use of pesticides in the United States. The Act generally r= equires=20 that EPA license by registration each pesticide product sol= d or=20 distributed in the United States, if use of that the pestic= ide=20 =0C=00 product will not cause ``unreasonable adverse effects on th= e=20 environment,'' a determination that takes into account the= =20 economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of t= he use=20 of the product. =20 In 1992 EPA revised the WPS (40 CFR Part 170) (57 FR 3= 8102,=20 August 21, 1992) which is intended to protect agricultural = workers=20 and handlers from risks associated with agricultural pestic= ides.=20 The 1992 WPS superseded the original WPS promulgated in 197= 4 and=20 expanded the WPS scope to include not only workers performi= ng hand=20 labor operations in fields treated with pesticides, but als= o=20 workers in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses= , as=20 well as pesticide handlers who mix, load, apply, or otherwi= se=20 handle pesticides for use at these locations in the product= ion of=20 agricultural commodities. The revisions to the WPS were int= ended to=20 reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among= =20 agricultural workers who are exposed to pesticide residues = and=20 pesticide handlers who may face more hazardous levels of ex= posure. =20 Under the 1992 WPS, crop advisors are defined by the t= asks=20 performed, specifically, as persons who assess pest numbers= or=20 damage, pesticide distribution, or the status or requiremen= ts of=20 agricultural plants. The term does not include any person w= ho is=20 performing hand labor tasks. Crop consultants, pest control= =20 advisors, silviculturalists, scouts and crop advisors commo= nly=20 perform crop advising tasks on farms, nurseries, greenhouse= s and=20 forests. As such, these individuals when performing crop ad= visor=20 tasks are included under the definition of crop advisor in = the WPS. =20 Persons performing crop advisor tasks during the pesti= cide=20 application, before the inhalation exposure level listed in= the=20 labeling has been reached or one of the ventilation criteri= a has=20 been met, or during a restricted entry interval (REI), are = included=20 in the WPS's definition of handlers. As handlers, crop advi= sors may=20 enter treated areas during the REI without time limitations= , if=20 provided with the personal protective equipment (PPE) requi= red on=20 the product labeling and other protections as handlers. Emp= loyees=20 of agricultural establishments who are performing crop-advi= sing=20 tasks in a treated area within 30 days of the expiration of= an REI=20 are provided the same protections as workers under Part 170= .=20 Employees of commercial pesticide handling establishments w= ho are=20 performing crop advisor tasks in a treated area after the= =20 expiration of an REI are excluded from the definition of ``= worker''=20 under Part 170 and, therefore, their presence in the treate= d area=20 does not trigger any WPS requirements. =20 During the 1992 rulemaking, USDA expressed concerns ab= out=20 limiting the access of crop consultants and integrated pest= =20 management (IPM) scouts to treated areas immediately follow= ing=20 pesticide applications. In response to this concern, EPA in= cluded=20 crop advisors in the definition of handlers rather than wor= kers so=20 as to allow crop advisors unlimited access to treated areas= during=20 application and the REIs. =20 =0C=00 =20 Since promulgation of the WPS, EPA has received a numb= er of=20 comments on the requirements for crop advisors. Crop adviso= r groups=20 and the National Association of State Departments of Agricu= lture=20 (NASDA) have commented that crop advisors are capable, by v= irtue of=20 their knowledge, training and experience, of determining th= e=20 appropriate precautions to be followed when working in pest= icide=20 treated areas, and therefore should be excluded from the WP= S. The=20 National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC) c= ommented=20 that crop consultants, and their field survey and scouting= =20 employees, should be exempted from many of the provisions o= f the=20 WPS. =20 In April 1994, Congress passed the Pesticide Complianc= e Dates=20 Extension Act which, among other things, exempted crop advi= sors=20 from the requirements of the WPS until January 1, 1995. Thi= s delay=20 was to allow time for EPA to resolve concerns that had been= raised=20 relative to the WPS, including the crop advisor requirement= s. Since=20 the delay legislation, EPA has received additional comments= , which=20 are discussed under the appropriate sections in this preamb= le.=20 =20 III. Exemption of a Qualified Subset of Crop Advisors from = WPS=20 Requirements =20 EPA is proposing to exempt a qualified subset of crop= =20 advisors, those who are certified or licensed, and their cr= op=20 advisor employees from all requirements of the WPS except f= or=20 pesticide safety training. Crop advisors who are certified = or=20 licensed could substitute the training received during lice= nsing or=20 certification, if equivalent to the WPS training. =20 EPA is also proposing to exempt all individuals perfor= ming=20 crop advisor activities from all the WPS requirements until= January=20 1, 1996 to allow time for individuals to obtain certificati= on or=20 licensing. After January 1, 1996 only crop advisors who are= =20 certified or licensed and their direct employees will be ex= empt.=20 All others performing crop advising tasks will be subject t= o the=20 full WPS requirements. Based on the comments received since= the=20 1992 rulemaking, EPA reconsidered the requirements applicab= le to=20 crop advisors and has determined that there may be a subset= of crop=20 advisors, those who are licensed or certified and trained i= n=20 pesticide safety, that could be exempted from providing the= =20 protections of the WPS for themselves and their employees. =20 In general, the purpose of the WPS is to protect agric= ultural=20 employees from the risks of exposure to pesticides. Trained= crop=20 advisors who are licensed or certified are generally more i= nformed=20 about the hazards associated with pesticides and good pesti= cide=20 safety practices and should be capable of making informed j= udgement=20 about risks and what protections should be provided for ind= ividuals=20 performing crop advising tasks. =20 EPA discussed the WPS with the Agronomy Society of Ame= rica in=20 order to obtain more information that would help EPA define= the=20 subset of crop advisors that could potentially be exempted.= The=20 =0C=00 Agronomy Society of America informed EPA that it has a Cert= ified=20 Crop Advisor program administered in each participating Sta= te by a=20 board made up of representatives of various State agencies,= =20 universities, commodity associations, and other at-large me= mbers.=20 In order to be certified as a crop advisor under this progr= am, the=20 individual must pass an examination on specified subject ar= eas,=20 have a combination of education and experience as a crop ad= visor,=20 and to maintain certification, complete continuing educatio= n=20 credits. The subject areas in the examination include pesti= cide=20 safety, WPS requirements, and various subjects related to= =20 agricultural plant production. =20 In addition, a variety of licensing and certification = programs=20 for crop advisors are administered by States across the cou= ntry.=20 For example, California licenses crop advisors and requires= that=20 licensees meet certain minimum qualifications including a m= inimum=20 number of college level semester units in areas related to= =20 agriculture, and two years of technical experience. =20 The National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants = (NAICC)=20 commented that most of their members have degrees in agricu= lture=20 and train their employees in pesticide safety. NAICC furthe= r=20 suggested that nationally recognized registries of crop= =20 consultants, or State level licenses or certifications, cou= ld be=20 used to define the crop advisors who would be exempt from W= PS.=20 Those individuals not meeting the requirements of a licensi= ng or=20 certification program could continue to work as crop adviso= rs under=20 the same protections as currently required in the WPS. NASD= A=20 recommended in a July 1994 petition for rulemaking that the= WPS=20 ``exclude paid crop advisors that work on a full-time basis= for a=20 group of agricultural employers but only part-time for any = single=20 farmer.'' NASDA did not provide its rationale for excluding= this=20 category of crop advisors from the WPS. NASDA also recommen= ded that=20 the WPS exclude persons such as government agency employees= ,=20 pesticide company representatives, and university researche= rs who=20 perform crop advisor tasks. =20 EPA is proposing, in =A7 170.202(c)(2), =A7 170.130(b)= (2) and=20 =A7 170.230(b)(2) to exempt from the WPS protections, crop = advisors=20 who are licensed or certified by a program administered or = approved=20 by a State, Tribal, or Federal agency having jurisdiction o= ver such=20 licensing or certification, provided that the licensing or= =20 certification requires pesticide safety training that inclu= des all=20 the information set forth in =A7 170.230(c)(4). EPA is also= proposing=20 in =A7 170.202(c)(2) to exempt employees of licensed or cer= tified=20 crop advisors from the WPS protections except the pesticide= safety=20 training requirements. =20 Under EPA's proposal, certified or licensed crop advis= ors,=20 (including government agency personnel, pesticide company= =20 representatives, or university researchers) would be exempt= from=20 the WPS requirements. Currently under the WPS, if employers= of=20 government agency personnel, pesticide company representati= ves, or=20 university researchers do not have a contractual relationsh= ip or=20 =0C=00 exchange compensation of any type with an agricultural=20 establishment or commercial pesticide handling establishmen= t for=20 crop advising activities, then neither the agricultural emp= loyer=20 nor the commercial pesticide handling establishment is requ= ired to=20 provide the WPS protections to the government agency person= nel,=20 pesticide company representatives, or university researcher= s. =20 Also under EPA's proposal, those crop advisors who do = not=20 become certified or licensed will remain subject to the ful= l=20 requirements of the WPS if they are not employed by a licen= sed or=20 certified crop advisor. After January 1, 1996 only crop adv= isors=20 who are certified or licensed and their direct employees wi= ll be=20 exempt. All others performing crop advising tasks will be s= ubject=20 to the full WPS requirements. =20 EPA solicits comments on other possible ways for crop = advisors=20 to obtain training and experience equivalent to being certi= fied or=20 licensed by a program administered or approved by a State, = Tribal,=20 or Federal agency. Commenters suggesting other types of pro= grams=20 should include information on the requirements for such pro= grams=20 and how completion of the program could be verified for enf= orcement=20 purposes. =20 While EPA is willing to propose exempting the employee= s of=20 certified or licensed crop advisors from WPS requirements, = it=20 remains concerned that employees may not have necessary pro= tections=20 readily available. EPA is interested in receiving comments = on=20 industry practices that would assure that proper protection= s are=20 available to employees. These include but are not limited t= o=20 routine use of PPE and/or provision of PPE and decontaminat= ion=20 supplies to employees. =20 IV. Temporary Exemption for Crop Advisor Activities =20 EPA is proposing in =A7 170.202(c)(2) to exempt all in= dividuals=20 performing crop advisor activities until January 1, 1996. T= his will=20 effectively extend the exemption for crop advisors in the d= elay=20 legislation referenced earlier in this document and will al= low=20 those crop advisors who are not now licensed or certified t= o obtain=20 such credentials prior to the end of the temporary exemptio= n. =20 EPA would like comment on the proposed temporary exemp= tion=20 expiration date and its feasibility in terms of sufficient = time for=20 crop advisors to complete licensing or certification requir= ements.=20 Also, is a total temporary exemption necessary? Should a su= bset of=20 crop advisors be exempt? Or should the exemption apply to o= nly a=20 few of the WPS requirements? =20 V. Technical Amendments =20 EPA is revising =A7 170.202 (c) which exempts owners o= f=20 agricultural establishments from Subpart C requirements for= =20 handlers, by reorganizing the paragraph into two parts: one= for=20 owners of agricultural establishments and one for crop advi= sors.=20 =0C=00 The existing exemption for agricultural owners is being= =20 redesignated as paragraph (1) and it has been reformatted. = No=20 substantive change has been made to the exemption for agric= ultural=20 establishment owners. =20 VI. Public Docket and Electronic Comments =20 A record has been established for this rulemaking unde= r docket=20 number "OPP-250100" (including comments and data submitted= =20 electronically as described below). A public version of th= is=20 record, including printed paper versions of electronic comm= ents,=20 which does not include any information claimed as confident= ial=20 business information (CBI), is available for inspection fro= m 8 a.m.=20 to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.= The=20 public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Respons= e and=20 Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C)= , Office=20 of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM#= 2, 1921=20 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Written comments s= hould be=20 mailed to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, F= ield=20 Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,= =20 Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington= , DC=20 20460. =20 As part of an interagency "streamlining" initiative, E= PA is=20 experimenting with submission of public comments on selecte= d=20 Federal Register actions electronically through the Interne= t in=20 addition to accepting comments in traditional written form.= This=20 proposed exception is one of the actions selected by EPA fo= r this=20 experiment. From the experiment, EPA will learn how electr= onic=20 commenting works, and any problems that arise can be addres= sed=20 before EPA adopts electronic commenting more broadly in its= =20 rulemaking activities. Electronic commenting through post= ing to=20 the EPA Bulletin Board or through the Internet using the Li= st Serve=20 function raise some novel issues that are discussed below i= n this=20 Unit. =20 To submit electronic comments, persons can either "sub= scribe"=20 to the Internet List Serve application or "post" comments t= o the=20 EPA Bulletin Board. To "Subscribe" to the Internet ListSer= ve=20 application for this proposed exception, send an e-mail mes= sage to: =20 listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that says "Subscribe RIN-= 2070- AC69 ." Once you are subscribed to = the=20 ListServe, comments should be sent to: RIN-2070- AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All comments and data in elec= tronic=20 form should be identified by the docket number OPP-250100 s= ince all=20 five documents in this separate part provide the same elect= ronic=20 address. =20 For online viewing of submissions and posting of comme= nts, the=20 public access EPA Bulletin Board is also available by diali= ng 202- 488-3671, enter selection "EMAIL" user name "BB-USER" or 91= 9-541- 4642, enter selection "MAIL," user name "BB-USER." When di= aling=20 the EPA Bulletin Board type at the opening message= . When=20 the "Notes" prompt appears, type "open RIN-2070-AC69" to ac= cess the=20 =0C=00 posted messages for this document. To get a listing of all= files,=20 type "dir/all" at the prompt line. Electronic comments can= also be=20 sent directly to EPA at: =20 Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov =20 =20 Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file= =20 avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encr= yption. =20 To obtain further information on the electronic comment pro= cess, or=20 on submitting comments on this proposed exception electroni= cally=20 through the EPA Bulletin Board or the Internet List Serve, = please=20 contact John A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253; FAX: 2= 02-260- 3884; Internet: richards.john@epamail.epa.gov). =20 Persons who comment on this proposed rule, and those w= ho view=20 comments electronically, should be aware that this experime= ntal=20 electronic commenting is administered on a completely publi= c=20 system. Therefore, any personal information included in co= mments=20 and the electronic mail addresses of those who make comment= s=20 electronically are automatically available to anyone else w= ho views=20 the comments. Similarly, since all electronically ant inf= ormation=20 which they believe to be CBI. Such information should be s= ubmitted=20 only directly to EPA in writing as described earlier in thi= s Unit. =20 Commenters and others outside EPA may choose to commen= t on the=20 comments submitted by others using the RIN-2070-AC69 ListSe= rve or=20 the EPA Bulletin Board. If they do so, those comments as w= ell will=20 become part of EPA's record for this rulemaking. Persons o= utside=20 EPA wishing to discuss comments with commenters or otherwis= e=20 communicate with commenters but not have those discussions = or=20 communications sent to EPA and included in the EPA rulemaki= ng=20 records should conduct those discussions and communications= outside=20 the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board. =20 The officials record for this rulemaking, as well as = the=20 public version, as described above will be kept in paper fo= rm. =20 Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electr= onically=20 in the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, i= n=20 accordance with the instructions for electronic submission,= into=20 printed,m paper form as they are received and will place th= e paper=20 copies in the official rulemaking record which will also in= cluded=20 all comments submitted directly in writing. All the elect= ronic=20 comments will be available to everyone who obtains access t= o the=20 RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board; however,= the=20 official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained a= t the=20 address in f"Addresses" at the beginning of this document.= =20 (Comments submitted only in written form will not be transf= erred=20 into electronic from and thus may be accessed only by revie= wing=20 them in the Public Response and Program Resources Branch as= =20 described above.) =20 Because the electronic comment process is still experi= mental,=20 epa cannot guarantee that all electronic comments will be= =20 =0C=00 accurately converted to printed, paper form. If EPA become= s aware,=20 in transferring an electronic comment to printed, paper for= m, of a=20 problem or error that results in an obviously garbled comme= nt, EPA=20 will attempt to contact the comment submitter and advise th= e=20 submitter to resubmitted the comment either in electronic o= r=20 written form. Some commenters may choose to submit identic= al=20 comments in both electronic and written form to ensure accu= racy. =20 In that case, EPA requests that commenters clearly note in = both the=20 electronic and written submissions that the comments are du= plicated=20 in the other medium. This will assist EPA in processing an= d filing=20 the comments in the rulemaking record. =20 As with ordinary written comments, at the time of rec= eipt,=20 EPA will not attempt to verify the identities of electronic= =20 commenters nor to review the accuracy of electronic comment= s. =20 Electronic and written comments will be placed in the rulem= aking=20 records without any editing or change by EPA except to the = extent=20 changes occur in the process of converting electronic comme= nts to=20 printed paper form.=20 =20 If it chooses to respond officially to electronic comm= ents on=20 this proposed rule, EPA will do so either in a notice in th= e=20 Federal Register or in a response to comments document plac= ed in=20 the rulemaking record for this proposed rule. EPA will not= respond=20 to commenters electronically other than to seek clarificati= on of=20 electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or= =20 conversion to printed, paper form as discussed above. Any= =20 communications from EPA employees to electronic commenters,= other=20 than those described in this paragraph, either through Inte= rnet or=20 otherwise are not official responses from EPA. =20 =20 VII. Statutory Requirements =20 As required by FIFRA sec. 25(a), this proposed rule wa= s=20 provided to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to Congr= ess for=20 review. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel waived its revi= ew. =20 VIII. Consultations =20 EPA has had informal consultations with some States th= rough=20 the EPA regional offices and at regularly scheduled meeting= s of=20 SFIREG where State representatives were present. No signifi= cant=20 issues were identified as a result of EPA's discussion with= the=20 States. Additionally, as a result of consultation with USDA= , EPA=20 has revised its proposal to include the employees of crop a= dvisors=20 in the proposed exemption and has proposed the temporary ex= emption=20 to allow time for crop advisors to become certified or lice= nsed.=20 EPA has also revised this document to clarify the proposal = and to=20 more directly request specific comment on the options. =20 IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements =20 A. Executive Order 12866=20 =0C=00 =20 Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Octobe= r 4,=20 1993), it has been determined that this is a ``significant= =20 regulatory action'' because it raised potentially novel leg= al or=20 policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President'= s=20 priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Or= der. In=20 addition, the Agency estimates that the total potential cos= t=20 savings associated with the proposed amendment would range = =66rom=20 $1.7 million to $3.5 million over a ten year period, with a= single=20 crop advisor potentially saving as much as $1200 over a ten= year=20 period. This action was submitted to OMB for review, and an= y=20 comments or changes made have been documented in the public= record.=20 =20 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act =20 This rule was reviewed under the provisions of sec. 3(= a) of=20 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and it was determined that = the=20 proposed rule would not have an adverse impact on any small= =20 entities. The proposed rule will provide cost savings to an= =20 estimated 2,500 to 5,000 crop advisors and an additional 15= ,000=20 employees of crop advisors who will be affected by the prop= osed=20 amendments. I therefore certify that this proposal does not= require=20 a separate Regulatory Impact Analysis under the Regulatory= =20 Flexibility Act. =20 C. Paperwork Reduction Act =20 EPA has determined that there are no information colle= ction=20 burdens under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act= , 44=20 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., associated with the requirements conta= ined in=20 this proposal. =20 =20 List of Subjects In Part 170 =20 Administrative practice and procedure, Occupational sa= fety and=20 health, Pesticides and pests. =20 =20 Dated: January 3, 1995. =20 Carol M. Browner, =20 Administrator. =20 =20 =20 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 170 be amen= ded as=20 follows:=20 =20 PART 170 WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD=20 =20 1. The authority citation for Part 170 would continue = to read=20 as follows:=20 =20 =0C=00 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.=20 =20 =20 2. In Section 170.130 by paragraph (b) to read as foll= ows: =20 =20 =A7 170.130. Pesticide safety training for workers.= =20 =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 (b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trai= ned=20 under this section:=20 =20 (1) A worker who is currently certified as an applicat= or of=20 restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter.= =20 =20 (2) A worker who satisfies the training requirements o= f part=20 171 of this chapter.=20 =20 (3) A worker who satisfies the handler training requir= ements=20 of =A7 170.230(c).=20 =20 (4) A person who is licensed or certified as a crop ad= visor by=20 a program administered or approved by a State, Tribal or Fe= deral=20 agency having jurisdiction over such licensing or certifica= tion,=20 provided that a requirement for such licensing or certifica= tion is=20 pesticide safety training that includes all the information= set out=20 in =A7 170.230(c)(4) =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 =20 3. In Section 170.202 by revising paragraph (c) to rea= d as=20 follows: =20 =A7 170.202. Applicability of this subpart.=20 =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 =20 (c) Exemptions. The handlers listed in this paragraph= are=20 exempt from the specified provisions of this subpart. =20 (1) Owners of agricultural establishments. (i) The ow= ner of=20 an agricultural establishment is not required to provide to= himself=20 or members of his immediate family who are performing handl= ing=20 tasks on their own agricultural establishment the protectio= ns of:=20 =20 (A) Section 170.210(b) and (c). (B) Section 170.222. (C) Section 170.230 (D) Section 170.232.=20 (E) Section 170.234.=20 (F) Section 170.235.=20 =0C=00 (G) Section 170 240(e) through (g). (H) Section 170.250.=20 (I) Section 170.260.=20 =20 (ii) The owner of the agricultural establishment must = provide=20 the protections required by paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this sec= tion to=20 other handlers and other persons who are not members of his= =20 immediate family.=20 =20 (2) Licensed or certified crop advisors and their empl= oyees.=20 =20 (i) A person who is licensed or certified as a crop ad= visor by=20 a program administered or approved by a State, Tribal or Fe= deral=20 agency having jurisdiction for such licensing or certificat= ion,=20 provided that a requirement for such licensing or certifica= tion is=20 pesticide safety training that includes all the information= set out=20 in =A7 170.230(c)(4), is not required to provide to himself= or his=20 crop advisor employees the protections of:=20 =20 (A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).=20 (B) Section 170.232.=20 (C) Section 170.240.=20 (D) Section 170.250.=20 (E) Section 170.260.=20 =20 (ii) Any individual when performing tasks as a crop ad= visor is=20 exempt until January 1, 1996 from the requirements of: =20 (A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).=20 (B) Section 170.230.=20 (C) Section 170.232.=20 (D) Section 170.240.=20 (E) Section 170.250.=20 (F) Section 170.260.=20 =20 5. In =A7 170.230 by revising paragraph (b) to read as= follows:=20 =20 =A7 170.230. Pesticide safety training for handlers. =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 =20 (b) Exceptions. The following persons need not be trai= ned=20 under this section:=20 =20 (1) A handler who is currently certified as an applica= tor of=20 restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter. (2) A handler who satisfies the training requirements = of part=20 171 of this chapter. (3) A person who is licensed or certified as a crop ad= visor by=20 a program administered or approved by a State, Tribal or Fe= deral=20 agency having jurisdiction over such licensing or certifica= tion,=20 provided that a requirement for such licensing or certifica= tion is=20 pesticide safety training that includes all the information= set out=20 =0C=00 in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 [FR Doc. 95-????? Filed ??-??-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F=20 From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Jan 10 14:03:35 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA08707 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 14:03:32 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOT25ZVQ88X0948@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:01:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOSZ2DN348WY34Y@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:59:15 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:55:35 EST MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:55:35 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:43:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: EPA's Limited Contact Proposal To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLOSZ616TI8WY34Y@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Posting-date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:53:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;53556101105991/2261344@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 The following document will appear in the Federal Register = on January 11, 1995. Interested parties are encouraged to pro= vide comments for the Agency; mechanisms for providing comments = are outlined within the document. =20 Judy Smith CT&OSB Field Operations Division 703-305-7666 =20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY =20 40 CFR Part 170 =20 [OPP-250101; FRL-4930-4] =20 Exceptions to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry=20 Restrictions; Limited Contact Activities =20 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).=20 =20 ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule; request for comment. -----------------------------------------------------------= ------ =20 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an exception to the Worker Protec= tion=20 Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS), that would allo= w,=20 under specified conditions, workers to perform early entry= =20 limited contact tasks for up to 3 hours per day during a= =20 restricted entry interval (REI). Early entry is entry into = a=20 pesticide-treated area before the expiration of the REI.= =20 =20 DATES: Comments, data, or evidence should be submitted on o= r=20 before [Insert date 45 days after date of publication in th= e=20 Federal Register]. EPA does not intend to extend this comm= ent=20 period. (This document will be published on January 11, 199= 5.) =20 ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the document control numb= er OPP-=20 250101 should be submitted in triplicate by mail to: Public= =20 Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Div= ision=20 (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protec= tion=20 Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. All written c= omments=20 filed pursuant to this notice will be available for public= =20 inspection in Room 1132, Crystal Mall 1B2, 1921 Jefferson D= avis=20 Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5805, from 8:00 a.m. to 4= :30 p.m.=20 Monday thru Friday except legal holidays. Comments and dat= a may=20 also be submitted electronically by any of three different= =20 mechanisms: by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: Docket- OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a ``Subscribe'' message t= o=20 listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and once subscribed, send= your=20 comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA Electronic Bu= lletin=20 Board by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' u= ser name=20 ``BB_USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user= name=20 ``BB_USER.'' Comments and data will also be accepted on di= sks in=20 WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. Elect= ronic=20 comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the us= e of=20 special characters and any form of encryption. All comments= and=20 data in electronic form must be identified by the docket nu= mber=20 OPP-250101 since all five documents in this separate part p= rovide=20 the same electronic address. No CBI should be submitted thr= ough e- mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule, but not t= he=20 record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many = Federal=20 Depository Library. Additional information on electronic= =20 submissions can be found in unit VI. of this document. = =20 =20 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Kronopolus, Certific= ation,=20 =0C=00 Training and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Environmen= tal=20 Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (7= 03) 305- 7371.=20 =20 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: =20 I. Background=20 =20 Section 170.112(e) of the Worker Protection Standard f= or=20 Agricultural Pesticides (WPS) (40 CFR part 170), published = at 57 FR=20 38102 (August 21, 1992), provides the procedure for conside= ring=20 exceptions to the WPS provision that limits early entry dur= ing a=20 restricted entry interval (REI) to perform agricultural tas= ks. EPA=20 has received a request for exception to the early entry lim= itations=20 for performing limited contact tasks from the National Asso= ciation=20 of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). EPA is conside= ring a=20 national exception to the WPS early entry restrictions for= =20 performing limited contact tasks. The purpose of this Notic= e is to=20 solicit further information and comment to assist EPA in= =20 determining whether the conditions of entry under the propo= sed=20 exception would pose unreasonable risks to workers performi= ng the=20 permitted limited contact tasks during a restricted entry i= nterval.=20 In addition, EPA solicits further information about the eco= nomic=20 impact of granting or not granting the proposed exception.= =20 =20 This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of= Agency=20 actions in response to concerns raised since publication of= the=20 final rule in August 1992 by those interested in and affect= ed by=20 the rule. In addition to this proposed amendment, EPA is pu= blishing=20 four other notices soliciting public comment on concerns ra= ised by=20 various affected parties. Other actions EPA is considering = include:=20 (1) modification to the worker training requirements; (2)= =20 exceptions to early entry restrictions for irrigation activ= ities;=20 (3) reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk= =20 pesticides; and (4) requirements for crop advisors. The Age= ncy is=20 interested in receiving comments on all options and questio= ns=20 presented. =20 A. Worker Protection Standard=20 =20 The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) promulgated at 57= FR=20 38102, August 21, 1992, is intended to reduce the risk of p= esticide=20 exposure and related poisonings and injuries among agricult= ural=20 workers and pesticide handlers. The WPS includes provisions= to: (1)=20 eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides; (2) mitigate ex= posures=20 that occur; and (3) inform employees about the hazards of= =20 pesticides. Provisions to reduce exposure include applicati= on=20 restrictions, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), a= nd entry=20 restrictions.=20 =20 B. Entry Restrictions =20 Agricultural workers, in general, are prohibited from = entering=20 a pesticide-treated area during the restricted entry interv= al (REI)=20 =0C=00 specified on the product labeling. REIs are the time period= after=20 the end of the pesticide application during which entry int= o the=20 pesticide treated area is restricted. In the absence of pes= ticide- specific REIs, the WPS establishes a range of interim REIs,= from 12=20 to 72 hours, depending upon the toxicity of the active=20 ingredient(s) and other factors.=20 =20 C. Exceptions to Entry Restrictions =20 The WPS contains exceptions to the general prohibition= s=20 against workers entering a pesticide-treated area during th= e REI.=20 The exception provisions of =A7 170.112 permit entry into t= he treated=20 area during the REI (i.e. early entry) under specified cond= itions=20 to perform tasks that result in contact with treated surfac= es: =20 (1) Short term tasks. Section 170.112(c) permits exce= ptions=20 to the general prohibition on work in treated areas during = REIs for=20 short-term tasks, with adequate PPE, decontamination, and e= xposure=20 time limits. =20 (2) Agricultural emergencies. Section 170.112(d) perm= its=20 exceptions to the prohibition against entry into treated ar= eas=20 during REIs for agricultural emergencies. The WPS permits e= arly=20 entry by workers to perform tasks while wearing early-entry= PPE,=20 and without time limits, in response to an agricultural eme= rgency. =20 (3) EPA-approved exception. Section 170.112(e) permit= s=20 exceptions to the prohibition on work in treated areas duri= ng REIs=20 when EPA has approved a special exception. Case-by-case exc= eptions=20 may be granted if affected persons or organizations persuad= e EPA=20 that the benefits of the exception outweigh the risks assoc= iated=20 with the exception. =20 In addition, =A7 170.112(b) establishes an exception f= or=20 activities where no contact with treated surfaces will occu= r. Under=20 this provision, often referred to as 'no contact' entry, wo= rkers=20 are allowed unlimited entry into pesticide-treated areas be= fore the=20 expiration of the REI without personal protective equipment= when no=20 contact with pesticide residues on treated surfaces or in s= oil,=20 water, or air will occur.=20 =20 II. Request for Exception and Supporting Evidence =20 In a July 8, 1994 petition for rulemaking, NASDA reque= sted=20 that EPA reduce WPS requirements for low contact work durin= g the=20 REI. In particular, NASDA asked for limited PPE for low con= tact=20 activities, consisting of coveralls, chemical-resistant glo= ves, and=20 footwear, and a ``somewhat longer period than the one-hour = in=20 twenty-four hour period currently allowed by the exception = for=20 short-term activities.'' =20 In a subsequent meeting with EPA on low contact activi= ties,=20 NASDA suggested defining low contact as follows: =20 =0C=00 =09 "Low contact means a task related to the produc= tion of=20 agricultural plants that results in minimal body expos= ure.=20 Personal protective equipment cannot be used to achiev= e low=20 contact status for purposes of this definition, but ra= ther the=20 level of contact must be inherent in the nature of the= task=20 performed. The task must also meet one of the followin= g: =20 (1) Results in only incidental worker body contact wit= h=20 treated surfaces due to the stage of growth (seedlings= ) or=20 nature of the crop (size of plants), the way the task = is=20 performed (use of long handled tools or operator plac= ement on=20 equipment), or the way the pesticide was applied (soil= =20 incorporated). =20 (2) Is a very short-term task, involving worker body20= contact=20 with treated surfaces that are of only a few minutes' = duration=20 and which occur at widely separated intervals." =20 This proposed definition was developed with the help o= f the=20 American Association of Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)= .. =20 NASDA also provided EPA with lists of tasks that they = assert=20 could require entry into treated areas during an REI, and p= roposed=20 that allowance for the accomplishment of these tasks be cov= ered=20 under any definition of 'low contact'. The lists of propose= d low or=20 limited contact activities were provided to NASDA by state= =20 pesticide regulatory agencies. In reviewing the lists of ta= sks, EPA=20 found: (1) many of the tasks may already be allowed under t= he=20 exception for activities with no contact set out in =A7 170= .112(b),=20 (2) other tasks were identified as clearly hand labor tasks= or=20 handler tasks that could result in substantial contact with= =20 pesticide treated surfaces, (3) many tasks were irrigation-= related=20 activities, which EPA is addressing in a separate exception= =20 proposal, and (4) some were non-hand labor tasks that could= , in=20 some circumstances, be accomplished with minimal contact wi= th=20 pesticide residues on treated plants, soil, and other surfa= ces,=20 depending on how the task was performed.=20 =20 III. EPA's Exception Proposal =20 A. Background =20 NASDA's membership includes state Departments of Agric= ulture,=20 the state agencies that, in most instances, are responsible= for=20 enforcing the WPS. EPA has seriously considered NASDA's req= uest and=20 acknowledges that there may be certain non-hand labor tasks= that=20 may be necessary while a treated area remains under an REI,= such=20 that the benefits resulting from the performance of these t= asks=20 outweigh the risks associated with the tasks as long as the= workers=20 can perform the early entry tasks with minimal contact. Whi= le the=20 WPS does provide in =A7 170.112 for exceptions for short-te= rm tasks=20 and 'no contact' tasks, EPA recognizes that there may be no= n-hand=20 labor tasks that may not be able to be performed under the = time=20 limitations of the short-term (1 hour) exception, or may no= t=20 =0C=00 completely fit under the provisions of the no contact or= =20 agricultural emergency exceptions.=20 =20 B. Discussion of EPA's proposal =20 EPA proposes an exception that would allow workers to = perform=20 limited contact tasks for up to 3 hours during the REI if: = (1) the=20 tasks must be performed during the REI, (2) the inhalation = exposure=20 level or ventilation criteria have been met (3) the tasks r= esult in=20 minimal contact with treated surfaces, (4) contact with pes= ticides=20 is limited to forearms, hands, lower legs, and feet, and (5= ) the=20 specified PPE requirements are met. =20 There may be non-hand labor tasks that must be perform= ed=20 during the REI that are necessary for crop production. Exam= ples of=20 possible limited contact tasks include: (1) the operation a= nd=20 repair of weather monitoring equipment, and frost protectio= n=20 equipment, (2) repair of greenhouse heating, air conditioni= ng, and=20 ventilation equipment (3) repair of non-application field= =20 equipment, and (4) maintaining and moving beehives. =20 The following scenarios provide examples of limited co= ntact=20 tasks: =20 (1) The information collected from weather monitoring= =20 equipment is often critical for the successful implementati= on of=20 integrated pest management and agricultural production (e.g= .,=20 rainfall amounts, degree days). Weather information is used= to=20 schedule pesticide and irrigation applications, and it may = be=20 necessary to enter the treated area during an REI to collec= t the=20 information. Weather equipment may be stationed in more tha= n one=20 location around a large treated area, and it may take longe= r than=20 1 hour for the worker to walk to each site to complete the= =20 information collection. The worker must walk through the tr= eated=20 area, but all of the treated plants are well below knee-hei= ght=20 and/or are sufficiently spaced apart so that the task may b= e=20 accomplished in a manner that results in minimal contact wi= th=20 treated surfaces, and such contact is only to lower arms, h= ands,=20 lower legs, and feet. =20 (2) On occasion, unanticipated repairs must be made to= non- application field equipment while in the treated area durin= g an=20 REI. The immediate repair of the non-application field equi= pment is=20 necessary and important to crop production. The nature of t= he=20 breakdown, and/or the size of the equipment may hinder the = removal=20 of the equipment from the treated field for repair, and the= repair=20 may not be able to be completed within an hour. =20 The proposed exception specifically excludes pesticide= s whose=20 labeling requires ``double notification'', i.e., the labeli= ng=20 requires both the posting of treated areas and oral notific= ation to=20 workers. EPA requires double notification for a pesticide w= hen=20 exposure _ for example, contact with treated surfaces _ has= the=20 potential to cause acute illness or injury. For pesticides = that=20 =0C=00 contain double notification requirements on their labeling,= the=20 short-term (1 hour per worker per day) exception at 40 CFR= =20 170.112(c) and PPE requirements would still apply. For the= =20 convenience of commenters, the following Appendix A lists t= he=20 active ingredients subject to WPS that may be subject to th= e double=20 notification requirement.=20 =20 Appendix A=20 =20 Worker Protection Standard ``Double Notification'' Active= =20 Ingredient List=20 =20 Please note that Appendix A (From PR Notice 93-7, Appe= ndix 3- A) is incomplete in several respects: first, it does not co= ntain=20 the active ingredients in products already bearing mandator= y=20 posting requirements prior to adoption of the WPS and that = must be=20 retained under WPS; second, it may contain a few active ing= redients=20 that will be found to not require double notification upon = further=20 EPA review (such as reregistration), and third, active ingr= edients=20 requiring double notification may be added during reregistr= ation or=20 other Agency action. Nonetheless, EPA believes that this l= ist=20 contains the bulk of the active ingredients subject to doub= le =20 notification. These listed pesticides contain an active ing= redient=20 categorized as highly toxic when absorbed through the skin = (acute=20 dermal toxicity), or as highly irritating (corrosive) when = it=20 contacts the skin, or otherwise is considered by EPA as hig= h risk=20 to workers. In addition, the exception excludes pesticides = whose=20 labels prohibit any person from entering during the REI. In= other=20 words, the label does not allow the use of the exceptions s= et out=20 in =A7 170.112. =20 Notification Active Ingredient List (PR Notice 93-7, Appen= dix 3-A) =20 COMMON NAME CHEMICAL CODE CAS NUMBER aldicarb =09 =09 098301 =09 116-06-3 aldoxycarb=09 =09 110801 =09 1646-88-4 arsenic acid=09 =09 006801 =09 7778-39-4 arsenic trioxide =09 007001 =09 1327-53-3 carbofuran=09 =09 090601 =09 1563-66-2 = =20 chlorflurenol=09 =09 098801 =09 2536-31-4 chloropicrin=09 =09 081501 =09 76-06-2 cuprous oxide=09 =09 025601 =09 1317-39-1 disulfoton=09 =09 032501 =09 298-04-4 dodine =09 =09 044301 =09 2439-10-3 endothall, dimethylcocoamine=09 038905 =09 =09 =09= =20 endothall, disodium=20 salt =09 =09 038903 =09 129-67-9 ethephon =09 =09 099801 =09 16672-87-0 ethoprop =09 =09 041101 =09 13194-48-4 fonofos =09 =09 041701 =09 944-22-9 (s)-(+)-lactic acid =09 128929 =09 79-33-4 metam-sodium=09 =09 039003 =09 137-42-8 =0C=00 methamidophos=09 =09 101201 =09 10265-92-6 methyl bromide =09 053201 =09 74-83-9 methyl parathion =09 053501 =09 298-00-0 mevinphos =09 =09 015801 =09 7786-34-7 nicotine =09 =09 056702 =09 54-11-5 paraquat =09 =09 061601 =09 1910-42-5 parathion =09 =09 057501 =09 56-38-2 phorate =09 =09 057201 =09 298-02-2 profenofos=09 =09 111401 =09 41198-08-7 propargite=09 =09 097601 =09 2312-35-8 sabadilla alkaloids =09 002201 =09 8051-02-3 sulfotepp =09 =09 079501 =09 3689-24-5 sulfuric acid=09 =09 078001 =09 7664-93-9 sulprofos =09 =09 111501 =09 35400-43-2 tefluthrin=09 =09 128912 =09 79538-32-2 terbufos =09 =09 105001 =09 13071-79-9 TPTH =09 =09 =09 083601 =09 76-87-9 = =09 =20 =09 =09 =09 =09 =20 =20 EPA is proposing to establish a reduced set of PPE for= limited=20 contact tasks, although the worker may wear the PPE specifi= ed on=20 the label even if the early entry PPE specified on the labe= l is=20 less restrictive than the reduced set. Based on the limitat= ions in=20 the exception, EPA expects that contact will not be signifi= cant and=20 a reduced set of PPE will be adequate. =20 EPA is proposing to limit the exception to 24 months (= 2=20 years), and to review and revise the terms of the exception= as=20 appropriate based upon experience during that 2 years.=20 =20 C. Proposed Terms of Exception =20 EPA is proposing an exception to the early entry restr= iction=20 for limited contact tasks, and is considering the following= =20 definition for 'limited contact task': =20 ``For the purposes of this exception, the term 'limite= d=20 contact task' means a non-hand labor task that is performed= by=20 workers that results in minimal contact with treated surfac= es=20 (including but not limited to soil, water, air, surfaces of= plants,=20 and equipment), and where such contact with treated surface= s is=20 limited to the forearms, hands, lower legs, and feet.'' =20 Under the proposed exception, a worker may enter a tre= ated=20 area during a restricted entry interval to perform a limite= d=20 contact task if the agricultural employer ensures that the= =20 following requirements are met: =20 (1) The pesticide product does not have a statement in= the=20 pesticide product labeling requiring both the posting of tr= eated=20 areas and oral notification to workers (``double notificati= on''),=20 or a restriction prohibiting any person, other than an=20 appropriately trained and equipped handler, from entering d= uring=20 the restricted entry interval. =0C=00 =20 (2) No hand labor activity is performed. =20 (3) The time in a treated area under a restricted entr= y=20 interval for any worker does not exceed 3 hours in any 24 h= our=20 period. =20 (4) The personal protective equipment for early entry = must be=20 provided to the worker by the agricultural employer for all= tasks.=20 Such personal protective equipment shall either: (a) confor= m with=20 the label requirements for early entry PPE; or (b) consist = of=20 coveralls, chemical resistant gloves, socks, and chemical r= esistant=20 footwear. In either case, the PPE must conform to the stand= ards set=20 out in =A7 170.112(c)(4)(i) through (x). =20 (5) Workers are notified verbally, before such workers= enter=20 a treated area, that the establishment is relying on this e= xception=20 to allow workers to enter treated areas to perform limited = contact=20 tasks. =20 (6) The task cannot be delayed until after the expirat= ion of=20 the restricted entry interval, or the pesticide application= could=20 not be delayed until the task was completed. =20 (7) For all limited contact tasks, the requirements of= =20 =A7 170.112(c)(3) -(9) are met. These are WPS requirements = for all=20 early entry situations that involve contact with treated su= rfaces,=20 and include (a) a prohibition against entry during the firs= t 4=20 hours, and until applicable ventilation criteria have been = met, and=20 until any label specified inhalation exposure level has bee= n=20 reached, (b) informing workers of safety information on the= product=20 labeling, (c) provision, proper management, and care of per= sonal=20 protective equipment, (d) heat-related illness prevention, = (e)=20 requirements for decontamination facilities, and (f) prohib= ition on=20 taking personal protective equipment home.=20 =20 =20 IV. Options Considered =20 EPA considered including hand labor tasks in this exce= ption,=20 but determined that hand labor tasks could not be performed= with=20 limited contact. The WPS defines hand labor as any agricult= ural=20 activity performed by hand or with hand tools that causes a= worker=20 to have substantial contact with surfaces (such as plants, = plant=20 parts, or soil) that may contain pesticide residues. These= =20 activities include, but are not limited to, harvesting,= =20 detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker r= emoval,=20 pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce into cont= ainers=20 in the field. Hand labor does not include operating, moving= , or=20 repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing th= e tasks=20 of crop advisors. Hand labor tasks involve substantial cont= act and=20 are by nature high exposure scenarios and potentially high = risk. =20 EPA considered eliminating the PPE requirement for cov= eralls,=20 but has several concerns about eliminating this requirement= . Under=20 =0C=00 =A7 170.112(c), early entry workers are required to remove = PPE before=20 going home and may not take it home. If only long sleeved s= hirts=20 and long pants are worn, it may not be possible for workers= to=20 remove their work clothes when they leave the treated area,= enter=20 their vehicles, and return home. This could result in conta= mination=20 of the vehicles from their clothing, causing an increased e= xposure=20 risk to potentially toxic pesticide residues for all vehicl= e=20 occupants. Additionally, EPA believes that coveralls will a= ssure=20 greater risk reduction for workers since the WPS requires= =20 agricultural employers to assure proper handling, care and= =20 maintenance of these items. There is no such requirement fo= r=20 personal clothing. =20 EPA considered requiring that protective eyewear be in= cluded=20 in the minimum PPE requirement if required on the product l= abeling=20 for early entry because of concern about workers rubbing or= wiping=20 residues into their eyes from hands, gloves, or sleeves. EP= A=20 decided not to propose a requirement for eyewear as part of= the=20 minimal set at this time because the performance of limited= contact=20 tasks should result in minimal worker contact with treated= =20 surfaces. =20 EPA considered eliminating PPE requirements for tasks = that=20 must be performed when unanticipated repairs of non-applica= tion=20 field equipment arise, but rejected this option because EPA= =20 believes that in some instances equipment repair could resu= lt in=20 significant exposure. Unanticipated equipment repairs would= be=20 expected to occur infrequently, and some repairs may be abl= e to be=20 performed with almost no contact to treated surfaces. EPA c= ontinues=20 to be concerned that some PPE is needed to provide adequate= =20 protection for all worker activities given the range and na= ture of=20 equipment repair tasks and the potential for even limited e= xposure=20 to highly toxic pesticides.=20 =20 =20 V. Comments Solicited =20 EPA is interested in a full range of comments and info= rmation=20 on the proposed exception and on the exception options pres= ented,=20 and is providing 45 days for the submission of comments. =20 1. Need for an exception. EPA solicits comment on whet= her=20 early entry for limited contact activities is necessary.= =20 Specifically, EPA requests comments on why specific limited= contact=20 tasks could not normally be delayed until the expiration of= the=20 REI, or why the application could not be delayed until the = tasks=20 are completed. EPA requests comments on why alternative pra= ctices=20 would not be technically or financially viable (such as pla= cing=20 beehives and weather monitoring stations outside areas norm= ally=20 treated with pesticides). EPA also requests comments on the= =20 economic impacts on agricultural employers if they cannot e= nter the=20 treated area during the REI for limited contact activities.= =20 Commenters should be task specific in their response. =20 =0C=00 EPA requests information on the expected costs in term= s of=20 decreased yield, grade or quality or other economic cost as= a=20 result of being unable to perform some tasks during an REI.= In=20 addition, EPA requests information on the frequency of task= s that=20 must be done during an REI and the amount of time required = to=20 complete those tasks per occurrence and per agricultural= =20 establishment for a typical growing season. =20 2. Definition of ``limited contact''. EPA requests spe= cific=20 comments on the proposed definition of 'limited contact tas= ks'. EPA=20 is particularly concerned about defining limited contact ac= tivities=20 in a way that may inadvertently result in unnecessary routi= ne early=20 entry, which may increase risk to workers. Does the propose= d=20 definition encompass tasks or activities that are inherentl= y high=20 risk? Are there non-hand labor activities that should be co= vered by=20 the exception but do not fall under the definition as propo= sed? EPA=20 also requests information on whether worker exposures for t= he tasks=20 that fall within the proposed exception could reasonably be= limited=20 to lower legs and feet, hands and forearms, or if greater e= xposure=20 would result due to the nature of the activity. =20 EPA also solicits comments on whether there are hand l= abor=20 tasks that must be done during the REI, and whether these t= asks can=20 be accomplished without subjecting workers to substantial c= ontact. =20 3. Safety and feasibility factors. EPA requests inform= ation on=20 the safety and feasibility of a limited contact exception.= =20 Information should include, at minimum, the feasibility of= =20 performing the limited contact activity while wearing PPE; = means of=20 mitigating heat stress concerns; the cumulative amount of t= ime=20 required, per worker, per day for necessary limited contact= =20 activities; any suggested methods of reducing the worker's = exposure=20 for a given task; and any other alternative practices, such= as=20 mechanical devices that reduce workers' exposure to treated= =20 surfaces. The information should describe the costs (time a= nd=20 materials) of providing the protective measures in the term= s of the=20 proposed exception. =20 4. Duration of exposure. Because exposure is determine= d both=20 by the amount and the duration of contact with pesticides, = EPA=20 proposes to limit the total amount of time in treated areas= to=20 perform limited contact tasks to 3 hours per worker per day= . EPA=20 believes most limited contact activities can be completed i= n=20 significantly less than 3 hours, but certain circumstances = may=20 exist that would necessitate more than 3 cumulative hours o= f early=20 entry. EPA requests comment on whether 3 hours is adequate,= or if=20 some amount of time less than 3 hours would be sufficient. =20 5. Exclusion of ``double notification''. EPA requests= =20 comments on the exclusion of double notification pesticides= from=20 this proposed exception. What impact, if any, on agricultur= al=20 growers might result if double notification pesticides were= to be=20 excluded from the limited contact exception? Will the exclu= sion of=20 double notification pesticides from the exception sufficien= tly=20 =0C=00 reduce risk to workers? EPA also requests information on pe= sticide- related worker injuries or illnesses as a result of perform= ing the=20 types of tasks that would fall under this proposed limited = contact=20 exception. =20 6. PPE requirements. EPA solicits comments on the risk= s and=20 benefits for the PPE options under a limited contact except= ion. Is=20 PPE feasible for workers performing limited contact tasks, = and to=20 what extent is PPE necessary to reduce worker risk for diff= erent=20 tasks? =20 EPA specifically requests information on whether prote= ctive=20 eyewear should be included in the minimum PPE requirement i= f=20 required on the product labeling for early entry because of= concern=20 about workers rubbing or wiping residues into their eyes fr= om=20 hands, gloves, or sleeves. =20 EPA is interested in any information concerning whethe= r there=20 are certain limited contact tasks (such as repair of non- application equipment and frost protection tasks) and early= entry=20 situations (such as entry into fields that have been treate= d with=20 toxicity category IV pesticides) that may not require the u= se of=20 PPE, or may allow the use of a reduced set of PPE ( e.g., o= nly=20 waterproof gloves and chemical resistant boots). =20 7. Duration of exception. EPA requests comments on whe= ther the=20 proposed 24 month (2-year) limit is appropriate for this ex= ception,=20 or why a longer or shorter period may be more practical.= =20 =20 VI. Public Docket and Electronic Comments =20 A record has been established for this rulemaking unde= r docket=20 number "OPP-250101" (including comments and data submitted= =20 electronically as described below). A public version of th= is=20 record, including printed paper versions of electronic comm= ents,=20 which does not include any information claimed as confident= ial=20 business information (CBI), is available for inspection fro= m 8 a.m.=20 to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.= The=20 public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Respons= e and=20 Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C)= , Office=20 of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM#= 2, 1921=20 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Written comments s= hould be=20 mailed to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, F= ield=20 Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,= =20 Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington= , DC=20 20460. =20 As part of an interagency "streamlining" initiative, E= PA is=20 experimenting with submission of public comments on selecte= d=20 Federal Register actions electronically through the Interne= t in=20 addition to accepting comments in traditional written form.= This=20 proposed exception is one of the actions selected by EPA fo= r this=20 experiment. From the experiment, EPA will learn how electr= onic=20 commenting works, and any problems that arise can be addres= sed=20 =0C=00 before EPA adopts electronic commenting more broadly in its= =20 rulemaking activities. Electronic commenting through post= ing to=20 the EPA Bulletin Board or through the Internet using the Li= st Serve=20 function raise some novel issues that are discussed below i= n this=20 Unit. =20 To submit electronic comments, persons can either "sub= scribe"=20 to the Internet List Serve application or "post" comments t= o the=20 EPA Bulletin Board. To "Subscribe" to the Internet ListSer= ve=20 application for this proposed exception, send an e-mail mes= sage to: =20 listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that says "Subscribe RIN-= 2070- AC69 ." Once you are subscribed to = the=20 ListServe, comments should be sent to: RIN-2070- AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All comments and data in elec= tronic=20 form should be identified by the docket number OPP-250101 s= ince all=20 five documents in this separate part provide the same elect= ronic=20 address. =20 For online viewing of submissions and posting of comme= nts, the=20 public access EPA Bulletin Board is also available by diali= ng 202- 488-3671, enter selection "EMAIL" user name "BB-USER" or 91= 9-541- 4642, enter selection "MAIL," user name "BB-USER." When di= aling=20 the EPA Bulletin Board type at the opening message= . When=20 the "Notes" prompt appears, type "open RIN-2070-AC69" to ac= cess the=20 posted messages for this document. To get a listing of all= files,=20 type "dir/all" at the prompt line. Electronic comments can= also be=20 sent directly to EPA at: =20 Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov =20 Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file= =20 avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encr= yption. =20 To obtain further information on the electronic comment pro= cess, or=20 on submitting comments on this proposed exception electroni= cally=20 through the EPA Bulletin Board or the Internet List Serve, = please=20 contact John A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253; FAX: 2= 02-260- 3884; Internet: richards.john@epamail.epa.gov). =20 Persons who comment on this proposed rule, and those w= ho view=20 comments electronically, should be aware that this experime= ntal=20 electronic commenting is administered on a completely publi= c=20 system. Therefore, any personal information included in co= mments=20 and the electronic mail addresses of those who make comment= s=20 electronically are automatically available to anyone else w= ho views=20 the comments. Similarly, since all electronically ant inf= ormation=20 which they believe to be CBI. Such information should be s= ubmitted=20 only directly to EPA in writing as described earlier in thi= s Unit. =20 Commenters and others outside EPA may choose to commen= t on the=20 comments submitted by others using the RIN-2070-AC69 ListSe= rve or=20 the EPA Bulletin Board. If they do so, those comments as w= ell will=20 become part of EPA's record for this rulemaking. Persons o= utside=20 EPA wishing to discuss comments with commenters or otherwis= e=20 communicate with commenters but not have those discussions = or=20 =0C=00 communications sent to EPA and included in the EPA rulemaki= ng=20 records should conduct those discussions and communications= outside=20 the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board. =20 The officials record for this rulemaking, as well as = the=20 public version, as described above will be kept in paper fo= rm. =20 Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electr= onically=20 in the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, i= n=20 accordance with the instructions for electronic submission,= into=20 printed,m paper form as they are received and will place th= e paper=20 copies in the official rulemaking record which will also in= cluded=20 all comments submitted directly in writing. All the elect= ronic=20 comments will be available to everyone who obtains access t= o the=20 RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board; however,= the=20 official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained a= t the=20 address in f"Addresses" at the beginning of this document.= =20 (Comments submitted only in written form will not be transf= erred=20 into electronic from and thus may be accessed only by revie= wing=20 them in the Public Response and Program Resources Branch as= =20 described above.) =20 Because the electronic comment process is still experi= mental,=20 epa cannot guarantee that all electronic comments will be= =20 accurately converted to printed, paper form. If EPA become= s aware,=20 in transferring an electronic comment to printed, paper for= m, of a=20 problem or error that results in an obviously garbled comme= nt, EPA=20 will attempt to contact the comment submitter and advise th= e=20 submitter to resubmitted the comment either in electronic o= r=20 written form. Some commenters may choose to submit identic= al=20 comments in both electronic and written form to ensure accu= racy. =20 In that case, EPA requests that commenters clearly note in = both the=20 electronic and written submissions that the comments are du= plicated=20 in the other medium. This will assist EPA in processing an= d filing=20 the comments in the rulemaking record. =20 As with ordinary written comments, at the time of rec= eipt,=20 EPA will not attempt to verify the identities of electronic= =20 commenters nor to review the accuracy of electronic comment= s. =20 Electronic and written comments will be placed in the rulem= aking=20 records without any editing or change by EPA except to the = extent=20 changes occur in the process of converting electronic comme= nts to=20 printed paper form.=20 =20 If it chooses to respond officially to electronic comm= ents on=20 this proposed rule, EPA will do so either in a notice in th= e=20 Federal Register or in a response to comments document plac= ed in=20 the rulemaking record for this proposed rule. EPA will not= respond=20 to commenters electronically other than to seek clarificati= on of=20 electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or= =20 conversion to printed, paper form as discussed above. Any= =20 communications from EPA employees to electronic commenters,= other=20 than those described in this paragraph, either through Inte= rnet or=20 otherwise are not official responses from EPA. =20 =0C=00 VII. EPA Decision on Proposed Exception =20 EPA will publish in the Federal Register its final dec= ision on=20 whether to grant the request for a national exception. EPA = will=20 base its decision on whether the benefits of the exceptions= =20 outweigh the costs. An exception may be withdrawn by EPA at= any=20 time if EPA receives poisoning information or other data th= at=20 indicate that the health risks imposed by the early entry e= xception=20 are unacceptable or if EPA receives other information that= =20 indicates that the exception is no longer necessary or prud= ent. =20 =20 Dated: January 3, 1995. =20 Lynn R. Goldman, Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxi= c=20 Substances. =20 [FR Doc. 95-????? Filed ??-??-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Jan 10 14:10:00 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA08902 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 14:09:55 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOT8PO1WG8WZFDI@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOT5GUT0G8WY1MB@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:04:36 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:02:04 EST MR-Received: by mta CARINA; Relayed; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:02:04 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:54:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: EPA Safety Training Proposal for Workers To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLOT5SZ8TQ8WY1MB@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Posting-date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:00:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;40207101105991/2261389@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 The following document will be published in the Federal Register on January 11, 1995. Interested parties are encouraged to provide comment to the Agency; various mechanisms are outlined in the document for providing comment. =20 Judy Smith CT&OSB Field Operations Division 703-305-7666 =20 =20 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY =20 =20 40 CFR Part 170=20 =20 [OPP-250097; FRL094901094] =20 RIN No. 2070-AC69=20 =20 Pesticide Safety Training for Workers and Handlers; Grace P= eriod =20 and Retraining Interval=20 =20 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).=20 =20 ACTION: Proposed rule. = =20 =20 -----------------------------------------------------------= ---- = =20 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the Worker Protection= =20 Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides by providing th= ree=20 options for a training grace period (number of days of= =20 employment before workers must be trained) and a phase-in = period=20 associated with the grace period. EPA is also proposing o= ptions=20 for the retraining interval (number of years before worker= s or=20 handlers must be retrained). The objective of the propose= d=20 changes to the Standard is to help meet the goal of provid= ing a=20 trained workforce capable of better protecting itself agai= nst=20 pesticide illness and injury without imposing unreasonable= costs=20 on agricultural employers.=20 =20 DATES: Written comments, identified by the document contro= l=20 number OPP-250097, must be received on or before [insert d= ate 30=20 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.] E= PA=20 does not intend to extend this comment period. (Publicatio= n date=20 in the Federal Register is January 11, 1995.) =20 ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Res= ponse =20 Section, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesti= cide =20 Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., = =20 Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1= 132, CM=20 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Informati= on=20 submitted as comment concerning this document may be claime= d=20 confidential by marking any part or all of that information= as=20 "Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so= marked=20 will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures= set=20 forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does n= ot=20 contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public = record. =20 Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publi= cly by=20 EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be av= ailable=20 for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address = given=20 above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, exclu= ding=20 legal holidays. = =20 =20 Comments and data may also be submitted electronically= by any=20 of three different mechanisms: by sending electronic mail = (e-mail)=20 to: Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a ``Subscribe'= '=20 message to listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and once subs= cribed,=20 send your comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA El= ectronic=20 =0C=00 Bulletin Board by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``= DMAIL,''=20 user name ``BB_USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``M= AIL,''=20 user name ``BB_USER.'' Electronic comments must be submitte= d as an=20 ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any f= orm of=20 encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disk= s in=20 WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All c= omments=20 and data in electronic form must be identified by the docke= t number=20 OPP-250097 since all five documents in this separate part p= rovide=20 the same electronic address. No CBI should be submitted thr= ough e- mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule, but not t= he=20 record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many = Federal=20 Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic= =20 submissions can be found in unit VII. of this document. = =20 =20 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Heying, Certificat= ion and =20 Training, and Occupational Safety Branch (7506C), Office of= =20 Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M = St., =20 SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone n= umber: =20 Rm. 1109D, CM 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington= VA, =20 Telephone: 703-305-7371.=20 =20 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: =20 I. Statutory Authority =20 =20 This proposal is issued under the authority of section= 25(a)=20 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act = =20 (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a). =20 =20 II. Background=20 =20 This proposed WPS rule amendment is one of a series of= Agency =20 actions in response to concerns raised since publication of= the =20 final rule in August 1992 by those interested in and affect= ed by =20 the rule. In addition to this proposed amendment, EPA is= =20 publishing four other notices soliciting public comment on = concerns =20 raised by various affected parties. Other actions EPA is= =20 considering include: (1) Modifications to the requirements= for =20 those performing crop advisor tasks, (2) An exception to ea= rly =20 entry restrictions for irrigation activities; (3) Reduced= =20 restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk pesticides; = and (4) =20 Reduced early entry restrictions for activities involving l= imited =20 contact with treated surfaces. =20 =20 FIFRA authorizes the EPA to regulate the sale, distrib= ution,=20 and use of pesticides in the United States. The Act requir= es=20 generally that EPA license by registration each pesticide p= roduct=20 sold or distributed in the United States, if use of the pes= ticide=20 products will not cause ``unreasonable adverse effects on t= he=20 environment,'' a determination that takes into account the = =20 economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of t= he use =20 of any pesticide. =20 =20 In 1992 EPA revised the Worker Protection Standard (40= CFR =20 =0C=00 part 170) (57 FR 38102, August 21, 1992) which is intended = to =20 protect agricultural workers and handlers from risks associ= ated =20 with agricultural pesticides. The 1992 WPS superseded the = original =20 WPS promulgated in 1974. The 1992 WPS expanded the scope o= f the =20 original WPS to include not only workers performing hand la= bor =20 operations in fields treated with pesticides, but also work= ers in =20 or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, as well a= s =20 handlers who mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle pesticid= es for =20 use at these locations in the production of agricultural= =20 commodities. The WPS contains requirements for training,= =20 notification of pesticide applications, use of personal pro= tective =20 equipment, restricted entry intervals, decontamination, and= =20 emergency medical assistance. =20 =20 In =A7170.130(c)(4), the WPS sets out required trainin= g =20 elements for workers, including information on pesticide ha= zards =20 and exposures, signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning, h= ow to =20 obtain emergency medical care, decontamination measures in = case of =20 exposure and other pesticide hazards that may arise in the = course =20 of their work. =20 =20 Section 170.230(c)(4) of the WPS establishes the requi= red =20 training elements for handlers. These include generally th= e same =20 information as for workers. However, handlers are provided= =20 additional information related to their handling activities= : the =20 meaning and format of pesticide labels; information on pers= onal =20 protective equipment; signs, symptoms and treatment for hea= t- related illness; handling pesticides and pesticide containe= rs; =20 environmental contamination and hazards to non-target speci= es; and =20 other information on their responsibilities as handlers. T= raining =20 for handlers is more detailed than for workers, and is targ= eted =20 specifically toward handling needs and responsibilities. = =20 =20 Training for workers or handlers may be conducted by c= ertified =20 applicators or other trainers who meet State, Federal, or T= ribal =20 requirements. The agricultural employer, however, is respo= nsible =20 for assuring that workers receive required training and the= handler =20 employer is responsible for assuring that handlers receive = the =20 required training. =20 =20 To assist agricultural employers in fulfilling their= =20 responsibilities to ensure training and to provide a unifor= m =20 national standard for the conduct of worker training, EPA a= nd the =20 U.S. Department of Agriculture have established a joint tra= ining =20 verification program. Under this program, which would be= =20 administered on a voluntary basis by States through agreeme= nts with =20 EPA, workers who have been trained may be issued a training= =20 verification card. The card could be shown to each agricul= tural =20 employer who hires the worker. Under =A7170.130(d) possess= ion of a=20 valid card serves as proof of training, thus relieving the = =20 employer of having to provide training or to determine whet= her and =20 when training is required. =20 =20 The training verification program is beneficial to the= =20 =0C=00 agricultural employer and workers alike in that it provides= a =20 common basis for agreement that training provided to the wo= rker =20 meets the requirements of the WPS. EPA expects the trainin= g =20 verification card program to benefit agricultural employers= because =20 it obviates the need to train a worker, thus minimizing the= costs =20 of the WPS training requirement. Without such a card syste= m, the =20 employer might have to provide training more frequently and= to more =20 workers to assure that all had received training.=20 =20 For workers, possession of a card assures that they wi= ll be =20 able to work immediately without unnecessary delay for trai= ning. =20 =20 III. Current WPS Training Provisions at Issue=20 =20 This proposal addresses three elements of the worker t= raining =20 requirements. The three elements are: the grace period befo= re =20 training must be provided; the phase-in period for the grac= e period =20 for workers; and the retraining requirement for workers and= =20 handlers. =20 =20 1. The grace period before training must be provided.= =20 Section 170.130(a)(3)(i) requires agricultural employers to= assure =20 that workers have been trained in pesticide safety before t= heir 6th =20 day of entry into areas on the agricultural establishment t= hat have =20 been treated with a pesticide or that have been under a res= tricted =20 entry interval (REI) within the previous 30 days. =20 =20 EPA emphasizes that the grace period applies only to r= outine =20 worker training, not early-entry training or handler traini= ng. No =20 changes are being proposed or considered for early entry or= handler =20 training.=20 =20 2. The interim grace period for workers. The current = WPS=20 requires that the agricultural employer assure that a worke= r=20 receives pesticide safety training before the 6th day of en= try into=20 any treated area on the agricultural establishment. Sectio= n=20 170.130(a)(3)(ii) provides for an exception for a 5-year pe= riod=20 until October 20, 1997, during which time workers would be = allowed=20 to enter treated areas at the establishment for 15 days be= fore the=20 employer must assure that they have been trained. After O= ctober=20 20, 1997, the 15-day grace period is no longer in effect. = =20 =20 3. The retraining requirement for workers and handler= s. =20 Section 170.130(a)(1) requires that agricultural employers = assure =20 that each worker has been trained within the previous 5 yea= rs. =20 Section 170.230(a)(1) requires that handler employers assur= e that =20 each handler has been trained within the previous 5 years. = =20 =20 IV. Reasons for this Proposal =20 =20 The WPS is intended to reduce the risk of pesticide po= isonings =20 and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide handl= ers =20 through implementation of appropriate measures. Pesticide = safety =20 training is a key component of the Standard - trained, info= rmed =20 =0C=00 workers and handlers can take steps to avoid exposure or mi= tigate =20 harmful pesticide effects, thereby reducing the number and = severity =20 of pesticide poisonings and other adverse effects. =20 =20 Subsequent to promulgation of the final rule in 1992, = the =20 Agency received comments from farm worker groups suggesting= changes =20 in the grace period and the retraining interval. Additional= ly, the =20 Agency was petitioned by the National Association of State = =20 Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) to eliminate the interim= grace =20 period. The Agency also met a number of times with farm wo= rker =20 groups to hear their concerns on the worker training provis= ions. =20 Following is a summary of their concerns on the training gr= ace =20 period and 5-year retraining interval. =20 =20 A. Training Grace Period=20 =20 Farm worker groups are concerned that the current grac= e period =20 would result in untrained workers being harmed on the job. = They =20 contrasted the WPS grace period with the Occupational Safet= y and =20 Health Administration's (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standar= d =20 training requirement (29 CFR 1910.1200), under which worker= s must =20 be trained about hazardous chemicals in their work area bef= ore =20 first exposure.=20 =20 States and farm worker groups asserted that the grace = period =20 would be difficult to enforce. Subsequent to publication o= f the =20 WPS, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDP= R) =20 raised concern about the anticipated difficulties in enforc= ing the =20 training requirement. They asserted that it may not be fea= sible to =20 track accumulated days in treated areas in anticipation of = the =20 required training and that employers cannot track the activ= ities of =20 every worker in their employ. =20 =20 Additionally, farm worker groups were concerned that t= he grace =20 period could encourage employers to avoid providing the req= uired =20 training. They were particularly concerned that, because o= f the =20 transient nature of the agricultural workforce, workers who= move =20 frequently might never be trained if training were required= only =20 after a 5-day grace period per establishment. They noted t= hat some =20 workers might not spend 5 days on any particular establishm= ent. =20 =20 Finally, the farm worker groups argued that all worker= s should =20 be entitled to know how to protect themselves from pesticid= e =20 residues before entering treated areas; for training to be = =20 effective in reducing risk, they argued, training must take= place =20 before possible exposure to pesticides. =20 =20 B. Five-Year Retraining=20 =20 Farm worker groups are concerned that the 5-year retra= ining =20 interval is too long to be effective. They assert that lar= ge =20 numbers of workers and handlers, particularly field labor= =20 contractor employees, might not have regular access to the = safety =20 poster displayed on the agricultural establishment because = they are =20 =0C=00 hired off the farm and taken directly to the field. EPA's = =20 confidence in the safety poster as a means of reinforcing t= raining, =20 they claim, is misplaced. Also, many workers and handlers = may not =20 read well (or not be literate in the poster language), so t= he =20 impact of poster messages might be limited. Qualified trai= ners =20 assert that repeat training enhances the retention of safet= y =20 training information.=20 =20 The farm worker groups also requested a shorter retrai= ning =20 interval. They pointed to other regulatory programs under = OSHA, =20 EPA, and State initiatives that require annual retraining. = They =20 also noted that agricultural employment is seasonal in natu= re, and =20 farm workers realistically cannot be expected to remember t= raining =20 information for such a long period of time. The groups ass= erted =20 that more frequent retraining is needed for farm workers wh= o are =20 illiterate or have poor reading skills, and cannot rely on = written =20 materials to refresh their training.=20 =20 In response to these concerns, EPA proposes to revise = the =20 Worker Protection Standard as described in units V. and VI.= of this=20 document. =20 =20 V. The Grace Period and Interim Grace Period =20 =20 EPA is proposing three options for consideration and c= omment: =20 the first option involves eliminating the 15-day grace per= iod so =20 that employers would have to train workers before they ente= r a =20 treated area, and providing a 1-year interim period before = the 0- =20 day grace period would go into effect, the second option in= volves =20 shortening the 15-day grace period so that employers would = be =20 required to train workers between 1 and 5 days after the wo= rker has =20 been hired and the third option involves requiring a weekly= =20 training program. The Agency is interested in receiving co= mments =20 on all options presented. =20 =20 (1) Shortening the grace period from 15 to 0 days afte= r a 1=20 year interim grace period. The Agency is considering elim= inating=20 the training grace period If the grace period were eliminat= ed=20 entirely, all new workers would have to be trained before = entering=20 a treated area. An interim grace period of 1 year is being= =20 proposed to allow employers to prepare for the elimination= of the=20 grace period. =20 =20 Training new workers before any possible exposure may = be the =20 most protective option. No worker would lack training beca= use he =20 or she had not worked enough days with a single employer. B= y =20 eliminating the grace period, it is expected that complianc= e would=20 be easier for the employer and state enforcement officer, b= ecause=20 there would be no need to determine whether the worker had= =20 accumulated the requisite number of workdays on the establ= ishment. =20 =20 A 0-day grace period could result in the need for more= =20 frequent, possibly daily, training sessions. More frequen= t=20 training sessions could result in increased training costs= . Also,=20 =0C=00 workers may have to be trained more than once if the emplo= yer=20 could not assure that the worker had already received trai= ning.=20 =20 (2) Shortening the grace period from 15 days to betwee= n 1 and=20 5 days. The Agency is considering shortening the grace per= iod from=20 15 days to between 1 and 5 days. Workers would be trained = earlier=20 and perhaps better able to avoid or mitigate pesticide exp= osures. =20 By shortening the grace period, the possibility that worker= s would=20 remain untrained because they moved frequently from employe= r to =20 employer without accumulating the requisite number of days = at any =20 given establishment to require training would decrease. = =20 =20 Shortening the grace period is likely to increase the = costs of =20 training, since employers with higher rates of turnover in = the =20 workforce would have to schedule more frequent training ses= sions. =20 Any grace period at all could mean that agricultural emplo= yers=20 would need to track the number of days of entry each worke= r has=20 accumulated in order to determine whether training must be= =20 provided. This could present a burden which could be subs= tantial=20 depending on the number of workers hired at the establishm= ent, and=20 the number who possess training=20 verification cards. =20 =20 (3) Requiring a weekly training program. The Agency i= s=20 considering an option, where an employer would be required = to=20 provide a training session once a week to all untrained wor= kers.=20 This option might reduce the instances of workers entering = treated=20 areas before being trained, while reducing the training bur= den on=20 employers by allowing predictability in providing training= on a=20 scheduled basis. A weekly training session may also resul= t in=20 less disruption to field labor activities. Also, a weekly= =20 training session may reduce cost by allowing for more trai= nees per=20 session. For establishments with employee turnover, a wee= kly=20 training session allows employers to ``accumulate'' new hi= res over=20 the span of the week, potentially resulting in fewer traini= ng =20 sessions needed than if employers were required=20 to train each employee before applicable field entry. A wee= kly=20 training session for untrained workers may, however, add a= =20 recordkeeping burden to the employer. =20 =20 The Agency is interested in receiving information and = comments=20 on all options, particularly the benefits expected to be ga= ined by=20 shortening the grace period, as well as expected costs. = =20 Specifically, the Agency is seeking information on the foll= owing: =20 the practicality and effectiveness of the options, how the= =20 frequency of new hires may effect the frequency of trainin= g=20 sessions, the rate of turnover in employment among agricul= tural=20 workers and handlers, situations where training before ent= ry would=20 not be possible, the risks and/or benefits of providing sa= fety=20 training information before or after entering a treated ar= ea, the=20 feasibility of providing training on a short notice to Engl= ish and =20 non-English speaking workers, mechanisms that are available= or will =20 be available to provide training on short notice, the impac= t on the =20 employer and agricultural worker of a 1 year interim grace = period =20 =0C=00 before the 0-day grace period would go into effect, specifi= c =20 problems caused by eliminating or shortening the interim gr= ace =20 period 5 years to 1 year and what could be done to eliminat= e those =20 problems, what the regulated community has done to develop = training =20 programs in the 2 years since the WPS was issued and the es= timated =20 costs of a 0-day, 1 to 5-day grace period or a weekly train= ing =20 regimen.=20 =20 VI. The Retraining Interval for Workers and Handlers=20 =20 The Agency is proposing for comment three options for = the =20 retraining interval for workers and handlers; (1) retaining= the 5 =20 year retraining interval, (2) shortening the retraining int= erval =20 from 5 to 3 years or (3) provide annual retraining. =20 =20 Since chemical use patterns frequently change, and new= hazards =20 may be identified for existing chemicals, a shortened retra= ining =20 interval would be helpful in mitigating the potential hazar= ds to =20 farm workers and handlers. =20 =20 The cost to employers of providing training to workers= and =20 handlers during an ``out'' year (any year after the first y= ear of =20 implementation) increases as the retraining period decrease= s. =20 First year training costs are unaffected by the retraining = =20 interval. All workers must be trained during the first yea= r, and =20 handlers must be trained before they first handle pesticide= s. Due =20 to turnover in the workforce, training after the first year= will =20 not be limited to every third year for a 3 year retraining = =20 interval. Rather, some mix of training and retraining will= occur =20 during all typical out years. A shorter retraining interva= l may =20 require more training sessions during the average out year,= with =20 higher total costs. Also, if training of new workers and= =20 retraining of workers in out years are done at the same tim= e, the =20 costs of retraining (regardless of frequency) may be partia= lly =20 subsumed in the costs for initial training. =20 =20 The Agency is interested in receiving information and = comments=20 on all options, particularly the benefits expected to be ga= ined by=20 shortening the retraining interval, as well as the impacts = of a 5=20 year, 3 year and annual retraining interval. Specifically,= the=20 Agency is seeking information on the following: worker and= =20 handler retention of safety training information, whether= =20 agricultural workers and handlers have a greater need for= =20 retraining than workers in other occupations, the effective= ness of =20 the pesticide poster in reinforcing previous training and t= he =20 burdens the various retraining options might place on agric= ultural =20 employers or other entities that may perform worker or hand= ler =20 training. Concerns with each of the options are requested= as=20 well. =20 =20 Commenters supporting retaining the current 5-year ret= raining =20 interval, shortening the retraining interval to 3 years, or= =20 providing annual retraining, should state explicitly the re= asons =20 for, and provide information on the need, costs and feasibi= lity of, =20 =0C=00 the recommended option.=20 =20 VII. Solicitation of Comments=20 =20 A record has been established for this rulemaking unde= r =20 docket number ``OPP-250097'' (including comments and data s= ubmitted=20 electronically as described below). A public version of t= his=20 record, including printed, paper versions of electronic com= ments,=20 which does not include any information claimed as confident= ial=20 business information (CBI), is available for inspection fro= m 8 a.m.=20 to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.= The=20 public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Respons= e and=20 Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C)= , Office=20 of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM = 1B2,=20 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Written comme= nts=20 should be mailed to: Public Response and Program Resources= =20 Branch,20Field Operations Division (7506C) Office of Pestic= ide=20 Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,= =20 Washington, DC 20460.=20 =20 EPA is interested in receiving comments and informatio= n on all=20 of the proposed options. Comments are requested on: (1) = general=20 worker and handler hiring and employment practices, such as= the=20 rate of turnover and employment among agricultural workers = and=20 handlers, (2) the practicality and effectiveness of the gra= ce=20 period options, including how the frequency of hiring would= affect=20 the frequency of training sessions, situations where traini= ng=20 before entry would not be possible, mechanisms that are ava= ilable=20 or will be available to provide training on short notice an= d the=20 estimated costs of reducing or eliminating the grace period= or=20 providing a weekly training regimen, (3) the practicality a= nd=20 effectiveness of eliminating the interim grace period for t= raining=20 and (4) the retraining interval, including the impacts of a= =20 retraining interval of less than 5 years, worker and handle= r=20 retention of safety training information over time, whether= =20 agricultural workers and handlers have a greater need for= =20 retraining than workers in other occupations, the effective= ness of=20 the pesticide poster in reinforcing previous training and t= he=20 burdens the various retraining options might place on agric= ultural=20 employers or other entities that may perform worker or hand= ler=20 training. Comments should be distinguished as applying to = workers,=20 handlers, or both, as applicable. =20 =20 As part of an interagency ``streamlining'' initiative,= EPA is=20 experimenting with submission of public comments on selecte= d =20 Federal Register actions electronically through the Interne= t in =20 addition to accepting comments in traditional written form.= This =20 proposed exception is one of the actions selected by EPA fo= r this=20 experiment. From the experiment, EPA will learn how elect= ronic=20 commenting works, and any problems that arise can be addre= ssed=20 before EPA adopts electronic commenting more broadly in it= s=20 rulemaking activities. Electronic commenting through post= ing to=20 the EPA Bulletin Board or through the Internet using the L= istServe =20 function raise some novel issues that are discussed below i= n this =20 =0C=00 Unit. =20 =20 To submit electronic comments, persons can either=20 ``subscribe'' to the Internet ListServe application or ``p= ost'' =20 comments to the EPA Bulletin Board. To ``Subscribe'' to th= e =20 Internet ListServe application for this proposed exception,= send an=20 e-mail message to: listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that = says=20 ``Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69 .'' Once= you are=20 subscribed to the ListServe, comments should be sent to: RI= N-2070- AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All comments and data in elec= tronic=20 form should be identified by the docket number OPP-250097 s= ince all=20 five documents in this separate part provide the same elect= ronic=20 address. =20 =20 For online viewing of submissions and posting of comme= nts, =20 the public access EPA Bulletin Board is also available by d= ialing =20 202-488-3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' user name ``BB_USE= R'' or =20 919-541-4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user name ``BB_USE= R.'' =20 When dialing the EPA Bulletin Board type at the op= ening =20 message. When the ``Notes'' prompt appears, type ``open RI= N- =20 2070-AC69'' to access the posted messages for this document= . To =20 get a listing of all files, type ``dir/all'' at the prompt = line. =20 Electronic comments can also be sent directly to EPA at: = =20 Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov.=20 =20 Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file= =20 avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encr= yption.=20 To obtain further information on the electronic comment pro= cess, or=20 on submitting comments on this proposed exception electroni= cally=20 through the EPA Bulletin Board or the Internet ListServe, p= lease=20 contact John A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253; FAX: 20= 2-260- 3884; Internet: richards.john@epamail.epa.gov). Persons w= ho=20 comment on this proposed rule, and those who view comments= =20 electronically, should be aware that this experimental elec= tronic=20 commenting is administered on a completely public system. = =20 Therefore, any personal information included in comments a= nd the=20 electronic mail addresses of those who make comments=20 electronically are automatically available to anyone else = who=20 views the comments. Similarly, since all electronic commen= ts are=20 available to all users, commenters should not submit=20 electronically any information which they believe to be CB= I. Such=20 information should be submitted only directly to EPA in wr= iting as=20 described earlier in this Unit. =20 =20 Commenters and others outside EPA may choose to commen= t on =20 the comments submitted by others using the RIN-2070-AC69 L= istServe=20 or the EPA Bulletin Board. If they do so, those comments = as well=20 will become part of EPA's record for this rulemaking. Per= sons=20 outside EPA wishing to discuss comments with commenters or= =20 otherwise communicate with commenters but not have those= =20 discussions or communications sent to EPA and included in = the EPA=20 rulemaking record should conduct those discussions and = =20 communications outside the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the E= PA =20 Bulletin Board.=20 =0C=00 The official record for this rulemaking, as well as th= e =20 public version, as described above will be kept in paper fo= rm. =20 Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received=20 electronically in the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bu= lletin =20 Board, in accordance with the instructions for electronic= =20 submission, into printed, paper form as they are received a= nd will=20 place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record w= hich=20 will also include all comments submitted directly in writi= ng. All=20 the electronic comments will be available to everyone who = obtains=20 access to the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin = Board;=20 however, the official rulemaking record is the paper recor= d=20 maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginnin= g of=20 this document. (Comments submitted only in written form w= ill not=20 be transferred into electronic form and thus may be access= ed only=20 by reviewing them in the Public=20 Response and Program Resources Branch as described above.) = =20 =20 Because the electronic comment process is still=20 experimental, EPA cannot guarantee that all electronic comm= ents =20 will be accurately converted to printed, paper form. If EP= A =20 becomes aware, in transferring an electronic comment to pri= nted, =20 paper form, of a problem or error that results in an obviou= sly =20 garbled comment, EPA will attempt to contact the comment= =20 submitter and advise the submitter to resubmit the comment = either =20 in electronic or written form. Some commenters may choose = to =20 submit identical comments in both electronic and written fo= rm to =20 ensure accuracy. In that case, EPA requests that commenter= s =20 clearly note in both the electronic and written submissions= that =20 the comments are duplicated in the other medium. This will= assist=20 EPA in processing and filing the comments in the=20 rulemaking record. =20 =20 As with ordinary written comments, at the time of rece= ipt, =20 EPA will not attempt to verify the identities of electronic= =20 commenters nor to review the accuracy of electronic comment= s.=20 Electronic and written comments will be placed in the rulem= aking=20 record without any editing or change by EPA except to the = extent=20 changes occur in the process of converting electronic comm= ents to=20 printed, paper form. =20 =20 If it chooses to respond officially to electronic comm= ents on=20 this proposed rule, EPA will do so either in a notice in th= e =20 Federal Register or in a response to comments document plac= ed in =20 the rulemaking record for this proposed rule. EPA will not= =20 respond to commenters electronically other than to seek= =20 clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled in= =20 transmission or conversion to printed, paper form as discus= sed =20 above. Any communications from EPA employees to electronic= =20 commenters, other than those described in this paragraph, e= ither =20 through Internet or otherwise are not official responses fr= om EPA. =20 =20 VIII. Statutory Requirements =20 =20 As required by FIFRA section 25(a), this proposed rule= was =20 =0C=00 provided to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to Congr= ess for =20 review. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel waived its rev= iew. =20 =20 USDA provided extensive written comment. The general = tenor of=20 USDA comments suggest suspending the proposed changes to th= e=20 training requirement until EPA observes the efficacy of cur= rent=20 training provisions and the feasibility of a 0-day grace pe= riod. =20 However, the Agency maintains that the options being propo= sed=20 increase the chance of protection through earlier provisio= n of=20 safety training. The Agency intends to observe and evaluat= e the=20 effectiveness of training in the field, with whatever optio= n is=20 selected. =20 =20 USDA's specific comments focused on the following area= s: (1)=20 Elimination of the grace period; (2) retraining interval; (= 3) =20 training requirements by category; (4) the regulatory impac= t =20 analysis; (5) training verification.=20 =20 (1) USDA expressed concern that elimination of the 5-= day =20 grace period would create costs for the employer, by preven= ting =20 scheduled training for large groups, while providing little= or no =20 increase in the protection for workers. EPA believes that = the =20 elimination of the grace period will provide increased prot= ection =20 to workers by providing safety information before workers e= nter a =20 treated area. The incremental cost incurred by the employe= r does=20 not appear to outweigh the benefits that come with the pot= ential=20 prevention of exposure. =20 =20 EPA and USDA have differing opinions regarding the emp= loyer =20 recordkeeping burden necessitated by a grace period. Howev= er, it =20 is agreed that, for state regulators to verify compliance w= ith the =20 regulations, some employer burden of recordkeeping would be= =20 necessary during a grace period. =20 =20 USDA questions the need to train workers before they e= nter a =20 treated field, due to other WPS protection provided workers= , while =20 EPA believes that these provisions are part of an integrate= d =20 package of measures that are effective only after being exp= lained =20 through training. USDA suggests that, as a means to enhanc= e =20 understanding of pesticide safety, employers distribute the= WPS =20 worker training handbook to newly hired employees and follo= w with =20 training in a few days, however this assumes that all emplo= yees=20 would be able to read and understand the materials. =20 =20 (2) USDA questions the need for a shorter retraining= =20 interval, however, professional training organizations and= =20 farmworker groups assert that more frequent retraining is = needed=20 in order to assure retention of the substance of training= =20 sessions. More frequent retraining is especially needed f= or=20 workers who may have poor reading skills and cannot rely o= n=20 written materials to recall all safety information. =20 =20 (3) USDA expresses concern that clear distinctions be= made =20 among handlers, early-entry workers, production laborers an= d =20 =0C=00 harvesters, and that they may also warrant different traini= ng =20 requirements. EPA believes that the current regulation's= =20 distinctions between workers, handlers, and early-entry wor= kers =20 address USDA's concerns since these categories have differe= nt =20 training requirements. This proposal does not address the = =20 substance of training or the training requirements. =20 =20 (4) USDA questions the strength of the conclusions of= studies =20 used in the regulatory impact analysis to support the assum= ption =20 that risk is reduced through modifications of behavior afte= r =20 training. They also note that EPA uses the same number est= imate =20 for workers trained with a 0-day grace period and a 15-day = grace =20 period. In the absence of data, EPA did use the same estim= ate of =20 workers, and, as a consequence, conservatively overestimate= d the =20 cost of a 0-day grace period. USDA questions the accuracy = of other =20 data that EPA used in the analysis of the costs of a 0-day = grace =20 period, however, EPA used USDA data and agricultural census= data =20 for this analysis. =20 =20 USDA asserts that the effect of a 0-day grace period c= ould =20 influence the employer to lower pay, possibly eliminate job= s. EPA =20 believes that the cost of training would be small relative = to the =20 total cost of labor. USDA noted that EPA's estimate of the= number =20 of workers is incorrect. EPA used the same estimate of the= number =20 of workers as was used, and agreed upon by USDA, for the 19= 92 WPS. =20 USDA pointed out that EPA's estimate of the number of handl= ers and =20 workers is incorrect due to the use of 1987 data instead of= 1990 =20 data. EPA believed that the 1987 data were better in that = they =20 were agricultural census data as opposed to general census = data. =20 =20 USDA questions the use of 30 minutes per worker traini= ng =20 session in EPA's cost estimates. EPA's worker training pro= gram was =20 field tested in both English and Spanish, and, with questio= ns, took =20 approximately 30 minutes.=20 =20 (5) USDA claims that the additional proof-of-identity= =20 requirement would be extremely difficult for employers to m= eet and =20 would be a disincentive for employers to issue cards. This= is a =20 misreading of the WPS provision that ...``If the agricultur= al =20 employer is aware or has reason to know that an EPA trainin= g =20 verification card has not been issued in accordance with th= e =20 provisions of WPS, or has not been issued to the employee b= earing =20 the card, or the date for retraining has past, an employee'= s =20 possession of that training verification card does not reli= eve the =20 employer of the training obligations under WPS.''=20 =20 USDA noted that issuing training cards would assist ot= her =20 employers who hire already trained workers. In addition, U= SDA is =20 concerned that handlers and workers that possess cards will= become =20 preferred job applicants. USDA fears that since not all st= ates on=20 or verification cards it will cause a burden to job applica= nts in=20 states where cards are not honored and give job preference = to =20 those employees who possess cards.=20 =20 =0C=00 The regulation establishes a training verification pro= gram =20 that is voluntary, therefore, not all employers will partic= ipate. =20 However, employers who do participate will relieve themsel= ves from =20 the burden of retraining workers who have already been trai= ned. =20 =20 Forty states, Puerto Rico and 2 tribes have entered in= to an =20 agreement to issue training verification cards. Three addi= tional =20 states say they will be entering into an agreement. Four s= tates =20 already have programs that are identical to the Federal pro= gram and =20 will issue state cards. Over 2.5 million cards have been d= elivered =20 to states who have entered into the program. By law, the = employer =20 can accept the card as verification that the employee was t= rained. =20 =20 USDA raised concern over the verification cards that h= ave an =20 expiration date based on the initial 5-year retraining inte= rval =20 date. Training cards are valid until the expiration date s= tated on =20 the card. When the retraining interval is changed, these t= raining =20 cards will remain valid until the expiration date on the ca= rd.=20 =20 IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements=20 =20 A. Executive Order 12866=20 =20 Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Octobe= r 4, =20 1993), it has been determined that this is a ``significant = =20 regulatory action'' because it raised potentially novel le= gal or =20 policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President'= s =20 priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Or= der. =20 The total cost of this rule depends on the combination of o= ptions =20 under the grace period and the retraining interval selected= . The =20 costs have been estimated by EPA and are presented in the I= mpact =20 Assessment for the Worker Protection Standard, Training Pro= visions =20 Rule. This proposal was submitted to OMB for review, and a= ny =20 comments or changes made have been documented in the public= record. =20 =20 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act=20 =20 This rule was reviewed under the provisions of sec. 3(= a) of =20 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and it was determined that = the rule =20 would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantia= l number =20 of small entities. The smallest entities regulated under t= he =20 Worker Protection Standard, family-operated agricultural= =20 establishments with no hired labor, are not subject to the = training =20 requirements, and therefore have no cost associated with th= is rule. =20 These small entities (with no hired labor) represent about= 45 =20 percent of the agricultural establishments within the scope= of the =20 WPS. The smallest of those entities which do hire labor ar= e those =20 with only one hired employee. Estimated costs per worker o= r =20 handler are similar for an establishment with one employee = as for =20 larger establishments, causing no significant disproportion= ate =20 burden on small entities. After the first year of implemen= tation, =20 the average annual training costs to comply with these regu= lations =20 (not including the costs already being incurred) is also ve= ry =20 modest, estimated at about $2.20 per worker.=20 =0C=00 =20 =20 The largest difference in costs per worker occurs on= =20 vegetable/fruit/nut farms, where estimated incremental firs= t year =20 cost per worker is $4.13 on small farms and $3.06 on larger= farms; =20 incremental first year cost per handler is estimated at $11= .55 for =20 both small and large farms. The largest cost per establish= ment is =20 also on vegetable/fruit/nut farms, where incremental first = year =20 cost per establishment is estimated to be $4.13 to $11.55 f= or small =20 (single-employee) farms, and $77.49 for the typical large f= arm. =20 Incremental cost of the proposed training options is also v= ery =20 modest. Average incremental cost to vegetable/fruit/nut fa= rms (all =20 sizes), is estimated at $37.15 the first year and $17.51 in= =20 subsequent years. =20 =20 I therefore certify that this proposal does not requir= e a =20 separate analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.= =20 =20 C. Paperwork Reduction Act=20 =20 This proposal contains no information collection requi= rements, =20 and is therefore not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act= .=20 =20 D. Public Docket=20 =20 EPA has established a public docket (OPP-250097) conta= ining=20 the information used in developing this proposed rule. The = public=20 docket is open Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. = and is=20 located in Crystal Mall 1B2, Room 1132, 1921 Jefferson Davi= s=20 Highway, Arlington, VA. =20 =20 =20 List of Subjects in Part 170=20 =20 Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests,=20 Intergovernmental relations, Occupational safety and health= , =20 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.=20 =20 =20 Dated: January 3, 1995. =20 Carol M. Browner, Administrator. =20 =20 =20 Therefore, 40 CFR part 170 is proposed to be amended a= s=20 follows:=20 =20 1. The authority citation would continue to read as f= ollows: =20 =20 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.=20 =20 =20 2. In =A7170.130, by revising the section heading and= paragraph=20 =0C=00 (a)(1), removing paragraph (a)(3), and by revising paragrap= h (d)(2)=20 to read as follows: =20 =A7170.130 Pesticide safety training for workers.=20 =20 (a) * * * =20 (1) Requirement. The agricultural employer shall ass= ure =20 that each worker required by this section to be trained has= been =20 trained in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section be= fore the =20 worker enters, or before between the 1st and 6th day that t= he =20 worker enters any area or during the first weekly training = session=20 available to each worker provided by the employer [grace pe= riod to=20 be determined based on public comment will be insert in the= final=20 rule] on the agricultural establishment where, within the l= ast 30=20 days, a pesticide to which this subpart applies has been ap= plied or=20 a restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been in = effect. =20 The agricultural employer shall assure that each such worke= r has=20 been trained during the last (Agency will insert 1, 3, or 5= years=20 in the final rule based on public comment) counting from th= e end of=20 the month in which the training was completed. =20 =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 =20 (d) * * * =20 =20 (2) If the agricultural employer is aware or has reas= on to =20 know that an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standard worker= =20 training certificate has not been issued in accordance with= this =20 section, or has not been issued to the worker bearing the= =20 certificate, or the training was completed more than (Agenc= y will=20 insert 1, 3, or 5 years in the final rule based on public c= omment)=20 before the beginning of the current month, a worker's posse= ssion of=20 that certificate does not meet the requirements of paragrap= h (a) of=20 this section. =20 =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 =20 3. In =A7170.230, by revising the section heading and= =20 paragraphs (a) and (d)(2) to read as follows: =20 =A7170.230 Pesticide safety training for handlers.=20 =20 (a) Requirement. Before any handler performs any hand= ling =20 task, the handler employer shall assure that the handler ha= s been =20 trained in accordance with this section during the last (Ag= ency=20 will insert 1, 3, or 5 years in the final rule based on pub= lic=20 comment) counting from the end of the month in which the tr= aining=20 was completed. =20 =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * =20 =20 =0C=00 (d) * * * =20 (2) If the handler employer is aware or has reason to= know =20 that an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standard handler tra= ining =20 certificate has not been issued in accordance with this sec= tion, or =20 has not been issued to the handler bearing the certificate= , or the =20 handler training was completed more than (Agency will inser= t 1, 3,=20 or 5 years in the final rule based on public comment) befor= e the=20 beginning of the current month, a handler's possession of = that=20 certificate does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a= ) of=20 this section. =20 * =09 * =09 *=09 *=09 * From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Tue Jan 10 14:47:43 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA10036 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 14:47:40 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOUCWD6PS8WZRM5@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:38:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLOU8L5QY88WXUIO@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:35:28 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:30:24 EST MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:30:24 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:24:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: EPA Draft Policy: Reduction of REIs for Certain Pesticides To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLOU92DFZ88WXUIO@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:29:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;42037101105991/2261609@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 The following document will be published in the Federal Register on January 11, 1995. Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the Agency concerning this document. Various mechanisms for providing comment are outlined within the document. Judy Smith U.S. EPA, CT&OSB Field Operations Division 703-305-7666 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 156 OPP-00399; FRL-4927-6] Worker Protection Standard; Reduced Restricted Entry Intervals for Certain Pesticides, Request for Comments on Draft Policy AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice, Request for Comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------- - SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting comments on a proposed policy, which would be issued in a Pesticide Regulation Notice (PRN) entitled: ``Worker Protection Standard: Reduced Restricted Entry Intervals for Certain Pesticides. EPA proposes to allow registrants to reduce the interim Worker Protection Standard (WPS) restricted entry intervals (REIs) from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk pesticides. A proposed list of active ingredients that are candidates for reduced interim WPS REIs would be included in the PRN. End-use products containing active ingredients that appear on the list would be evaluated using the criteria described within the PRN to determine if the current REI may be reduced to 4 hours. To facilitate the availability of the proposed policy to anyone who may be interested in commenting, this notice presents the proposed policy as it would appear in a PRN. DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket number [OPP- 00399], must be received on or before [insert date 45 days after publication date in the Federal Register]. (This document will be published in the Federal Register on January 11, 1995.) ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division, RM 1132, Crystal Mall 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Information submitted and any comment(s) concerning this notice may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business Information''(CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment(s) that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice to the submitter. Information on the proposed notice and any written comments will be available for public inspection in Room 1128 at the Virginia address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by any of three different mechanisms: by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a ``Subscribe'' message to listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and once subscribed, send your comments to RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing 202-488-3671, enter selection ``DMAIL,'' user name ``BB_USER'' or 919-541-4642, enter selection ``MAIL,'' user name ``BB_USER.'' Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket number OPP-00399 since all five documents in this separate part provide the same electronic address. No CBI should be submitted through e- mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule, but not the record, may be viewed or new comments filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in unit XV. of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail, Judy Smith or Ameesha Mehta, Certification, Training, and Occupational Safety Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: 11th floor, Crystal Mall 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, 22202, (703)-305-7666. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency is proposing to issue a Pesticide Regulation Notice (PRN) to allow registrants to reduce the current interim WPS REIs from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk pesticides. In order to provide ample opportunity for review and comment by all interested parties, this notice presents the proposed policy as it would appear in the PRN. Comments are invited on all aspects of the proposed PRN, but particularly on whether active ingredients should be added to or deleted from the list of candidate active ingredients, whether the criteria for allowing the REI reduce are appropriate, and whether there should be a time limit within which registrants may change their registrations by notification, as opposed to the submission of a formal registration amendment. This proposed policy is one of a series of Agency actions in response to concerns raised since the publication of the final WPS in August 1992 by those interested in and affected by the rule. In addition to this draft PRN, EPA is also proposing and seeking public comment on actions regarding: (1) the worker training requirements; (2) the early entry restrictions for irrigation activities; (3) restricted intervals (REIs) for limited contact activities; and, (4) requirements for crop advisors. I. Summary of the Proposed PRN The PRN would permit registrants to reduce the current interim WPS REIs from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk pesticides. Using the criteria outlined below, the Agency screened 480 WPS ``in- scope'' pesticides and determined that the end-use products for 75 active ingredients would be eligible for REI reduction. Attachment A lists the potential candidate active ingredients that the Agency believes would be eligible for REI reduction under the PRN. Registrants of end-use products containing these active ingredients may apply the criteria discussed below to determine whether their product would be eligible for the reduced REI. A registrant who wishes the Agency to consider an end-use product for a reduced REI that does not meet all criteria, would need to submit an application for amendment of the registration. The Agency is proposing to allow registrants to revise labeling to reflect the reduced REI through a notification process that could be used until August 31, 1995. After that date, registrants would need to submit applications for amendment of a registration and await Agency approval. Such applications would be evaluated as routine amendments and approved on the basis of the criteria in the PRN. If a registrant believes that an active ingredient, not listed as a candidate for reduced REI in Attachment A, meets the criteria discussed below, and that products containing that active ingredient should be eligible for a reduced REI through the notification process, the registrant should immediately contact Judy Smith at the address provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If the Agency determines at any time that the reduced REI is not appropriate, EPA will direct the registrant to revise the REI on the label as appropriate. II. Applicability The PRN would only apply as follows: 1. To products subject to the WPS labeling requirements in 40 CFR part 156, subpart K. 2. To products containing one or more of the active ingredients listed in Attachment A. A product which contains an active ingredient not listed in Attachment A would not eligible for the notification procedures in the PRN. 3. To currently registered end-use products with interim WPS REIs. New registrations would not be within the scope of the PRN. Pending applications for registration will be considered against the criteria of this notice, and, if acceptable, would be permitted the reduced REI when registered. III. Background The 1992 WPS established an interim minimum REI of 12 hours for all end-use pesticide products for agricultural uses. (Longer interim REIs were established for more toxic products.) The 12-hour minimum REI was established for two reasons: (1) to substitute for the ``sprays have dried and dusts have settled'' REI previously used; and (2) to incorporate a margin of safety for unknown adverse effects. The Agency has been requested by numerous registrants and pesticide users to consider reducing the minimum 12 hour REI for lower toxicity products that they believe do not need a 12 hour REI to protect workers. The REIs established through the WPS are interim measures until the reregistration process or other comprehensive EPA review process results in a definitive REI determination. In an effort to avoid diversion of Agency resources from the risk evaluation conducted in the reregistration process, regulatory relief in the form of a four hour REI is proposed for those active ingredients that clearly pose very low, post-application risks to workers. IV. Policy and Rationale EPA has considered whether there may be some end-use products for which a 12-hour REI is not necessary, and has identified a limited set of lower toxicity active ingredients for which it is prepared to allow reduction of the REI for EPs that meet certain criteria. The active ingredient list is limited because a reduction of the WPS REI from 12 to 4 hours could result in dermal and eye exposures that would equal exposures experienced by entry immediately following application, and because any risk mitigation benefits gained by not allowing workers to reenter treated areas before 12 hours is lost. For these reasons, the Agency is proposing to permit only those end-use products that contain active ingredients meeting the criteria in Unit IV to be eligible for a reduced REI. The Agency believes that reducing the REIs for pesticides which meet the criteria below would not substantially increase risks to workers. Reducing the REI would provide agricultural producers with greater flexibility and may promote the use of these inherently less toxic products over those with greater risks and longer REIs. After August 31, 1995, registrants must use the existing label amendment process to request a reduction in a REI. V. Criteria for Active Ingredient Selection EPA considered for inclusion in Attachment A active ingredients in three categories: microbial pesticides (living organisms, including protozoans, fungi, bacteria, and viruses); biochemical pesticides (materials that occur in nature and possess a non-toxic mode of action to the target pest(s); and certain conventional chemical pesticides. The following criteria were used to select the active ingredients in Attachment A: 1. The active ingredient is in Toxicity category III or IV based upon data on acute dermal toxicity, primary skin irritation, and primary eye irritation. Acute oral toxicity data were used in place of acute dermal toxicity if no acute dermal data were available. 2. The active ingredient is not a sensitizer (or in the case of biochemical and microbial active ingredients, no known reports of hypersensitivity exist). 3. No known adverse health effects are associated with the active ingredient, i.e. carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental effects, reproductive effects. 4. EPA does not possess incident information (illness or injury reports) that are ``definitely'' or ``probably'' related to post-application exposures to the active ingredient. 5. The active ingredient also may not be a cholinesterase inhibitor. The Agency determined that a total of 397 potential active ingredients were in Toxicity Category 3 or 4 for at least one of the following guideline studies: oral, inhalation, dermal, skin irritation, and eye irritation. After this initial screening, 109 of the 397 active ingredients whose end-use products would have REIs greater than 12 hours were excluded, resulting in 287 potential candidates. The REI's of these 109 active ingredients were set utilizing chemical specific data via the registration, reregistration, or special review process. The remaining 287 active ingredients were then screened to determine if both the dermal toxicity and eye irritation tests resulted in Toxicity Category 3 or 4, and the results of the sensitization/hypersensitization test were negative. Candidates failing to meet this criteria were excluded from consideration. This screen reduced the number to 88 active ingredients. From this group of 88 active ingredients, an additional 13 were excluded for subchronic, developmental, reproductive, mutagenicity, or carcinogenicity concerns, or if the registration was not supported currently. This resulted in 75 active ingredients as potential candidates for REI reduction to 4 hours. Some active ingredients are not included on the list in Attachment A because they have been the subject of a reregistration eligibility document (RED), in which the Agency concluded that a 12 hour REI was necessary to protect workers. These active ingredients would not be eligible for reduced REIs through the notification process outlined in the PRN. It should be noted that WPS does not apply to pheromones utilized in insect traps and will not be included in the PRN. VI. Agency Determination for Adding Active Ingredients To Candidate List If a registrant believes an active ingredient meets the criteria set forth in Part IV of the PR Notice, and that products containing that active ingredient should be eligible for a reduced REI through the notification process, the registrant should contact Judy Smith in Certification, Training and Occupational Safety Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), 401 M St., SW., Washington DC 20460, before August 31, 1995. If a registrant or other party has information or data indicating that an active ingredient should not be on the candidate list, the registrant must notify the Agency before August 31, 1995. To be considered for a reduced REI, the active ingredient must meet the criteria outlined in the PRN, based upon studies determined by the Agency to be acceptable. The registrant would be required to submit the studies [or cite their MRID numbers and provide copies of Agency reviews that confirm that the criteria are met]. For additional information on this issue, registrants should contact Judy Smith (703-305-7666) as early in the comment period as possible. VII. Procedures for Determining Eligibility of End-Use Products If the active ingredient(s) is included on Attachment A, the registrant must evaluate the product to determine if the EP is eligible for REI reduction. To be acceptable, the following criteria must be met. The registrant must certify to the Agency that the EP meets all of the criteria outlined below: 1. The registrant has submitted or cited studies for the EP on acute dermal toxicity, primary skin irritation, primary eye irritation and skin sensitization (or hypersensitivity if the product contains a microbial or biochemical active ingredient). The Agency need not have completed these study reviews. a. The registrant must cite the MRID numbers for all studies submitted. b. If EPA has permitted the use of studies performed on a substantially similar EP to fulfill the acute toxicity data requirements, the registrant must submit proof that EPA has approved the use of these studies. c. If EPA has waived a data requirement for one or more of the required studies, the registrant must submit proof that the data were waived. d. If all studies on the EP have not been submitted, cited, or waived, the REI may not be reduced for the end-use product at this time. 2. Based on the acute toxicity studies, the product is in Toxicity category III or IV. 3. Based on the sensitization or hypersensitivity studies, the product is not a sensitizer or there have been no reports of hypersensitivity. 4. The registrant has no data indicating, and is not aware of, adverse health effects associated with the EP, i.e., carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental effects, reproductive effects. 5. The registrant is not aware and has not been informed of incident information (illness or injury reports) that are ``definitely'' or ``probably'' (as defined by the California Incident Reporting System) related to post-application exposures to the product. VIII. Procedure for Notification/Certification A. Notification Statement For each product that qualifies for the notification procedures, the registrant would be required to submit: 1. An Application for Registration (EPA Form 8570-1), identified as a notification under this PRN. 2. Three copies of a revised label, clearly marked to highlight the revised REI. 3. The information required to demonstrate that the product is eligible for the reduced REI. 4. The following certification statement: "I certify that this notification is consistent with the provisions of PR Notice 95-x and that no other changes have been made to the labeling or the confidential statement of formula of this product. I further understand that if this notification is not consistent with the terms of PR Notice 95-x, this product may be in violation of FIFRA and I may be subject to enforcement action and penalties under sections 12 and 14 of FIFRA. I understand that the Agency may direct a change in the REI of a product subject to this notice if the Agency determines that a change is appropriate, and that products may be subject to regulatory and enforcement action if the appropriate changes are not made." B. Final Printed Labeling For each product, final printed labeling must be submitted either as part of the notification or separately in accordance with PR Notice 82-2, before the product may be distributed or sold. IX. Sale and Distribution After the PRN is issued and once the registrant has submitted the information and certification specified in Unit VIII, the registrant would be able to sell or distribute products bearing the registrant-certified revised labeling that was submitted to the Agency. X. Permitted Relabeling of Product in Channels of Trade After the PRN is issued, registrants revising their labeling to reduce an interim REI from 12 hours to 4 hours may revise labeling of products through stickering or full relabeling. Stickering, or full relabeling, may occur at sites where product is not under direct registrant control (such as distribution or retail sites), by any person the registrant designates, and without registration of the site as a pesticide producing establishment. The registrant, however, retains full responsibility for ensuring that such labeling modifications are carried out correctly. XI. Agency Determination to Revise the REI Registrants should note that FIFRA sec. 6(a)(2) requires that they submit to the Agency any information or data concerning any adverse effect, illness or injury associated with a product or its use, including those resulting from post- application exposures. If, on the basis of information received from a registrant or other sources, the Agency determines that the 4-hour REI should be increased, the Agency will inform the registrant of that determination and of the new REI that must replace the 4-hour REI. The Agency will also inform the registrant at that time of actions, if any, that must be taken with respect to existing stocks of product labeled with a 4-hour REI. The Agency intends to bring misbranding actions and issue stop sale, use, and removal orders if the appropriate changes and actions are not taken immediately upon notification to the registrant. XII. Compliance Registrants are responsible for the content and accuracy of labeling and for compliance with labeling requirements. Registrants that submit notifications which do not comply with the PRN or EPA's requirements may be subject to enforcement action under FIFRA sections 12 and 14. Registrants electing to sell or distribute products bearing registrant-verified revised labeling run the risk that the proposed label is incorrect and must be revised. In most cases, incorrectly reducing the REI from 12 hours to 4 hours would be considered a serious error possibly requiring stop-sale orders, recalls, or civil penalties. A serious error is one which may create a potential for harm to workers, handlers, or other persons, or the environment, or when the errors prevent achievement of basic goals of the WPS or FIFRA. XIII. Consultations EPA consulted with USDA and their comments were considered in the preparation of this document. In addition, although this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for a 10-day informal review. Any changes made have been documented in the public record. Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this is not a ``significant regulatory action.'' This action does not raise potential novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Nevertheless, this action was submitted to OMB for review, and any comments or changes made have been documented in the public record. XIV. Attachment A Attachment A_Candidate List of Active Ingredients Eligible for Reduced Entry Intervals (REIs). Acetylchitin Agrobacterium radiobacter Ampelomyces quisqualis isolate M-10 Azadirachtin B. t. subsp. aizawai B. t. subsp. aizawai strain GC-91 B. t. subsp. israelensis B. t. subsp. kurstaki B. t. subsp. kurstaki HD-263 B. t. subsp. kurstaki strain EG2348 B. t. subsp. kurstaki strain EG2371 B. t. subsp. kurstaki strain EG2424 B. t. subsp. san diego B. t. subsp. tenebrionis Bacillus popilliae and B. lentimorbus Bacillus sphaericus Bacillus subtilis GB03 Bacillus subtilis MBI 600 Boron sodium oxide, tetrahydrate Calcium oxytetracycline Chlorsulfuron Colletotrichum gleosporioides spores Cytokinin D-Phenothrin Disparlure: cis-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane Ethoxyquin Fenridazon Gibberellic acid Gibberellin A4 mixt. with Gibberellin A7 Gliocladium virens G-21 Gossyplure: Hexadecadien-1-ol, acetate Indole-3-butyric acid Kinoprene Lagendidium giganteum, mycelium or oospores Metsulfuron-methyl Mineral oil Muscalure, component of (E)-9-Tricosene Muscalure, component of (Z)-9-Tricosene Nicosulfuron Nosema locustae Oxytetracycline hydrochloride Periplanone B Phytophthora palmivora, chlamydospores Polyhedral inclusion bodies of Douglas fir tussock moth NPV Polyhedral inclusion bodies of Heliothis NPV Polyhedral inclusion bodies of Neodiprion sertifer NPV Polyhedral inclusion bodies of Gypsy moth NPV Polyhedral occlusion bodies of Autographa californica NPV Polyhedral occlusion bodies of beet armyworm NPV Pseudomonas cepacia type Wisconsin Pseudomonas fluorescens 1629RS Pseudomonas fluorescens A506 Pseudomonas fluorescens EG-1053 Pseudomonas fluorescens Strain NCIB 12089 Pseudomonas syringae 742RS Puccinia canaliculate (Schweinitz) Langerheim (ATCC ???) Sesame plant, ground Siduron Silica gel Silicon dioxide Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose Sodium metaborate (NaBO2) Soybean oil Streptomyces griseoviridis Streptomycin Streptomycin sesquisulfate Sulfometuron methyl Thifensulfuron methyl Tomato pinworm pheromone: (E)-4-tridecen-1-yl acetate Tomato pinworm pheromone: (Z)-4-tridecen-1-yl acetate Triacontanol Triasulfuron Trichoderma harzianum (ATCC 20476) Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain KRL-AG2 Trichoderma polysporum (ATCC 20475) XV. Public Docket and Electronic Comments A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket number "OPP-00399" (including comments and data submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this record, including printed paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI), is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Written comments should be mailed to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. As part of an interagency "streamlining" initiative, EPA is experimenting with submission of public comments on selected Federal Register actions electronically through the Internet in addition to accepting comments in traditional written form. This proposed exception is one of the actions selected by EPA for this experiment. From the experiment, EPA will learn how electronic commenting works, and any problems that arise can be addressed before EPA adopts electronic commenting more broadly in its rulemaking activities. Electronic commenting through posting to the EPA Bulletin Board or through the Internet using the List Serve function raise some novel issues that are discussed below in this Unit. To submit electronic comments, persons can either "subscribe" to the Internet List Serve application or "post" comments to the EPA Bulletin Board. To "Subscribe" to the Internet ListServe application for this proposed exception, send an e-mail message to: listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that says "Subscribe RIN-2070- AC69 ." Once you are subscribed to the ListServe, comments should be sent to: RIN-2070- AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All comments and data in electronic form should be identified by the docket number OPP-00399 since all five documents in this separate part provide the same electronic address. For online viewing of submissions and posting of comments, the public access EPA Bulletin Board is also available by dialing 202- 488-3671, enter selection "EMAIL" user name "BB-USER" or 919-541- 4642, enter selection "MAIL," user name "BB-USER." When dialing the EPA Bulletin Board type at the opening message. When the "Notes" prompt appears, type "open RIN-2070-AC69" to access the posted messages for this document. To get a listing of all files, type "dir/all" at the prompt line. Electronic comments can also be sent directly to EPA at: Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. To obtain further information on the electronic comment process, or on submitting comments on this proposed exception electronically through the EPA Bulletin Board or the Internet List Serve, please contact John A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253; FAX: 202-260- 3884; Internet: richards.john@epamail.epa.gov). Persons who comment on this proposed rule, and those who view comments electronically, should be aware that this experimental electronic commenting is administered on a completely public system. Therefore, any personal information included in comments and the electronic mail addresses of those who make comments electronically are automatically available to anyone else who views the comments. Similarly, since all electronically ant information which they believe to be CBI. Such information should be submitted only directly to EPA in writing as described earlier in this Unit. Commenters and others outside EPA may choose to comment on the comments submitted by others using the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board. If they do so, those comments as well will become part of EPA's record for this rulemaking. Persons outside EPA wishing to discuss comments with commenters or otherwise communicate with commenters but not have those discussions or communications sent to EPA and included in the EPA rulemaking records should conduct those discussions and communications outside the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board. The officials record for this rulemaking, as well as the public version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically in the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in accordance with the instructions for electronic submission, into printed,m paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which will also included all comments submitted directly in writing. All the electronic comments will be available to everyone who obtains access to the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board; however, the official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the address in f"Addresses" at the beginning of this document. (Comments submitted only in written form will not be transferred into electronic from and thus may be accessed only by reviewing them in the Public Response and Program Resources Branch as described above.) Because the electronic comment process is still experimental, epa cannot guarantee that all electronic comments will be accurately converted to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes aware, in transferring an electronic comment to printed, paper form, of a problem or error that results in an obviously garbled comment, EPA will attempt to contact the comment submitter and advise the submitter to resubmitted the comment either in electronic or written form. Some commenters may choose to submit identical comments in both electronic and written form to ensure accuracy. In that case, EPA requests that commenters clearly note in both the electronic and written submissions that the comments are duplicated in the other medium. This will assist EPA in processing and filing the comments in the rulemaking record. As with ordinary written comments, at the time of receipt, EPA will not attempt to verify the identities of electronic commenters nor to review the accuracy of electronic comments. Electronic and written comments will be placed in the rulemaking records without any editing or change by EPA except to the extent changes occur in the process of converting electronic comments to printed paper form. If it chooses to respond officially to electronic comments on this proposed rule, EPA will do so either in a notice in the Federal Register or in a response to comments document placed in the rulemaking record for this proposed rule. EPA will not respond to commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or conversion to printed, paper form as discussed above. Any communications from EPA employees to electronic commenters, other than those described in this paragraph, either through Internet or otherwise are not official responses from EPA. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 156 Labeling, Occupational Safety and health, Pesticides and pest, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: January 3, 1995. Daniel M. Barolo, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 95-????? Filed ??-??-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From acooke@moore.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Jan 11 01:43:34 1995 Received: from bigbad.ces.ncsu.edu (bigbad.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id BAA04749 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 01:43:34 -0800 Received: by bigbad.ces.ncsu.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA01856; Wed, 11 Jan 95 04:47:10 EST Received: by moore.ces.ncsu.edu (NCCES-2.6) id AA00670; 10 Jan 95 20:05:48 EST (Tue) Subject: enforcement To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 20:05:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Al Cooke" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1373 Message-Id: <9501102005.AA00670@moore.ces.ncsu.edu> RE: WPS Enforcement The North Carolina Department of Agriculture which has primary responsibility for pesticide regulatory enforcement in NC "bought into" WPS enforcement in late 1993. They also appointed a wps specialist, Kay Glenn. I have it from her today that NCDA's enforcement for 1995 will be primarily "compliance assistance" aka education. This tends to be their standard tactic with new regulations. The kicker here is that enforcement of all existing regulations is fairly limited because there aren't enough inspectors to go around. And no one has offered money to fund any new inspectors. As a practical matter enforcement is often a matter of following up on complaints from the citizenry. Which brings up my biggest fear with wps. Have we opened up a can of worms where a worker or workers agent can sue a farmer for whatever sum a lawyer can imagine on the basis of failure to comply. I'm advising farmers to cover there assets. I've heard a rumor that EPA will also be enforcing. But I haven't heard that there are any new EPA police running around. I suspect that they have enough to do. At any rate, if I hear about actual enforcement in my neighborhood, I'll let you know. Al ---^^^-- + 0 \ ''~'' -- Al Cooke E-Mail : acooke@moore Internet: acooke@moore.ces.ncsu.edu Phone : 910-947-3188 From SMITH.JUDY@epamail.epa.gov Wed Jan 11 06:13:30 1995 Received: from VAXTM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (vaxtm1.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.95]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA06747 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 06:13:29 -0800 Received: from pyxis.rtpnc.epa.gov by epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLPQRXJDBK8X0AI5@epavax.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:08:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mr.rtpnc.epa.gov by mail.rtpnc.epa.gov (PMDF V4.3-10 #5309) id <01HLPQORL9SG8WXX6Y@mail.rtpnc.epa.gov>; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:04:42 -0500 (EST) Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:03:43 EST MR-Received: by mta PYXIS; Relayed; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:03:43 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 08:57:00 -0500 (EST) From: JUDY SMITH 703-305-6605 Subject: **Posting of 5 EPA Actions** To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HLPQP6OLZ68WXX6Y@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov> X-Envelope-to: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:02:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;34309011105991/2264395@MAIL] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 1 Five EPA actions were posted on Forum yesterday evening. During the uploading and/or transfer of these files, a character string was added into the files. I have forwarded copies of the files to Howard Rosenberg, and we are working to have these actions available through archiving on Forum shortly. Judy Smith US EPA/CT&OSB Field Operations Division 703-305-7666 From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Wed Jan 11 11:30:58 1995 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA12445 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 11:30:57 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 14:13:59 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 13:14:07 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Creole Translation of Worker Safety Training Manual -Reply In response to Amy Brown's earlier message about WPS translations, yes, the Agency is keeping track of all these translations going-on. We in EPA Region 5 have had 3 done, and I am now coordinating the printing of these as well as all the others. If anyone hears of any others besides Creole, Chinese, Philipino, Polish, Vietamese, Laotian, Korean, please let me know. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Jan 12 10:44:07 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.103] (gia5mac23.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.103]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA03901 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 1995 10:44:05 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 10:44:33 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: items added to archive We have in the forum archive six new items, all of which have been referred to in previous posts and relate to issues in NASDA's July petition to EPA. One is the letter of 12/21/94 from the Coalition for Sensible Farmworker Protection to EPA Assistant Administrators Lynn R. Goldman and Steven A. Herman. This letter, signed by NASDA and four other agricultural organizations, requests formal clarification of EPA policy on the distribution of responsibility and liability under the WPS among agricultural employers, owners and operators, and the FLCs or other contractors whose services they may use. Its filename in the WPS-Forum archive is "liablty1.csp" (20351 bytes). To obtain a copy, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM liablty1.csp The other five are a series of Notices that EPA published in the Federal Register, Jan. 11, 1995 (Vol. 60, No. 7), proposing rule amendments and requesting comments about: (1) Modification of the worker training requirements; (2) Modifications to WPS requirements for those performing crop advisor tasks; (3) An exception to early entry restrictions for irrigation activities; (4) Reduced early entry restrictions for activities involving limited contact with treated surfaces; and (5) Reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low risk pesticides. These are the published FR documents (complete with filing date, document number, FR page numbers, and *comment deadlines*) of which Al French advised and Judy Smith posted advance versions on Tuesday. Respective forum filenames and capsule descriptions are below. (1) "train95.pro" (45455 bytes) EPA proposal of three options for a training grace period (number of days of employment before workers must be trained), a phase-in period for the grace period, and options for the mandatory retraining interval. (2) "cropad95.pro" (31470 bytes) EPA proposal to exempt certified or licensed crop advisors from WPS requirements, and to exempt crop advising employees of such advisors from all requirements except pesticide safety training. (3) "irrig95.pro" (77326 bytes) EPA request for comment on proposed exceptions to WPS that would allow, under specified conditions, workers to perform early entry irrigation tasks in a pesticide-treated area for more than 1 hour per day during a restricted entry interval (REI). (4) "limcon95.pro" (38928 bytes) EPA request for comment on proposed exception to WPS that would allow, under specified conditions, workers to perform early entry limited contact tasks in a pesticide-treated area for up to 3 hours per day during a restricted entry interval. (5) "redrei95.pro" (31689 bytes) EPA request for comment on a proposed policy, which would be issued in a Pesticide Regulation Notice (PRN), to allow registrants to reduce the interim REIs from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk pesticides. To obtain a copy of any, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM Contributions to the archive are always welcome and are made available to subscribers as quickly as possible. In light of recent comments about message relevance, I'd like to add that the distinction between signal and noise depends not only on a reader's perspective but also on length of message, speed of modem, and rate of charges incurred for connect time. A few private cries of "fowl" (sorry) about the sizable posts Tuesday suggest that in the future such lengthy documents may best be placed in archive, so that distribution could be confined to those definitely interested in having them. Howard Rosenberg From KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com Thu Jan 12 14:12:54 1995 Received: from sprintf.merit.edu (sprint.com [198.70.61.62]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA10935 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 1995 14:12:52 -0800 X400-Received: by mta merit in /PRMD=internet/ADMD=telemail/C=us/; Relayed; Thu, 12 Jan 1995 16:24:19 -0500 X400-Received: by /ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/; Relayed; Thu, 12 Jan 1995 16:21:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 16:21:08 -0500 X400-Originator: KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: [/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/;MAJF-6787-7448/36] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: RS11443 36 From: KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com Message-ID: To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Creole Translation of Worker Safety Training Manual May I get a copy of the Philipino translation? Kate Bleisch, Asgrow Seed Company, 500 Lucy Brown Lane, San Juan Bautista, CA 95045 From x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mon Jan 16 09:02:05 1995 Received: from exnet.iastate.edu (exnet.iastate.edu [129.186.107.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA10817 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 1995 09:02:04 -0800 Received: from wintersheen.ent.iastate.edu by exnet.iastate.edu (5.65/1.28) id AA26216; Mon, 16 Jan 1995 12:01:52 -0500 Message-Id: <9501161701.AA26216@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_790300922==_" Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 11:02:02 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu (Wendy Wintersteen) X-Mailer: X-Attachments: C:\VIDEOCON; --=====================_790300922==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --=====================_790300922==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A Worker Protection Standard satellite videoconference for ag dealership owners and supervisors is scheduled for January 26, from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. This free program is designed to help ag dealerships meet the requirements of the new Worker Protection Standard implemented January 1, 1995. This program will include discussion of requirements such as communications with farmers before applications, personal protective equipment, decontamination sites for employees, and other aspects of the Standard. Personnel from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Iowa Department of Agriculture, Iowa State University, and the Agribusiness Association of Iowa will be available for call-in questions and discussion. The videoconference will be offered at 70 local ISU Extension offices. There is NO FEE for this program. Out-of-state participants may view the program on Galaxy 7, Channel 12 and call-in questions at 1-800-747-5505. Out-of-state participants do not need to register with ISUE to view the program. The videoconference is being sponsored by Iowa State University Extension, and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship through a grant from the U.S. EPA.  --=====================_790300922==_-- From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Jan 16 21:45:41 1995 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA25752 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 1995 21:45:40 -0800 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id AAA16180; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 00:45:09 -0500 Date: 17 Jan 95 00:42:48 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Crop Advisor Proposal Message-ID: <950117054248_73507.555_HHB54-1@CompuServe.COM> I am getting a headache trying to understand this. This WPS has more convolutions than Einstein's brain. The summary says the proposal is to exempt certified crop advisors from the WPS requirements. This is not accurate. The proposal only contains exemptions for specified sections. The following sections in subpart C still apply: 170.210 (a)-restrictions during applications, 170.222-providing specific information about applications, and 170.224-notice of applications to agricultural employers. I also find in subpart B section 170.124-notice of applications to handler employers. Why is this section pertaining to handlers found in the subpart on workers? The background section of the proposal says crop advisors were defined as handlers so that they could enter treated areas during the REI without time restrictions if using the required PPE. Now they are proposing to exempt them from nearly all of the requirements for handlers. I cannot find the section that gives handlers the ability to enter treated areas without time restrictions. Why is it necessary to define crop advisors as handlers? They do not handle any pesticides. Handle means to mix, load and apply pesticides. The U.S. EPA is redefining the English language. (What does "display" mean?) Perhaps the major obstacle to learning is the misunderstood word and the WPS is full of them. It is wrong to call crop advisors handlers then exempt them from nearly all handler requirements as if merely calling them handlers allows them to enter treated areas in the performance of their job. Does this make sense? Does a previously frozen chicken (new USDA definition) have lips? Why don't we call crop advisors crop advisors and propose sensible protections that apply to them specifically? Or consider the following proposal. I agree that licensed or certified crop advisors should be exempt from most requirements of the WPS. This would be the case if they were not considered handlers nor workers. They would be subject to the provisions of the pesticide labeling. Hazard communication procedures for this group are generally not necessary. If they are in a field checking it, it is an area under their responsibility and they should be well aware of the pesticides applied. Non-certified crop advisors, namely field scouts, should be treated as workers with provisions for sufficient early limited contact reentry time to perform their tasks. One final point of confusion. The definition of "worker" in section 170.3 says persons employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment as crop advisors are not "workers." Does this mean that independent crop advisors are considered "workers?" What was the rationale behind this? It makes no sense to me and it seems to favor employment of advisors employed by pest control operators over independents. People are usually more ingenious about developing business relationships than regulators can hope to foresee. Field scouts may work for a licensed or certified crop advisor, a pest control operator that also employs the licensed advisor or they may work for the grower. Requirements should be based on what the job is and what the person's qualifications are rather than who they work for. Robert A. Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu Tue Jan 17 07:22:49 1995 Received: from umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (umailsrv1.umd.edu [128.8.10.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA00290 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 07:22:48 -0800 Received: by umailsrv1.UMD.EDU (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA17381; Tue, 17 Jan 95 10:21:02 -0500 Message-Id: <9501171521.AA17381@umailsrv1.UMD.EDU> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 10:21 EST From: Amy_E_BROWN@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Subject: Re: Crop Advisor Proposal To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <950117054248_73507.555_HHB54-1@CompuServe.COM> In response to Bob Roach's comments on crop advisors: Not all crop advisors, or scouts, are informed of what is applied when. Owners may disregard the scout's advice and make an application the scout did not recommend, or the application may be made at a later date than the scout assumed. We have had a serious case of exposure and subsequent illness when a scout entered an area that she did not realize had been treated. I'm all for allowing scouts early reentry if they know what's been applied, when, and can use proper PPE. That means someone has to inform the scout. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Amy E. BROWN Entomology Department University of Maryland College Park MD 20742 Email:ab35@umail.umd.edu (ab35) Phone:301-405-3928 Fax:301-314-9290 Certified scuba divers -- $124 -- be sure to From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Jan 17 12:27:12 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA01097 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 12:27:10 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA15797; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:17:37 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA790384687; Tue, 17 Jan 95 12:12:00 EST Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 12:12:00 EST Message-Id: <9500177903.AA790384687@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: enforcement and penalties I haven't had opportunity to participate regularly in the Forum, but the question about who enforces the Worker Protection Standard seems a good place to come in again. The Worker Protection Standard is one of several regulations written to fulfill the mandate for pesticide regulation imposed by Congress with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for fulfilling the intent of FIFRA. Most states have what is called "primacy" -- which basically means that these states have the authority to enforce FIFRA and the regulations written to fulfill FIFRA. So when a pesticide user uses pesticides, it is usually a state inspector that ensures that pesticide regulations (the requirements for use as listed on the pesticide label) are followed. Therefore, the Worker Protection Standard, being another pesticide regulation, will usually be enforced by the state, and under the same penalty scheme as the state enforces other pesticide regulations. So if people are concerned about what the penalties would be for violating the WPS: they are the same penalties as would be incurred for violating some other requirement on the label. Contact your local pesticide regulatory agency for information about enforcement in your state. Kay Rudolph Worker Protection Program Manager US-EPA Region 9, San Francisco From BERTG@creek.astate.edu Tue Jan 17 13:12:32 1995 Received: from quapaw.astate.edu (QUAPAW.ASTATE.EDU [147.97.1.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA02374 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 13:12:30 -0800 Received: by quapaw.astate.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA24499; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:11:37 -0600 Received: from CREEK/MAILQUEUE by creek.astate.edu (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 17 Jan 95 15:12:28 CST Received: from MAILQUEUE by CREEK (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 17 Jan 95 15:11:55 CST From: "Bert Greenwalt" Organization: A.S.U. Agriculture Dept. To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:11:52 CST Subject: RE: Crop Advisor Proposal Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.21 Message-Id: Observations on Robert Roach's message on the Crop Advisor Proposal: A couple of things. First, yes this is quite a mess. My second comment is after this paragraph: > One final point of confusion. The definition of "worker" in > section 170.3 says persons employed by a commercial pesticide > handling establishment as crop advisors are not "workers." Does > this mean that independent crop advisors are considered > "workers?" What was the rationale behind this? It makes no > sense to me and it seems to favor employment of advisors > employed by pest control operators over independents. If I were a suspicious political economist specializing in rent-seeking theory, I would ask, "Maybe the regulation is designed to do exactly what you suggest. Maybe it is designed to favor operators over independents. Who would want that and lobby for that? Maybe the National Association of Pest Control Operators (or whoever), who are probably better organized at lobbying and influencing regulations than the unorganized independents. In other words, maybe all regulations are not just random things developed by bureaucrats, but are the product of the rent-seeking activities of groups. Just like who really wants "previously frozen" chicken labels he mentioned earlier? California chicken producers attempting to protect themselves from Arkansas chicken. They lobbied for it. What do others think? Bert Greenwalt Farmer and Ag Economist, Arkansas State University bertg@creek.astate.edu From x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Tue Jan 17 15:21:19 1995 Received: from exnet.iastate.edu (exnet.iastate.edu [129.186.107.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA05565 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:21:02 -0800 Received: from wintersheen.ent.iastate.edu by exnet.iastate.edu (5.65/1.28) id AA05011; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 18:20:44 -0500 Message-Id: <9501172320.AA05011@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 17:20:53 -0600 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu (Wendy Wintersteen) Subject: 1/26/95 Ag Dealer Videoconference X-Mailer: The satellite coordinates for the Worker Protection satellite videoconference for ag dealership owners and supervisors have been changed. The new satellite coordinates are Galaxy 7, Channel 11 (H). The program will air on 1/26/95 from 9 to 11 a.m. (Central Standard Time). From woodard@igc.apc.org Tue Jan 17 15:33:54 1995 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA05936 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:33:53 -0800 Received: from ppp5.igc.org (woodard@ppp5.igc.org [198.94.6.5]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.56 ) with SMTP id PAA08469 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:34:05 -0800 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:34:05 -0800 Message-Id: <199501172334.PAA08469@mail.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@pop.igc.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: RE: Crop Advisor Proposal Sender: woodard@igc.apc.org Good points, both by Bert and Bob. Actually, independants have been lobbying hard and fast through organizations like NASDA and National Alliance of Independant Crop Consultants (NAICC), and it's quite a strongly organized effort. We actually had received a pre-offical-release of the proposed changes, (I didn't post it here because it was just a wee bit past conventinal controvertial limits) and it said in no uncertain terms that only non-independent distributors/applicators would be exempt. I haven't had a chance to look at the official release in detail, but on a first scan, the language has indeed changed considerably. I can assure you that there were several letters/communications/lunches fired off to Ms. Goldman, NASDA, congress, and others as a result of the pre-release. I would suspect, however, that the most effective lobbying is not carried out overtly by either the dependents or the independents, but by the multi-billion dollar chemical companies that back the dependents. It seems to me that the dollars follow product recommendations over use reduction/IPM/sustainability recommendations..... Hmmmm, just a thought...... Bert Greenwalt says: >you suggest. Maybe it is designed to favor operators over independents. >Who would want that and lobby for that? Maybe the National Association of >Pest Control Operators (or whoever), who are probably better organized at >lobbying and influencing regulations than the unorganized independents. In >other words, maybe all regulations are not just random things developed by >bureaucrats, but are the product of the rent-seeking activities of groups. >What do others think? /*************************************************************************** ******************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33478 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org - jwoodard@crl.nmsu.edu - woody@taipan.nmsu.edu woody@ios.com woody0@aol.com Life is nothing but a null pointer followed by a core dump. -My opinions are my own- /*************************************************************************** ******************/ From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Jan 17 15:53:49 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA06845 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:53:47 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id SAA21588; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 18:52:36 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA790397587; Tue, 17 Jan 95 15:48:00 EST Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 15:48:00 EST Message-Id: <9500177903.AA790397587@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: Crop Advisor Proposal To: wps-forum @ are.Berkeley.EDU at IN@CCPILOT cc: (bcc: Kay Rudolph) From: wps-forum @ are.Berkeley.EDU at IN@CCPILOT Date: 01/17/95 05:18:00 PM Subject: RE: Crop Advisor Proposal For Heaven's sake! Let's leave the conspiracy theories to Oliver Stone! Before getting upset about by the statement that "persons employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment as crop advisors are not "workers"" note that a commercial pesticide handling establishment is defined as "any establishment, other than an agricultural establishment, that: ... (2) Employs any person, including a self-employed person, to perform on an agricultural establishment, tasks as a crop advisor." That all seems pretty clear: unless the "independent" crop advisor is the employee of a farm, forest, nursery, or greenhouse, he/she is employed (or self-employed) by a commercial pesticide handling establishment, and so is not covered as a worker by the WPS. Kay Rudolph US-EPA Region 9, San Francisco (For those who haven't seen the message I refer to, here it is: Observations on Robert Roach's message on the Crop Advisor Proposal: A couple of things. First, yes this is quite a mess. My second comment is after this paragraph: > One final point of confusion. The definition of "worker" in > section 170.3 says persons employed by a commercial pesticide > handling establishment as crop advisors are not "workers." Does > this mean that independent crop advisors are considered > "workers?" What was the rationale behind this? It makes no > sense to me and it seems to favor employment of advisors > employed by pest control operators over independents. If I were a suspicious political economist specializing in rent-seeking theory, I would ask, "Maybe the regulation is designed to do exactly what you suggest. Maybe it is designed to favor operators over independents. Who would want that and lobby for that? Maybe the National Association of Pest Control Operators (or whoever), who are probably better organized at lobbying and influencing regulations than the unorganized independents. In other words, maybe all regulations are not just random things developed by bureaucrats, but are the product of the rent-seeking activities of groups. Just like who really wants "previously frozen" chicken labels he mentioned earlier? California chicken producers attempting to protect themselves from Arkansas chicken. They lobbied for it. What do others think? Bert Greenwalt Farmer and Ag Economist, Arkansas State University bertg@creek.astate.edu From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Jan 17 19:19:43 1995 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA10994 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 19:19:43 -0800 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id WAA02126; Tue, 17 Jan 1995 22:19:11 -0500 Date: 17 Jan 95 22:17:36 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Those whining ways Message-ID: <950118031736_73507.555_HHB50-1@CompuServe.COM> Guy, Did you mean "whining" or "winning?" I think the former but I can't be sure. I met my predecessor recently at a PAPA continuing education meeting. He now works for Fish & Game. He says his ulcer has cleared up. When I first saw the WPS, I considered a career change. I thought maybe I could get one of those plum jobs at the Solid Waste Management Board or the Health Department. Tell Karl he should get his own access to the forum. We need some more enforcement people involved here. Bob Roach From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed Jan 18 10:51:29 1995 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA22219 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 1995 10:51:26 -0800 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 18 Jan 1995 10:49:41 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 10:50:02 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, RUDOLPH.KAY@epamail.epa.gov Subject: NEVER ATTRIBUTE TO CONSPIRACY ANYTHING THAT CAN BE EXPLAINED BY INCOMPETENCE NEVER ATTRIBUTE TO CONSPIRACY ANYTHING THAT CAN BE EXPLAINED BY INCOMPETENCE I think it was written on the grassy knoll by communists. From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Thu Jan 19 11:17:44 1995 Received: from agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu [128.146.140.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA17059 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:17:42 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 31949; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:04:20 +500 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 13:57:31 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU CC: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Message-ID: <0098AB2D.11B0D7E0.31949@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Fumigant posting signs Can anyone tell me if they know of a source of the skull and crossbone signs to be used for fumigants in place of the standard WPS sign? I called Gempler's today and they were not aware that a need for such signs existed. As mentioned previously on the forum most people are not aware that the fumigants require a different sign since this info is in the manufacturer's PR notice but not in the federal register or H-T-C manual. Joanne Kick-Raack PAT Coordinator Ohio State University Extension From EVPR003@UNLVM.UNL.EDU Thu Jan 19 13:27:04 1995 Received: from UNLVM.UNL.EDU (unlvm.unl.edu [129.93.200.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA21461 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 13:27:03 -0800 Received: from UNLVM.UNL.EDU by UNLVM.UNL.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9892; Thu, 19 Jan 95 15:26:44 CST Received: from UNLVM (NJE origin EVPR003@UNLVM) by UNLVM.UNL.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6262; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:26:43 -0600 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 15:15:11 CST From: Larry Schulze Subject: Re: Fumigant posting signs To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <0098AB2D.11B0D7E0.31949@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Message-Id: <950119.152641.CST.EVPR003@UNLVM> I called a local fumigation firm we work with in Lincoln, NE. They have the fumigation placards with skull/crossbone printed at a local firm. The print shop is: Sir Speedy Printing Center 4207 South 33rd St. Lincoln, NE 68506 Phone (402) 483-7575 The placards are 8.5 by 11 inches, stating "DANGER Peligro Poison, Do Not Enter/No Entre, Area and/or commodity under fumigation" The applicator check one of four fumigants that he/she used for the job. More legal text is included like "Do not remove placard until complettion of aeration, monitoring details, ppm levels listed, keep animals/children/etc. away and more". The local fumigator tapes this placard over the door edge. The door cannot be opened without tearing the placard unless it's removed first. From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Thu Jan 19 15:06:37 1995 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA24473 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:06:32 -0800 From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:04:41 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:04:36 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com Subject: Re: GREENHOUSE GROWN FOOD CROPS Re: GREENHOUSE GROWN FOOD CROPS I know of no official federal interpretation that both the food crop AND "for greenhouse use on that crop" must be on the label for it to be legal. I know that this was said many years ago in a California letter to county agricultural commissioners, and has ben repeated a couple of times since then. The origional letter was signed by Gorden Snow who was Chief of the California Pesticide Registration Branch at that time. As far as I can see neither the FIFRA 2ee definition nor the California definition of "use in conflict with the labeling (3CCR, s6000) cover it. In the absense of additional support, I am not comfortable with it! I think it flies in the face of the rest of the interpretation. When I saw this issue first posted on the forum I hoped to see some further federal enlightenment on it. I strongly agree that there should be a uniform position on it. This isn't only a case of what might might be good judgement (which it may very well be) but of legal requirement. Is this just another case of California going off into the deminishing ozone? From CBeytes@aol.com Thu Jan 19 15:08:56 1995 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA24584 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:08:55 -0800 From: CBeytes@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA01705; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 18:09:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 18:09:34 -0500 Message-Id: <950119180925_6843453@aol.com> To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Methyl bromide Not exactly a WPS topic, but neither are chickens and conspiracies - Anyone out there well versed on research on methyl bromide substitutes? I'm interested in an article for FloraCulture International, our sister publication. You can respond to me at CBeytes@aol.com. And thanks for the info on enforcement and penalties. Any other info you have is appreciated. Thanks! Chris Beytes Managing editor GrowerTalks From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Jan 19 17:14:16 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA28199 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:14:15 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id UAA04273; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:13:04 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA790575205; Thu, 19 Jan 95 17:05:00 EST Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 17:05:00 EST Message-Id: <9500197905.AA790575205@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Federal Law Re: GREENHOUSE GROWN FOOD CROPS Federal regulations DO prohibit application of a pesticide in a greenhouse unless the pesticide label specifies greenhouse application on that crop. The reason is that the formulation for greenhouse application may be different from that for non-greenhouse applications. Kay Rudolph US-EPA, R9, San Francisco From KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com Thu Jan 19 18:14:13 1995 Received: from sprintf.merit.edu (sprint.com [198.70.61.62]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA29391 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 18:14:12 -0800 X400-Received: by mta merit in /PRMD=internet/ADMD=telemail/C=us/; Relayed; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:53:41 -0500 X400-Received: by /ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/; Relayed; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:13:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:13:33 -0500 X400-Originator: KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: [/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/;FAJF-6797-6581/36] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: RS11443 36 From: KATHRYN.E.BLEISCH@upjohn1.sprint.com Message-ID: To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: Fumigant posting signs Lab Safety Supply, P.O. Box 1368, Janesville, WI 53547-1368; technical assist number 1-800-356-2501 has skull and crossbones signs. From 73507.555@compuserve.com Thu Jan 19 22:48:51 1995 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA03223 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 22:48:51 -0800 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id BAA05692; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 01:48:20 -0500 Date: 20 Jan 95 01:46:51 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Crop advisor definitions Message-ID: <950120064651_73507.555_HHB64-1@CompuServe.COM> < Before getting upset about by the statement that "persons employed by a < commercial pesticide handling establishment as crop advisors are not < "workers"" note that a commercial pesticide handling establishment is < defined as "any establishment, other than an agricultural establishment, < that: ... (2) Employs any person, including a self-employed person, to < perform on an agricultural establishment, tasks as a crop advisor." < < That all seems pretty clear: unless the "independent" crop advisor is the < employee of a farm, forest, nursery, or greenhouse, he/she is employed < (or self-employed) by a commercial pesticide handling establishment, and < so is not covered as a worker by the WPS. Kay, I'm sure glad this forum has somebody who can explain things like this to us. This is such a cunningly crafted rule, it never ceases to amaze me. I now understand that a crop advisor is a handler, even though he or she never mixes, loads or applies pesticides, works on contaminated equipment or flags. He or she can also be a commercial pesticide handling establishment all by him or herself. Could you please explain why it is necessary to define a crop advisor as a handler to allow them to enter treated areas before the expiration of the REI without time limitations? Bob Roach From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Fri Jan 20 06:02:46 1995 Received: from agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu [128.146.140.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA07794 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 06:02:45 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 398; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:53:38 +500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:53:37 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <0098ABCB.C76ADD80.398@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: Fumigant posting signs Thanks to all who responded about signs. One note on the PR info I have-- they state that the sign must follow WPS requirements pertaining to location, legibility, size and timing of posting and removal. If this is the case, the signs must be at least 14 x 16" and letters must be at least 1" high. Joanne Kick-Raack From 75534.736@compuserve.com Fri Jan 20 07:29:20 1995 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA08525 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 07:29:20 -0800 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id KAA22479; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:28:45 -0500 Date: 20 Jan 95 10:28:05 EST From: Kurt Becker <75534.736@compuserve.com> To: wps Subject: Greenhouse REI's with Foggers,Fumigants, Smoke... Message-ID: <950120152804_75534.736_GHJ58-1@CompuServe.COM> I am having trouble interpreting the WPS rules on Re-entry Intervals when using a fumigant, smoke, mist, fog, or aerosol. In Unit 4 of the How to Comply Guide it states that when using these application methods the greenhouse must meet ventilation criteria. Does this mean that when this criteria has been met, workers may enter the greenhouse? I am the National Equipment Sales Manger for the Dramm Corporation, a manufacturer of low-volume application equipment. I receive calls daily regarding this issue. In the past, I have referred customers to their local officals, but now I am curious. Kurt Becker Grower & International Sales The Dramm Corporation 414/684-0227 414/684-4499 Fax From Mac82nd@aol.com Fri Jan 20 07:36:48 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA08618 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 07:36:47 -0800 From: Mac82nd@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA021365985; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:33:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:33:05 -0500 Message-Id: <950120103301_7703325@aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: The Answer I've been on this WPS forum for about a week and I'm glad to see that everyone is as confused as the growers. I the assistant publisher for two agricultural publications for the fruit and vegetable industries in the Midwest and own a pick-your-own fruit operation. Every interview with a grower eventually comes around to the WPS and how strange it has been crafted. The issue should be - why do the people that make the rules know nothing about the entity they are for. For instance say I make an application of the fungicide Captan on my sweet cherries. It has no post-harvest interval, but my pickers would have to wait until the restricted entry interval of 4 days was over. But my customers could go in while the spray was wet and pick all the cherries they wanted. If I sprayed the pesticide Sevin I could let my picker in after the 12-hours re-entry period was over, but they couldn't harvest them for 24 hours. On fresh peppers the post-harvest interval after a copper application is 0 hours, while the re-entry is 24 hours. That means I can safely eat the peppers after I spray, but can't have my workers enter the area to pick them . I could, as the owner, pick the peppers with a mechanical harvester and then feed them to my workers as soon as I get out of the field. Is this safe - or does it just make no sense. You may of course say the discrepancy between post-harvest intervals and re-entry interval don't mesh because anyone with any common sense wouldn't expose their customers to the risk. But if that were the case then why would we need the rule because everyone should have enough common sense not to expose their workers to that same risk. This all goes back to the people making the rules. They don't have enough time and resources. and don't get enough input from growers to ensure that the rules make sense. There will always be risks with pesticides - but are those greater than smoking, that kills 400,000 annually in the U.S. or driving your car, that kills 50,000 people each year?? And why are we burdening the grower anyway. The migrant workers already get unlimited free legal help and free health care - paid for by the taxpayer. All the farmers get is costlier regulations and less at the market. All these rules and regs mean is that food production will move away from the U.S. because it is not profitable. That means no jobs at all for the migrants and means the food will be grown in other countries with chemicals illegal in the U.S. and will expose the workers their. This also means that the food production in the U.S. will be controlled by fewer and fewer corporations. By the year 2000, 10,000 "farms" will control 85% of the food grown in the U.S. Maybe we can just call them Walmart Farms. Well I'm sorry to say but when Walmart out all the little guys out of business and decreases farm worker jobs through mechanization - prices will soar people will be out of work and everyone will wonder what happened. We need to sit down and look at agriculture production as a whole and come up with a system so farmers can make money, the food system is safe (which it is) and the workers aren't exposed to carcinogens. This is the only way to keep the basic foundation of this country in place. From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Fri Jan 20 08:19:48 1995 Received: from agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu [128.146.140.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA09361 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:19:47 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 684; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 11:10:39 +500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 11:10:37 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <0098ABDE.EB5AB720.684@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: RE: Greenhouse REI's with Foggers,Fumigants, Smoke... My understanding based on the chart on page 55 in the How-to- comply manual is that when using a fumigant, once ventilation criteria are met, workers may enter the greenhouse. Proper ventilation would rid the greenhouse of the fumigant. However, with smokes, fogs or aerosols, the entire enclosed area may still be under a restricted entry interval after the ventilation criteria are met because of residues and workers cannot reenter until the REI is over. Joanne Kick-Raack Ohio State University Extension Coordinator, PAT From aiking@ucdavis.edu Fri Jan 20 09:17:34 1995 Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA10400 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:17:33 -0800 From: aiking@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id JAA03917; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:16:32 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:16:32 -0800 Message-Id: <199501201716.JAA03917@franc.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: fumigant posting signs For fumigant posting signs, you can try: Marzetta Industrial Signs 1356 S. 50th Richmond, CA (800) 233-3352 I do not know if they have "skull and crossbone" signs, but they do have a lot of signs for chemical storage. Ann King Univ. of California From norwong@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Jan 20 09:38:45 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.109] (gia5mac29.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.109]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA10957 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:38:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199501201738.JAA10957@are.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:45:16 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: norwong@are.Berkeley.EDU (Noreen Wong) Subject: Re: The Answer Amen! From ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Fri Jan 20 12:49:17 1995 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (gnv.ifas.ufl.edu [128.227.242.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA17324 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 12:49:16 -0800 From: ONN@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu by gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #7627) id <01HM2P09OEU294DTL7@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:47:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:47:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Enclosed cabs instead of PPE To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01HM2P09OEU494DTL7@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The WPS permits handlers to omit some of the PPE listed on the pesticide labeling for a handling task, if the handlers are in an enclosed cab. The How to Comply Manual stateds that enclosed cabs must have a properly function- ing ventilation system that is used and maintained according to the manufac- turer's written operating instructions. The cab must be declared in writing by the manufacturer or governmental agency to provide at least as much respir- atory protection as the type of respirator listed on the pesticide labeling. Is anyone aware of any manufacturer or government agency (state or federal) that has made such a statement of equivalency in writing? Our Dept. of Agr. here in Florida will permit cabs to be substituted for respiratory protection if the grower has a copy of such a statement of equivalency from the manu- facturer or a government agency. Has California addressed this issue? Norm Nesheim Univ. of Florida onn@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu From 75534.736@compuserve.com Fri Jan 20 12:55:46 1995 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA17522 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 12:55:45 -0800 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id PAA18759; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:55:14 -0500 Date: 20 Jan 95 15:52:41 EST From: Kurt Becker <75534.736@compuserve.com> To: wps Subject: Fumigants vs. smoke, fog, and aerosols Message-ID: <950120205240_75534.736_GHJ96-1@CompuServe.COM> Joanne wrote: "My understanding based on the chart on page 55 in the How-to- comply manual is that when using a fumigant, once ventilation criteria are met, workers may enter the greenhouse. Proper ventilation would rid the greenhouse of the fumigant. However, with smokes, fogs or aerosols, the entire enclosed area may still be under a restricted entry interval after the ventilation criteria are met because of residues and workers cannot reenter until the REI is over." From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Jan 20 13:59:38 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA20074 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:59:35 -0800 X-Sender: howardr@are.berkeley.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 14:00:04 -0800 To: wps-forum From: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU (by way of howardr@are.berkeley.edu (Howard R. Rosenberg)) Subject: Re: Methyl bromide Forwarding a post that got hung up in ListProc error-checker. ------------------------------------------------- from UMA5!POSTMAST@UMA5.OES.ORST.EDU >Subject: Methyl bromide Chris: This is an interesting topic. There are several soil fumigants still out on the market but none will generally be as good as MB in some situations. I have been actively envolved with looking at some of these alternative, so have others. Let me know if I can help. --Phil >Not exactly a WPS topic, but neither are chickens and conspiracies - Anyone >out there well versed on research on methyl bromide substitutes? I'm >interested in an article for FloraCulture International, our sister >publication. You can respond to me at CBeytes@aol.com. > >And thanks for the info on enforcement and penalties. Any other info you have >is appreciated. > >Thanks! >Chris Beytes >Managing editor >GrowerTalks >Philip B. Hamm Extension Plant Pathologist Oregon State University P.O. Box 105 Hermsiton OR 97838 Phone (503) 567-8321 Fax (503) 567-2240 E-mail hammp@uma5.oes.orst.edu From RUTHM@mces.msstate.edu Fri Jan 20 14:33:50 1995 Received: from Tut.MsState.Edu (root@Tut.MsState.Edu [130.18.80.36]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA21162 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 14:33:49 -0800 Received: from MCES.MsState.Edu (CharonPC.MCES.MsState.Edu [130.18.148.4]); by Tut.MsState.Edu using SMTP (8.6.9/6.5m-FWP); id QAA03392; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 16:33:46 -0600 Received: from MCES/MAILQUEUE by MCES.MsState.Edu (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 20 Jan 95 16:33:46 GMT+6 Received: from MAILQUEUE by MCES (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 20 Jan 95 16:33:22 GMT+6 From: "Ruth Morgan" To: WPS-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 16:33:21 CST Subject: Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <3146343540@MCES.MsState.Edu> List------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Morgan Pesticide Coordinator and Pesticide Impact Assessment Specialist Mississippi State University FAX: (601) 325-5204 PHONE: (601) 325-8601 EMAIL: ruthm@mces.msstate.edu From kaiser@ssnet.com Mon Jan 23 06:23:53 1995 Received: from marlin.ssnet.com (ssnet.com [165.113.8.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA28307 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 06:23:51 -0800 Received: by marlin.ssnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA24902; Mon, 23 Jan 95 09:20:26 EST Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:20:23 -0500 (EST) From: Roger Kaiser To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: REI and PHI comments. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Regarding the odd rules governing the re-entry intervals and post-harvest intervals after application of pesticides, I believe thought was that workers would be exposed to the pesticide every day and thus should be given a greater margin of saftey. People eating the harvested product would not be given the same cronic dose. Remember that there is a 100 to 10,000 margin of safety build into the post harvest interval. This same margin is build into the re-entry intervals. Most of the dangers of pesticides exist only in theory and in folklore. WPS is a set of rules and regulations that were implemented to "answer" the public concern over pesticides. They were written by lawyers and politicians and whose primary concern is not worker safety but political survival. Roger Kaiser kaiser@SSNET.COM From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Jan 23 07:53:05 1995 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA29129 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 07:52:59 -0800 Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id KAA11884; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:52:21 -0500 Date: 23 Jan 95 10:51:15 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Crop advisor definitions Message-ID: <950123155115_73507.555_HHB82-1@CompuServe.COM> I am attempting to write an article for the Monterey Bay chapter of the California Agricultural Production Consultants Association newsletter explaining how the WPS will affect them. I am confused and I am hoping somebody can help. Is the paragraph below a correct interpretation of the WPS? I also have a couple specific questions following. The deadline for the article is 1/27/95. "The definition of "worker" in 40 CFR 170.3 says persons employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment as crop advisors are not "workers." Does this mean that independent crop advisors are considered "workers?" No, it does not. The definition of "commercial pesticide handling establishment" in the same section, says that you are such an establishment if you are performing crop advising, even if you are self-employed. So you see, independent Pest Control Advisors would be "handlers" even though they do not handle pesticides as California now defines it and they would be "commercial pesticide handling establishments" all by themselves. Crop advisors (including self-employed PCAs) employed by the "agricultural establishment" (the grower) would be considered "workers." Apparently an independent PCA can be simultaneously a handler, a commercial pesticide handling establishment, and a worker. If a grower employed an independent PCA and that PCA employed field scouts, apparently the PCA would be treated as a worker by the grower but the field scouts would not. The scouts would be handlers and the grower would be required to give the PCA notice of applications concerning areas on the ranch that may be treated or be under a restricted entry interval if the handler employee will come within one quarter of a mile of such areas. The PCA would be required to give the scouts handler training." Questions: 1) Which definition takes precedence? For example, to apply 40 CFR section 170.124 (notice of applications to handler employees), would a PCA employed by a grower be a "handler" or a "commercial pesticide handling establishment?" Could he or she be both? 2) Section 170.222 (providing specific information about applications) says in part, "When handlers (except those employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment) are on an agricultural establishment..." An independent PCA would be a handler self-employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment. Does this mean this section would not apply to them? In the proposal, crop advisors would not be excepted from this section. Section 170.235 (posted pesticide safety information) has the same language in it. What does this mean? Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From 73507.555@compuserve.com Mon Jan 23 07:54:27 1995 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA29148 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 07:54:26 -0800 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id KAA24072; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:53:32 -0500 Date: 23 Jan 95 10:52:01 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Crop advisor risk/responsibility Message-ID: <950123155200_73507.555_HHB82-2@CompuServe.COM> Amy, I do agree but I must clarify my idea. In California, in order to make any recommendation for an agricultural use, the person must be licensed as a Pest Control Advisor. This requires a certain educational background and the person must pass examinations in various categories. This is one example of the licensed or certified crop advisors for which U.S. EPA is proposing exceptions. (Sorry to subject you to another situation unique to California, but I put up with satellite conferences in Iowa and Creole translations of the WPS. buk-buk :)) I do not consider a "scout" a crop advisor because they are not legally qualified to give advice in this state. Field scouts should, in my opinion, be afforded all the protections due to other field workers including notice of applications. They should have sufficient access to the field to perform their duties. I expect much more of licensed pest control advisors. They should be on top of what is going on in his or her fields. The PCA must know when applications occur in order to do his or her job. How frequently do you expect a grower to disregard the advice of a PCA and not tell the PCA? I agree there is some risk of that but the government cannot protect us from all risk. A college-educated, state-licensed, continuously educated professional should be able to keep him or her self from being poisoned when walking fields. Your anecdotal case is interesting but a review of the California record of pesticide illnesses (where all reported are investigated) will probably reveal that this type of illness is rare. In Monterey County there are well over a hundred active pest control advisors and I do not know how many field scouts. I have never become aware of a pesticide related illness among them. >Not all crop advisors, or scouts, are informed of what is applied when. >Owners may disregard the scout's advice and make an application the scout >did not recommend, or the application may be made at a later date than the >scout assumed. We have had a serious case of exposure and subsequent illness >when a scout entered an area that she did not realize had been treated. I'm >all for allowing scouts early reentry if they know what's been applied, >when, and can use proper PPE. That means someone has to inform the scout. Bob Roach 73507.555@compuserve.com From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Jan 23 07:57:52 1995 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id HAA29204 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 07:57:49 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:40:14 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:56:03 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Sources of WPS Warning and Fumigant Signs As a further response to Joeanne Kick-Raack's January 19 inquiry to the WPS-Forum about possible sources for WPS fumigant signs, as well as other WPS warning signs, I have listed below yet a few other retail suppliers of these items. I suggest that you telephone first concerning the availability of signs, especially for the fumigant signs since fewer companies apparently carry these. 1) Nutron Name Plate Inc. 31269 Lorain Road P.O. Box 477 N. Olmstead, OH 44070 ph. 216/777-6660 2) Automatic Flagman Co. Route 4, Box 217 - Airport Walla Walla, WA 99362 509/525-4190 3) CC Sign Co. P.O. Box 2564 Nyssa, OR 97913 503/372-3703 4) Becky Groves J.L. Darling Corp. 2212 Port of Tacoma Road Tacoma, WA 98421 206/383-1714 The latest EPA WPS Materials catalog (dated October 1994) lists as well several other suppliers of the WPS Field Warning sign. Feel free to contact your State Lead Agency or Regional EPA office for a copy. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 (Chicago) From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Jan 23 08:44:01 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA29963 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 08:43:56 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id LAA19601; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 11:42:40 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA790890165; Mon, 23 Jan 95 08:36:00 EST Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 08:36:00 EST Message-Id: <9500237908.AA790890165@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Crop advisor definitions Bob Roach had asked why crop advisors are defined as handlers in the WPS. While I wasn't around at the time the rule was written, I'll take a shot at explaining the rationale. The WPS is an occupational safety standard for people who are exposed to pesticides in the course of producing agricultural products. EPA divided this universe of people into two groups: (1) those who face lesser exposure: agricultural workers, who may be exposed to pesticide residues after expiration of REI and, on rare occasions and for a limited time-period, when working during the REI, and (2) those who face greater exposure: mixers, loaders, applicators -- and crop advisors who are exposed to pesticides during the applications, and crop advisors who require unlimited entry into areas under REI. The definition "handler" sets very basic requirements for employers of crop advisors. Employers must provide crop advisor employees with protective equipment when work requires entry into areas that are under REI or are undergoing pesticide application at that time. Employers need to let crop advisor employees know what areas are under REI -- if the employee does not already know -- so the employee can take the proper precautions when working in that area. Employers must assure that crop advisor employees have received basic instruction about how to protect against the risks of pesticide exposure. Employers must provide crop advisor employees with a supply of water, soap, and towels, so that employees can wash pesticides off their hands before eating, using the toilet, and so forth. If employees are injured by exposure to a pesticide, the employer must provide emergency transportation to a medical facility. Certainly, one option in writing the WPS could have been to define each occupation as a separate category. There could have been one set of regulations for flaggers, another for mixers, a third for applicators, and so on. I don't find this option attractive, and I don't believe anyone in the Agency ever would have considered such an option. I don't think that Bob Roach or anyone else would have found this option particularly palatable to implement. The regulation is "clever", as Bob says, because it attempts to clearly lay out what an employer's responsibilities are, so the employer can be confident when he is in compliance. Of course, no regulation covers any eventuality, so EPA is also providing clarification through policy guidance provided by the Interpretive Guidance Workgroup, a group made up of EPA and state representatives. EPA has also put together an indexed manual to clearly explain what is required by the regulation. If someone is interested in what is required for applications in greenhouses, for example, they can look "greenhouse" up in the index, and find exactly the information they need. The How to Comply manual is available from Gempler's, an ag supply catalog company; their number is 1-800-382-8473. Of course, some states have additional regulations, so anyone using the EPA manual should contact the agency that regulates pesticides in their state. In California, users should contact their county agricultural commissioner. Kay Rudolph US-EPA, R9 San Francisco From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Jan 23 08:48:45 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA00131 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 08:48:38 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id LAA19728; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 11:47:20 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA790890445; Mon, 23 Jan 95 08:42:00 EST Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 08:42:00 EST Message-Id: <9500237908.AA790890445@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Greenhouse REI's with Foggers,Fumigants, Smoke... Regarding the question on whether workers could enter a greenhouse once the ventilation criteria have been met: the answer is no, workers cannot enter until the REI has elapsed AND any greenhouse ventilation criteria have been met. Early-entry workers may enter for permitted activities only after the 4-hour prohibitted-entry period following the application has elapsed AND any ventilation criteria have been met. Kay Rudolph US-EPA, R9 San Francisco From RUTHM@mces.msstate.edu Mon Jan 23 08:55:00 1995 Received: from Tut.MsState.Edu (root@Tut.MsState.Edu [130.18.80.36]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA00288 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 08:54:58 -0800 Received: from MCES.MsState.Edu (CharonPC.MCES.MsState.Edu [130.18.148.4]); by Tut.MsState.Edu using SMTP (8.6.9/6.5m-FWP); id KAA14390; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:54:51 -0600 Received: from MCES/MAILQUEUE by MCES.MsState.Edu (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 23 Jan 95 10:54:51 GMT+6 Received: from MAILQUEUE by MCES (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 23 Jan 95 10:54:42 GMT+6 From: "Ruth Morgan" To: WPS-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 10:54:34 CST Subject: Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <73A32473F0@MCES.MsState.Edu> info ------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Morgan Pesticide Coordinator and Pesticide Impact Assessment Specialist Mississippi State University FAX: (601) 325-5204 PHONE: (601) 325-8601 EMAIL: ruthm@mces.msstate.edu From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Jan 23 08:58:43 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA00391 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 08:58:39 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id LAA19910; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 11:57:22 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA790891045; Mon, 23 Jan 95 08:52:00 EST Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 08:52:00 EST Message-Id: <9500237908.AA790891045@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: RE: Greenhouse REI's with Foggers,Fumigants, Smoke... To: wps-forum @ are.Berkeley.EDU at IN@CCPILOT cc: (bcc: Kay Rudolph) From: wps-forum @ are.Berkeley.EDU at IN@CCPILOT Date: 01/20/95 11:20:00 AM Subject: RE: Greenhouse REI's with Foggers,Fumigants, Smoke... Thank you, Joanne -- I did not include fumigants in my response to this question. My understanding based on the chart on page 55 in the How-to- comply manual is that when using a fumigant, once ventilation criteria are met, workers may enter the greenhouse. Proper ventilation would rid the greenhouse of the fumigant. However, with smokes, fogs or aerosols, the entire enclosed area may still be under a restricted entry interval after the ventilation criteria are met because of residues and workers cannot reenter until the REI is over. Joanne Kick-Raack Ohio State University Extension Coordinator, PAT From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Jan 23 08:59:04 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA00411 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 08:58:55 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id LAA19914; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 11:57:22 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA790891046; Mon, 23 Jan 95 08:49:00 EST Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 08:49:00 EST Message-Id: <9500237908.AA790891046@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Post-harvest intervals vs REIs I have often heard people question why an REI might be longer than a post-harvest interval. If the food is safe to eat, they wonder, why isn't it safe for workers? The short answer is, the exposure to pesticides that comes from eating a handful of cherries is quite different from the exposure that comes from a day spent picking cherries. The two intervals are based on entirely different types of exposure. Kay Rudolph US-EPA, R9 San Francisco From RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Jan 23 09:08:36 1995 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA00697 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:08:35 -0800 From: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id MAA20173; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 12:07:25 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA790891648; Mon, 23 Jan 95 09:01:00 EST Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 09:01:00 EST Message-Id: <9500237908.AA790891648@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Return-Receipt-To: RUDOLPH.KAY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Subject: Re: Crop advisor definitions Bob: I had a hard time following your draft article discussing crop advisors. If you would like to give me a call at 415-744-1065, I would be happy to work with you to clear up any confusion. Kay Rudolph US-EPA R9 San Francisco From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Jan 23 09:25:54 1995 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA01361 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:25:51 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 12:08:30 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 12:24:17 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Required WPS Posting for Fumigants From: RTPMAINHUB.INTERNET."kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu" To: RTPMAINHUB.INTERNET("wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU") Date: Thursday, January 19, 1995 1:23 pm Subject: Fumigant posting signs As mentioned previously on the forum most people are not aware that the fumigants require a different sign since this info is in the manufacturer's PR notice but not in the federal register or H-T-C manual. Joanne Kick-Raack PAT Coordinator Ohio State University Extension From: RTPMAINHUB.INTERNET."kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu" To: RTPMAINHUB.INTERNET("wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU") Date: Friday, January 20, 1995 8:03 am Subject: Re: Fumigant posting signs Thanks to all who responded about signs. One note on the PR info I have-- they state that the sign must follow WPS requirements pertaining to location, legibility, size and timing of posting and removal. If this is the case, the signs must be at least 14 x 16" and letters must be at least 1" high. Joanne Kick-Raack ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clarification on WPS Posting for Fumigants: I am pleased that Joanne Kick-Raack of Ohio Cooperative Extension Service brought to our attention again the differences which exist in the WPS posting of fumigants. As accurately expressed by Joanne, the sign requirements for the posting of fumigants is different from the familar WPS Field Warning sign as represented in the original Federal Register Notice or the WPS How-to-Comply manual (in fact, neither publication describe the fumigant posting required). The information on fumigant postings was specified in a September 24, 1993 Supplemental Guidance from EPA to all registrants. This is a separate Supplement to the original April 20, 1993 Pesticide Registration Notice 93-7. In it, labeling guidance was provided for the following fumigant active ingredients: chloropicrin dazomet (dust & wet powder) dazomet (granular) 1,2-dichloropropene 1,2-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin ethylene methyl bromide methyl bromide plus chloropicrin sodium methyldithiocarbamate (metam sodium) sodium tetrathiocarbonate (enzone) All of the above fumigants (except ethylene) require "placarding" of the treated areas with different fumigant signs containing the below information. This information will be stated on the label near the begining of the Directions for Use section. 1) skull and crossbones symbol 2) "DANGER/PELIGRO" 3) "Area under fumigantion, DO NOT ENTER/NO ENTRE" 4) "(name of fumigant) in use" 5) the date and time of fumigation 6) name, address, and telephone number of the applicator For all the above, under the Agricultural Use Requirements section, labels will also state: "NOTIFICATION: Notify workers of the application by warning them orally and by posting fumigant warning signs, as described in the Placarding of Fumiganted Areas section of this labeling. Post the fumigant warning sign instead of the WPS sign for this application, but follow all WPS requirements pertaining to location, legibility, size, and timing of posting and removal". For greenhouses, these fumigant signs must be posted outside all entrances to the greenhouse. For outdoors, they must be posted at entrances to treated areas. Entry into treated areas is prohibited until the signs are removed. Such fumigant signs can be removed only after the appropriate ventilation criteria have been met and air concentrations are below a specified level. An optional statement may appear on the fumigant labels which reads: "Warning signs are available from your dealer or distributor". If metam sodium and enzone fumigants only contain directions about applying them through irrigation systems (chemigation), then additional posting requirements will be specified on the labels as well. "Posting of areas to be chemigated is required when: (1) any part of a treated area is within 300 feet of sensitive areas such as residential areas, labor camps, businesses, day care centers, hospitals, in-patient clinics, nursing homes or any public areas such as schools, parks, playgrounds, or other public facilities not including public roads, or (2) when chemigated areas is open to the public such as golf courses or retail greenhouses. "Posting must conform to the following requirements. Treated areas shall be posted with signs at all usual points of entry and along likely routes of approach from the listed sensitive areas. When there are no usual points of entry, signs must be posted in the corners of the treated areas and in any other location affording maximum visibility to sentitive areas. The printed side of the sign should face away from the treated area towards the sensitive area. The signs shall be printed in English. Signs must be posted prior to application and must remain posted until foliage has dried and soil surface water has disappeared. Signs may remain in place indefinitely as long as they are composed of materials to prevent deterioration and maintain legibility for the duration of the posting period." "All words shall consist of letters of at least 2 1/2 inches tall, and letters and the symbol shall be a color which sharply contrasts with their immediate background. At the top of the sign shall be the words KEEP OUT, followed by an octagonal stop sign symbol of at least 8 inches in diameter containing the word STOP. Below the symbol shall be the words PESTICIDES IN IRRIGATION WATER. This sign is in addition to any sign posted to comply with the Worker Protection Standard". The above labeling guidance does not apply to smoke generators. The Agency issued further guidance on products formulated as smoke generators in a Supplement to registrants dated October 5, 1993. Posting signs for smoke generators are the same as that for other agricultural pesticides, with double notification requirements on the label as well. All Warning signs must be posted outside all entrances to the greenhouse. I trust that this clarifies the WPS posting situations surrounding fumigants and smoke generators. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 (Chicago) From NLSSROL@ADMIN.BAS.NCSU.EDU Tue Jan 24 05:17:44 1995 Received: from romulus.cc.ncsu.edu (romulus.cc.ncsu.edu [152.1.10.19]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA24259 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 05:17:43 -0800 Received: from admin.bas.ncsu.edu by romulus.cc.ncsu.edu (5.65b/SYSTEMS Dec 28 15:30:00 EDT 1992) id AA01829; Tue, 24 Jan 95 08:17:43 -0500 Posted-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 08:18:09 EST Received: from ADMIN/MAILQUEUE by admin.bas.ncsu.edu (Mercury 1.13); Tue, 24 Jan 95 8:18:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by ADMIN (Mercury 1.13); Tue, 24 Jan 95 8:18:18 EST From: "Roger Lewis" Organization: N.C. State University To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 08:18:09 EST Subject: Re: REI and PHI comments. Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows v1.11 Message-Id: <59D816540A4@admin.bas.ncsu.edu> Is Roger Kaiser's comment correct, that pesticide residues are just folklore? From kaiser@ssnet.com Tue Jan 24 06:53:17 1995 Received: from marlin.ssnet.com (ssnet.com [165.113.8.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA24965 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 06:53:15 -0800 Received: by marlin.ssnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03817; Tue, 24 Jan 95 09:49:49 EST Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 09:49:48 -0500 (EST) From: Roger Kaiser To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: More on the folklore of pesticide resid. Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I seem to have raised a few eyebrows with my comments on the dangers of pesiticde residues in food. I stand by my statement. Current theory holds that if a chemical is harmful at any dose, then there is no dose that is not harmful. This is not theory that is science based. It comes from Congress and the rules and regulations written by politics. We are losing many good pesticides due to the Delany clause which is based on a "zero risk" theory. In my opinion, this is folklore. Further there is strong evidence from market basket surveys of food that there are no residues of pesticides in most food. I believe it runs 95-99% non-detects of pesticides. g# Many people believe that if you treat a crop with a pre-plant heru!bicide, a post plant herb. an insecticide, (or maybe 2 or 3), a fungicide, and a growth regulatorxD or burn-down material, that you will find residues of each of these in the harvested crop. They further believe that these will remain after washing and processing. This belief is false. These materials are not found. It is only in folklore and theory that one could say that there are a few molecules of each of these materials still in/on the food. Lastly on the toxicity of the residues that are found in the food: Yes, there are some residues found in a portion of the food we eat. However, e~rxtrapalations made from animal feeding studies suggest that humans would have to eat many lbs of these foods before they reached the "no effect level". Risk = Toxic response x dose level. If the dose is small, then the risk is also small. For example: Chlorothalonil is on the "List II" because of residues on potato skins. If the toxicological no observable effect level in rats can be transferred/translated to humans, then a 132 lb. human would have to eat 396,000 lbs of potatoes every day to get enough residue to reach the NOEL. To me, this is a danger only in theory. Some have said that these numbers are based on the "acute" NOEL and not the "chronic" NOEL. The tolerance is based on the Chronic NOEL. Work the numbers, People are not exposed to the max. levels allowed on each of the foods they eat. The food supply is safe. In the U.S. we base our pesticide tolerance levels on a 100 x margin of safety below the no effect level. We base them on a worse case application methodology, using the highest rates and the shortest post harvest intervals. All of these decrease the risk and increase the safety of the food. On the whole, these are good rules. However, many of the rules are not rational. When faced with irrational rules we must remind ourselves that the rules were written by lawyers and politicians. These rules protect our food supply but they also answer a political need. So it goes. Roger Kaiser kaiser@SSNET.COM From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Jan 24 08:03:06 1995 Received: from arl-img-1.compuserve.com (arl-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.7.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA25789 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 08:03:05 -0800 Received: by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id LAA03971; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:02:25 -0500 Date: 24 Jan 95 11:01:02 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Worker Training Script/Documentation Message-ID: <950124160102_73507.555_HHB50-1@CompuServe.COM> The following training aid is based on a script developed by Steve Sutter. It has been modified by the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner, primarily for use by growers. It is designed for use in California as it reflects the current California hazard communication program for field workers. Comments and suggestions are desired. Only the English version is posted on the forum, but both the English and Spanish versions will be available in the archive file named fwtrain.scr. -------------------------- cut here --------------------------------- PESTICIDE SAFETY GUIDE FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS Pesticides, used to control crop diseases and pests, are applied in liquid and solid forms, and as gases. Specific instruction beyond the scope of this training, and personal protective equipment, are needed to mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle pesticides, or to enter treated areas during post-application "restricted entry intervals." Restricted entry intervals range from 12 to 72 hours or more. No one, except a properly trained and equipped person can enter a treated area when entry is restricted. If you see warning signs posted around a field, do not enter the field until the signs are removed by your supervisor. Field workers will be informed of pesticide applications taking place or when a restricted entry interval is in effect on an employer's establishment, orally and/or by official warning signs. Pesticide Safety Information Series a-9 (Hazard Communication Information for Employees Working in Fields) must be available at the worksite. "Crop Sheets" on the crops you are working in must also be present if they are available. These documents provide information on employee's rights to receive information about pesticides and potential work hazards. (Review PSIS a-9) Pesticide applicators must assure no pesticide is applied so as to contact anyone directly, or through drift. Applicators can't apply any more than the recommended amount of pesticide to a crop and must follow all label directions. Pesticides could injure field workers, including irrigators, if entry restrictions, worker hygiene, and other precautions aren't followed. Pesticide exposure can arise from spray drift, or contact with treated plants, soil or water. Move away if pesticides drift into your work or housing area, and tell your supervisor. Stay out of areas you are instructed by signs or supervisors not to enter, including areas where pesticides are stored or handled. Do not go near pesticide applications in progress. If you're working in an enclosed area, like a greenhouse, and feel dizzy or have breathing problems, get to fresh air. If someone passes out in an enclosed area, get help from someone trained and equipped for rescue. Skin, nose, throat, or eye irritations can be caused by plants, insects, or pesticide residues. Pesticide residues are small, usually unseen, amounts remaining on plants, soil, and equipment that could contact your skin and eyes. Pesticide residues may affect some people more than others, and can cause allergic reactions. You can also be exposed to pesticides by inhaling them, or eating contaminated crops. Wear long sleeves, pants, hat, socks, and shoes or boots. Wash your hands and face before eating, drinking, smoking, or using the toilet. Shower with soap and shampoo after work. Then put on clean clothes. Wash fruits and vegetables that you're allowed to pick in the field with clean water before you eat them. Don't use water in irrigation systems or drainage ditches for washing produce or drinking as pesticides are sometimes applied to crops through irrigation. Empty pesticide containers, even after rinsing, have residues on them. They're unsafe for any purpose. If you find one, tell your supervisor. Never take a pesticide container home. Pesticide residues can get on work clothes. Wash work clothes separate from other clothes, preferably with hot water and laundry detergent, before you wear them again. Symptoms of pesticide contact with skin include staining, reddening, blistering of the skin, or an itching or burning sensation. Other poisoning symptoms include headaches, dizziness, upset stomach, flu-like symptoms or irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Some of these symptoms are caused by other illnesses unrelated to pesticides, including heat stress. To reduce harmful effects of working in hot conditions, drink plenty of water supplied by your employer, and take needed breaks to cool down. Severe heat stress, called heat stroke, can be fatal. Signs of heat stroke are fatigue, headache, chills, dizziness, loss of coordination, severe thirst, and altered behavior. Try to get an apparent heat stress victim into a cool area. Splash face, neck, hands, and forearms with water. Have the person, if conscious, drink water and stay quiet until help arrives. If a pesticide spray ever gets on you, remove contaminated clothing. Wash contacted skin with soap and water promptly. If your eyes have been exposed, rinse immediately with clean water or an eye flush kit for at least 15 minutes. Quickly tell your supervisor of all work injuries to you or others. Supervisors will assure that employees with any sign of heat stress or pesticide poisoning get medical help. Don't drive yourself to the doctor. Employers will assure you get to a doctor or clinic, and will furnish all available information about any pesticide that may have made you ill. If you're overexposed to a pesticide, you may only experience short term illness or irritation, but there's a chance chronic or delayed effects, such as reproductive harm, nervous system disorders, or cancer will appear years later. Employers must protect you from pesticide injury, but your safety is your responsibility, too. You're protected by law from any retaliation or discrimination by employers because of your safety suggestions, complaints, or requests for information. Your trainer will now advise you of other safety rules, procedures in emergencies, and the availability of other safety information, including that which may be required by the state pesticide regulatory agency. After that, please ask any questions you have. Training Documentation: PSIS a-9 Provided? (circle one) yes no ___________________________ Date of Training ___________________________ ____________________________ Employee Name Employee Signature ___________________________ Employer (Company) Name ___________________________ _____________________________ Trainer Name Trainer Signature Trainer Qualification: ________________________________________ Prepared by: Steve Sutter University of California Cooperative Extension Personnel Management Farm Advisor, Fresno Revised by Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner 1/9/95 From 75534.736@compuserve.com Tue Jan 24 08:25:41 1995 Received: from arl-img-2.compuserve.com (arl-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.7.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA26211 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 08:25:41 -0800 Received: by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id LAA07884; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:25:04 -0500 Date: 24 Jan 95 11:22:54 EST From: Kurt Becker <75534.736@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU" Subject: Re: REI's with Fumigant,smoke,fog, aerosols... Message-ID: <950124162253_75534.736_GHJ123-2@CompuServe.COM> Joanne & Kay agreed: "My understanding based on the chart on page 55 in the How-to- comply manual is that when using a fumigant, once ventilation criteria are met, workers may enter the greenhouse. Proper ventilation would rid the greenhouse of the fumigant. However, with smokes, fogs or aerosols, the entire enclosed area may still be under a restricted entry interval after the ventilation criteria are met because of residues and workers cannot reenter until the REI is over." Joanne & Kay, Thank you for your clarification on this issue. I do have one further question. What is the definition of a fumigant in relation to smokes, fogs, and aerosols. How do they differ enough that they are subject to different classifications. Thank you, Kurt R. Becker Grower & International Sales The Dramm Corporation From MEEDS_C@wpb1.dep.state.fl.us Tue Jan 24 08:47:44 1995 Received: from epic66.dep.state.fl.us (epic66.dep.state.fl.us [199.73.128.6]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA26719 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 08:47:43 -0800 Received: from mr.epic66.dep.state.fl.us by EPIC66.DEP.STATE.FL.US (PMDF V4.3-7 #7204) id <01HM823PKTDS0077SQ@EPIC66.DEP.STATE.FL.US>; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:45:18 EST Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:45:08 EST MR-Received: by mta WPB1; Relayed; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:45:08 -0500 MR-Received: by mta EPIC66; Relayed; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:45:09 -0500 Alternate-recipient: prohibited Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 16:26:00 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 Subject: RE: More on the folklore of pesticide resid. To: wps-forum Message-id: <01HM823QP9SM0077SQ@mr.epic66.dep.state.fl.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Posting-date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 16:36:00 -0500 (EST) Importance: normal Priority: normal X400-MTS-identifier: [;80541142105991/30357@WPB1] A1-type: MAIL Hop-count: 2 What does no observed effect really mean? Does it mean feed a few rats several spoons full of something for a few weeks(?) months(?) or years and then cut the dead rat open and see if there are massive changes inside? With cancer increasing from one in four to one in three in the last decade can we still evaluate potential carcinogens by demanding proof that they harm before we find better ways to do without the insideous spread of even very small amounts of potential human change agents? You may dismiss the Delany clause as a politicians response to mass mentality, but I like a law that says that no known carcinogens should be added to my food in any amount! From kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Tue Jan 24 10:38:41 1995 Received: from agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu [128.146.140.101]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA01031 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:38:40 -0800 From: kickraack@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu Received: by agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 5991; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:29:18 +500 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:29:17 +500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-ID: <0098AF16.F3DCE0E0.5991@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: REI's with Fumigant,smoke,fog, aerosols... In my haste I'm not sure I addressed some other issues with fumigants. For example, a fumigant may say on the label to stay out for 48 hrs. This, again as I understand, (I'm getting more confused all the time!) is unlike the standard REI because there can be no early entry for workers during this period not even after 4 hrs. This ties into the fact that fumigant signs are different and workers may not enter under any circumstances as long as the fumigant sign is in place. I think some of the ventilation criteria on the labels may be different from the criteria in the H-T-C manual and when this is the case the label is the one to follow. Can EPA clarify ? My general impression is that you have to think about fumigants a little differently under the WPS and pay close attention to specific label language for use. As to the question about what is a fumigant vs aerosols etc. From the standpoint of the user, the label indicates whether the product they are using is a fumigant and any special directions would be on the label. From <@uvmvm.uvm.edu:PDOWNER@clover.uvm.edu> Tue Jan 24 13:05:00 1995 Received: from uvmvm.uvm.edu (uvmvm.uvm.edu [132.198.111.8]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id NAA05696 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:04:58 -0800 Received: from clover.uvm.edu by uvmvm.uvm.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Tue, 24 Jan 95 16:04:12 EST Received: from CLOVER/MAILQUEUE by clover.uvm.edu (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 24 Jan 95 16:03:22 GMT-5 Received: from MAILQUEUE by CLOVER (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 24 Jan 95 16:03:19 GMT-5 From: "Pat Downer" Organization: University of Vermont To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 16:03:17 EST Subject: RE: More on the folklore of pesticide resid. Priority: normal X-mailer: PMail v3.0 (R1a) Message-ID: <1E07F713B10@clover.uvm.edu> > You may dismiss the Delany clause as a politicians response to > mass mentality, but I like a law that says that no known > carcinogens should be added to my food in any amount! How can anyone say this when it is clear that we cannot define KNOWN CARCINOGEN! As a grower with a PYO operation, I have to laugh at my customers who stand there smoking a cigarette while they ask "are the blueberries sprayed?" The KNOWN relationship between cancer and smoking doesn't stop them from smoking, yet they are concerned about the possibility of some "chemical" residue... I wonder if they ask the cigarette company what's been sprayed on the tobacco. The reason we have trouble answering that question is because we KNOW the public has absolutely no understanding of what a "pesticide is", why it might be used in the first place, how it acts, etc. -- none at all, except of course, what they read in the newspaper or see on the news. I have yet to read an accurate newspaper article about a pesticide issue, or even one that is real unbiased "news." For that reason, I am sure WPS compliance posting which will be in place for our employees will "turn off" and turn away customers, not because there is anything unsafe being done, but because they don't understand that when used within researched guidelines, it IS SAFE! How else would we be living such long lives these days? And don't they think the produce in the grocery store has been sprayed too? But there's no sign there saying when that was. And who is going to remind people that the pests themselves, if not controlled, would be more dangerous than a small pesticide residue (apple scab for instance). Who's making signs for that? A little knowledge is dangerous, and usually will be misinterpreted... people need the bigger picture. Frankly, I would gladly exhibit records of the extremely small amount of pesticide use at our farm -- to anyone who knows what that means, but to display it to the ignorant public will cause a problem. I'm convinced that the only way to counteract the negative image the public will have is lots of expensive testing... I want a certificate that says my crop is free of pesticide residues, because I'm sure it is. But will the customer be willing to pay for that assurance? In a way, they supposedly already do pay for this, when they pay taxes to support the federal programs and research that results in the application guidelines. If we don't believe the results of these efforts anyway, why are we spending money on them? From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jan 24 15:06:39 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA08792 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 15:06:37 -0800 X-Sender: howardr@are.berkeley.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 15:07:08 -0800 To: wps-forum From: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU (by way of howardr@are.berkeley.edu (Howard R. Rosenberg)) Subject: Dealer Videoconference [forwarding message that got stuck in exotic trap in system] Tue Jan 24 14:43:04 1995 From: x1winter@exnet.iastate.edu (Wendy Wintersteen) The satellite coordinates for the Worker Protection satellite videoconference for ag dealership owners and supervisors have been changed. The new satellite coordinates are Galaxy 7, Channel 11 (H). The program will air on 1/26/95 from 9 to 11 a.m. (Central Standard Time). From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jan 24 17:53:16 1995 Received: from [128.32.251.100] (gia5mac20.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.100]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA13632 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 17:53:14 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 17:53:45 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: English/Spanish worker training script As Bob Roach advertised would be happening, both the English and Spanish versions of "Pesticide Safety Guide For Agricultural Workers" ("Guia De Seguridad Sobre Pesticidas Para Los Trabajadores Agricolas") are now available together as a single document in the archive. Filename is fwtrain.scr (total size 14512 bytes). To obtain a copy, send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM fwtrain.scr --Howard Rosenberg From craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu Wed Jan 25 03:56:59 1995 Received: from ssc.msu.edu (ssc.msu.edu [35.8.65.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id DAA19253 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 1995 03:56:57 -0800 From: craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu Received: by ssc.msu.edu; Wed, 25 Jan 95 7:00:17 EST Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 1:17:52 ÿÿÿ Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: re: More on the folklore of pesticide residue. The WPS list is probably not the place for an extended discussion of the aspects of pesticide regulation other than worker protection, so if this is a really interesting topic to some people, we can look for another place to have our chit-chat. Roger Kaiser articulated several significant concerns about the regulation of pesticide residues in food. The first was that setting a zero tolerance for a chemical which has met the tests for carcinogenicity does not follow logically and unambiguously from science. I would agree with him, but I would argue that choices about food residue levels are choices about risk exposure, that different people can make different choices about their willingness to expose themselves to risk, and that public policy may quite appropriately take a conservative position with respect to risk exposure (i.e., a position which tries to guarantee a low level of exposure). Second, Roger makes several claims about the lack of residues in market basket tests. The FDA publishes the results of its residue monitoring program. In its report "Residue Monitoring 1993", 59% of fruit samples and 28% of vegetable samples in a total diet study had pesticide residues; in these two groups, 1.5% and 1.8 % of the samples respectively were violative of the standard. The FDA also has targeted 24 pesticide-commodity combinations where it suspects residue problems. Within these samples, 93% of the fruit samples and 69% of the vegetable samples had pesticide residues; in these two groups, 29% and 30% of the entire set of samples respectively were violative. Third, Roger discusses the procedure by which the results of dose-response studies are extrapolated into residue tolerances and the ways in which margins of safety are incorporated into the tolerance level. It is important to keep in mind that susceptibility to harm from pesticides is not the same in all people. Pesticide residue regulation attempts to protect against several different types of harm -- cancer, mutation, embryo deformation, neurological, endocrine. Each individual has a different susceptibility to harm from the different pesticides. Different groups of persons have different levels; infants are much more susceptible than adults on most of the dimensions. Different persons also consume different levels of various foods; infants eat a lot of apples. The regulation of residues attempts to set tolerances which will guarantee food safety to almost all of the people almost all of the time. Since both susceptibility and consumption vary across the population, these levels have to be set low in order to accomplish that objective. Craig Harris Dept of Sociology Michigan State University From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fri Jan 27 11:35:30 1995 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA22330 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 1995 11:35:27 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 26 Jan 1995 16:58:14 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 17:12:59 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Training Videos Update As an update on the various pesticide safety training videos which have been EPA approved for the WPS, the list below provides a summary. 1. Idaho combined worker & handler video (in both Spanish & English) available for over a year now (approved by EPA Region 10). Region 10 reports that ID is planning to update and revise it this spring/summer. 2. Michigan Greenhouse Alliance combined worker & handler video (approved by EPA Region 5) just went on sale and is available only through the greenhouse alliance. A separate Spanish version is currently being produced and will be ready for sale soon. 3. Michigan Handler video (approved by EPA Headquarters) has been available for 2-3 months now. Separate English and Spanish versions are available from Michigan State University. 4. "Chasing the Sun" worker video (Spanish w/English subtitles) (approved by EPA Headquarters) from Natl. Migrant Resources Program was sent to States 2-3 months ago. It is available directly from NMRP or Gemplers. 5. A Region 9 approved worker video based on the worker handbook was only recently completed and is already available from Gemplers. 6. Region 10 has recently reviewed (but not yet approved; awaiting HQ review also) separate worker and handler videos for nurseries; produced by Univ. of California. 7. Michigan CES has submitted to Region 5 a final worker video draft; we are finalizing its approval. 8. EPA Region 3 has reviewed and approved a script for a worker video for row crops; the video was expected to be completed by December 1994. 9. EPA Region 5 is currently reviewing for approval yet another video for workers produced for St. Joseph County, Michigan. Of course, if it receives approval it could be used nationwide as well. That is all folks! Donald Baumgartner EPA Region 5 From bspaugh@cce.cornell.edu Sat Jan 28 12:28:03 1995 Received: from cce.cornell.edu (EMPIRE.CCE.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.89.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA01176 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 1995 12:28:03 -0800 Received: by cce.cornell.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #4) id m0rYJmI-0003V3C; Sat, 28 Jan 95 15:29 EST Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 15:29:24 -0500 (EST) From: Beth Spaugh Subject: Re: WPS-FORUM digest 184 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: <199501281752.JAA28809@are.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII May I have an address for the Michigan Greenhouse Alliance please - to order the vidoe. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beth Spaugh CENET: bspaugh Cornell Cooperative Extension, INTERNET: bspaugh@cce.cornell.edu Clinton County VOICE: 518-561-7450 6064 Route 22 FAX: 518-561-0183 Plattsburgh NY 12901 From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sun Jan 29 10:48:53 1995 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA20032 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 1995 10:48:52 -0800 Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id NAA10500; Sun, 29 Jan 1995 13:48:20 -0500 Date: 29 Jan 95 13:45:25 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: Death of Common Sense Message-ID: <950129184525_73507.555_HHB44-1@CompuServe.COM> The following are excerpts of an article in the January 30, 1995 issue of 'U.S. News and World Report.' I could not resist posting this because it strikes right to the core of what is, in my opinion, wrong with the WPS. I hope that you will read this and then go out and buy the magazine because everyone should read the whole article. Even Carol Browner is now speaking of the pitfalls of "one-size-fits-all regulations." Those are her very words. ; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 06:42:25 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 09:24:48 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 09:40:11 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Contact for Greenhouse Training Video The U.S. EPA approved pesticide safety training video for greenhouse workers and handlers may be ordered from: Professional Plant Growers Association, P.O. Box 27517 Lansing, Michigan 48909-0517 (800) 647-PPGA fax (517) 694-8560 Costs are: Member $29.95 (shipping/handling excluded) Non-member $49.95 Video includes one employee booklet (24 page) English #48-04E Spanish #48-04S Order forms are available on request. Additional Booklets are available for a charge. State Lead Agencies were offered the opportunity to purchase videos at the member rate. State Extension Offices should inquire if the discount may apply to them as well. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Jan 30 11:48:11 1995 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id LAA25146 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 11:48:10 -0800 From: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 14:30:31 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 14:45:37 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Coverage in Crop Protection Manager More WPS Media Coverage and WPS Advise to Growers If you have the chance, check out the latest (January 1995) edition of Crop Protection Manager. The "Plowing Through Government Regulations" Midwest Edition has a couple articles on WPS compliance, including a PPE compliance article, their own Quick Reference Guide, and several quotes from State regulators (Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri) on inspection policies for 1995. Of particular interest and some concern to me is the first article down playing any probabilities of growers being inspected for compliance. They have calculated that the chance of a farm operation being inspected for WPS compliance (1 in 700) is nearly equal to the owner being killed or severely disabled in a machinery accident (1 in 800), and far less than being audited by the IRS (1 in 100). Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 From wcoli@coopext.umass.edu Tue Jan 31 06:24:13 1995 Received: from pobox.oit.umass.edu (pobox.oit.umass.edu [128.119.166.150]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id GAA07219 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 06:24:11 -0800 Received: from twain.oit.umass.edu by pobox.oit.umass.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #6523) id <01HMHP5VGO2O001971@pobox.oit.umass.edu>; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 09:24:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (wcoli@localhost) by twain.oit.umass.edu (8.6.4/8.6.9) id IAA19204 for wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 08:06:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 08:06:42 -0500 (EST) From: WILLIAM M COLI Subject: Roger Lewis' Q/Roger Kaiser's Comment In-reply-to: <59D816540A4@admin.bas.ncsu.edu> from "Roger Lewis" at Jan 24, 95 05:18:00 am To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <199501311306.IAA19204@twain.oit.umass.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-length: 1611 In response to Roger Lewis' question concerning the accuracy of Roger Kaiser's 24 Jan comment, I offer the following. I have collected published information on actual pesticide residues on produce for several years. Unfortunately it is not accurate that 95-99% of analysis turn up "non-detect". Data I have seen from Federal, State (Mass), and Research (Conn Agr. Expt. Stat.) reports typically indicates that about 50% of samples contain no detectable pesticide residues. The majority of the remainder typically have residues of 1 or more pesticides, although normally at orders of magnitude below allowed tolerances. Usually, only a small percent (0.5-1.5) contain violative residues, usually because no tolerance currently exists. For example, in data from Connecticut Drs. Hanken and Pylypiw continue to find DDT and its metabolite DDE, for which there are no tolerances. I interpret these data to indicate that the US food supply is indeed safe, because I accept the premise that the "dose makes the poison". However we need to be aware that many non scientists have no understanding about the concept of "parts per million", and have been frightened into believing that any residue is too much. Refer to Bruse Ames' paper on the relative risk of "synthetic" vs "natural" carcenogens for useful information. Bill Coli -- WILLIAM M. COLI EXTENSION SPECIALIST/IPM COORDINATOR ADJUNCT LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY BOX 30210 PHONE: (413)545-1051 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS FAX: (413)545-5858 AMHERST MA 01003-0210 email wcoli@coopext.umass.edu From gtingos@rain.org Tue Jan 31 07:24:14 1995 Received: from coyote.rain.org (gtingos@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id HAA07673 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 07:24:13 -0800 Received: by coyote.rain.org(8.6.9/RAIN-1.0) with id HAA12266 for on Tue, 31 Jan 1995 07:20:11 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 07:20:10 -0800 (PST) From: Guy Tingos To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS posting requirements Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII WPS requirements specify that required information regarding pesticide use "shall be displayed in a central location on the farm ... where it can be readily seen and read by workers". After talking with local growers and commercial pest control operators about practical problems they forsee, I'm interested in ideas from growers, PCOs, extension personnel, etc., about how growers are or will be complying with this. For instance, is it necessary to post records at the field? Must they be kept in any logical order? How often must they be updated? Can records be maintained at a ranch headquarters so a worker can obtain help and be assured of getting the actual information he or she needs? I look forward to hearing from anyone with suggestions on the subject. Joe Karl Agricultural Commissioners Office Santa Barbara County, CA gtingos@rain.org From woodard@igc.apc.org Tue Jan 31 14:38:39 1995 Received: from mail.igc.apc.org (root@mail.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.38]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA17196 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 14:38:38 -0800 Received: from igc2.igc.apc.org (igc2.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.39]) by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.57 ) with SMTP id OAA04617 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 14:39:32 -0800 Received: from ppp11.igc.org (ppp11.igc.org [198.94.6.11]) by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.7 ) with SMTP id OAA13059 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 14:39:26 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 14:39:26 -0800 Message-Id: <199501312239.OAA13059@igc2.igc.apc.org> X-Sender: woodard@igc.apc.org (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: woodard@igc.apc.org (Woody) Subject: Re: WPS posting requirements I think the spirit of the central posting requirements is to provide workers with a 'guaranteeably' accessible source of information regarding potential contamination. If a worker were to find him/herself becoming sick after hours, or the farm management could not be reached, or they didn't feel comfortable asking farm management, and they could not remember what the grower 'orally told them' what was being applied where, they would be able to go to the central posting and find what pesticides they may have been exposed to. Joe Karl says: > >After talking with local growers and commercial pest control operators >about practical problems they forsee, I'm interested in ideas from >growers, PCOs, extension personnel, etc., about how growers are or will >be complying with this. For instance, is it necessary to post records at >the field? Must they be kept in any logical order? How often must they >be updated? Can records be maintained at a ranch headquarters so a >worker can obtain help and be assured of getting the actual information >he or she needs? Not meaning to flame, but most of these questions can be answered by a thorough reading of the EPA How to comply manual - see the archives of this group for many different sources, I beleive the full text is in the archives as well. Posting records at the field: Required if stated on the pesticide label, otherwise, the grower has the option of either orally informing workers, or posting each field with the sign (in either case, the central posting is still applicable) - see the how to comply manual. As far as the central posting itself, there are a number of variations. The most common I've seen is a three-ring binder nailed to a bulletin board containing the re-entry postings (these are required to be in place 'prior to the start of' each application). As sprays are performed, the information is added to the front of the binder. When the 30 day posting has expired, the old forms are removed from the binder. State enforcement officials seem to approve, and even promote, this type of re-entry posting. Similarly, there are several 'notebook' leaflet like things that are available from different sources that have blocks for recording the information, and the grower will nail this book up, and just write the applications in as needed. Some growers who don't have many sprays to perform actualy use a huge bulletin board, but space really becomes an issue, especially when you add the WPS poster, the OSHA poster, the sexual harassment poster, the MSDS sheets, and any others required (in multi-lingual formats I might add). As for accessibility of the central posting, many growers have found with outdoor bulletin boards that dew and rain and wind tend to make the posters/re-entry sheets wet, soggy, missing, and hard to read. Our state enforcement personnel have stated that the posting may be located in the central farm office that will likely be locked up at night, provided that a contact phone number is displayed on the door. This seemed to meet the 'accessibility' requirement. What about growers without central farm offices? The ones that I've seen have adopted a briefcase in which all the wps related stuff goes. The workers generally ride in the same pickup as the manager, and he shows them the briefcase and allows them access, and they have his phone number for after-hours access. I think this may get a little sticky, but I'd be interested to see anyone else's solutions. On a related note - I promise, I'm almost done - I saw an interesting solution to the training problem, in which a grower has installed VCR and TV monitors to show the EPA training video in the busses that the workers ride on the way to the fields. The 'train the trainer' educated/designated trainer would ask for questions when the workers got to the field. There was a question, however, about the trainer not being present during the video display (I guess he rode in a pickup in front of the busses). I thought that was a pretty good idea though. /*************************************************************************** ******************/ Jeff Woodard Glades Crop Care voice: 407-746-3740 949 Turner Quay fax: 407-746-3775 Jupiter, FL 33478 e-mail: woodard@igc.apc.org - jwoodard@crl.nmsu.edu - woody@taipan.nmsu.edu woody@ios.com woody0@aol.com Life is nothing but a null pointer followed by a core dump. -My opinions are my own- /*************************************************************************** ******************/ From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Jan 31 19:59:52 1995 Received: from dub-img-2.compuserve.com (dub-img-2.compuserve.com [198.4.9.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id TAA27948 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 19:59:46 -0800 Received: by dub-img-2.compuserve.com (8.6.9/5.941228sam) id WAA00924; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 22:45:03 -0500 Date: 31 Jan 95 22:41:00 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: wps-forum Subject: hazard communication/Enforcement Message-ID: <950201034100_73507.555_HHB95-1@CompuServe.COM> Joe, Did you see the WPS slide show with the illustration of "the farm" with the little white house, the big red barn and the corn field? This is, I believe, the U.S. EPA's idea of a farm. As you know, many "agricultural establishments" have no improved facilities, they are just fields and perhaps an equipment yard. I am thinking that the central location may be the business office of the farming operation. This is of course where California growers are now required to keep their pesticide application records for two years and make them available to workers. They would just have to move a file cabinet out into the lobby where it can be "displayed." They would not have to be kept in any order, as California requires, and they would only have to keep them for 30 days past the REI. Perhaps they could have a five drawer filing cabinet where the records are placed in the first drawer for a week, then the second and so on, until they get back to the first drawer. Then they can discard those records and start again. I hope the California hazard communication system gains equivalency to the WPS because it is actually far superior. ; Tue, 31 Jan 1995 22:42:18 -0800 From: k.underwood@genie.geis.com Received: by relay2.geis.com (1.37.109.11/15.6) id AA007570905; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 06:41:45 GMT Message-Id: <199502010641.AA007570905@relay2.geis.com> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 06:31:00 UTC To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS posting requirements X-Genie-Id: 8275740 X-Genie-From: K.UNDERWOOD As a grower, I forsee a problem of immediate posting as it is hard for me to make this happen that fast, however I can see no reason for the posting not to take place with in 24 hours of an application as the grower should be updating his/her records, so there should be no reason for the central posting area not to be updated at that time. Posting records at the field is important, but mind you, very time consuming in some cases depending on the size of the operations and the number of different areas that are used as centralized locations for each ranch or operation. If the employee is injured due to a pesticide, then he/she is able to get the necessary information and what to do to midigate any reactions at that time or what treatment they should seek, rather than chasing down a office worker or the operator who is off in another area of the operation or in town on errands. Logical order? I am assuming you are talking about cronological order, yes. There should be a date/time order for each field or block that was treated so that the individual can verify what was done and if nothing then, seek other remedies to his illness or effects that are of concern to him/them. Updates should cover current or most recient applications that still are possible contaminates. However, once a period of time, as stated on the label has passed, for the chemical to become nontoxic to the worker then that should be removed from the report. Most of this is common sence. Being a small grower, having records available at my office is convient for me, but not for my employees, as I am not available at my office 90% of the time. Therefore, centralized posting would be the best format for this issue for me. Updated no later than 24 hours after the applications, cronologically and in field/block order as per application and safety measures required. Keith Underwood Orchardist, Central Washington K.Underwood@genie.geis.com