From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Wed Jun 5 05:21:22 1996 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA20874 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 05:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [141.114.137.97] ([141.114.137.97]) by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA26988 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 08:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 08:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199606051221.IAA26988@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Authentication-Warning: gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us: Host [141.114.137.97] didn't use HELO protocol 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: Categories of PPE Hello, everyone! I have a question which I should have an answer to, but don't. On the Garlon 4 label (Dow Elanco) the PPE statement reads: "Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are listed below. If you want more options, follow the instructions for category E on an EPA chemcial resistance category selections chart." Where is this selections chart? I looked through the "Guidance Manual for Selecting Protective Clothing for Agricultural Pesticides Operations" (1994) and didn't find anything. I know it's been talked about and I think the last thing I heard was that the categories were going to be put on the PPE brochures produced by Cornell a few years ago. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks. Tammy %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Tammy Gould Tel: 207-287-2731 % % Ground Water, Worker Protection, Voice Mail: 207-287-7593 % % Pesticide Storage, Boston Red Sox FAX: 207-287-6558 % % Maine Board of Pesticides Control % % 28 State House Station EMail: aftgoul@state.me.us % % Augusta, Maine 04333-0028 -or- Tammy.Gould@state.me.us % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From cwc4@cornell.edu Wed Jun 5 06:54:53 1996 Received: from postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (POSTOFFICE.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.7]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA21401 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.84.39.78] ([128.84.39.78]) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA00728 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 09:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: cwc4@cornell.edu (Charlotte W. Coffman) Subject: Re: Categories of PPE In reference to Tammy Gould's question (below) about the EPA chemical resistance category selections chart that was included in a Cornell publication. . . The brochure is entitled "Choosing Chemical Resistant PPE" and, yes, it does include the EPA chart. This brochure is one of eight in the series Personal Protective Equipment Guide that was funded by the EPA and developed by a committee of representatives from EPA, Cooperative Extension, and industry. The ID number for the brochure is D20866N: the cost is $52/100 copies. To order or to obtain additional information about this and the other brochures in the series, contact Cornell University Resource Center, 7 Business and Technology Park, Ithaca, NY 14850. Tel: 607-255-2080. The last time this issue came up on the forum, others had suggestions of less expensive sources. Good luck, Charlotte Coffman >Hello, everyone! > >I have a question which I should have an answer to, but don't. On the >Garlon 4 label (Dow Elanco) the PPE statement reads: > >"Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are listed >below. If you want more options, follow the instructions for category E on >an EPA chemcial resistance category selections chart." > >Where is this selections chart? I looked through the "Guidance Manual for >Selecting Protective Clothing for Agricultural Pesticides Operations" (1994) >and didn't find anything. I know it's been talked about and I think the >last thing I heard was that the categories were going to be put on the PPE >brochures produced by Cornell a few years ago. > >Can anyone help me with this? Thanks. > >Tammy > >%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >% Tammy Gould Tel: 207-287-2731 % > >% Ground Water, Worker Protection, Voice Mail: 207-287-7593 % >% Pesticide Storage, Boston Red Sox FAX: 207-287-6558 % >% Maine Board of Pesticides Control % >% 28 State House Station EMail: aftgoul@state.me.us % >% Augusta, Maine 04333-0028 -or- Tammy.Gould@state.me.us % >%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Charlotte W. Coffman Tel: 607-255-2009 Senior Extension Associate Fax: 607-255-1093 Cornell University E-mail: cwc4@cornell.edu Department of Textiles & Apparel From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Jun 5 12:13:06 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.107] (gia5mac27.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.107]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA01267 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:13:22 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: Categories of PPE Thanks for jogging my memory, Charlotte. Sure enough, the chart and the Cornell publication were discussed in Aug-Sept 1994. As you suggest today and wrote then, "I am not saying it [$52 for 100 copies] is a bargain; I am saying that it is available." A Forum benefactor back then identified only as Tommy the Tourist sent an ASCII version of the chart, which s/he said was based on the Cornell pamphlet. A copy is included at the end of this post. Around the same time, Kay Rudolph provided a document entitled DRAFT "Personal Protective Equipment Guide: Choosing Chemical-Resistant PPE." Though it bears no reference to Cornell, this document file appeared to hold the content of the Cornell pamphlet, perhaps in preliminary form. Section headings are: Chemical Resistance, Chemical Resistance Of PPE Materials, Choosing Chemical-Resistant PPE, and Using The Chemical-Resistance Category Selection Chart. In a dazzling show of foresight, we stuck the document in the Forum archive, where it remains available as "guide.ppe". To obtain a copy (size is 13024 bytes), send to ListProc@are.berkeley.edu the message: GET WPS-FORUM GUIDE.PPE Those with web access can go to the file directly at URL gopher://are.Berkeley.EDU:70/00/wps-forum/guide.ppe Again, the chart alone is below. -- Howard ======================================================================== EPA CHEMICAL RESISTANCE CATEGORY SELECTION CHART For use when PPE section on pesticide label lists a chemical resistance cat. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |SELECTION| | |CATEGORY | | |LISTED ON| TYPE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE MATERIAL | |PESTICIDE| | |LABEL | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |Barrier |Butyl |Nitrile|Neoprene|Natural|Poly- |Poly- |Viton | | |Laminate|Rubber|Rubber | Rubber |Rubber*|ethylene|vinyl |> or =| | | |> or =|> or = | > or = |> or = | > or = |Chloride|14 mil| | | |14 mil|14 mils| 14 mils|14 mils| 14 mils| (PVC) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | A | | | | | | | | | |(dry and | | | | | | | | | | water- | high | high | high | high | high | high | high | high | | based | | | | | | | | | |formulat)| | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | B | high | high | slight| slight | none | slight | slight |slight| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | C | high | high | high | high | mod. | mod. | high | high | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D | high | high | mod. | mod. | none | none | none |slight| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | E | high |slight| high | high | slight| none | mod. | high | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | F | high | high | high | mod. | slight| none | slight | high | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | G | high |slight| slight| slight | none | none | none | high | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | H | high |slight| slight| slight | none | none | none | high | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * includes natural rubber blends and laminates HIGH: Highly chemical-resistant. Clean or replace PPE at end of each day's work period. Rinse off pesticides at rest breaks. MOD.: Moderately chemical-resistant. Clean or replace PPE within an hour or two of contact. SLIGHT: Slightly chemical-resistant. Clean or replace PPE within 10 minutes of contact. NONE: No chemical-resistance. Do not wear this type of material as PPE when contact is possible. From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fri Jun 7 11:35:02 1996 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA15187 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id OAA05861; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 14:33:58 -0400 Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:32:32 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:29:16 -0400 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Indiana WPS Chlorothalonil Petition Just published today in Federal Register, with a 30 day comment period. begin 644 CHLORO.NIL M_U=00TP````!"@`!`````/O_!0`R```````&``@```!"````"``"````2@`` M````````````````````````````""-\`'@``````-`%#```````L`2P!`P` M!=#0!@8````&``;0T`30```````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````````````````````````````#8"7`7____________________ M____________________________________________________________ M_____________________P````````````````````````````"P!-``!-## M#,-&6)O9'D@/&=U97-T0'-W86ES+F%C M8V5S&-E<'1I;VX@=&\@5V]R:V5R(%!R;W1E8W1I;VX@"@K0!-`` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M`````````````+`$"`=@";@+$`YH$,`2&!5P%\@9(!QX'M`@*".`)=@G,"J( M+.`N.#&0,^@U0#B8.O`\2#^@0?A#4$:H2`!+6$VP3PA28%2X5A!9:%O`71A@ M`````````````````````````````+`$T``$T%M&961E2`H15!!*2X* M"D%#5$E/3CH@06YN;W5N8V5M96YT(&]F(')E8V5I<'0@;V8@<&5T:71I;VX@ M9F]R(&%N(&5X8V5P=&EO;CL@'!I2`X+"`Q.3DV+@H*041$4D534T53.B!4:&4@06=E M;F-Y(&EN=FET97,@86YY(&EN=&5R97-T960@<&5R2P@ M07)L:6YG=&]N+"!602`R,C(P,BX*("`@($-O;6UE;G1S(&%N9"!D871A(&UA M>2!A;'-O(&)E('-U8FUI='1E9"!E;&5C=')O;FEC86QL>2!B>2!S96YD:6YG M(`UE;&5C=')O;FEC(&UA:6P@*&4M;6%I;"D@=&\Z(&]P<"UD;V-K971`97!A M;6%I;"YE<&$N9V]V+B!%;&5C=')O;FEC(`UC;VUM96YT2!T:&4@#61O8VME M="!N=6UB97(@8&!/4%`M,S`Q,3(N)R<@3F\@0V]N9FED96YT:6%L($)U2!B92!F:6QE9"!O;FQI;F4@870@;6%N>2!&961E2!M87)K:6YG(&%N>2!P87)T(&]R M(&%L;"!O9B!T:&%T(&EN9F]R;6%T:6]N(&%S(`U#0DDN($EN9F]R;6%T:6]N M('-O(&UA2!% M4$$@=VET:&]U="!P&-L=61I;F<@;&5G86P@:&]L:61A>7,N"@I&3U(@1E525$A%4B!) M3D9/4DU!5$E/3B!#3TY404-4.B!*;W-H=6$@1FER2!!=71H;W)I='D*"B`@("!4:&ES($YO=&EC92!I2!O9B`T,"!#1E(@,3F5D('1O(&UI=&EG871E('5N'!O'!O"P@;&]A9"P@87!P;'DL M(&]R(&]T:&5R=VES92!H86YD;&4@#7!E2!A;&QO=VEN M9R!S:&]R="UT97)M('1A2!T;R!P97)F;W)M('1A M2!P=6)L:6,@8V]M;65N="!P M97)I;V0N($5002`-=VEL;"!G7-I M7-I2`T,"!#1E(@,32!T;R!P97)F;W)M(&AA;F0@;&%B;W(@=&%S:W,N"B`@("!5;F1E M2!A9W)I8W5L M='5R86P@86-T:79I='D@#7!E2!H86YD(&]R('=I=&@@:&%N M9"!T;V]L&-E<'1I;VX@=VAI8V@@#6%L;&]W&EC:71Y($-A=&5G;W)Y($D@9F]R('!R:6UA65D(&AE86QT:"!E9F9E8W1S("AK:61N97D@969F M96-T2!%4$$@:7,@=V]R:VEN9R`-;VX@82!297)E9VES M=')A=&EO;B!%;&EG:6)I;&ET>2!$;V-U;65N="`H4D5$*2!F;W(@8VAL;W)O M=&AA;&]N:6PN($$@#5)%1"!I2!O9B!) M;F1I86YA)W,@4&5T:71I;VX*"B`@("!4:&4@4W1A=&4@;V8@26YD:6%N82!H M87,@<&5T:71I;VYE9"!T:&4@06=E;F-Y('5N9&5R(`U396,N(#$W,"XQ,3(H M92D@=&\@86QL;W<@96%R;'D@96YT2!M:6QD972!T M:&4@8W)O<"!A;F0@2!O9B!H M87)V97-T+B!)="!I2!B92!I;F-U6]N9"!C;W-T2!W:71H(&!@=&EM96QY(`UA<'!L:6-A=&EO;G,G)R!O9B!S>7-T M96UI8R!F=6YG:6-I9&5S+"!S=6-H(&%S('1R:6%D:6UE9F]N(&%N9"!B96YO M;7EL+B`-0F%C=&5R:6%L('=I;'0@:7,@8V]N=')O;&QE9"!T:')O=6=H(&UA M;F%G:6YG(&-U8W5M8F5R(&)E971L92`-<&]P=6QA=&EO;G,L('=H:6-H('-P M7,@=&AA="P@;V8@=&AE(&%V86EL86)L92`-87!P M2!A M;F0@#6-H;&]R;W1H86QO;FEL(&AAF5B+"!W:&EC:"`-:&%S(&$@4$A)(&]F(#4@9&%Y M2!A<'!L:6-A=&EO;CL@=V5A=&AE2!W;W5L9"!M;W-T(&QI:V5L>2`-2`-861D:71I;VYA;"!04$4L(&)E8V%U2!A9G1E7-T96T@:7,@<&%R="!O9B!A;B!I;G1E9W)A=&5D('!E2!R961U8VEN9R!T:&4@ M87!P;&EC871I;VX@7,@<')I;W(@=&\@=&AE M(&)E9VEN;FEN9R!O9B!T:&4@;65L;VX@:&%R=F5S="!A;F0@8V]N=&EN=6EN M9R`-=&AR;W5G:"!T:&4@:&%R=F5S="X*("`@(#0N($=R;W=E2!T:&4@ M#4]F9FEC92!O9B!);F1I86YA(%-T871E($-H96UIF5D+"!W96%T:&5R+6)A2!E'1E;G-I;VX@#5-E'!E8W1E M9"!C;W-T2!H87)V97-T(&]F(&UU&EM:7IE(&-R;W`@#7!R;V1U8W1I;VXN($EN M9&EA;F$@<')O:F5C=',@=&AA="P@=VET:"!A(#`M9&%Y(%)%22P@82!M=7-K M;65L;VX@8W)O<"`-=&AA="!Y:65L9',@-"PU,#`@;65L;VYS('!E7-I M2!I'!L86EN960@:&]W(&$@9&5L87D@:6X@:&%R=F5S="`-;V8@,2!D87D@=VEL M;"!R97-U;'0@:6X@86QL(&]F('1H92!F6EE;&0@ M2`W(&1A>7,N"B`@("!&:6YA;&QY+"!B971T97(@97AP;&%N M871I;VX@86YD(&1O8W5M96YT871I;VX@;V8@=&AE(&)A6EE;&0@;&]S'!O M7,L('1H92`-2`-=7-E(&]F(&%L=&5R;F%T:79E(&9U;F=I8VED M97,@<')I;W(@=&\@:&%R=F5S="!W:71H(&-H;&]R;W1H86QO;FEL(`UA<'!L M:6-A=&EO;B!A="!T:&4@2!M87D@8F4@869F96-T960@8GD@#6%D9&ET:6]N86P@:6YF M;W)M871I;VX@86)O=70@9F]L:6%R(&1I&-E<'1I;VXN($EN('!A2!);F1I86YA(&UI9VAT(`UR97-U;'0@:6X@86X@4D5)(&]F(#(T(&AO=7)S M+@H@("`@5&AE($%G96YC>2!I2!T&-E<'1I;VX@8F4@#6=R86YT960N(%1H M92!!9V5N8WD@:7,@:6YT97)E2`-861D:71I M;VYA;"!I;F9O2!T:&%T M(&%R92`-2!T:')O=6=H($9R:61A>2P@97AC;'5D:6YG(&QE9V%L(&AO;&ED87ES M+B!4:&4@<'5B;&EC(`UR96-O7!T:6]N+@H@("`@5&AE(&]F9FEC:6%L(')E M8V]R9"!F;W(@=&AE('!R;W!O2P@15!!('=I;&P@#71R86YS9F5R(&%L M;"!C;VUM96YT2!I;G1O('!R:6YT M960L('!A<&5R(&9O6YN(%(N($=O;&1M86XL"D%S2). Chlorothalonil poses risks of severe eye irritation and delayed health effects (kidney effects). Currently EPA is working on a Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED) for chlorothalonil. A RED is a document that combines all scientific and economic information about a pesticide and which is used for determining whether or not a pesticide should be reregistered. The chlorothalonil RED is scheduled for completion this year. II. Summary of Indiana's Petition The State of Indiana has petitioned the Agency under Sec. 170.112(e) to allow early entry by workers into chlorothalonil- treated muskmelon fields to perform hand labor harvesting immediately after application of the fungicide. The current REI for chlorothalonil is 48 hours. Indiana's petition states that muskmelon growers will suffer substantial economic losses if they cannot harvest their crop on a daily basis. The time period for the exception requested is from June 15 through August 30, 1996. A. Need for Early Entry According to the request, Indiana-grown muskmelons are under strong disease pressure from Alternaria leaf blight, anthracnose, bacterial wilt, gummy stem blight, and powdery mildew. According to Indiana, if unchecked, these diseases can destroy the crop and result in serious reductions in muskmelon yield and quality. Indiana states that muskmelons ripen quickly, and must therefore be harvested daily to avoid the fruit becoming over-ripe. Indiana contends that considerable amounts of fruit could be damaged or lost during the 48-hour REI, and even during a 24-hour REI, due to the inability to harvest mature crops daily. Indiana states that over-ripe muskmelons are not harvested; their connection to the vine is cut; and they are simply left in the field. Moreover, Indiana contends that if left on their vines, mature (over-ripe) muskmelons act as ``suckers,'' depriving less mature melons on the vine of nutrients necessary for their growth. Indiana estimated that a 7 percent crop loss would result from over-ripe fruit being left on the vine for 48 hours, and that a 2 percent loss would result from a 24-hour delay of harvest. It is also claimed that these over-ripe melons interfere with the production of female flowers, which are necessary for producing new fruit. Indiana said that additional labor costs may be incurred to remove over-ripe fruit, posing a second set of costs to growers beyond costs associated with direct losses in sales. Indiana states that fungicides applied after the first melon harvest result in greater muskmelon yields and a longer production period of fruit graded as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) #1 quality. Powdery mildew is controlled primarily with ``timely applications'' of systemic fungicides, such as triadimefon and benomyl. Bacterial wilt is controlled through managing cucumber beetle populations, which spread the disease. Alternaria leaf blight, anthracnose, and gummy stem blight must be controlled with repeated applications of fungicides. Indiana says that, of the available appropriate fungicides for these three diseases, only chlorothalonil can be used during harvest, because muskmelons are harvested daily and chlorothalonil has a 0-day PHI. Indiana states that cultural controls for Alternaria leaf blight are not readily available and are not very effective in any case. Where powdery mildew is a problem, chlorothalonil is usually applied as necessary. The alternative to chlorothalonil on muskmelons is mancozeb, which has a PHI of 5 days and is therefore not considered to be a practical alternative during the harvest. Indiana's petition implies that rescheduling chlorothalonil applications during the conventional 7-day spray schedule would not be practical because regardless of how a grower reschedules applications, there would be a 48-hour REI following a spray application; weather and crop maturity would most likely require harvest during that time. According to Indiana, the average melon field size is 20 to 40 acres. Large fields are 250 acres. Other States have previously said that two to five workers are required to harvest for 1 hour per field, and that workers would harvest several fields over an 8-hour day. Machine harvesting of cantaloupe or squash is not possible. The State of Indiana says that it is open to suggestions from the Agency for any means to mitigate eye hazards to harvest crews posed by chlorothalonil. Indiana does not believe that workers should be required to wear any additional PPE, because EPA has stated that it believes that workers will not wear it (because of heat stress). B. Proposed Terms of Exception The State of Indiana has proposed the following terms: 1. Harvesting would be performed immediately after application. 2. All Indiana muskmelon growers would be required to use the MELCAST disease warning system (described below), and only apply chlorothalonil according to MELCAST times of predicted need. Indiana states that the MELCAST system is part of an integrated pest management program that results in two to four fewer annual chlorothalonil applications than the conventional 7-day program. 3. Limitations on current use patterns (and thereby lowering potential risk) by reducing the application rate and reducing the number of applications. The maximum chlorothalonil application rate would be 0.78 pounds of active ingredient per acre (lbs ai/acre), as opposed to the maximum rate of 1.5 lbs ai/acre. This lower rate would begin 2 days prior to the beginning of the melon harvest and continuing through the harvest. 4. Growers would be subject to unannounced inspections by the Office of Indiana State Chemist to ensure compliance, especially with the lower application rate of 0.78 pounds of active ingredient. MELCAST is a computerized, weather-based disease advisory system that helps growers determine when the most appropriate times are for applying only essential fungicides. The Purdue Cooperative Extension Service has shown that using MELCAST will result in two to four fewer fungicide applications without increasing risk of crop losses. MELCAST can be used with Alternaria leaf blight, anthracnose, and gummy stem blight. It is assumed that the State of Indiana believes that the costs of these measures are less than the expected costs associated with crop losses without the exception being granted. C. Economic Impacts The State of Indiana has claimed that a significant economic loss may occur if the 48-hour REI remains in effect. Indiana has said that the daily harvest of muskmelons is essential to maximize crop production. Indiana projects that, with a 0-day REI, a muskmelon crop that yields 4,500 melons per acre over a 4-week harvest period (picked every day) results in a net return of $2,000 per day. With a 24-hour REI, Indiana calculates that the net return will be $1,440 per acre, an income reduction of 28 percent. With the current 48-hour REI, Indiana has projected a net return of $810 per acre, a 59 percent reduction from the best-case scenario of $2,000 per acre. Indiana states that the vast majority of Indiana muskmelon growers derive their incomes from farms that are 40 acres or less. For these farmers, whose incomes are claimed to be between $30,000 and $40,000, a 28 percent or 59 percent reduction in income could seriously affect their ability to make a living from growing muskmelons. The following are the most significant points that EPA needs to address before an economic analysis can be completed. First, the applicant did not estimate the loss of fruit to disease if chlorothalonil is not used at all. Such an estimate would also include the reduced costs of not using chlorothalonil. Because the applicant has projected the costs of adhering to the 48-hour REI to be quite high, it is possible that not using chlorothalonil at all could be preferable in some situations. Second, it is unclear to EPA how cutting over-ripe muskmelons (``sucker fruit'') from fruit-producing vines is considered an additional labor cost. EPA believes that it is labor that would have occurred in any case, and that picking fewer melons actually requires less labor. If the activity is claimed as an additional cost resulting from unproductive labor, the applicant has not clarified or explained that. Moreover, the applicant has not explained how a delay in harvest of 1 day will result in all of the fruit that would have been harvested being over-ripe; nor has the applicant explained how over-ripe melons are automatically economically valueless. Third, the applicant did not consider the relative savings in reduced usage of chlorothalonil due to implementing MELCAST, and assumed one application per week in projecting yield reductions. The use of the MELCAST system reportedly should reduce chlorothalonil applications to be, on average, less frequent than once every 7 days. Finally, better explanation and documentation of the basis and methodology for estimating the stated quantitative yield loss estimates of 2 percent and 7 percent for the 24-hour REI and the 48-hour REI are needed. D. Potential Risks Prior to the introduction of WPS-based interim REIs, chlorothalonil's REI was 12 hours; its current REI is 48 hours. Based on new data received through its reregistration program, EPA is now reviewing the length of chlorothalonil's REI. At the current standard application rate (for muskmelons) of 1.5 lbs ai/acre, chlorothalonil appears to pose risks to most workers, risks that could be mitigated by a longer REI. EPA has conducted several preliminary qualitative assessments, based on different assumptions, to evaluate the potential carcinogenic and toxicity risks from exposure to chlorothalonil. When chlorothalonil treatment begins before the harvest season at 1.5 lbs ai/acre, and then drops in rate to 0.78 lbs ai/acre during the harvest season (as Indiana is proposing), the risk is substantially reduced from the current treatment schedule. The REI for this application schedule would be 24 hours. However, because chlorothalonil has a half-life of 3.5 days, the residue remaining after the application at the rate of 1.5 lbs ai/acre, coupled with the subsequent rate of 0.78 lb ai/acre, will still leave residues that pose risks of some concern to workers, if they entered the treated site immediately after application. It appears that still lower potential risk could be attained by reducing the chlorothalonil application to 0.78 lb ai/acre for the entire growing and harvesting season. Lowest risk seems to be posed by use of alternative fungicides prior to harvest with chlorothalonil application at the reduced rate starting just prior to the harvest period in order to accommodate the PHI of the alternatives. EPA's assessment of worker risk from re-entry may be affected by additional information about foliar dislodgable residue, especially about chlorothalonil residue levels between applications, and other information. . . . . . . . . . . . Dated: May 31, 1996. Lynn R. Goldman, Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. 96-14449 Filed 6-06-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From wgl@televar.com Mon Jun 10 17:04:59 1996 Received: from bing.ncw.net (root@bing.ncw.net [199.79.131.5]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA22697 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PHIL by bing.ncw.net (8.6.12/8.940801) id RAA23758; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:05:01 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:05:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199606110005.RAA23758@bing.ncw.net> X-Sender: wgl@televar.com (Unverified) 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: Phil Subject: Forestry worker training Are there any WPS worker and/or handler training materials made specifically for forestry workers? We have most all of the approved training videos and booklets here, but they are all produced in a farm setting. Phil Hull Washington Growers League From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jun 11 09:30:52 1996 Received: from [199.35.209.76] (ala-ca9-12.ix.netcom.com [199.35.209.76]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA29755 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 09:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 09:31:24 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard Rosenberg) Subject: forward from Pat Marer re: Forestry worker training [forwarding post that got hung up in system error checker] Phil: I have a publication that might be of interest to you. It's title is "Forest and Right-of-Way Pest Control" (240 pages). This is University of California ANR Publication Number 3336 ($30) available from ANR Publications, University of California, 6701 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland, CA 94608-1239. Phone(510)642-2431 FAX (510)643-5470. This publication is specifically for people who apply pesticides in forests and along rights-of-way. The photos and drawings in the book (there are over 200) are also available as color slides for teaching purposes at about $1.00 each. Let me know if you would like more information. Patrick J. Marer, Ph.D. Pesticide Training Coordinator IPM Education and Publications University of California Davis, CA 95616 (916)752-7694 pjmarer@ucdavis.edu ------------------------------ From: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Are there any WPS worker and/or handler training materials made specifically for forestry workers? We have most all of the approved training videos and booklets here, but they are all produced in a farm setting. Phil Hull Washington Growers League From CCMAIL.KJUNKERT@RANCH.STATE.ND.US Thu Jun 13 12:52:35 1996 Received: from RANCH.STATE.ND.US (ranch.state.nd.us [165.234.120.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA07456 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by RANCH.STATE.ND.US (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A) id 815150140096165FCCMAIL; 13 Jun 1996 14:50:14 GMT Message-Id: Date: 13 Jun 1996 14:50:14 GMT From: "Junkert, Ken S" Subject: NOTE 06/13/96 14:50:50 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Comment: MEMO 06/11/96 14:48:00 Has anybody developed insert sheets or some other format that modifies the How to Comply manual that details the changes to the document resulting from the changes to the program? Where would I locate this resource? I am looking for something to include inside the HTC that directs the reader to changes. Is this availalbe? Kenneth S. Junkert CCMAIL.KJUNKERT@ranch.state.nd.us From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Fri Jun 14 12:04:53 1996 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA01012 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 12:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id PAA12144; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:04:04 -0400 Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:03:29 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:57:32 -0400 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Changes to How to Comply? To Kenneth and others interested, In reponse to the inquiry below regarding updates to the "How to Comply" manual, after all the past, and future yet to be proposed changes, the U.S. EPA did consider this very question on a couple ocassions last year during EPA Headquarters conference calls with the EPA Regional offices, and it was decided that it would NOT be cost effective to completely revise the HTC and again do a massive redistribution. As an alternative, the Certification, Training and Occupational Safety Branch of EPA HQ is in process now of drafting yet another EPA WPS Update bulletin (last one released January 1995) which will outline all the changes to the Rule within the last couple years. This particular item is not yet available, however. Kenneth's idea about referencing particular pages of the HTC in a public release amendment sounds like a good idea that perhaps should be added to this future EPA Update. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 ********************************************** >>> Junkert, Ken S 6/13/96, 09:50am >>> Has anybody developed insert sheets or some other format that modifies the How to Comply manual that details the changes to the document resulting from the changes to the program? Where would I locate this resource? I am looking for something to include inside the HTC that directs the reader to changes. Is this availalbe? Kenneth S. Junkert CCMAIL.KJUNKERT@ranch.state.nd.us From RDSHS@aol.com Fri Jun 14 13:13:43 1996 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA02504 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 13:13:41 -0700 (PDT) From: RDSHS@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA10226; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 16:13:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 16:13:02 -0400 Message-ID: <960614161301_556420243@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu cc: BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@epamail.epa.gov Subject: WPS Rose Exception Follow-up On May 7, 1996 Donald Baumgartner, U.S. EPA Region 5, posted ". . . At this time, the U.S. EPA does not forsee a Rose Exception in place after June 10. . .. ." Also in that post by Mr. Baumgartner was the May 3, 1996 letter to Mr. James C. Krone of Roses, Inc. from William L. Jordan, Deputy Director, Field Operations Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, in which he wrote: ". . . As of this time, I do not foresee the possibility of coming to a decision prior to June 10, 1996. Once we receive the request and supporting data, regulations require EPA to provide a 30-day public comment period before determining exception decisions. The Agency will then review public comments and make a determination based on all the information/data on the record. Nonetheless, we are interested in exploring what options may be available to address your concerns. . . ." June 10, 1996 HAS COME AND GONE. What is the enforcement status of the WPS as it relates to the rose industry? Did the Agency receive a request? Did the Agency receive data from anyone? What are the options that Mr. Jordan refers to? Status report anyone? From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Tue Jun 18 07:27:00 1996 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA23870 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 07:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id KAA00695; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:26:10 -0400 Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:24:17 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:54:13 -0400 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Changes to How to Comply? To Kenneth and others interested, In reponse to the inquiry below regarding updates to the "How to Comply" manual, after all the past, and future yet to be proposed changes, the U.S. EPA did consider this very question on a couple ocassions last year during EPA Headquarters conference calls with the EPA Regional offices, and it was decided that it would NOT be cost effective to completely revise the HTC and again do a massive redistribution. As an alternative, the Certification, Training and Occupational Safety Branch of EPA HQ is in process now of drafting yet another EPA WPS Update bulletin (last one released January 1995) which will outline all the changes to the Rule within the last couple years. This particular item is not yet available, however. Kenneth's idea about referencing particular pages of the HTC in a public release amendment sounds like a good idea that perhaps should be added to this future EPA Update. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 ********************************************** >>> Junkert, Ken S 6/13/96, 09:50am >>> Has anybody developed insert sheets or some other format that modifies the How to Comply manual that details the changes to the document resulting from the changes to the program? Where would I locate this resource? I am looking for something to include inside the HTC that directs the reader to changes. Is this availalbe? Kenneth S. Junkert From PHASPOWELL@aol.com Tue Jun 18 08:03:33 1996 Received: from emout14.mail.aol.com (emout14.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.40]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA24331 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 08:03:31 -0700 (PDT) From: PHASPOWELL@aol.com Received: by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22527 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 11:03:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 11:03:26 -0400 Message-ID: <960618110326_331806314@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: WPS Rose Exception Follow-up I have been working with Roses, Inc. on this topic. The issues are complicated, but we are hopeful all parties will soon come to an agreement. Information has been submitted to the US-EPA. My advise on anyone wishing an update to contact Jim Krone, Roses Inc. at 1-800-968-ROSE or to contact Mr. Jordan of the US-EPA. Please do not contact me directly. From CCMAIL.KJUNKERT@RANCH.STATE.ND.US Tue Jun 18 11:38:55 1996 Received: from RANCH.STATE.ND.US (ranch.state.nd.us [165.234.120.10]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA01741 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 11:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by RANCH.STATE.ND.US (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A) id 505736130096170FCCMAIL; 18 Jun 1996 13:36:13 GMT Message-Id: Date: 18 Jun 1996 13:36:13 GMT From: "Junkert, Ken S" Subject: NOTE 06/18/96 13:36:55 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Comment: MEMO 06/13/96 10:23:00 "Crop Advisor Exemption - North Dakota" The North Dakota Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Division approved the North Dakota Certified Crop Advisor Program (CCA) for an exemption of specified portions of the Worker Protection Standard. The North Dakota Department of Agriculture determined that the state had the authority to approve or disapprove the CCA program for the WPS exemption. The Pesticide Division is basing this action on language taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 60, May 3, 1995, page 21950..."EPA expects each state will determine its own criteria for acceptable programs which will qualify crop advisors for the exemption. States are given this flexibility and authority because a wide range of certifying programs are available across the country." The Pesticide Division drafted 13 questions, one for each area as required under 170.230(c)(4) and provided them to the ND CCA Board. The ND CCA Board will add the questions to the test question bank and rotate questions for each test. The ND CCA board agreed to use three WPS questions from the question bank per test. The following Pesticide Division policy has been adopted: "One of the following two areas will qualify a person to be considered to meet the crop advisor exemption under WPS: 1) An individual who has passed the Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) exams, both state and national, that have been approved by the North Dakota CCA Board; OR 2) An individual who was CCA certified before the date of acceptance of CCA exams by North Dakota as meeting WPS training and who has attended a commercial recertification meeting of the NDSU Extension Service Pesticide Program. This person does not have to be commercially certified to be exempt under this provision. The ND Pesticide Division felt it was necessary to require the CCA Program to modify the state exam portion of the testing procedure to include WPS questions. Any comments? Kenneth S. Junkert North Dakota Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Division CCMAIL.kjunkert@ranch.state.nd.us From PHASPOWELL@aol.com Thu Jun 20 04:39:19 1996 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA13057 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 04:39:18 -0700 (PDT) From: PHASPOWELL@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20829 for wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 07:38:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 07:38:33 -0400 Message-ID: <960620073833_418002986@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: NOTE 06/18/96 13:36:55 This state by state approach is bound to produce problems later on. What about nationally active crop advisors? From PHASPOWELL@aol.com Thu Jun 20 13:12:25 1996 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA24774 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:12:16 -0700 (PDT) From: PHASPOWELL@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01741 for WPS-FORUM@are.berkeley.edu; Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:11:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:11:30 -0400 Message-ID: <960620161130_221557330@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: WPS-FORUM@are.berkeley.edu Subject: rose growers early entry entry exception I have been working with Roses, Inc. on this issue. It is a complicated issue, but all parties are working well toward a solution. Information has been submitted to the US-EPA. For those wishing more information, please contact Jim Krone at 1-800-968-ROSE or Mr. Jordan at the US-EPA. Do not contact me directly or through the forum. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Jun 21 16:55:01 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.82] (gia5mac2.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.82]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA26605 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:56:08 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: EPA announcement of two WPS amendments FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1996 EPA ISSUES TWO AMENDMENTS TO WORKER PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES EPA is issuing two final amendments to the Agency's Worker Protection Standards for agricultural pesticides. The amendments will make the standards more practical and flexible for states and farmers to implement while maintaining safeguards for agricultural workers. The amendments will encourage the use of lower toxicity pesticides, allow the use of languages other than Spanish when appropriate, and facilitate posting of pesticide-treated areas in nurseries and greenhouses. The first amendment decreases from 30 days to seven days, the time during which decontamination supplies (soap, water, paper towels) must be available to workers entering fields when low toxicity pesticides are used. Low toxicity pesticides are those which have restricted entry intervals of four hours or less. Until now, the standards required decontamination supplies to be available whenever a worker performed any activity in a pesticide-treated area or where entry had been restricted within the past 30 days. The second amendment allows employers to replace the Spanish language on required warning signs with another language tailored to suit the language most often used by workers in that location. The English portion of the sign must remain. The standards require posting of warning signs that are visible from all usual points of worker entry into the treated areas. Also, as part of the second amendment, EPA is permitting the use of smaller warning signs in nurseries and greenhouses. Signs of approximately four and one-half by five inches can be used if the distance between signs is 25 feet or less; signs of approximately seven by eight inches can be used if the distance between signs is 50 feet or less. EPA is continuing to work closely with the agricultural community, states and workers to promote better understanding of the Worker Protection Standards, clarify growers' responsibilities, support outreach and educational activities and identify and address issues of concern in the standards implementation. As part of this effort, EPA is conducting a series of meetings with growers and workers around the country. The next meeting is scheduled for June 26, in Biglerville, Pa. The two amendments will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which is expected within 10 days. From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Thu Jun 27 19:32:48 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.86] (gia5mac6.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.86]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA01627 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:33:53 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: additions to the archive The two WPS amendments that EPA announced in a news release last week were published in the Federal Register yesterday. They are now available in the WPS-Forum archive, each divided into two portions. Eventually the two parts of each will be combined into a single file, but to place the notices in the archive today necessitated splitting them. One of the amendments alters requirements for warning signs. It (1) allows the substitution of an alternative language for the Spanish portion of the warning sign for treated fields, and (2) permits the use in nurseries and greenhouses of warning signs smaller than the standard 14" x 16". The names of files in the archive containing the FR notice of this amendment are: sign96a.dec (size 32656 bytes), and sign96b.dec (5362 bytes). The second amendment reduces to 7 days the length of time for which decontamination supplies are required following the expiration of restricted-entry intervals for "low-toxicity" pesticides (those with REIs of 4 hours or less). File names are decon96a.dec (32210 bytes) and decon96b.dec (10065 bytes). There are two additional files in the archive that have not yet been announced. One is the official notice of the Indiana petition for an early entry exception that would allow harvest of chlorothalonil-treated muskmelons before expiration of the REI. File name is musk696.pet (23859 bytes). And the farmworker training script, that Steve Sutter originated in 1994 and the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner modified in 1/95, has a revised Spanish translation. Courtesy of Bob Roach, "Guia De Seguridad Sobre Pesticidas Para Los Trabajadores Agricolas" is in the archive as a separate file named fwtrain.sp2 (9297 bytes). To obtain a copy of any file in the archive, send to Listproc@are.berkeley.edu the message GET WPS-FORUM If you have web access, you can alternatively find all archived files at the location gopher://are.Berkeley.EDU:70/11/wps-forum. And furthermore, at long last we have a fully up to date "welcome" message for new subscribers. To get a copy without unsubbing and resubscribing, send to Listproc@are.berkeley.edu the message INFO WPS-FORUM --Howard From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Fri Jun 28 09:00:22 1996 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA07646 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:00:16 -0700 (PDT) From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:03:29 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:06:31 -0700 To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.edu Subject: California WPS Implementation Regulations The 15-day notice of modifications to the originally proposed regulations to interpret the WPS in California has been released by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (dated July 1, 1996). Comment on these specific changes will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday July 16, 1996. I will be unavailable until Monday July 15, 1996, so any questions should be posed to John Donahue, Chief of the Worker Safety Branch (916/445-4222) or Bob Chavez in the Pesticide Enforcement Branch (916/445-3886). Briefly, the changes involve: 6130 (a) Minor clarifications to the civil penalty fine guidelines. (b) More clearly focusing any actions against employed persons toward maintaining professional standards of licensees. 6601 (b) Clarifying that equipment and facilities used to meet other requirements may also be used to met WPS requirements. 6720 (d) Recognizing Registered Professional Foresters as crop advisors for purposes of the exemption. (e) Expanding the exemption for consumer use products from eye protection to the entire worker safety subchapter. 6724 (b) Incorporating the respirator training standards of 6738 into general handler training. 6738 (i) Recognizing water soluble packaging as a closed (mixing) system. 6772 Returning one day REIs for Malathion on citrus, grapes, and peaches/nectrines. 6782 Clarifying the application of the requirement for two trained people when solid fumigants (al/mag phosphide or smoke cartridges) are used. A copy of the notice and the text can be obtained from the Worker Safety Branch by calling 916/445-4222 and requesting the notice of modified text for the WPS. A copy of the notice and text is bering sent to each person who submitted written or oral testimony (provided we have their address).