From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Feb 1 12:29:27 1996 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA23773 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 12:29:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 01 Feb 1996 14:43:39 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 12:50:41 -0500 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: WPS - Rose Exception Deadline Nears Just as a reminder, the Rose Exception applicable to early entry access to areas under the REI EXPIRES THIS YEAR ON JUNE 10, 1996. If you will recall, the Rose Exception was published in the Federal Register and became effective on June 10, 1994, and was limited to a 2 year period only. Therefore, all conditions of this particular Exception WILL EXPIRE this year unless rose growers re-approach the U.S. EPA for an extension and provide justification for such. To my knowledge, an extension or new petition has not been submitted. As the time of expiration nears this year, inspectors and the regulated community should be reminded of the need for full compliance with the normal early entry requirements after June 10. We have copies of 1994 released U.S. EPA fact sheet and Q&A on this particular exception. Employers taking advantage of this Exception are required to post information and orally notify workers about the terms and conditions of the Exception. We have copies of the Roses Inc. Exception poster. If you desire copies again of these materials, please notify us. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 From AgLine@aol.com Thu Feb 1 13:09:39 1996 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com (mail02.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.66]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA25857 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:09:37 -0800 (PST) From: AgLine@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27883 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 16:09:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 16:09:33 -0500 Message-ID: <960201160932_309457794@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Spanish translator program I also use Power Translator, but it isn't very good. The best translation is by somebody who knows what they are doing. I can name a few if you would like. Jim Moore Editor Productores de Hortalizas From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Feb 1 13:29:11 1996 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA26615 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:29:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 01 Feb 1996 14:48:21 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 13:08:20 -0500 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: WPS Immediate Training Pocket Pamphlets We have received word last week from U.S. EPA HQ that they have available for distribution to the EPA Regions, and subsequently to the States, printed copies of the WPS Pocket Immediate Pesticide Safety Training pamphlets in several other languages. Besides the English/Spanish and English/Cambodian versions mailed to some States earlier (last November) from the EPA Regions, EPA HQ will also mail to the Regions copies of English/Haitian (Creole), English/Laotian, and English/Vietnamese. At this time, there is no intent to print this pre-training guide in any other languages. Remember, that NOW (effective Jan. 1, 1996) agricultural employers must provide to workers immediate training in basic pesticide safety BEFORE entry into fields previously treated with pesticides (within the last 30 days). Full training must be provided with 5 days of workers entry into previously treated areas. These requirements were the result of the May 3, 1995 amendments to the WPS. Don Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 *********************************** From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Fri Feb 2 09:46:45 1996 Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (root@franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA17967 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 09:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4.3) id JAA13188; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 09:47:06 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 09:47:06 -0800 Message-Id: <199602021747.JAA13188@franc.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Gregorio Billikopf-Encina Subject: Re: Spanish translator program Cc: ag-hrnet@ucdavis.edu Margaret Tucker 08:40 PM 1/25/96 EST, you wrote: >Is anyone aware of a good computer program for translating from English to >Spanish? First the warning. Translation programs help reduce translation time by about a third BUT DO NOT result in correct translations in themselves. Bilingual users with strong Spanish skills can take advantage of them. Otherwise, you will end up with translations like this: ENGLISH: "DANGER: to see how fast the current is flowing throw a leaf into the water." SPANISH: "DANGER: to see how fast the current is flowing throw yourself as if you were a leaf into the water." I have used FINAL SOFT (r) that came out in 1989. It works fine but would not mind a couple of more recent and more powerful program recommendations myself, so please let me know what you find. Best wishes, Gregorio ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ******************************************** From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Fri Feb 2 09:46:54 1996 Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (root@franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA17974 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 09:46:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4.3) id JAA13201; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 09:47:10 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 09:47:10 -0800 Message-Id: <199602021747.JAA13201@franc.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Gregorio Billikopf-Encina Subject: Re: Spanish translator program It is true that Jim Moore found the best translators! I congratulate him on the Spanish used in his excellent publication, _Productores de Hortalizas_. Gregorio ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ******************************************** From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Fri Feb 2 13:05:28 1996 Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu (root@guilder.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.181]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA24373 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:05:26 -0800 (PST) From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4.3) id NAA08444; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:05:43 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:05:43 -0800 Message-Id: <199602022105.NAA08444@guilder.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: news from fresno Cc: cefresno@ucdavis.edu This is Steve Sutter, UC Area Farm Advisor ... I had a chance to audit a Spanish WPS fieldworker training. A friend translated the worker's questions and the instructor's responses. ... I had to "intervene" when the "qualified" trainer failed to answer a worker's concern about seeing an application in an UNPOSTED field adjacent to the one he was working in. ... I explained some pesticide labels don't require posting ... generally posting's required for pesticides with high dermal toxicity or potential for skin irritation. ... The training, at a labor camp on Saturday, took about an hour. ... I trusted everyone knew that federal regulations specify that employees' required attendance at job-related safety meetings counts as paid working time (US Department of Labor Pub. WH 1312, p. 8). ... "Fresno Clear." From 73507.555@compuserve.com Sat Feb 3 19:47:28 1996 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA16858 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 19:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id WAA17674; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 22:47:21 -0500 Date: 03 Feb 96 22:45:34 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: "'WPS-Forum'" Subject: Rose Harvest Exception Message-ID: <960204034533_73507.555_HHB28-1@CompuServe.COM> Don, Thanks for the reminder. This exception is obviously important to the industry. I am wondering if the flower growers are preparing a request. I am also wondering how quickly the U.S. EPA will act on the request, presuming they will receive it. The expiration date is barely over 4 months away. Having once obtained the exemption, what information is required for a reissuance? Will the exemption again be for a period of 2 years? Could it be longer or will it become permanent? It does not seem right to make an industry present on bended knee every couple of years if the exemption is allowing them to avoid major difficulties and workers are not being harmed by it. Have any illnesses or injuries been reported as a result of this practice? If you support this exemption, buy your loved one a dozen roses this Valentines Day and make sure they were grown in the U.S. Bob Roach >Just as a reminder, the Rose Exception applicable to early entry >access to areas under the REI EXPIRES THIS YEAR ON JUNE 10, 1996. If >you will recall, the Rose Exception was published in the Federal >Register and became effective on June 10, 1994, and was limited to a >2 year period only. Therefore, all conditions of this particular >Exception WILL EXPIRE this year unless rose growers re-approach the >U.S. EPA for an extension and provide justification for such. From dana@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Feb 6 12:05:51 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.120] (gia215a.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.120]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA21900 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:05:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:09:43 -0800 To: wps-forum From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) Subject: WPS Update Brief Note from Dana Keil, Mailing List Manager, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley: I am re-sending the following which is the text of a message to the forum from DONALD BAUMGARTNER sent yesterday. The message was incorrectly rejected by the automated mailing list software. As manager of the mailing lists, I would like to apologize to Donald Baumgartner and all list subscribers for the rude behavior of the listproc software. I have spoken to it severely and it promises not to be so rude next time. ------re-sent text below---------------------------------------- Recently, several States have inquired to the EPA Regional offices as to the status of the last WPS proposed changes (sign and decontamination) which were formerlly published in the Federal Register (FR) September 1995 with the comment period ending on November 13. Subsequent to the comment closure, in November and early December several EPA Regions participated in three EPA Workgroup conference calls among several Branches at HQ and with several other EPA Regions to review the comments received and attempt to reach an Agency decision. This proved somewhat difficult since the number of comments received were low (29 for sign & 13 for decontamination) and more or less split among positions relative to these proposals. Initially, before the Government shutdowns and furloughs, both proposed changes were on a fast track for completion, with final decisions on both initially projected for publication in early February 1996. Of course, that has been delayed. As of last week, EPA HQ has drafted the Agency decisions for final review by the Workgroup for this week, and then on to Upper Management at EPA for review and signature. Then, both WPS amendments must be forwarded to USDA and OMB for a 3-4 week review before final changes are incorporated and they are published in the FR. A new release date has not been decided, but a projection to March at the earliest seems prudent. We CANNOT publically release any decisions until after the OMB and USDA reviews. We are presently working with EPA HQ to coordinate and plan a series of Public Meetings on the WPS which are to be scheduled for this Spring to Summer. A "Scope" paper on the purpose and projected agenda of these Public Meetings is being finalized this week, with comments from the Regions, and this will be distributed to the States and other interested parties in the near future. These Meetings are being given a high priority by EPA HQ, with Assistant Administrator Ms. Lynn Goldman and/or each EPA Regional Administrator expected to attend these Meetings. The 12 Meetings will be held Nationwide begining this February 19 in Florida, with the goal of obtaining a general feeling of awareness and comprehension, and hear of problems about the WPS now after a full year of implementation. The Agency is also utilizing these Meetings as an "evaluation tool" for the WPS. The Meetings are NOT intended to address specific field enforcement questions (although these may be addressed after the meetings upon the descretion of the participating States and EPA Regional offices) or to re-open the Rule. The Agency desires to attract to these Meetings agricultural workers/handlers, growers, and organized grower/worker advocate associations. Of course, States agencies and others are welcome and encouraged to attend as well. The specific States for these Meetings have been selected and are intended to be announced publically in the FR. EPA is now working now with specific State Departments of Agricultures to fine-tune the precise locations within the States and dates. AFOP AmeriCorps trainers providing WPS training throughout the Nation will continue this year using Federal dollars remaining from FY '95. A complete list of States (12) in which AmeriCorp is active and the State contacts is available from EPA HQ at 703/305-7666. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 From HORTON.JANE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Feb 6 12:44:10 1996 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA23403 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:43:58 -0800 (PST) From: HORTON.JANE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA24111; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:42:53 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA823650050; Tue, 06 Feb 96 15:32:35 EST Date: Tue, 06 Feb 96 15:32:35 EST Message-Id: <9601068236.AA823650050@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: WPS Update Brief On February 6, Region 4 and EPA HQ were still uncertain about a date for the first WPS public meeting to be held in Florida. At this time, the meeting is tentatively scheduled for February 22, but we do not have firm confirmation from some parties for this date or a location. I intend to notify the WPS Forum when the dates and locations for meetings planned in Florida and Mississippi are scheduled. Jane Horton Region 4 404/347-3555 ext. 6975 ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: WPS Update Brief Author: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU at IN Date: 2.6.96 3:16 Received: by ccmail from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov From owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Envelope-From: owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Received: from are.Berkeley.EDU by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA22867; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:17:47 -0500 Received: from host (localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA21977; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.32.251.120] (gia215a.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.120]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA21900 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:05:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:09:43 -0800 Reply-To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Sender: owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Precedence: bulk From: dana@are.Berkeley.EDU (Dana E. Keil) To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Update Brief Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN Note from Dana Keil, Mailing List Manager, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley: I am re-sending the following which is the text of a message to the forum from DONALD BAUMGARTNER sent yesterday. The message was incorrectly rejected by the automated mailing list software. As manager of the mailing lists, I would like to apologize to Donald Baumgartner and all list subscribers for the rude behavior of the listproc software. I have spoken to it severely and it promises not to be so rude next time. ------re-sent text below---------------------------------------- Recently, several States have inquired to the EPA Regional offices as to the status of the last WPS proposed changes (sign and decontamination) which were formerlly published in the Federal Register (FR) September 1995 with the comment period ending on November 13. Subsequent to the comment closure, in November and early December several EPA Regions participated in three EPA Workgroup conference calls among several Branches at HQ and with several other EPA Regions to review the comments received and attempt to reach an Agency decision. This proved somewhat difficult since the number of comments received were low (29 for sign & 13 for decontamination) and more or less split among positions relative to these proposals. Initially, before the Government shutdowns and furloughs, both proposed changes were on a fast track for completion, with final decisions on both initially projected for publication in early February 1996. Of course, that has been delayed. As of last week, EPA HQ has drafted the Agency decisions for final review by the Workgroup for this week, and then on to Upper Management at EPA for review and signature. Then, both WPS amendments must be forwarded to USDA and OMB for a 3-4 week review before final changes are incorporated and they are published in the FR. A new release date has not been decided, but a projection to March at the earliest seems prudent. We CANNOT publically release any decisions until after the OMB and USDA reviews. We are presently working with EPA HQ to coordinate and plan a series of Public Meetings on the WPS which are to be scheduled for this Spring to Summer. A "Scope" paper on the purpose and projected agenda of these Public Meetings is being finalized this week, with comments from the Regions, and this will be distributed to the States and other interested parties in the near future. These Meetings are being given a high priority by EPA HQ, with Assistant Administrator Ms. Lynn Goldman and/or each EPA Regional Administrator expected to attend these Meetings. The 12 Meetings will be held Nationwide begining this February 19 in Florida, with the goal of obtaining a general feeling of awareness and comprehension, and hear of problems about the WPS now after a full year of implementation. The Agency is also utilizing these Meetings as an "evaluation tool" for the WPS. The Meetings are NOT intended to address specific field enforcement questions (although these may be addressed after the meetings upon the descretion of the participating States and EPA Regional offices) or to re-open the Rule. The Agency desires to attract to these Meetings agricultural workers/handlers, growers, and organized grower/worker advocate associations. Of course, States agencies and others are welcome and encouraged to attend as well. The specific States for these Meetings have been selected and are intended to be announced publically in the FR. EPA is now working now with specific State Departments of Agricultures to fine-tune the precise locations within the States and dates. AFOP AmeriCorps trainers providing WPS training throughout the Nation will continue this year using Federal dollars remaining from FY '95. A complete list of States (12) in which AmeriCorp is active and the State contacts is available from EPA HQ at 703/305-7666. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Feb 6 14:44:06 1996 Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV (arthur.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.29]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA29816 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 14:43:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 06 Feb 1996 17:45:16 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 14:11:36 -0500 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: WPS Update Brief Recently, several States have inquired to the EPA Regional offices as to the status of the last WPS proposed changes (sign and decontamination) which were formerlly published in the Federal Register (FR) September 1995 with the comment period ending on November 13. I now provide you with an update to this and other WPS happenings. Subsequent to the comment closure, in November and early December several EPA Regions participated in three EPA Workgroup conference calls among several Branches at HQ and with several other EPA Regions to review the comments received and attempt to reach an Agency decision. This proved somewhat difficult since the number of comments received were low (29 for sign & 13 for decontamination) and more or less split among positions relative to these proposals. Initially, before the Government shutdowns and furloughs, both proposed changes were on a fast track for completion, with final decisions on both initially projected for publication in early February 1996. Of course, that has been delayed. As of last week, EPA HQ has drafted the Agency decisions for final review by the Workgroup for this week, and then on to Upper Management at EPA for review and signature. Then, both WPS amendments must be forwarded to USDA and OMB for a 3-4 week review before final changes are incorporated and they are published in the FR. A new release date has not been decided, but a projection to March at the earliest seems prudent. We CANNOT publically release any decisions until after the OMB and USDA reviews. We are presently working with EPA HQ to coordinate and plan a series of Public Meetings on the WPS which are to be scheduled for this Spring to Summer. A "Scope" paper on the purpose and projected agenda of these Public Meetings is being finalized this week, with comments from the Regions, and this will be distributed to the States and other interested parties in the near future. These Meetings are being given a high priority by EPA HQ, with Assistant Administrator Ms. Lynn Goldman and/or each EPA Regional Administrator expected to attend these Meetings. The 12 Meetings will be held Nationwide begining this February 19 in Florida, with the goal of obtaining a general feeling of awareness and comprehension, and hear of problems about the WPS now after a full year of implementation. The Agency is also utilizing these Meetings as an "evaluation tool" for the WPS. The Meetings are NOT intended to address specific field enforcement questions (although these may be addressed after the meetings upon the descretion of the participating States and EPA Regional offices) or to re-open the Rule. The Agency desires to attract to these Meetings agricultural workers/handlers, growers, and organized grower/worker advocate associations. Of course, States agencies and others are welcome and encouraged to attend as well. The specific States for these Meetings have been selected and are intended to be announced publically in the FR. EPA is now working now with specific State Departments of Agricultures to fine-tune the precise locations within the States and dates. AFOP AmeriCorps trainers providing WPS training throughout the Nation will continue this year using Federal dollars remaining from FY '95. A complete list of States (12) in which AmeriCorp is active and the State contacts is available from EPA HQ at 703/305-7666. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 From RDSHS@aol.com Tue Feb 6 16:06:07 1996 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA04117 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 16:06:05 -0800 (PST) From: RDSHS@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27818 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:06:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:06:02 -0500 Message-ID: <960206190601_215765290@mail04.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Rose Exception Deadline Nears? or Passed? In EPA's letter of August 11, 1994, to Mr. James Krone, Executive Director, Roses Incorporated, the Agency (at Roses, Inc.'s request) very clearly outlined the data requirements necessary to extend a REI Exception to the WPS Rule which expires JUNE 10, 1996. Compliance responsibility defined by EPA and agreed to by the rose industry is in the three following areas: "I. Worker Dermal Exposure Monitoring. II. Foliar Residues. III. Efficacy of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) studies." My analysis of the detail outlined in those data requirements added up to 135 different questions to be answered. In the eight page EPA letter, the Agency also provided estimated time frames in order for the rose industry to plan their workload in order to meet deadlines prior to the end of the expiration of the Exception on JUNE 10, 1996. They are restated as follows: "V. Time Required for Study 2 Months - Protocol Dev.- Choosing Pesticides for Study, Sites, Prefield Analytical Prep. 3 Months - Protocol Review - Meeting with Industry, Revising Protocol 2 Months - Collect Field Data 2 Months - Analyze Samples 2 Months - Analyze Data/Write Report/Submit to EPA 4 Months - (EPA) - Review Data 2 Months (EPA) - Summarize Exposure/Risk 18 Months - Total Time" When I initially analyzed this guidance document, I did not miss the key point that the Agency included in the "V. Time Required for Study" their participation in the form of the last two items: "4 Months - (EPA) - Review Data 2 Months (EPA) - Summarize Exposure/Risk" If you subtract 6 months from June 10, 1996, you get December 10, 1995. Can the rose industry assume that EPA will now review these data, summarize exposure, and do a risk assessment in 4 months or less? Or, has EPA reduced it's requirements since the August 11, 1994 letter? After suffering through the August 1992 EPA cancellation of a key rose fungicide, I personally contacted every single California rose grower to inform them that they needed to make a business decision: to generate the data in a timely fashion, or live with the labeled REI's (consequences). Is it possible that the mere presence of Mr. Baumgartner's WPS Forum notice "Rose Exception Deadline Nears" tells the tale that the rose industry has already made their decision? From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Thu Feb 8 08:21:47 1996 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA20028 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 08:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from @gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.6.5/1.37) id LAA27043; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 11:16:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 11:16:00 -0500 Message-Id: <199602081616.LAA27043@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Sender: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Tammy Gould) Subject: Maine Opts Out of Training Verification Program Effective January 1, the Maine Board of Pesticides Control (BPC) ended the EPA Training Verification Card Program in Maine. After a review of last summer's training activities, we concluded the benefits no longer ourweighed the burdens of administering this program. In an October 31, 1995 letter to Kevin Keaney, EPA, HQ, we stated our reasons for leaving the program. "Two things have become apparent about the training verification program and have led us to this decision. First, for the program to have any accountability and reliability, the amount of work needed to be done by a State Lead Agency exceeds the benefits of providing the program in the state. Adequate assurances about card distribution and training quality must be provided for grower acceptance of the program. The task of providing these assurances falls on the State Lead Agency and we have found this to be burdensome. Second, training records returned to our office reveal trained, card-bearing workers being retrained and issued a second training verification cards withing a matter of days. One of the purposes of the training verification program was to minimize the need for retraining. We do not find the program meeting its intended purpose." As part of the Maine program, all training records were returned to our office and the BPC is committed to retain those records for five years. Trainers using cards in Maine have been contacted and unused cards are being returned. We already know that all cards issued to trainers will not be accounted for. We will be returning all cards to EPA by March 1 and providing them a list of missing, lost, and unaccounted for card numbers. We are advising growers in Maine to continue to accept valid EPA Training Verification card issued in Maine or other states as proof of training and to continue to use the training services of people who have completed the Maine Train-the-Trainer program. One attractive aspect to the EPA Training Verification Program was the documentation of training with cards. As an alternative, we are offering Maine Worker and Handler Training Certificates which growers can use in place of the EPA cards. It is a perforated coupon-like card containing on each section the employee's name and signature, employer's name, instructor's name, and date of training. One section is given to the worker or handler; the other section can be attached to the employer's records. These certificates are not numbered and do not request an identification number. No records are sent to the BPC office when using the Maine certificates; growers are responsible for their own records. Any State Lead Agency or other group interested in obtaining sample Maine Worker and Handler Training Certificates should call me at 207-287-7593 or email me at aftgoul@state.me.us. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Feb 9 16:31:54 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.90] (gia5mac10.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.90]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA07836 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 16:31:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 16:32:35 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: EPA announcement of public meetings on WPS [received today from epa-press list] FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 EPA PLANS PUBLIC MEETINGS ON WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD EPA will hold a series of public meetings around the country to assess the first full year of implementation of new regulations designed to protect the health of more than 3.5 million agricultural workers who are exposed to pesticides on the job. The regulations, known as Worker Protection Standard (WPS), specify minimum pesticide safety training, information exchange and other safeguards for workers who mix, handle or use pesticides, or who may come into contact with pesticides while working on farms or in forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The public meetings will provide an opportunity for both workers and employers to relay actual experiences and "lessons learned" in the course of WPS implementation. The information will be used by EPA and cooperating state officials and organizations to improve WPS administration. The first meeting will be held on Feb. 22 in Winter Haven, Florida in the Nora May Hall at the Florida Citrus Building, 500 3rd St., N.W. Persons who wish to speak at the meeting may register onsite beginning at 5 p.m. EPA will open the meeting with brief introductory comments at 7 p.m. and then invite those who have registered to present their comments. Persons who cannot attend the public meeting but wish to comment may do so by submitting written comments to: Jeanne Haying, Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C), U.S. EPA, 401 M St.,S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone: 703-305-7164; fax: 703-308-2962. Additional meetings will be held from April through September in Mississippi, Washington, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Indiana, California, Puerto Rico and the Washington, D.C. area. More details on locations and dates will be announced later. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Feb 16 11:44:34 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.90] (gia5mac10.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.90]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA09523 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:44:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:44:49 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: more on EPA public meetings about WPS The announcement below is from a notice published in today's Federal Register. It has a little more information than last week's press release about the upcoming public meetings on WPS implementation. --Howard ================================================================== [Federal Register: February 16, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 33)] [Page 6243-6244] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP-00427; FRL-5351-2] Worker Protection Standard; Notice of Public Meetings AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: EPA intends to hold public meetings to solicit feedback from workers, owners, and all other interested individuals and groups on regulations designed to protect the health of 3.5 million agricultural workers from pesticide exposure. The meetings will be held at the following locations: California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Washington. The first meeting is scheduled for February 22, 1996, in Winter Haven, Florida. The meetings will serve as one of the initial steps taken by EPA as part of its stated commitment to continually monitor and evaluate the impact and performance of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) program. The public meetings are designed to provide an opportunity for agricultural workers and owners and all of those directly affected by WPS to relay their actual experiences and give their perceptions concerning its first full year of implementation. By reaching out to those on the frontlines and for whom these regulations are intended to provide public health protection, EPA will better understand how the program is working and where meaningful improvements should be made. DATE AND ADDRESS: The first meeting will be held on February 22, 1996, at the Florida Citrus Building, Nora Mayo Hall, 500 3rd St., NW., Winter Haven, Florida. Registration will begin at 5 p.m. and the public meeting will begin at 7 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Heying, Mail Code 7506C, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (703) 305-7164 or your EPA WPS contact in regions hosting public meetings. Puerto Rico meeting: Fred Kozak, EPA Region 2, (908) 321-6769. Pennsylvania and Washington, DC meetings: Magda Hunt, EPA Region 3, (215) 597-0442. Florida and Mississippi meetings: Jane Horton, EPA Region 4, (404) 347-3555. Indiana meeting: Don Baumgartner, EPA Region 5, (312) 886-7835. Texas meeting: Jerry Oglesby, EPA Region 6, (214) 665-7563. Missouri meeting: Kathleen Fenton, EPA Region 7, (913) 551-7874. California meeting: Don Wood, EPA Region 9, (415) 744-1114. Washington meeting: Allan Welch, EPA Region 10, (206) 553-1980. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In 1992, EPA issued final regulations governing the protection of employees on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses from occupational exposure to agricultural pesticides. The WPS covers both workers in areas treated with pesticides, and employees who handle (mix, load, apply, etc.) pesticides. More specifically, the provisions of the Standard are intended to: Inform employees about the hazards of pesticides: * By requiring provisions for basic safety training, posting and distribution of information about the pesticides; and Eliminate exposure to pesticides: * By prohibiting against the application of pesticides in a way that would cause exposure to people, * By requiring time-limited restrictions for workers to return to areas following the application of pesticides, and * By requiring provisions for workers and handlers to wear proper protective clothing/equipment; and Mitigate exposures that occur: * By requiring arrangements for the supply of soap, water, and towels in the case of pesticide exposure; and * By requiring provisions for emergency assistance. II. Information Sought by EPA EPA believes that agricultural workers, handlers and growers are best able to provide unique insights on the effects of the WPS requirements. Their input will be supplemented by data generated from other sources during the course of EPA's longer-term evaluation effort. As a follow-up to the public meetings, EPA will develop a summary of information gained. These tools will be used to develop strategies for improving the administration of the WPS. The Agency is specifically interested in hearing public comment, or receiving written comment, on the following topics. 1. Available assistance from regulatory partners and others involved with the WPS. 2. Usefulness of available assistance. 3. Understanding WPS requirements. 4. Success in implementing the requirements. 5. Difficulties in implementing the requirements. 6. Suggestions to improve implementation. III. Registration to Make Comments Persons who wish to speak at the public meeting are encouraged to register at the meeting location. The Agency encourages parties to submit data to substantiate comments whenever possible. All comments, as well as information gathered at the public meetings will be available for public inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except legal holidays) at the Public Response and Program Resource Branch, Field Operations Division, Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Information submitted as part of any comment may be claimed as confidential by marking any or all of that information as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by the Agency without prior notice to the submitter. The Agency anticipates that most of the comments will not be classified as CBI, and prefers that all information submitted be publicly available. Any records or transcripts of the open meetings will be considered public information and cannot be declared CBI. IV. Structure of the Meeting EPA will open the meeting with brief introductory comments. EPA will then invite those parties who have registered to present their comments. EPA anticipates that each speaker will be permitted 5 minutes to make comments. After each speaker, Agency and state representatives may ask the presenter questions of clarification. The Agency reserves the right to adjust the time for presenters depending on the number of speakers. Members of the public are encouraged to submit written documentation to EPA at the meeting to ensure that their entire position goes on record in the event that time does not permit a complete oral presentation. Any information may be delivered to Jeanne Heying at the address stated earlier in this Notice. Dated: February 9, 1996. William L. Jordan, Director, Field Operations Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 96-3725 Filed 2-15-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From RDSHS@aol.com Fri Feb 16 15:37:40 1996 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA19477 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 15:37:36 -0800 (PST) From: RDSHS@aol.com Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07216 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:37:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 18:37:20 -0500 Message-ID: <960216183720_424482273@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: re. Rose Exception Deadline Nears Mr. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV In response to your posting of February 1, 1996 titled "Rose Exception Deadline Nears," I responded to the WPS-Forum with "Rose Exception Deadline Nears? or Passed? Tue, Feb 6, 1996. In that post, I philosophically posed a couple questions related to EPA position on this issue. In that EPA's handling of this Exception poses policy consequences for all of production agriculture, I am now formally asking the following questions of EPA related to your post: 1. Has EPA reduced it's requirements on the rose industry since the August 11, 1994 data requirement guidline letter to Roses, Inc.? 2. In that letter, EPA is requiring 6 months (four Months - EPA Review Data; two Months - Summarize Exposure/Risk) to review data. Has the rose industry already missed their deadline by not submitting data by December 10, 1995 as established by EPA? 3. If they have already missed their deadline, does that mean that there be no Exception after June 10, 1996? 4. Is EPA willing to review data and come to a conclusion as to data adequacy and risk assessment prior to June 10, 1996 if data are submitted May 10, 1996? 5. Is EPA willing to review data and come to that same conclusion as to adequacy and risk assessment prior to June 10, 1996 if data are submitted June 9, 1996? 6. By your statement in your post "All conditions of this particular Exception will expire this year UNLESS rose growers RE-APPROACH the U.S. EPA for an EXTENSION and provide justification for such." are you stating a formal enforcement position that the rose industry need not deliver any data by June 10, 1996 and still be able to obtain an extension to their Exception? Thank you for your interest in this issue. I look forward to your response. Reed Smith RDSHS@AOL.COM From norwong@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Feb 22 07:45:23 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.97] (gia5mac17.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.97]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA29836 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 07:45:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 07:51:55 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: norwong@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: WPS Meeting in Salinas, CA Error message received and resending for Bob Roach Subject: California WPS Implementation Regulations Workshop/Hearing Today the California Department of Pesticide Regulation came to Salinas to hold a workshop on the proposed regulations. Unfortunately, the U.S. EPA did not attend. About 50 people showed up in the rain to hear the new requirements explained and have their questions answered. DPR had an abbreviated but well-prepared presentation on the new requirements. They attempted to answer the many questions presented in the 2 hour workshop. Many of the questions were about providing notice of applications and application specific information. There were many concerns expressed about liability issues. After a lunch break, about a third of the attendees returned and only a few comments were presented for the official record. I know a few will be submitting written comments. The situation here is one of small ranches and lots. The labor situation is very dynamic and fast-moving. The WPS may fit well in major-crop producing areas but if there is any worst-case scenario for implementation, it must be the Central Coast. Many concerns were expressed about the logistics of providing notice to the multitude of labor contractors, harvest companies, PCOs, PCAs, etc. The situation is much more complex than anything the WPS was ever meant to cover. What it means is that field posting is the only effective way to provide the required notice. The dual-notice materials will present a particular problem. Some were concerned that if they notified their contractors and the contractors did not pass on the information to their employees, the grower could be held liable. Perhaps under the regulations they may have discharged their obligation, but what about when the lawyers get involved? Since absolute compliance is practically impossible, the requirements could provide leverage for litigious individuals. There was discussion about the "treated field" definition. It was pointed out that after about 30 days, many of the requirements fall away but that is not a factor in this environment. That a field could be considered treated after it was disked under was a concept few growers could appreciate. A few were concerned that the requirement to gove notice to all employees within 1/4 mile could open up a "can of worms." If neighboring residents find out about this requirement, they may insist on notification also. They may use it as a legal battering ram against growers. I spoke to one flower grower who is already being forced out of his location due to ag-urban interface problems. There was some discussion about what was a suitable central location for the purpose of displaying the application-specific information. What I got out of that was that it could be a central office located somewhere else than at one of the ranches, as long as the workers had free access to the information. Many ranches have no facilities, some have only an equipment yard. When labor contractors and other crews go to a ranch, they are pretty much restricted to their assigned field. The bus does not stop at any central location, it goes right to the field. Early reentry issues were another topic of interest, especially among nursery operators. A lettuce grower who needs to incorporate a soil-applied herbicide can train and equip the workers as applicators. Others cannot operate in this manner. Cut flower growers need to harvest some flowers twice or three times daily. They also have to apply fungicides regularly and these materials have REIs of 12 to 24 hours. If they apply a 12-hour material at night to be able to harvest the next day, they are only promoting more mildew by having the foliage wet at night. Some of the speakers questioned the basis for this requirement, citing the safety record of the industry. I spoke to one mushroom grower who was dismayed at now being defined as a "greenhouse." He will be forced to post the main doors of his facility with a sign that says "keep out," with a skull and crossbones. But the workers will still have to enter through those doors. How will they learn to respect the signs on the actual treated area? My concern is that this could follow the Law of Unintended Regulatory Consequences and result in a degradation of the California pesticide use enforcement program. That program has evolved over the last quarter of a century or more to meet the particular needs of the state. It is well accepted because it is fair and effective. The problem with a system with which it is practically impossible to comply and provides little evidence of increased protection, is that respect for the entire system will begin to erode. The regulatory personnel in the field will be put in a position that they have never been in before. If others on this forum attend any of the other California meetings, please post an account. I would also encourage U.S. EPA officials to attend. That agency is planning a round of public meetings to gather information on the implementation of WPS. Why not take advantage of the California meetings to gather some feedback? One meeting is not enough for this state anyway. Bob Roach From ams@cftnet.com Thu Feb 22 08:40:37 1996 Received: from renoir.cftnet.com (renoir.cftnet.com [163.125.1.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA01333 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 08:40:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from marc-s (ppp245_10.cftnet.com [163.125.245.10]) by renoir.cftnet.com (8.7.1/8.6.4) with SMTP id LAA18569 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:43:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:43:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602221643.LAA18569@renoir.cftnet.com> X-Sender: ams@cftnet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ams@cftnet.com (Marc Donovan) This is to announce a free version of our AMS pesticide record keeping software. This system, AMS Lite, generates spray orders, WPS central posting in English and Spanish, and provides detailed reports for RUP tracking. This is the same system as our full featured product with some features disabled. You may use the AMS Lite system free of charge, and you may copy it and pass it along to anyone else. What's the catch? We believe that once you try AMS Lite, you will want to get the full featured system. You will need a 386 or better DOS based computer with at least 4MB of RAM and 4MB of free disk space. If you would like a copy, just e-mail or call. We will send you a disk, or we can e-mail you a MIME encoded ZIP file that can be read with most mail programs. If you need a BinHex encoded file, please specify. You will need an unzip program to unzip the file. If you have problems installing, just call us. Commercial Computer Systems, Inc 8401 9th St. N. Suite E St Petersburg, FL 33701 Support (813)579-0000 Fax (813)576-3636 Email ams@cftnet.com From parkhort@teleport.com Thu Feb 22 09:53:52 1996 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA04010 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 09:53:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ip-pdx10-42.teleport.com (ip-pdx10-42.teleport.com [206.163.122.106]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA10366 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 09:53:36 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 09:53:36 -0800 Message-Id: <199602221753.JAA10366@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: parkhort@mail.teleport.com 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: parkhort@teleport.com (Portland Parks) Subject: Re: Please send a copy of your software to this email address. I believe Eudora can receive either kind of file. Thank you! John Reed, Portland Parks >This is to announce a free version of our AMS pesticide record keeping >software. This system, AMS Lite, generates spray orders, WPS central >posting in English and Spanish, and provides detailed reports for RUP >tracking. This is the same system as our full featured product with some >features disabled. > >You may use the AMS Lite system free of charge, and you may copy it and pass >it along to anyone else. > >What's the catch? We believe that once you try AMS Lite, you will want to >get the full featured system. > >You will need a 386 or better DOS based computer with at least 4MB of RAM >and 4MB of free disk space. > >If you would like a copy, just e-mail or call. We will send you a disk, or >we can e-mail you a MIME encoded ZIP file that can be read with most mail >programs. If you need a BinHex encoded file, please specify. You will need >an unzip program to unzip the file. If you have problems installing, just >call us. > > >Commercial Computer Systems, Inc >8401 9th St. N. Suite E >St Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Support (813)579-0000 >Fax (813)576-3636 >Email ams@cftnet.com > > > > > From ams@cftnet.com Thu Feb 22 10:36:16 1996 Received: from renoir.cftnet.com (renoir.cftnet.com [163.125.1.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA05684 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 10:36:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from marc-s (ppp238_6.cftnet.com [163.125.238.6]) by renoir.cftnet.com (8.7.1/8.6.4) with SMTP id NAA02905 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 13:39:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 13:39:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602221839.NAA02905@renoir.cftnet.com> X-Sender: ams@cftnet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ams@cftnet.com (Marc Donovan) Subject: Re: >Please send a copy of your software to this email address. I believe Eudora >can receive either kind of file. >Thank you! > >John Reed, Portland Parks > > The ZIP file is attached. From michelle.worosz@ssc.msu.edu Thu Feb 22 11:22:24 1996 Received: from ssc.msu.edu (ssc.msu.edu [35.8.65.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA07540 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:22:19 -0800 (PST) From: michelle.worosz@ssc.msu.edu Received: by ssc.msu.edu; Thu, 22 Feb 96 14:22:36 EST Date: Thu, 22 Feb 96 14:22:20 EST Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: re: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII please send me a copy of your software on a disk, thank you! michelle r. worosz michigan state university department of sociology 316 berkey hall east, lansing, mi 48840 517/355-5048 ams@cftnet.com (Marc Donovan) Wrote: | | This is to announce a free version of our AMS pesticide | record keeping | software. This system, AMS Lite, generates spray orders, | WPS central | posting in English and Spanish, and provides detailed | reports for RUP | tracking. This is the same system as our full featured | product with some | features disabled. | | You may use the AMS Lite system free of charge, and you | may copy it and pass | it along to anyone else. | | What's the catch? We believe that once you try AMS Lite, | you will want to | get the full featured system. | | You will need a 386 or better DOS based computer with at | least 4MB of RAM | and 4MB of free disk space. | | If you would like a copy, just e-mail or call. We will | send you a disk, or | we can e-mail you a MIME encoded ZIP file that can be read | with most mail | programs. If you need a BinHex encoded file, please | specify. You will need | an unzip program to unzip the file. If you have problems | installing, just | call us. | | | Commercial Computer Systems, Inc | 8401 9th St. N. Suite E | St Petersburg, FL 33701 | | Support (813)579-0000 | Fax (813)576-3636 | Email ams@cftnet.com | | | | | From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Feb 22 11:50:04 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.93] (gia5mac13.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.93]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA08533 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:50:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:50:21 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: maintaining a high signal to noise ratio While Marc Donovan's post describing his firm's pesticide record keeping software is of general interest, follow-up correspondence simply taking him up on his offer is probably best conducted off the forum list. To make sure that a request of him is not posted and delivered to everybody else, please copy or retype his e-mail address in the "TO" line of your message and avoid using the "reply" function. Thanks. --Howard From azbaameur@ucdavis.edu Thu Feb 22 15:26:25 1996 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA16209 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from cerfnet.com (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA11277 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:26:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:26:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199602222326.PAA11277@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szbaameu@peseta.ucdavis.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Aziz Baameur Subject: Re: Please send a free copy of your pesticide record keeping software, AMS Lite . > Thanks > > > > > > Aziz Baameur UCCE Riverside County 21150 Box Springs Rd. Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Ph: 909-683-6491 Ext 227 Fax: 909-788-2615 azbaameur@ucdavis.edu From claudio@queen.shiny.it Sat Feb 24 23:32:29 1996 Received: from queen.shiny.it (root@queen.shiny.it [194.20.235.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA10102 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 23:32:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from asy8.queen.shiny.it (asy8.queen.shiny.it [194.20.235.17]) by queen.shiny.it (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA12460 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 1996 11:30:51 GMT Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 11:30:51 GMT Message-Id: <199602251130.LAA12460@queen.shiny.it> X-Sender: claudio@queen.shiny.it X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: claudio di pietro Subject: Re: At 11.43 22/02/96 -0500, you wrote: >This is to announce a free version of our AMS pesticide record keeping >software. This system, AMS Lite, generates spray orders, WPS central >posting in English and Spanish, and provides detailed reports for RUP >tracking. This is the same system as our full featured product with some >features disabled. > >You may use the AMS Lite system free of charge, and you may copy it and pass >it along to anyone else. > >What's the catch? We believe that once you try AMS Lite, you will want to >get the full featured system. > >You will need a 386 or better DOS based computer with at least 4MB of RAM >and 4MB of free disk space. > >If you would like a copy, just e-mail or call. We will send you a disk, or >we can e-mail you a MIME encoded ZIP file that can be read with most mail >programs. If you need a BinHex encoded file, please specify. You will need >an unzip program to unzip the file. If you have problems installing, just >call us. > > >Commercial Computer Systems, Inc >8401 9th St. N. Suite E >St Petersburg, FL 33701 > >Support (813)579-0000 >Fax (813)576-3636 >Email ams@cftnet.com > > > > >Please, can You send me a disk of your AMS program? The download is aborted and the program is been damaged. My postal address is Claudio Di Pietro Via F. Rabbi 21 47100 FORLI' ITALY NB: I can bear the postal charges. Regards Claudio Di Pietro From claudio@queen.shiny.it Mon Feb 26 10:41:49 1996 Received: from queen.shiny.it (root@queen.shiny.it [194.20.235.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA18901 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:41:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from asy7.queen.shiny.it (asy7.queen.shiny.it [194.20.235.16]) by queen.shiny.it (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA24090 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 22:13:47 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 22:13:47 GMT Message-Id: <199602262213.WAA24090@queen.shiny.it> X-Sender: claudio@queen.shiny.it X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: claudio di pietro Subject: Excuse me... I apologize to all listers for my error. Regards Claudio Di Pietro From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Tue Feb 27 05:33:33 1996 Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu (root@guilder.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.181]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA13035 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 05:33:30 -0800 (PST) From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.7.4/UCD3.5.1) id HAA03653; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:05:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:05:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199602271505.HAA03653@guilder.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: news from fresno Cc: cefresno@ucdavis.edu This is Steve Sutter, UC Area Farm Advisor, (209) 456-7560 ... My 37-page "California Fieldworker Pesticide Safety Training Instructor's Guide" ... thanks to a Pesticide Applicators Professional Association grant's FREE. ... FAX request on (209) 456-7575. ... I'll do a fieldworker train-the-trainer class March 26th in Bakersfield. ... "Fresno Clear." From 73507.555@compuserve.com Thu Feb 29 06:04:31 1996 Received: from arl-img-3.compuserve.com (arl-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.7.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA21528 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 06:04:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id KAA23095; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:34:16 -0500 Date: 29 Feb 96 10:32:46 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: "'WPS-Forum'" Subject: WPS and Sec 18 Exemptions Message-ID: <960229153246_73507.555_HHB74-2@CompuServe.COM> Today I saw a Section 18 Emergency Exemption for a fungicide for late blight on potatoes in California. I noted that I saw for the first time the WPS agricultural use box on a Section 18. My question is this: If the WPS part 156 applies to pesticide labels, and a Section 18 emergency or crisis exemption is actually _an exemption_ from a label, why is "the box" on there? Why is the U.S. EPA requiring this language on a Section 18? They already contain language to the effect that all precautions on the regular label must be followed. Bob Roach From MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Thu Feb 29 09:31:52 1996 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA25087 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:31:50 -0800 (PST) From: MGALLO@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:32:36 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:28:56 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com Subject: WPS and Sec 18 Exemptions -Reply Today I saw this message on the Board: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I saw a Section 18 Emergency Exemption for a fungicide for late blight on potatoes in California. I noted that I saw for the first time the WPS agricultural use box on a Section 18. My question is this: If the WPS part 156 applies to pesticide labels, and a Section 18 emergency or crisis exemption is actually _an exemption_ from a label, why is "the box" on there? Why is the U.S. EPA requiring this language on a Section 18? They already contain language to the effect that all precautions on the regular label must be followed. Bob Roach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is my attempt to answer it: It is a good idea to give DPR, Registration Branch a call, to find out the policy about listing information from the full label on the section 18 label. IT would be cheaper than calling EPA. But, I think that Section 18 exemptions apply only to crops that are not listed on the section 3 labelling, the full registered label. It's a residue/tolerance issue. Therefore a section 18 is an exemption from prohibited crop uses; crops that are not on the registered label. Section 18's are not exemptions from precautionary statements or certain other use directions or restrictions. I don't see that it hurts to be redundant and include information on a section 18 that is already on a section 3 label, especially regarding WORKER SAFETY. ?Do you? Adolfo R. MarvinGallo Pesticide Enforcement Branch, DPR From apm5@po.cwru.edu Thu Feb 29 09:49:00 1996 Received: from slc5.INS.CWRU.Edu (slc5.INS.CWRU.Edu [129.22.8.107]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA25816 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:48:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from law47311.LAW.CWRU.Edu (law47311.LAW.CWRU.Edu [129.22.184.207]) by slc5.INS.CWRU.Edu with SMTP (8.6.12+cwru/CWRU-2.1-freenet-gw) id MAA10326; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 12:48:54 -0500 (from apm5@po.cwru.edu for ) Message-Id: <199602291748.MAA10326@slc5.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 12:48:54 -0500 X-Sender: apm5@pop.cwru.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Andrew Morriss Subject: Special Local Needs Registrations I am working on a paper on pesticide regulation, with a particular focus on SLNs, for a conference on environmental federalism. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone whose had experience with getting an SLN (or with any other aspect of them) who would be willing to give me their impressions of the process or who has ideas about how successful the federal/state partnership in pesticide regulation has been. Thanks, Andy Morriss Andrew Morriss Associate Professor of Law & Associate Professor of Economics Case Western Reserve University School of Law 11075 East Blvd. Cleveland, OH 44106 (216) 368-3302 apm5@po.cwru.edu From 73507.555@compuserve.com Thu Feb 29 23:18:34 1996 Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.7.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA18602 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 23:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id CAA28004; Fri, 1 Mar 1996 02:18:00 -0500 Date: 01 Mar 96 02:16:42 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: "'WPS-Forum'" Subject: Section 18s Message-ID: <960301071641_73507.555_HHB55-2@CompuServe.COM> Adolfo, I have found that a Section 18 exemption is not an exemption from labeling but an exemption from registration. It is certainly not an exemption from the normal use precautions. There are sometimes more precautions and restrictions added. I was confused because I know that a use in conflict with a Section 18 is not a violation of FAC 12973, but that is because that section is for registered labels. I have also found that this is an unusual case in that Cruzate has not received a federal registration yet. The EPA registration number is 352-XX. Since there is no federal label, who knows what will show up on the containers. They could be using product form overseas. For that reason I believe they put the WPS language on the Section 18 labeling. There is apparently no redundancy here. I am not a strong advocate of redundency. The label on the container is the one the user is most likely to see and read. If there is too much boilerplate on the Section 18 the user is likely to get tired of reading it and miss the directions unique to that use. Bob Roach ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Adolfo Wrote: But, I think that Section 18 exemptions apply only to crops that are not listed on the section 3 labelling, the full registered label. It's a residue/tolerance issue. Therefore a section 18 is an exemption from prohibited crop uses; crops that are not on the registered label. Section 18's are not exemptions from precautionary statements or certain other use directions or restrictions. I don't see that it hurts to be redundant and include information on a section 18 that is already on a section 3 label, especially regarding WORKER SAFETY. ?Do you?