Wednesday
January 11, 1995
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 156 and 170
Worker Protection Standards; Grace
Period and Retraining Activities,
Exemption of Certified and Licensed
Crop Advisors, Exceptions to the Early
Entry Restrictions lor Irrigation Activities
Limited Contact Activities, and Reduced
Entry Intervals for Certain Low Risk
Pesticides; Proposed Rules
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250097; FRU-4901-4]
BIN No. 2070-AC69
Pesticide Safety Training for Workers
and Handlers; Grace Period and
Retraining Interval
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the
Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for
agricultural pesticides by providing
three options for a training grace period
(number of days of employment before
workers must be trained) and a phase-
in period associated with the grace
period. EPA is also proposing options
for the retraining interval (number of
years before workers or handlers must
be retrained). The objective of the
proposed changes to the Standard is to
help meet the goal of providing a
trained workforce capable of better
protecting itself against pesticide illness
and injury without imposing
unreasonable costs on agricultural
employers.
1 DATES: Written comments, identified by
the document control number OPP-
250097, must be received on or before
February 10,1995. EPA does not intend
to extend this comment period.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written
comments to: Public Response Section,
Field Operations Division (7506C),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In
person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132,
CM #2,1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA. Information submitted as
comment concerning this document
may be claimed confidential by marking
any part or all of that information as^
"Confidential Business Information"
(CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
A copy of the comment that does not
contain CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. All written
comments will be available for public
inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia
address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be
submitted electronically by any of three
different mechanisms: by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: Docket-
OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a
"Subscribe" message to
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and
once subscribed, send your comments to
RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA
Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing
202-488-3671, enter selection "DMAIL,'
user name "BB—USER" or 919-541-
4642, enter selection "MAIL," user
name "BB—USER." Electronic
comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All
comments and data in electronic form
must be identified by the docket number
OPP-250097 since all five documents in
this separate part provide the same
electronic address. No CBI should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic
comments on this proposed rule, but not
the record, may be viewed or new
comments filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions
can be found in unit VII. of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeanne Keying, Certification and
Training, and Occupational Safety
Branch (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone
number: Rm. 1109D, CM #2,1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington VA,
Telephone: 703-305-7371.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Authority
This proposal is issued under the
authority of section 25(a) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a).
II. Background
This proposed WPS rule amendment
is one of a series of Agency actions in
response to concerns raised since
publication of the final rule in August
1992 by those interested in and affected
by the rule. In addition to this proposed
amendment, EPA is publishing four
other notices soliciting public comment
on concerns raised by various affected
parties. Other actions EPA is
considering include: (1) Modifications
to the requirements for those performing
crop advisor tasks, (2) An exception to
early entry restrictions for irrigation
activities; (3) Reduced restricted entry
intervals (REIs) for low risk pesticides;
and (4) Reduced early entry restrictions
for activities involving limited contact
with treated surfaces.
FIFRA authorizes the EPA to regulate
the sale, distribution, and use of
pesticides in the United States. The Act
requires generally that EPA license by
registration each pesticide product sold
or distributed in the United States, if
use of the pesticide products will not
cause "unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment," a determination that
takes into account the economic, social,
and environmental costs and benefits of
the use of any pesticide.
In 1992 EPA revised the Worker
Protection Standard (40 CFR part 170)
(57 FR 38102, August 21,1992) which
is intended to protect agricultural
workers and handlers from risks
associated with agricultural pesticides.
The 1992 WPS superseded the original
WPS promulgated in 1974. The 1992
WPS expanded the scope of the original
WPS to include not only workers
performing hand labor operations in
fields treated with pesticides, but also
workers in or on farms, forests,
nurseries, and greenhouses, as well as
handlers who mix, load, apply, or
otherwise handle pesticides for use at
these locations in the production of
agricultural commodities. The WPS
contains requirements for training,
notification of pesticide applications,
use of personal protective equipment,
restricted entry intervals,
decontamination, and emergency
medical assistance.
In § 170.130(c)(4), the WPS sets out
required training elements for workers,
including information on pesticide
hazards and exposures, signs and
symptoms of pesticide poisoning, how
to obtain emergency medical care,
decontamination measures in case of
exposure and other pesticide hazards
that may arise in the course of their
Section 170.230(c)(4) of the WPS
establishes the required training
elements for handlers. These include
generally the same information as for
workers. However, handlers are
provided additional information related
to their handling activities: the meaning
and format of pesticide labels;
information on personal protective
equipment; signs, symptoms and
treatment for heat-related illness;
handling pesticides and pesticide
containers; environmental
contamination and hazards to non-target
species; and other information on their
responsibilities as handlers. Training for
handlers is more detailed than for
workers, and is targeted specifically
toward handling needs and
responsibilities.
Training for workers or handlers may
be conducted by certified applicators or
other trainers who meet State, Federal,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday. January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
2823
or Tribal requirements. The agricultural
employer, however, is responsible for
assuring that workers receive required
training and the handler employer is
responsible for assuring that handlers
receive the required training.
To assist agricultural employers in
fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure
training and to provide a uniform
national standard for the conduct of
worker training, EPA and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture have
established a joint training verification
program. Under this program, which
would be administered on a voluntary
basis by States through agreements with
EPA, workers who have been trained
may be issued a training verification
card. The card could be shown to each
agricultural employer who hires the
worker. Under § 170.130(d) possession
of a valid card serves as proof of
training, thus relieving the employer of
having to provide training or to
determine whether and when training is
required.
The training verification program is
beneficial to the agricultural employer
and workers alike in that it provides a
common basis for agreement that
training provided to the worker meets
the requirements of the WPS. EPA
expects the training verification card
program to benefit agricultural
employers because it obviates the need
to train a worker, thus minimizing the
costs of the WPS training requirement.
Without such a card system, the
employer might have to provide training
more frequently and to more workers to
assure that all had received training.
For workers, possession of a card
assures that they will be able to work
immediately without unnecessary delay
for training.
III. Current WPS Training Provisions at
Issue
This proposal addresses three
elements of the worker training
requirements. The three elements are:
the grace period before training must be
provided; the phase-in period for the
grace period for workers; and the
retraining requirement for workers and
handlers.
1. The grace period before training
must be provided. Section
170.130(a)(3)(i) requires agricultural
employers to assure that workers have
been trained in pesticide safety before
their 6th day of entry into areas on the
agricultural establishment that have
been treated with a pesticide or that
have been under a restricted entry
interval (REI) within the previous 30
days.
EPA emphasizes that the grace period
applies^only to routine worker training,
not early-entry training or handler
training. No changes are being proposed
or considered for early entry or handler
training.
2. The interim grace period for
workers. The current WPS requires that
the agricultural employer assure that a
worker receives pesticide safety training
before the 6th day of entry into any
treated area on the agricultural
establishment. Section 170.130(a)(3)(ii)
provides for an exception for a 5-year
period until October 20, 1997, during
which time workers would be allowed
to enter treated areas at the
establishment for 15 days before the
employer must assure that they have
been trained. After October 20, 1997, the
15-day grace period is no longer in
effect.
3. The retraining requirement for
workers and handlers. Section
170.130(a)(l) requires that agricultural
employers assure that each worker has
been trained within the previous 5
years. Section 170.230(a)(l) requires
that handler employers assure that each
handler has been trained within the
previous 5 years.
IV. Reasons for this Proposal
The WPS is intended to reduce the
risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries
among agricultural workers and
pesticide handlers through
implementation of appropriate
measures. Pesticide safety training is a
key component of the Standard -
trained, informed workers and handlers
can take steps to avoid exposure or
mitigate harmful pesticide effects,
thereby reducing the number and
severity of pesticide poisonings and
other adverse effects.
Subsequent to promulgation of the
final rule in 1992, the Agency received
comments from farm worker groups
suggesting changes in the grace period
and the retraining interval.
Additionally, the Agency was petitioned
by the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) to
eliminate the interim grace period. The
Agency also met a number of times with
farm worker groups to hear their
concerns on the worker training
provisions. Following is a summary of
their concerns on the training grace
period and 5-year retraining interval.
A. Training Grace Period
Farm worker groups are concerned
that the current grace period would
result in untrained workers being
harmed on the job. They contrasted the
WPS grace period with the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA) Hazard
Communication Standard training
requirement (29 CFR 1910.1200), under
which workers must be trained about
hazardous chemicals in their work area
before first exposure.
States and farm worker groups
asserted that the grace period would be
difficult to enforce. Subsequent to
publication of the WPS, the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation
(CDPR) raised concern about the
anticipated difficulties in enforcing the
training requirement. They asserted that
it may not be feasible to track
accumulated days in treated areas in
anticipation of the required training and
that employers cannot track the
activities of every worker in their
employ.
Additionally, farm worker groups
were concerned that the grace period
could encourage employers to avoid
providing the required training. They
were particularly concerned that,
because of the transient nature of the
agricultural workforce, workers who
move frequently might never be trained
if training were required only after a 5-
day grace period per establishment.
They noted that some workers might not
spend 5 days on any particular
establishment.
Finally, the farm worker groups
argued that all workers should be
entitled to know how to protect
themselves from pesticide residues
before entering treated areas; for training
to be. effective in reducing risk, they
argued, training must take place before
possible exposure to pesticides.
B. Five-Year Retraining
Farm worker groups are concerned
that the 5-year retraining interval is too
long to be effective. They assert that
large numbers of workers and handlers,
particularly field labor contractor
employees, might not have regular
access to the safety poster displayed on
the agricultural establishment because
they are hired off the farm and taken
directly to the field. EPA's confidence in
the safety poster as a means of
reinforcing training, they claim, is
misplaced. Also, many workers and
handlers may not read well (or not be
literate in the poster language), so the
impact of poster messages might be
limited. Qualified trainers assert that
repeat training enhances the retention of
safety training information.
The farm worker groups also
requested a shorter retraining interval.
They pointed to other regulatory
programs under OSHA, EPA, and State
initiatives that require annual
retraining. They also noted that
agricultural employment is seasonal in
nature, and farm workers realistically
cannot be expected to remember
-------
2822
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
training information for such a long
period of time. The groups asserted that
more frequent retraining is needed for
farm workers who are illiterate or have
poor reading skills, and cannot rely on
written materials to refresh their
training.
In response to these concerns, nw\
proposes to revise the Worker Protection
Standard as described in units V. and
VI. of this document.
V. The Grace Period and Interim Grace
Period
EPA is proposing three options for
consideration and comment: the first
option involves eliminating the 15-day
grace period so that employers would
have to train workers before they enter
a treated area, and providing a 1-year
interim period before the 0- day grace
period would go into effect, the second
option involves shortening the 15-day
grace period so that employers would be
required to train workers between 1 and
5 days after the worker has been hired
and the third option involves requiring
a weekly training program. The Agency
is interested in receiving comments on
all options presented.
(1) Shortening the grace period from
15 to 0 days after a 1 year interim grace
period. The Agency is considering
eliminating the training grace period If
the grace period were eliminated
entirely, all new workers would have to
be trained before entering a treated area.
An interim grace period of 1 year is
being proposed to allow employers to
prepare for the elimination of the grace
period.
Training new workers before any
possible exposure may be the most
protective option. No worker would lack
training because he or she had not
worked enough days with a single
employer. By eliminating the grace
period, it is expected that compliance
would be easier for the employer and
state enforcement officer, because there
would be no need to determine whether
the worker had accumulated the
requisite number of workdays on the
establishment.
A 0-day grace period could result in
the need for more frequent, possibly
daily, training sessions. More frequent
training sessions could result in
increased training costs. Also, workers
may have to be trained more than once
if the employer could not assure that the
worker had already received training.
(2) Shortening the grace period from
15 days to between 1 and 5 days. The
Agency is considering shortening the
grace period from 15 days to between 1
and 5 days. Workers would be trained
earlier and perhaps better able to avoid
or mitigate pesticide exposures. By
shortening the grace period, the
possibility that workers would remain
untrained because they moved
frequently from employer to employer
without accumulating the requisite
number of days at any given
establishment to require training would
decrease.
Shortening the grace period is likely
to increase the costs of training, since
employers with higher rates of turnover
in the workforce would have to
schedule more frequent training
sessions. Any grace period at all could
mean that agricultural employers would
need to track the number of days of
entry each worker has accumulated in
order to determine whether training
must be provided. This could present a
burden which could be substantial
depending on the number of workers
hired at the establishment, and the
number who possess training
verification cards.
(3) Requiring a weekly training
program. The Agency is considering an
option, where an employer would be
required to provide a training session
once a week to all untrained workers.
This option might reduce the instances
of workers entering treated areas before
being trained, while reducing the
training burden on employers by
allowing predictability in providing
training on a scheduled basis. A weekly
training session may also result in less
disruption to field labor activities. Also,
a weekly training session may reduce
cost by allowing for more trainees per
session. For establishments with
employee turnover, a weekly training
session allows employers to
"accumulate" new hires over the span
of the week, potentially resulting in
fewer training sessions needed than if
employers were required to train each
employee before applicable field entry.
A weekly training session for untrained
workers may, however, add a
recordkeeping burden to the employer.
The Agency is interested in receiving
information and comments on all
options, particularly the benefits
expected to be gained by shortening the
grace period, as well as expected costs.
Specifically, the Agency is seeking
information on the following: the
practicality and effectiveness of the
options, how the frequency of new hires
may effect the frequency of training
sessions, the rate of turnover in
employment among agricultural workers
and handlers, situations where training
before entry would not be possible, the
risks and/or benefits of providing safety
training information before or after
entering a treated area, the feasibility of
providing training on a short notice to
English and non-English speaking
workers, mechanisms that are available
or will be available to provide training
on short notice, the impact on the
employer and agricultural worker of a 1
year interim grace period before the 0-
day grace period would go into effect,
specific problems caused by eliminating
or shortening the interim grace period 5
years to 1 year and what could be done
to eliminate those problems, what the
regulated community has done to
develop training programs in the 2 years
since the WPS was issued and the
estimated costs of a 0-day, 1 to 5-day
grace period or a weekly training
regimen
VI. The Retraining Interval for Workers
and Handlers
The Agency is proposing for comment
three options for the retraining interval
for workers and handlers; (1) retaining
the 5 year retraining interval, (2)
shortening the retraining interval from 5
to 3 years or (3) provide annual
retraining.
Since chemical use patterns
frequently change, and new hazards
may be identified for existing chemicals,
a shortened retraining interval would be
helpful in mitigating the potential
hazards to farm workers and handlers.
The cost to employers of providing
training to workers and handlers during
an "out" year (any year after the first
year of implementation) increases as the
retraining period decreases. First year
training costs are unaffected by the
retraining interval. AH workers must be
trained during the first year, and
handlers must be trained before they
first handle pesticides. Due to turnover
in the workforce, training after the first
year will not be limited to every third
year for a 3 year retraining interval.
Rather, some mix of training and
retraining will occur during all typical
out years. A shorter retraining interval
may require more training sessions
during the average out year, with higher
total costs. Also, if training of new
workers and retraining of workers in out
years are done at the [same time, the
costs of retraining (regardless of
frequency) may be partially subsumed
in the costs for initial training.
The Agency is interested in receiving
information and comments on all
options, particularly the benefits
expected to be gained by shortening the
retraining interval, as well as the
impacts of a 5 year, 3 year and annual
retraining interval. Specifically, the
Agency is seeking information on the
following: worker and handler retention
of safety training information, whether
agricultural workers and handlers have
a greater need for retraining than
workers in other occupations, the
-------
Tederai Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
2823
effectiveness of the pesticide poster in
reinforcing previous training and the
burdens the various retraining options
might place on agricultural employers
or other entities that may perform
worker or handler training. Concerns
with each of the options are requested
as well.
Commenters supporting retaining the
current 5-year retraining interval,
shortening the retraining interval to 3
years, or providing annual retraining,
should state explicitly the reasons for,
and provide information on the need,
costs and feasibility of, the
recommended option.
VII. Solicitation of Comments
A record has been established for this
rulemaking under docket number
"OPP-250097" (including comments
and data submitted electronically as
described below). A public version of
this record, including printed, paper
versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information
claimed as confidential business
information (CBI), is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in
Roomll32 of the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Written comments should be mailed to:
Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C) Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
EPA is interested in receiving
comments and information on all of the
proposed options. Comments are
requested on: (1) general worker and
handler hiring and employment
practices, such as the rate of turnover
and employment among agricultural
workers and handlers, (2) the
practicality and effectiveness of the
grace period options, including how the
frequency of hiring would affect the
frequency of training sessions,
situations where training before entry
would not be possible, mechanisms that
are available or will be available to
provide training on short notice and the
estimated costs of reducing or
eliminating the grace period or
providing a weekly training regimen, (3)
the practicality and effectiveness of
eliminating the interim grace period for
training and (4) the retraining interval,
including the impacts of a retraining
interval of less than 5 years, worker and
handler retention of safety training
information over time, whether
agricultural workers and handlers have
a greater need for retraining than
workers in other occupations, the
effectiveness of the pesticide poster in
reinforcing previous training and the
burdens the various retraining options
might place on agricultural employers
or other entities that may perform
worker or handler training. Comments
should be distinguished as applying to
workers, handlers, or both, as
applicable.
As part of an interagency
"streamlining" initiative, EPA is
experimenting with submission of
public comments on selected Federal
Register actions electronically through
the Internet in addition to accepting
comments in traditional written form.
This proposed exception is one of the
actions selected by EPA for this
experiment. From the experiment, EPA
will learn how electronic commenting
works, and any problems that arise can
be addressed before EPA adopts
electronic commenting more broadly in
its rulemaking activities. Electronic
commenting through posting to the EPA
Bulletin Board or through the Internet
using the ListServe function raise some
novel issues that are discussed below in
this Unit.
To submit electronic comments,
persons can either "subscribe" to the
Internet ListServe application or "post"
comments to the EPA Bulletin Board. To
"Subscribe" to the Internet ListServe
application for this proposed exception,
send an e-mail message to:
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that
says "Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69 ." Once you are
subscribed to the ListServe, comments
should be sent to: RIN-2070-
AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All
comments and data in electronic form
should be identified by the docket
number OPP-250097 since all five
documents in this separate part provide
the same electronic address.
For online viewing of submissions
and posting of comments, the public
access EPA Bulletin Board is also
available by dialing 202-488-3671,
enter selection "DMAIL," user name
"BB—USER" or 919-541-4642, enter
selection "MAIL," user name "BB—
USER." When dialing the EPA Bulletin
Board type at the opening
message. When the "Notes" prompt
appears, type "open RIN- 2070-AC69"
to access the posted messages for this
document. To get a listing of all files,
type "dir/all" at the prompt line.
Electronic comments can also be sent
directly to EPA at:
Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form
of encryption. To obtain further
information on the electronic comment
process, or on submitting comments on
this proposed exception electronically
through the EPA Bulletin Board or the
Internet ListServe, please contact John
A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253-
FAX: 202-260-3884; Internet:
richards.john@epamail.epa.gov).
Persons who comment on this
proposed rule, and those who view
comments electronically, should be
aware that this experimental electronic
commenting is administered on a
completely public system. Therefore,
any personal information included in
comments and the electronic mail
addresses of those who make comments
electronically are automatically
available to anyone else who views the
comments. Similarly, since all
electronic comments are available to all
users, commenters should not submit
electronically any information which
they believe to be CBI. Such information
should be submitted only directly to
EPA in writing as described earlier in
this Unit.
Commenters and others outside EPA
may choose to comment on the
comments submitted by others using the
RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA
Bulletin Board. If they do so, those
comments as well will become part of
EPA's record for this rulemaking.
Persons outside EPA wishing to discuss
comments with commenters or
otherwise communicate with
commenters but not have those
discussions or communications sent to
EPA and included in the EPA
rulemaking record should conduct those
discussions and communications
outside the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe
or the EPA Bulletin Board.
The official record for this
rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept
in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will
transfer all comments received
electronically in the RIN-2070-AC69
ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in
accordance with the instructions for
electronic submission, into printed,
paper form as they are received and will
place the paper copies in the official
rulemaking record which will also
include all comments submitted directly
in writing. All the electronic comments
will be available to everyone who
obtains access to the RIN-2070-AC69
ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board;
however, the official rulemaking record
is the paper record maintained at the
address in "ADDRESSES" at the
beginning of this document. (Comments
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11. 1995 / Proposed Rules
submitted only in written form will not
be transferred into electronic form and
thus may be accessed only by reviewing
them in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch as described
above.)
Because the electronic comment
process is still experimental, EPA
cannot guarantee that all electronic
comments will be accurately converted
to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes
aware, in transferring an electronic
comment to printed, paper form, of a
problem or error that results in an
obviously garbled comment, EPA will
attempt to contact the comment
submitter and advise the submitter to
resubmit the comment either in
electronic or written form. Some
commenters may choose to submit
identical comments in both electronic
and written form to ensure accuracy. In
that case, EPA requests that commenters
clearly note in both the electronic and
written submissions that the comments
are duplicated in the other medium.
This will assist EPA in processing and
filing the comments in the rulemaking
record.
As with ordinary written comments,
at the time of receipt, EPA will not
attempt to verify the identities of
electronic commenters nor to review the
accuracy of electronic comments.
Electronic and written comments will
be placed in the rulemaking record
without any editing or change by EPA
except to the extent changes occur in
the process of converting electronic
comments to printed, paper form.
If it chooses to respond officially to
electronic comments on this proposed
rule, EPA will do so either in a notice
in the Federal Register or in a response
to comments document placed in the
rulemaking record for this proposed
rule. EPA will not respond to
commenters electronically other than to
seek clarification of electronic
comments that may be garbled in
transmission or conversion to printed,
paper form as discussed above. Any
communications from EPA employees
to electronic commenters, other than
those described in this paragraph, either
through Internet or otherwise are not
official responses from EPA.
VIII. Statutory Requirements
As required by FIFRA section 25(a),
this proposed rule was provided to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and to
Congress for review. The FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel waived its
review.
USDA provided extensive written
comment. The general tenor of USDA
comments suggest suspending the
proposed changes to the training
requirement until EPA observes the
efficacy of current training provisions
and the feasibility of a 0-day grace
period. However, the Agency maintains
that the options being proposed increase
the chance of protection through earlier
provision of safety training. The Agency
intends to observe and evaluate the
effectiveness of training in the field,
with whatever option is selected.
USDA's specific comments focused
on the following areas: (1) Elimination
of the grace period; (2) retraining
interval; (3) training requirements by
category; (4) the regulatory impact
analysis; (5) training verification.
(1) USDA expressed concern that
elimination of the 5-day grace period
would create costs for the employer, by
preventing scheduled training for large
groups, while providing little or no
increase in the protection for workers.
EPA believes that the elimination of the
grace period will provide increased
protection to workers by providing
safety information before workers enter
a treated area. The incremental cost
incurred by the employer does not
appear to outweigh the benefits that
come with the potential prevention of
exposure.
EPA and USDA have differing
opinions regarding the employer
recordkeeping burden necessitated by a
grace period. However, it is agreed that,
for state regulators to verify compliance
with the regulations, some employer
burden of recordkeeping would be
necessary during a grace period.
USDA questions the need to train
workers before they enter a treated field,
due to other WPS protection provided
workers, while EPA believes that these
provisions are part of an integrated
package of measures that are effective
only after being explained through
training. USDA suggests that, as a means
to enhance understanding of pesticide
safety, employers distribute the WPS
worker training handbook to newly
hired employees and follow with
training in a few days, however this
assumes that all employees would be
able to read and understand the
materials.
(2) USDA questions the need tor a
shorter retraining interval, however,
professional training organizations and
farmworker groups assert that more
frequent retraining is needed in order to
assure retention of the substance of
training sessions. More frequent
retraining is especially needed for
workers who may have poor reading
skills and cannot rely on written
materials to recall all safety information.
(3) USDA expresses concern that clear
distinctions be made among handlers,
early-entry workers, production laborers
and harvesters, and that they may also
warrant different training requirements.
EPA believes that the current
regulation's distinctions between
workers, handlers, and early-entry
workers address USDA's concerns since
these categories have different training
requirements. This proposal does not
address the substance of training or the
training requirements.
(4) USDA questions the strength ot me
conclusions of studies used in the
regulatory impact analysis to support
the assumption that risk is reduced
through modifications of behavior after
training. They also note1 that EPA uses
the same number estimate for workers
trained with a 0-day grace period and
a 15-day grace period. In the absence of
data, EPA did use the same estimate of
workers, and, as a consequence,
conservatively overestimated the cost of
a 0-day grace period. USDA questions
the accuracy of other data that EPA used
in the analysis of the costs of a 0-day
grace period, however, EPA used USDA
data and agricultural census data for
this analysis.
USDA asserts that the effect of a 0-
day grace period could influence the
employer to lower pay, possibly
eliminate jobs. EPA believes that the
cost of training would be small relative
to the total cost of labor. USDA noted
that EPA's estimate of the number of
workers is incorrect. EPA used the same
estimate of the number of workers as
was used, and agreed upon by USDA,
for the 1992 WPS. USDA pointed out
that EPA's estimate of the number of
handlers and workers is incorrect due to
the use of 1987 data instead of 1990
data. EPA believed that the 1987 data
were better in that they were
agricultural census data as opposed to
general census data. ,
USDA questions the use of 30 minutes
per worker training session in EPA's
cost estimates. EPA's worker training
program was field tested in both English
and Spanish, and, with questions, took
approximately 30 minutes.
(5) USDA claims that the additional
proof-of-identity requirement would be
extremely difficult for employers to
meet and would be a disincentive for
employers to issue cards. This is a
misreading of the WPS provision that
..."If the agricultural employer is aware
or has reason to know that an EPA
training verification card has not been
issued in accordance^with the
provisions of WPS, or has not been
issued to the employee bearing the card,
or the date for retraining has past, an
employee's possession of that training
verification card does not relieve the
employer of the training obligations
under WPS." '.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 19915 I Proposed Rules
2825
USDA noted that issuing training
cards would assist other employers who
hire already trained workers. In
addition, USDA is concerned that
handlers and workers that possess cards
will become preferred job applicants.
USDA fears that since not all states on
or verification cards it will cause a
burden to job applicants in states where
cards are not honored and give job
preference to those employees who
possess cards.
The regulation establishes a training
verification program that is voluntary,
therefore, not all employers will
participate. However, employers who do
participate will relieve themselves from
the burden of retraining workers who
have already been trained.
Forty states, Puerto Rico and 2 tribes
have entered into an agreement to issue
training verification cards. Three
additional states say they will be
entering into an agreement. Four states
already have programs that are identical
to the Federal program and will issue
state cards. Over 2.5 million cards have
been delivered to states who have
entered into the program. By law, the
employer can accept the card as
verification that the employee was
trained.
USDA raised concern over the
verification cards that have an
expiration date based on the initial 5-
year retraining interval date. Training
cards are valid until the expiration date
stated on the card. When the retraining
interval is changed, these training cards
will remain valid until the expiration
date on the card.
IX. Regulatory Assessment
Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4,1993), it has
been determined that this is a
"significant regulatory action" because
it raised potentially novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order. The
total cost of this rule depends on the
combination of options under the grace
period and the retraining interval
selected. The costs have been estimated
by EPA and are presented in the Impact
Assessment for the Worker Protection
Standard, Training Provisions Rule.
This proposal was submitted to OMB for
review, and any comments or changes
made have been documented in the
public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule was reviewed under the
provisions of sec. 3 (a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and it was determined
that the rule would not have a
significant adverse impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The smallest entities regulated under
the Worker Protection Standard, family-
operated agricultural establishments
with no hired labor, are not subject to
the training requirements, and therefore
have no cost associated with this rule.
These small entities (with no hired
labor) represent about 45 percent of the
agricultural establishments within the
scope of the WPS. The smallest of those
entities which do hire labor are those
with only one hired employee.
Estimated costs per worker or handler
are similar for an establishment with
one employee as for larger
establishments, causing no significant
disproportionate burden on small
entities. After the first year of
implementation, the average annual
training costs to comply with these
regulations (not including the costs
already being incurred) is also very
modest, estimated at about $2.20 per
worker.
The largest difference in costs per
worker occurs on vegetable/fruit/nut
farms, where estimated incremental first
year cost per worker is $4.13 on small
farms and $3.06 on larger farms;
incremental first year cost per handler is
estimated at $11.55 for both small and
large farms. The largest cost per
establishment is also on vegetable/fruit/
nut farms, where incremental first year
cost per establishment is estimated to be
$4.13 to $11.55 for small (single-
employee) farms, and $77.49 for the
typical large farm. Incremental cost of
the proposed training options is also
very modest. Average incremental cost
to vegetable/fruit/nut farms (all sizes), is
estimated at $37.15 the first year and
$17.51 in subsequent years.
I therefore certify that this proposal
does not require a separate analysis
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains no information
collection requirements, and is therefore
not subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
D. Public Docket
EPA has established a public docket
(OPP-250097) containing the
information used in developing this
proposed rule. The public docket is
open Monday through Friday from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m. and is located in Crystal
Mall #2, Room 1132,1921 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
List of Subjects in Part 170
Environmental protection, Pesticides
and pests, Intergovernmental relations,
Occupational safety and health,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 3, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 170 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation would
continue to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.
2. In § 170.130, by revising the section
heading and paragraph (a)(l), removing
paragraph (a)(3), and by revising
paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
§170.130 Pesticide safety training for
workers.
(a) * * *
(1) Requirement. The agricultural
employer shall assure that each worker
required by this section to be trained
has been trained in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section before the
worker enters, or before between the 1st
and 6th day that the worker enters any
area or during the first weekly training
session available to each worker
provided by the employer [grace period '
to be determined based on public
comment will be insert in the final rule]
on the agricultural establishment where,
within the last 30 days, a pesticide to
which this subpart applies has been
applied or a restricted-entry interval for
such pesticide has been in effect. The
agricultural employer shall assure that
each such worker has been trained
during the last (Agency will insert 1,3,
or 5 years in the final rule based on
public comment) counting from the end
of the month in which the training was
completed.
*****
(d) * * *
(2) If the agricultural employer is
aware or has reason to know that an
EPA-a.pproved Worker Protection
Standard worker training certificate has
not been issued in accordance with this
section, or has not been issued to the
worker bearing the certificate, or the
training was completed more than
(Agency will insert 1, 3, or 5 years in the
final rule based on public comment)
before the beginning of the current
month, a worker's possession of that
certificate does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section.
-------
3. In §170.230, by revising the section
heading and paragraphs (a) and (d)(2) to
read as follows:
§170.230 Pesticide safety training for
handlers.
(a) Requirement. Before any handler
performs any handling task, the handler
employer shall assure that the handler
has been trained in accordance with this
section during the last (Agency will
insert 1,3, or 5 years in the final rule
based on public comment) counting
from the end of the month in which the
training was completed.
*****
(d)* * *
(2) If the handler employer is aware
or has reason to know that an EPA-
approved Worker Protection Standard
handler training certificate has not been
issued in accordance with this section,
or has not been issued to the handler
bearing the certificate, or the handler
training was completed more than.
(Agency will insert 1, 3, or 5 years in the
final rule based on public comment)
before the beginning of the current
month, a handler's possession of that
certificate does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section.
IFR Doc. 95-583 Filed 1-6-95; 12:17 pml
DILLINQ CODE 6560-60-P
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250100; FRL-4928-7]
BIN 2070-AC82
Pesticide Worker Protection Standard;
Requirements for Crop Advisors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend
the worker protection requirements for
agricultural establishments, by
exempting certified or licensed crop
advisors from the requirements. EPA is
also proposing to exempt crop advising
employees of certified or licensed crop
advisors from the WPS requirements
except pesticide safety training. A
temporary exemption for all persons
doing crop advising tasks to allow time
for acquiring licensing or certification is
also proposed.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before February 10,1995.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written
comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring
comments to: Room 1132, Crystal Mall
2,1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202. Information
submitted in any comment concerning
this document may be claimed
confidential by marking any part or all
of that information as "Confidential
Business Information" (CBI).
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
A copy of the comment that does not
contain CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. All written
comments, including non-CBI copies,
will be available for public inspection in
Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given
above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
Comments and data may also be
submitted electronically by any of three
different mechanisms: by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: Docket-
OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a
"Subscribe" message to
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and
once subscribed, send your comments to
RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA
Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing
202-488-3671, enter selection
"DMAIL," user name "BB—USER" or ^
919-541^1642, enter selection "MAIL,"
user name "BB—USER." Electronic
comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All
comments and data in electronic form
must be identified by the docket number
OPP-250100 since all five documents in
this separate part provide the same
electronic address. No CBI should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic
comments on this proposed rule, but not
the record, may be viewed or new
comments filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions
can be found in unit VI. of this
document.
comments received from crop advisor
groups requesting exemptions from the
Worker Protection Standard (WPS).
Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend
40 CFR Part 170, governing worker
protection requirements on agricultural
establishments, to exempt certified or
licensed crop advisors from the
requirements of the rule. EPA is also
proposing to exempt crop advising
employees of certified or licensed crop
advisors from the WPS;requirements
except pesticide safety training. A
temporary exemption for all persons
doing crop advising tasks to allow time
for acquiring licensing or certification is
also proposed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald E. Eckerman Office of Pesticide
Programs (7506C) Environmental
Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460 Office location
and telephone number: Room 1101,
Crystal Mall 2 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone: 703-305-7371.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is
proposing this rule in response to
I. Statutory Authority
This proposed rule is issued under
the authority of section 25(a) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.
136w(a).
II. Background
This proposed WPS rule amendment
is one of a series of Agency actions in
response to concerns raised since
publication of the final rule in August
1992 by those interested in and affected
by the rule. In addition to this proposed
amendment, EPA is publishing four
other notices soliciting public comment
on concerns raised by various affected
parties. Other actions EPA is
considering include: (1) modification to
the worker training requirements; (2)
exceptions to early entry restrictions for
irrigation activities; (3) reduced
restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low
risk pesticides; and (4) reduced early
entry restrictions for activities involving
limited contact with treated surfaces.
The Agency is interested in receiving
comments on all options and questions
presented.
FIFRA authorizes EPA to regulate the
sale, distribution, and use of pesticides
in the United States. The Act generally
requires that EPA license by registration
each pesticide product sold or
distributed in the United States, if use
of that the pesticide product will not
cause "unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment," a determination that
takes into account the economic, social,
and environmental costs and benefits of
*InU1992 EPAPrevS the WPS (40 CFR
Part 170) (57 FR 38102, August 21,
1992) which is intended to protect
agricultural workers and handlers from
risks associated with agricultural
pesticides. The 1992 WPS superseded
the original WPS promulgated in 1974
and expanded the WPS scope to include
not only workers performing hand labor
operations in fields treated with
-------
pesticides, but also workers in or on
farms, forests, nurseries, and
greenhouses, as well as pesticide
handlers who mix, load, apply, or
otherwise handle pesticides for use at
these locations in the production of
agricultural commodities. The revisions
to the WPS were intended to reduce the
risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries
among agricultural workers who are
exposed to pesticide residues and
pesticide handlers who may face more
hazardous levels of exposure.
Under the 1992 WPS, crop advisors
are defined by the tasks performed,
specifically, as persons who assess pest
numbers or damage, pesticide
distribution, or the status or
requirements of agricultural plants. The
term does not include any person who
is performing hand labor tasks. Crop
consultants, pest control advisors,
silviculturalists, scouts and crop
advisors commonly perform crop
advising tasks on farms, nurseries,
greenhouses and forests. As such, these
individuals when performing crop
advisor tasks are included under the
definition of crop advisor in tiw WPS.
Persons performing crop advisor tasks
during the pesticide application, before
the inhalation exposure level listed in
the labeling has been reached or one of
the ventilation criteria has been met, or
during a restricted entry interval (REI),
are included in the WPS's definition of
handlers. As handlers, crop advisors
may enter treated areas during the REI
without time limitations, if provided
with the personal protective equipment
(PPE) required on the product labeling
and other protections as handlers.
Employees of agricultural
establishments who are performing
crop-advising tasks in a treated area
within 30 days of the expiration of an
REI are provided the same protections
as workers under Part 170. Employees of
commercial pesticide handling
establishments who are performing crop
advisor tasks in a treated area after the
expiration of an REI are excluded from
the definition of "worker" under Part
170 and, therefore, their presence in the
treated area does not trigger any WPS
requirements.
During the 1992 rulemaking, USDA
expressed concerns about limiting the
access of crop consultants and
integrated pest management (IPM)
scouts to treated areas immediately
following pesticide applications. In
response to this concern, EPA included
crop advisors in the definition of
handlers rather than workers so as to
allow crop advisors unlimited access to
treated areas during application and the
REIs.
2827
Since promulgation of the WPS, EPA
has received a number of comments on
the requirements for crop advisors. Crop
advisor groups and the National
Association of State Departments of
Agriculture (NASDA) have commented
that crop advisors are capable, by virtue
of their knowledge, training and
experience, of determining the
appropriate precautions to be followed
when working in pesticide treated areas,
and therefore should be excluded from
the WPS. The National Alliance of
Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC)
commented that crop consultants, and
their field survey and scouting
employees, should be exempted from
many of the provisions of the WPS
In April 1994, Congress passed the
Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension
Act which, among other things,
exempted crop advisors from the
requirements of the WPS until January
1,1995. This delay was to allow time for
EPA to resolve concerns that had been
raised relative to the WPS, including the
crop advisor requirements. Since the
delay legislation, EPA has received
additional comments, which are
discussed under the appropriate
sections in this preamble.
III. Exemption of a Qualified Subset of
Crop Advisors from WPS Requirements
EPA is proposing to exempt a
qualified subset of crop advisors, those
who are certified or licensed, and their
crop advisor employees from all
requirements of the WPS except for
pesticide safety training. Crop advisors
who are certified or licensed could
substitute the training received during
licensing or certification, if equivalent
to the WPS training.
EPA is also proposing to exempt all
individuals performing crop advisor
activities from all the WPS requirements
until January 1,1996 to allow time for
individuals to obtain certification or
licensing. After January 1, 1996 only
crop advisors who are certified or
licensed and their direct employees will
be exempt. All others performing crop
advising tasks will be subject to the full
WPS requirements. Based on the
comments received since the 1992
rulemaking, EPA reconsidered the
requirements applicable to crop
advisors and has determined that there
may be a subset of crop advisors, those
who are licensed or certified and trained
in pesticide safety, that could be
exempted from providing the
protections of the WPS for themselves
and their employees.
In general, the purpose of the WPS is
to protect agricultural employees from
the risks of exposure to pesticides.
Trained crop advisors who are licensed
or certified are generally more informed
about the hazards associated with
pesticides and good pesticide safety
practices and should be capable of
making informed judgement about risks
and what protections should be
provided for individuals performing
crop advising tasks.
EPA discussed the WPS with the
Agronomy Society of America in order
to obtain more information that would
help EPA define the subset of crop
adviisors that could potentially be
exempted. The Agronomy Society of
America informed EPA that it has a
Certified Crop Advisor program
administered in each participating State
by a board made up of representatives
of various State agencies, universities,
commodity associations, and other at-
large members. In order to be certified
as a crop advisor under this program,
the individual must pass an
examination on specified subject areas,
have a combination of education and
experience as a crop advisor, and to
maintain certification, complete
continuing education credits. The
subject areas in the examination include
pesticide safety, WPS requirements, and
various subjects related to agricultural
plant production.
In addition, a variety of licensing and
certification programs for crop advisors
are administered by States across the
country. For example, California
licenses crop advisors and requires that
licensees meet certain minimum
qualifications including a minimum
number of college level semester units
in areas related to agriculture, and two
years of technical experience.
The National Alliance of Independent
Crop Consultants (NAICC) commented
that most of their members have degrees
in agriculture and train their employees
in pesticide safety. NAICC further
suggested that nationally recognized
registries of crop consultants, or State
level licenses or certifications, could be
used to define the crop advisors who
would be exempt from WPS. Those
individuals not meeting the
requirements of a licensing or
certification program could continue to
work as crop advisors under the same
protections as currently required in the
WPS. NASDA recommended in a July
1994 petition for rulemaking that the
WPS "exclude paid crop advisors that
work on a full-time basis for a group of
agricultural employers but only part-
time for any single farmer." NASDA did
not provide its rationale for excluding
this category of crop advisors from the
WPS. N ASDA also recommended that
the WPS exclude persons such as
government agency employees,
pesticide company representatives, and
-------
university researchers who perform crop
advisor tasks. ...
EPA is proposing, in §170.202(c)(2),
§170.130(b)(2) and §170.230(b)(2) to
exempt from the WPS protections, crop
advisors who are licensed or certified by
a program administered or approved by
a State, Tribal, or Federal agency having
jurisdiction over such licensing or
certification, provided that the licensing
or certification requires pesticide safety
training that includes all the
information set forth in §170.230(cK4).
EPA is also proposing in §170.202(c)(2)
to exempt employees of licensed or
certified crop advisors from the WPS
protections except the pesticide safety
training requirements.
Under EPA's proposal, certified or
licensed crop advisors, (including
government agency personnel, pesticide
company representatives, or university
researchers) would be exempt from the
WPS requirements. Currently under the
WPS, if employers of government
agency personnel, pesticide company
representatives, or university
researchers do not have a contractual
relationship or exchange compensation
of any type with an agricultural
establishment or commercial pesticide
handling establishment for crop
advising activities, then neither the
agricultural employer nor the
commercial pesticide handling
establishment is required to provide the
WPS protections to the government
agency personnel, pesticide company
representatives, or university
researchers.
Also under EPA's proposal, those
crop advisors who do not become
certified or licensed will remain subject
to the full requirements of the WPS if
they are not employed by a licensed or
certified crop advisor. After January 1,
1996 only crop advisors who are
certified or licensed and their direct
employees will be exempt. All others
performing crop advising tasks will be
subject to the full WPS requirements.
EPA solicits comments on other
possible ways for crop advisors to
obtain training and experience
equivalent to being certified or licensed
by a program administered or approved
by a State, Tribal, or Federal agency.
Commenters suggesting other types of
programs should include information on
the requirements for such programs and
how completion of the program could
be verified for enforcement purposes.
While EPA is willing to propose
exempting the employees of certified or
licensed crop advisors from WPS
requirements, it remains concerned that
employees may not have necessary
protections readily available. EPA is
interested in receiving comments on
industry practices that would assure
that proper protections are available to
employees. These include but are not
limited to routine use of PPE and/or
provision of PPE and decontamination
supplies to employees.
IV. Temporary Exemption for Crop
Advisor Activities
EPA is proposing in §170.202(c)(2) to
exempt all individuals performing crop
advisor activities until January 1,1996.
This will effectively extend the
exemption for crop advisors in the delay
legislation referenced earlier in this
document and will allow those crop
advisors who are not now licensed or
certified to obtain such credentials prior
to the end of the temporary exemption.
EPA would like comment on the
proposed temporary exemption
expiration date and its feasibility in
terms of sufficient time for crop advisors
to complete licensing or certification
requirements. Also, is a total temporary
exemption necessary? Should a subset
of crop advisors be exempt? Or should
the exemption apply to only a few of the
WPS requirements?
V. Technical Amendments
EPA is revising §170.202 (c) which
exempts owners of agricultural
establishments from Subpart C
requirements for handlers, by
reorganizing the paragraph into two
parts: one for owners of agricultural
establishments and one for crop
advisors. The existing exemption for
agricultural owners is being
redesignated as paragraph (1) and it has
been reformatted. No substantive change
has been made to the exemption for
agricultural establishment owners.
VI. Public Docket and Electronic
Comments
A record has been established for this
rulemaking under docket number
"OPP-250100" (including comments
and data submitted electronically as
described below). A public version of
this record, including printed, paper
versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information
claimed as confidential business
information (CBI), is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in
Room 1132 of the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, CM #2,1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Written comments should be mailed to:
Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C) Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
As part of an interagency
"streamlining" initiative, EPA is
experimenting with submission of
public comments on selected Federal
Register actions electronically through
the Internet in addition to accepting
comments in traditional written form.
This proposed rule amendment is one of
the actions selected by EPA for this
experiment. From the experiment, EPA
will learn how electronic commenting
works, and any problems that arise can
be addressed before EPA adopts
electronic commenting more broadly in
its rulemaking activities. Electronic
commenting through posting to the EPA
Bulletin Board or through the Internet
using the ListServe function raises some
novel issues that are discussed below in
this Unit.
To submit electronic comments,
persons can either "subscribe" to the
Internet ListServe application or "post"
comments to the EPA Bulletin Board. To
"Subscribe" to the Internet ListServe
application for this proposed exception,
send an e-mail message to:
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that
says "Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69 ." Once you are
subscribed to the ListServe, comments
should be sent to: RIN-2070-
AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All
comments and data in electronic form
should be identified by the docket
number OPP-250100 since all five
documents in this separate part provide
the same electronic address.
For online viewing of submissions
and posting of comments, the public
access EPA Bulletin Board is also
available by dialing 202-488-3671,
enter selection "DMAIL," user name
"BB—USER" or 919-541-4642, enter
selection "MAIL," user name "BB—
USER." When dialing the EPA Bulletin
Board type at the opening
message. When the "Notes" prompt
appears, type "open RIN- 2070-AC69"
to access the posted messages for this
document. To get a listing of all files,
type "dir/all" at the prompt line.
Electronic comments can also be sent
directly to EPA at:
Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form
of encryption. To obtain further
information on the electronic comment
process, or on submitting comments on
this proposed exception electronically
through the EPA Bulletin Board or the
Internet ListServe, please contact John
A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253;
-------
FAX: 202-260-3884; Internet:
richards.john@epamail.epa.gov).
Persons who comment on this
proposed rule, and those who view
comments electronically, should be
aware that this experimental electronic
commenting is administered on a
completely public system. Therefore,
any personal information included in
comments and the electronic mail
addresses of those who make comments
electronically are automatically
available to anyone else who views the
comments. Similarly, since all
electronic comments are available to all
users, commenters should not submit
electronically any information which
they believe to be CBI. Such information
should be submitted only directly to
EPA in writing as described earlier in
this Unit.
Commenters and others outside EPA
may choose to comment on the
comments submitted by others using the
RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA
Bulletin Board. If they do so, those
comments as well will become part of
EPA's record for this rulemaking.
Persons outside EPA wishing to discuss
comments with commenters or
otherwise communicate with
commenters but not have those
discussions or communications sent to
EPA and included in the EPA
rulemaking record should conduct those
discussions and communications
outside the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe
or the EPA Bulletin Board.
The official record for this
rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept
in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will
transfer all comments received
electronically in the RIN-2070-AC69
ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in
accordance with the instructions for
electronic submission, into printed,
paper form as they are received and will
place the paper copies in the official
rulemaking record which will also
include all comments submitted directly
in writing. All the electronic comments
will be available to everyone who
obtains access to the RIN-2070-AC69
ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board;
however, the official rulemaking record
is the paper record maintained at the
address in "ADDRESSES" at the
beginning of this document. (Comments
submitted only in written form will not
be transferred into electronic form and
thus may be accessed only by reviewing
them in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch as described
above.)
Because the electronic comment
process is still experimental, EPA
cannot guarantee that all electronic
comments will be accurately converted
2829
to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes
aware, in transferring an electronic
comment to printed, paper form, of a
problem or error that results in an
obviously garbled comment, EPA will
attempt to contact the comment
submitter and advise the submitter to
resubmit the comment either in
electronic or written form. Some
commenters may choose to submit
identical comments in both electronic
and written form to ensure accuracy. In
that case, EPA requests that commenters
clearly note in both the electronic and
written submissions that the comments
are duplicated in the other medium
This will assist EPA in processing and
filing the comments in the rulemakine
record.
As with ordinary written comments
at the time of receipt, EPA will not
attempt to verify the identities of
electronic commenters nor to review the
accuracy of electronic comments.
Electronic and written comments will
be placed in the rulemaking record
without any editing or change by EPA
except to the extent changes occur in
the process of converting electronic
comments to printed, paper form.
If it chooses to respond officially to
electronic comments on this proposed
rule, EPA will do so either in a notice
in the Federal Register or in a response
to comments document placed in the
rulemaking record for this proposed
rule. EPA will not respond to
commenters electronically other than to
seek clarification of electronic
comments that may be garbled in
transmission or conversion to printed,
paper form as discussed above. Any
communications from EPA employees
to electronic commenters, other than
those described in this paragraph, either
through Internet or otherwise are not
official responses from EPA.
VII. Statutory Requirements
As required by FIFRA sec. 25(a), this
proposed rule was provided to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and to
Congress for review. The FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel waived its
review.
VIII. Consultations
EPA has had informal consultations
with some States through the EPA
regional offices and at regularly
scheduled meetings of SFIREG where
State representatives were present. No
significant issues were identified as a
result of EPA's discussion with the
States. Additionally, as a result of
consultation with USDA, EPA has
revised its proposal to include the
employees of crop advisors in the
proposed exemption and has proposed
the temporary exemption to allow time
for crop advisors to become certified or
licensed. EPA has also revised this
document to clarify the proposal and to
more directly request specific comment
on the options.
IX. Regulatory Assessment
Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has
been determined that this is a
"significant regulatory action" because
it raised potentially novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order. In
addition, the Agency estimates that the
total potential cost savings associated
with the proposed amendment would
range from $1.7 million to $3.5 million
over a ten year period, with a single
crop advisor potentially saving as much
as $1200 over a ten year period. This
action was submitted to OMB for
review, and any comments or changes
made have been documented in the
public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule was reviewed under the
provisions of sec. 3(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and it was determined
that the proposed rule would not have
an adverse impact on any small entities
The proposed rule will provide cost
savings to an estimated 2,500 to 5,000
crop advisors and an additional 15,000
employees of crop advisors who will be
affected by the proposed amendments I
therefore certify that this proposal does
not require a separate Regulatory Impact
Analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has determined that there are no
information collection burdens under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
associated with the requirements
contained in this proposal.
List of Subjects In Part 170
Administrative practice and
procedure, Occupational safety and
health, Pesticides and pests.
Dated: January 3,1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
part 170 be amended as follows:
-------
1. The authority citation for Part 170
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C.136W.
2. In Section 170.130 by paragraph [b)
to read as follows:
§170.130 Pesticide safety training for
workers.
* *
(b) Exceptions. The following persons
need not be trained under this section:
(1) A worker who is currently
certified as an applicator of restricted-
use pesticides under part 171 of this
(2) A worker who satisfies the training
requirements of part 171 of this chapter.
(3) A worker who satisfies the handler
training requirements of §170.230(c).
(4) A person who is licensed or
certified as a crop advisor by a program
administered or approved by a State,
Tribal or Federal agency having
jurisdiction over such licensing or
certification, provided that a
requirement for such licensing or
certification is pesticide safety training
that includes all the information set out
in §170.230(c)(4)
*
3. In Section 170.202 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§170.202 Applicability of this subpart.
.b * *
* *
(c) Exemptions. The handlers listed in
this paragraph are exempt from the
specified provisions of this subpart.
(1) Owners of agricultural
establishments, (i) The owner of an
agricultural establishment is not
required to provide to himself or
members of his immediate family who
are performing handling tasks on their
own agricultural establishment the
protections of:
(A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).
(B) Section 170.222.
(C) Section 170.230
(D) Section 170.232.
(E) Section 170.234.
(F) Section 170.235.
(G) Section 170 240(e) through (g).
(H) Section 170.250.
(I) Section 170.260.
(ii) The owner of the agricultural
establishment must provide the
protections required by paragraph
(c)(l)(i) of this section to other handlers
and other persons who are not members
of his immediate family. .
(2) Licensed or certified crop advisors
and their employees, (i) A person who
is licensed or certified as a crop advisor
by a program administered or approved
by a State, Tribal or Federal agency
having jurisdiction for such licensing or
certification, provided that a
requirement for such licensing or
certification is pesticide safety training
that includes all the information set out
in §170.230(c)(4), is not required to
provide to himself or his crop advisor
employees the protections of:
(A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).
(B) Section 170.232.
(C) Section 170.240.
(D) Section 170.250.
(E) Section 170.260.
(ii) Any individual when performing
tasks as a crop advisor is exempt until
January 1,1996 from the requirements
(A) Section 170.210(b) and (c).
(B) Section 170.230.
(C) Section 170.232.
(D) Section 170.240.
(E) Section 170.250.
(F) Section 170.260.
5. In §170.230 by revising paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
§170.230 Pesticide safety training for
handlers.
*
(b) Exceptions. The following persons
need not be trained under this section:
(1) A handler who is currently
certified as an applicator of restricted-
use pesticides under part 171 of this
chapter.
(2) A handler who satisfies the
training requirements of part 171 of this
chapter.
(3) A person who is licensed or
certified as a crop advisor by a program
administered or approved by a State,
Tribal or Federal agency having
jurisdiction over such licensing or
certification, provided that a
requirement for such licensing or
certification is pesticide safety training
that includes all the information set out
in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
[FR Doc. 95-584 Filed 1-6-95; 12:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-WM=
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250098; FRL^»917-7]
Exceptions to Worker Protection
Standard Early Entry Restrictions;
Irrigation Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule;
request for comment.
SUMMARY: EPA is considering exceptions
to the Worker Protection Standard for
Agricultural Pesticides (WPS),
published at 57 FR 38102 (August 21,
1992), that would allow, under specified
conditions, workers to perform early
entry irrigation tasks for more than 1
hour per day during a restricted entry
interval (REI). Early entry is entry to a
pesticide-treated area before expiration
of the REI.
DATES: Comments, data; or evidence
should be submitted on or before
February 27,1995. EPA does not intend
to extend this comment period.
ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the
document control OPP-250098 should
be submitted in triplicate by mail to:
Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environment Protection Agency, 401 M
St, SW., Washington, DC 20460. All
written comments filed pursuant to this
notice will be available for public
inspection in Room 1132, Crystal Mall
#2 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5805, from
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday thru
Friday except legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be
submitted electronically by any of three
different mechanisms: by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: Docket-
OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a
"Subscribe" message to
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and
once subscribed, send your comments to
RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA
Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing
202-488-3671, enter .selection
"DMAIL," user name "BB—USER" or ^
919-541-4642, enter'selection "MAIL,1
user name "BB—USER." Electronic
comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All
comments and data in electronic form
must be identified by the docket number
OPP-250098 since all five documents in
this separate part provide the same
electronic address. No CBI should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic
comments on this proposed rule, but not
the record, may be viewed or new
comments filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions
can be found in unit VI. of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeanne Keying, Certification, Training
and Occupational Safety Branch
(7506C), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (703) 305-7666, or your
regional or State official as noted in the
List of Worker Protection Contact below.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
2831
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This proposed WPS rule amendment
is one of a series of Agency actions in
response to concerns raised since
publication of the final rule in August
1992 by those interested in and affected
by the rule. In addition to this proposed
amendment, EPA is publishing four
other notices soliciting public comment
on concerns raised by various affected
parties. Other actions EPA is
considering include: (1) modification to
the worker training requirements; (2)
requirements for crop advisors; (3)
reduced restricted entry intervals (REIs)
for low risk pesticides; and (4) reduced
early entry restrictions for activities
involving limited contact with treated
surfaces. The Agency is interested in
receiving comments on all options and
questions presented.
Section 170.112(e) of the Worker
Protection Standard for Agricultural
Pesticides (WPS) (40 CFR part 170),
published at 57 FR 38102 (August 21,
1992), provides a mechanism for
considering exceptions to the WPS
provision that limits early entry during
a restricted-entry interval (REI) to
perform agricultural tasks, including
irrigation tasks. The Agency has
received requests for exceptions to the
early entry limitations for performing
irrigation tasks from parties in the States
of California and Hawaii. The California
parties also requested an indefinite
entry period for frost-prevention tasks;
this request has been returned to the
requesters for additional supporting
information and may be considered
later. The Agency is proposing for
consideration a national exception to
the WPS early entry restrictions for
performing irrigation tasks. The purpose
of this notice is to solicit further
information and comment on the
proposal to assist the Agency in
determining whether the conditions of
entry under any of the proposed
exceptions would pose unreasonable
risks to workers performing the
permitted irrigation tasks during a
restricted-entry interval.
In addition, EPA solicits further
information about the economic impact
of granting or not granting the proposed
exceptions. For further information
please contact the person list under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
above, or your regional or State official
as noted in the following List:
List of Worker Protection Contacts
EPA Regional Contacts
Ms. Pam Ringhoff
U.S. EPA, Region I
Pesticides Section (APP)
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: 617/565-3931
FAX: 617/565-4939
Ms. Theresa Yaegel-Souffront
U.S. EPA, Region II, (MS-240)
Pesticides, & Asbestos Section
2890 Woodridge Avenue, Bldg. 209
Edison, NJ 08837
Phone: 908/906-6897
FAX: 908/321-6771
Ms. Magda Rodriguez
U.S. EPA, Region III
Pesticides Section (3AT-32)
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215/597-0442
FAX: 215/597-3156
Ms. Jane Horton
U.S. EPA, Region IV
Pesticides Section (4APT)
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: 404/347-3222
FAX: 404/347-1681
Mr. Don Baumgartner
Mr. John Forwalter
Ms. Irene Miranda
U.S. EPA, Region V
Pesticides Section (SP-14J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: 312/886-7835 (Don)
886-7834 (John)
353-9686 (Irene)
FAX: 312/353-4342
Mr. Jerry Oglesby
U.S. EPA, Region VI
Pesticides Section (6T-PP)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: 214/665-7563
FAX: 214/665-2164
Ms. Kathleen Fenton
U.S. EPA, Region VII
Pesticides Section (TOPE)
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913/551-7874
FAX: 913/551-7065
Mr. Ed Stearns
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
Pesticides Section (8ART-TS)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Phone: 303/293-1745
FAX: 303/293-1647
Ms. Katherine H. Rudolph
U.S. EPA, Region IX
Pesticides Section (A-4-5)
75 Hawthrone Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415/744-1065
FAX: 415/744-1073
Mr. Allan Welch
U.S. EPA, Region X
Pesticides Section (AT-083)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206/553-1980
FAX: 206/553-8338
National Contacts
REGION I
Connecticut
Ms. Debra Cattucio
Pesticides/PCB Management Division
Dept. of Environmental Protection
16i> Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-1600
Phone: 203/566-5148
FAX: 203/566-4379
Maine
Ms. Tammy Gould
Board of Pesticide Control
ME Dept. of Agriculture/Food & Rural
Resources
Station 28
Stale Office Building
Augusta, ME 04333-0028
Phone: 207/287-2731
FAX: 207/287-7548
Massachusetts
Ms. Lillian Rivera
Pesticide Bureau/Department of Food &
Agriculture
Department of Agriculture
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202-0009
Phone: 617-727-3020
FAX: 617/727/7235
New Hampshire
Mr. Murray L. McKay, Director
Division of Pesticide Control
New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture
Caller Box 2042
Concord, NH 03302-2042
Phone: 603/271-3550
FAX: 603/271-1109
Rhode Island
Ms. Elizabeth M. Lopes-Duguay
Senior Plant Pathologist
Division of Agriculture
Department of Environmental Management
22 Hayes Street
Providence, RI 02908-5025
Phono: 401/277-2781
FAX: 401/277-6047
Vermont
Mr. John Berino
Division of Plant Industry
Laboratories & Consumer Assurance
Dept. of Agriculture, Food & Markets
116 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-2901
Phone: 802/828-2431
FAX: 802/828-2361
-------
2832 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
REGION II
New Jersey
Mr. Raymond Ferrarin
Assistant Director
Pesticide Control Program
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
CN411
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: 609/530-4122
FAX: 609/530-8324
New York
Mr. James S. Moran, PE, Supervisor
Bureau of Pesticides Regulation
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7254
Phone: 518/457-7482
FAX: 518/457-0629
Puerto Rico
Ms. Arline R. de Gonzalez, Director
Agriculture Materials Laboratory
Puerto Rico Dept. of Agriculture
P.O. Box 10163
Santurce, PR 00908
Phone: 809/796-1710
FAX: 809/796-4426
Virgin Islands
Mr. Leonard Reed
Assistant Director
Division of Environmental Protection
Virgin Islands Dept. of Planning
& Natural Resources
Nisky Center, Suite 231
Nisky 45 A
St. Thomas, U.S. VI 00802
Phone: 809/774-3320
FAX: 809/774-5416
REGION HI
Delaware
Mr. Larry Towle
Delaware Dept. of Agriculture
2320 S. Dupont Highway
Dover, DE 19901
Phone: 302/739-4811
FAX: 302/697-6287
District of Columbia
Mr. Mark Greenleaf (C-T)
DCRA/ERA/ECD
Pesticides Section - Suite 203
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20020
Phone: 202/645-6080
FAX: 202/645-6622
Maryland
Mr. John Bergquist
Pesticide Regulation Section
Maryland Dept. of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: 410/841-5710
FAX: 410/841-2765
Pennsylvania
Mr. Dave Bingamen
Bureau of Plant Industry
PA Department of Agriculture
2301 N. Cameron Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408
Phone: 717/787-4843
FAX: 717/783-3275
Virginia
Mr. Don Delorme
Office of Pesticide Management
VA Department of Agriculture
& Consumer Services,
P.O. Box 1163, Rm. 403
1100 Bank Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: 804/371-6558
FAX: 804/371-8598
West Virginia
Mr. Ed Hartman
West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture
P.O. Box 66
Inwood, WV 25428
Phone: 304/229-0981
FAX: 304/229-2510
REGION IV
Alabama
Mr. Pat Morgan
Pesticide Administrator
AL Dept. Agriculture & Industries P.O. Box
3336
Montgomery, AL 36109-0336
Phone: 205/242-2656
FAX: 205/240-3103
Florida
Dr. Marion Fuller
Ms. Mari Dugarte-Stavania
Florida Dept. of Agriculture
3125 Conner Boulevard, MC-2
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650
Phone: 904/488-3314
FAX: 904/922-2134
Georgia
Mr. Mike Evans
Special Projects Coordinator
Georgia Dept. of Agriculture
Entomology & Pesticides
Capitol Square, Suite 550
Atlanta, GA 303 34
Phone: 404/651-7861
FAX: 404/656-3644
Kentucky
Mr. Ken Richeson
Worker Protection Coordinator
Kentucky Agriculture
Div. of Pesticides
500 Metro Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502/564-7274
FAX: 502/564-3773
Mississippi
Mr. Tommy McDaniel
Pesticide Coordinator
MDAC, Bureau of Plant Industry
P.O. Box 5207
Miss. State, MS 39762
Phone: 601/325-3390
FAX: 601/325-8397
North Carolina
Ms. Kay Glenn
Pesticide Specialist
N.C. Dept. of Agriculture
P.O. Box 27647
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: 919/733-3556
FAX: 919/733-9796 !
South Carolina
Dr. Neil Ogg
Ms. Tammy Lark
Special Programs Manager
Dept. of Fertilizer & Pesticide
Control
257 Poole Agricultural Center
Clemson University, Box 340394
Clemson, SC 29634-0394
Phone: 803/656-3171
FAX: 803/656-3219
Tennessee
Ms. Karen Roecker
Worker Safety Coordinator
Tenn. Dept. of Agriculture
Div. of Plant Industries
P.O. Box 40627, Melrose Station
Nashville, TN 37204
Phone: 615/360-0795
FAX: 615/360-0757
REGION V
Illinois
Mr. Thomas Walker, Manager
Support Services
Bureau of Environmental Programs
IL Department of Agriculture
State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 19281
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: 217/785-2427
FAX: 217/785-4884
Indiana
Mr. Joseph Becovitz
Office of Indiana State Chemist
Purdue University
1154 Biochemistry Building
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1154
Phone: 317/494-1585
FAX: 317/494-4331 '
Michigan
Ms. Katherine Fedder
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
2833
MI Department of Agriculture
Pesticides & Plant Pest Management
Division
611 West Ottawa Street
P.O. Box 30017
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: 517/373-1087
FAX: 517/373-4540
Minnesota
Mr. Steve Poncin, Supervisor
Pesticide Enforcement Unit
MN Department of Agriculture
90 West Plato Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55107
Phone: 612/296-5136
FAX:
Ohio
Mr. Robert DeVeny
Pesticide Division Inspector
OH Department of Agriculture
65 South Front Street
Columbus, OH 43068
Phone: 216/297-6452
FAX: 614/759-1467
Wisconsin
Mr. Eric Nelson
WI Department of Agriculture
Trade & Consumer Protection
801 West Badger Road
Madison, WI 53708
Phone: 608/266-9429
FAX: 608/266-5307
REGION VI
Arkansas
Mr. Don Alexander/
Mr. Charles Armstrong
Arkansas State Plant Board
P.O. Box 1069
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: 501/225-3590
FAX: 501/225-3590
Louisiana
Mr. Peter Grandi
LA Department of Agriculture
& Forestry
P.O. Box 3596
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3596
Phone: 504/925-3760
FAX: 504/925-3760
New Mexico
Ms. Sherry Sanderson
New Mexico Department
P.O. Box 30005, Dept. 3AQ
Las Cruces, NM 88003-0005
Phone: 505/646-4837
FAX: 505/646-5977
Oklahoma
Mr. Jerry Sullivan
Plant Industry & Consumer Services
OK State Department of Agriculture
2800 North Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298
Phone: 405/521-3864
FAX: 405/521-4912
Texas
TX Department of Agriculture
Stephen F. Austin Bldg.
P.O. Box 12847
Austin, TX 78711
Phone: 512/463-7717
FAX: 512/475-1618
REGION VII
Iowa
Mr. Jim Ellerhoff
Program Coordinator
IO Department of Agriculture
• & Land Stewardship
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IO 50319
Phone: 515/281-8506
FAX: 515/281-6800
Mr. Charles Eckerman
IO Department of Agriculture
& Land Stewardship
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IO 50319
Phone: 515/281-8590
FAX: 515/281-6800
Kansas
Mr. Gary Boutz,
Pesticide Law Administrator
Ms. Glenda Mah,
Programs Coordinator
Kansas State Board of Agriculture
901 S. Kansas, 7th Floor
Topeka, KS 66612-1281
Phone: 913/296-5395 (G. Boutz)
913/296-0672 (G. Mah)
FAX: 913/296-0673
Missouri
Mr. Jim Lea, Supervisor
Plant Health Division
MO Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Phone: 314/751-5508
FAX: 314/751-0005
Mr. Paul Andre
Programs Coordinator
MO Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Phone: 314/751-9198
FAX: 314/751-0005
Nebraska
Mr. Richard Reiman, Chief
Bureau of Plant Industries
NE Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 94756, State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: 402/471-2394
FAX: 402/471-3252
Mi.-. Grier Friscoe, Manager
Mr. Jamie Green, Prog. Coord.
Pesticide/Noxious Weed Prog.
Post Office Box 94756
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: 402/471-6853 (G. Friscoe)
402/47:1-6882 (J. Green)
FAX:
REGION VIII
Montana
Mr. Steve Baril
Environmental Management Office
Department of Agriculture
Agriculture Livestock Bldg.
Capitol Station
Helen, MT 59620
Phone: 406/444-2944
FAX: 406/444-5409
North Dakota
Mr. Jack Peterson, Director
ND Department of Agriculture
State Capitol Building
600 East Blvd. 6th Floor
Bismark, ND 58505-0020
Phone: 701/224-2231
FAX: 701/224-4567
South Dakota
Mr. Brad Berven, Administrator
SD Department of Agriculture
Division of Regulatory Services
Anderson Bldg.
Pierre, SD 57501
Phone: 605/773-4012
Mr. Joshua Logg, Jr.
Pesticide Enforcement Program
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
P.O. Box 590
Eagle Butte, SD 57625
Phone : 605/964-6551
FAX: 605/964-4151
Mr. Irv Provost, Coordinator
Peslicide Enforcement Program
Natural Resources Agency
Oglal Sioux Tribe
P.O. Box 468
Pine Ridge, SD 57770
Utah
Mr. Gary L. King
Department of Agriculture
350 North Redwood Road
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Phone: 801/538-7188
FAX: 801/538-7126
REGION IX
Arizona
Mr. Dan Danielson
-------
2834
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11. 1995 / Proposed Rules
Environmental Services Division
Department of Agriculture
1688 N. 7th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85006
Phone: 602/407-2910
FAX: 602/407-2909
Navajo Nation
Mr. Jefferson Biakkedy
Pesticide Regulatory Program
Navajo Environmental Protection
Administration
Navajo Nation
P.O. Box 308
Fort Defiance, AZ 86504
Phono: 602/729-4155
FAX: 602/729-5246
Intertribal Council of Arizona
Ms. Elaine Wilson
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
4205 North 7th Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85013
Phone: 602/248-0071
FAX: 602/248-0080
California
Ms. Virginia Resales
Pesticides Enforcement Branch
Department of Pesticide Regulation
CA Environmental Protection Agency
1220 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phono: 916/445-3874
FAX:
Hawaii
Mr. Gerald Kinro
Pesticides Branch
Division of Plant Industry
HI Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 22159
Honolulu, HI 96822-0159
Phone: 808/973-9401
FAX: 808/973-9418
Nevada
Mr. Chuck Moses
Division of Plant Industry
NV Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 11100
Reno, NV 89510-1100
Phone: 702/688-1180
FAX: 702/688-1178
REGION X
Alaska
Mr. Karl Kalb
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
500 South Alaska, Suite A
Palmer, AK 99645
Phone: 907/745-3236
FAX: 907/745-8125
Idaho
Mr. John Helsol
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
P.O. Box 306
Fort Hall, ID 83203
Phone: 208/238-3860
FAX: 208/237-9736
Mr. Robert Hays
ID Dept. of Agriculture
P.O. Box 790
Boise, ID 83701
Phone: 208/334-3550
FAX: 208/334-228
Oregon
Mr. Chris Kirby
OR Department of Agriculture
635 Capitol Street, N.E.
Salem, OR 97310-0110
Phone: 503/378-3776
FAX: 503/378-5529
Ms. Marylin Schuster
Oregon OSHA
21 Labor & Industries Bldg.
Salem, OR 97310
Phone: 503/378-3272
FAX: 503/378-5729
Washington
Mr. Don Locke
WA Department of Labor & Industries
P.O. Box 44610
Olympia, WA 98504-4610
Phone: 206/956-5426
FAX: 206-956-5438
Ms. Ann Wick
WA State Dept. of Agriculture
Pesticide Management Division
P.O. Box 42589
Olympia, WA 98504-2589
Phone: 206/902-2050
FAX: 206/902-2093
A. Worker Protection Standard
The revisions to the Worker
Protection Standard (WPS) promulgated
at 57 FR 38102, August .21,1992, were
intended to reduce the risk of pesticide
poisonings and injuries among
agricultural workers, including
pesticide handlers. The WPS includes
three types of provisions to:
(1) Eliminate or reduce exposure to
pesticides.
(2) Mitigate exposures that occur.
(3) Inform employees about the
hazards of pesticides.
Exposure reduction provisions include
application restrictions, use of personal
protective equipment (PPE), and entry
restrictions.
B. Restricted Entry Intervals (REI)
Agricultural workers, in general, are
prohibited from entering a pesticide-
treated area during the restricted entry
interval (REI) specified on the product
labeling if they might contact anything
treated with a pesticide.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 156,
subpart K specify that WPS labeling
retains all of the pesticide-specific
permanent REIs set by EPA on the basis
of adequate data, and retains all
established interim REIs longer than
those established in part 156. The WPS
preamble notes: "These longer REIs
have been based, in general, on either
delayed [chronic] effects or other
exposure hazards such as persistence,
post-application chemical
transformations, or potential for severe
skin sensitization." In the absence of
pesticide-specific REIs, ;the WPS
establishes a range of REIs, from 12 to
72 hours, depending upon the toxicity
of the active ingredient(s) and other
factors.
During an REI, tasks that result in
contact with treated surfaces (including
soil, water, air, and plant surfaces in the
treated area) are limited to the
following:
(1) Short-term tasks (1 hour per day)
that do not require hand labor.
(2) Tasks, including hand labor tasks,
performed in a situation meeting the
definition of an agricultural emergency.
(3) Tasks that may be permitted by
EPA through case-by-case exceptions.
Exceptions may be granted pursuant to
40 CFR 170.112(e)(2), if affected persons
or organizations persuade EPA that the
benefits of the exception outweigh the
risks associated with the exception and
the workers can perform the early entry
tasks without unreasonable adverse risk.
C. Current WPS Irrigation Provisions
During REI '•
Irrigation activities expressly are
excluded from the definition of "Hand
labor" at 40 CFR 170.3: "Hand labor
does not include operating, moving, or
repairing irrigation or watering
equipment...." EPA realizes that
moving, adjusting, or repairing
irrigation equipment may result in
contact with treated surfaces, yet these
tasks may be necessary while an area
remains under a REI. The Agency thus
has allowed entry during an REI to
perform irrigation-related tasks, but has
placed strict limitations on that entry.
These limitations, set out at 40 CFR
170.112(c), include:
(1) There is no entry for the first 4
hours after application and thereafter
until any exposure level listed on the
labeling has been reached or any
ventilation criteria established at 40
CFR 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling has
been met.
(2) No hand labor tasks are performed.
(3) The time for any worker in treated
areas under an REI does not exceed 1
hour in any 24-hour period.
(4) The required PPE is provided,
cleaned, and maintained for the worker.
-------
' •
(5) Agricultural employers ensure that
workers wear required PPE, and other
PPE-related protections are provided.
(6J Measures are taken to avoid heat
stress (see, A Guide to Heat Stress in
Agriculture, EPA HW77 March 1994)
(7) Required decontamination
supplies and decontamination areas are
provided.
(8) Required PPE-related, heat-stress-
related, and labeling-specific safety
information have been furnished
Pursuant to The Pesticide Compliance
Dates Extension Act, Pub. L. 103-231,
April 6,1994, implementation of some
WPS provisions, including some entry
restrictions, has been delayed until
January 1,1995. Until then, if irrigation
workers contact with pesticide-treated
surfaces is limited only to feet, lower
legs, hands, and forearms, then coveralls
plus chemical-resistant gloves and
chemical-resistant footwear may be
substituted for the early-entry PPE
specified on the label. Also, until
January 1, 1995, workers performing
non-hand-labor tasks may work for an
unlimited time in an area remaining
under an REI. Starting January 1,1995
routine early entry to perform non-hand
labor tasks, including operating
irrigation equipment, will be limited to
1 hour per worker each day if the entry
would result in contact with pesticide-
treated surfaces. In addition, irrigation
workers must wear PPE specified on the
pesticide label for early entry.
D. Irrigation Tasks Allowed by the WPS
After January 1, 1995
EPA has issued the following
guidance in the publication Worker
Protection Questions & Answers,
clarifying circumstances in which
irrigation tasks can take place during a
restricted-entry interval pursuant to the
restrictions at 40 CFR 170.112:
WPS was designed to reduce the
opportunities for workers to be exposed to
pesticide residues in treated areas during
REIs. For example, with the exceptions noted
below, irrigation pipe may not be moved
during REIs when that task would bring
workers into contact with treated surfaces As
a result, agricultural employers should
schedule pesticide applications and
irrigation so that the need for irrigation
involving workers during REIs will be
minimized. If, however, irrigation in a treated
area under a REI is essential, it is permitted
under WPS under the following conditions-
1. Without entry to treated Area. Some
irrigation tasks take place at the edges of
fields, which may not be within the treated
area (area to which the pesticide has been
directed.) An example may be the installation
or removal of pipe for furrow irrigation. As
long as such activities do not cause workers
to enter the treated area, they may take place
without time limit or use of PPE during the
REI.
*1 c I ,„„ ,.,_, „,_, vvm.Gicu-l.Uf LUIS
task may be performed by trained handlers
wearing the handler PPE specified on the
product labeling. [See the Question and
Answer on watering-in, found in the Handler
Activities section of Worker Protection
Questions 6- Answers, for additional details 1
b. By Workers With No Contact. WPS
provides an exception for entry to treated
areas, after any inhalation exposure level or
ventilation criteria have been met, without
PPE or other time limitation, when there will
be no contact with the pesticide or its
residues (40 CFR 170.112(b)J. Note, however,
mat FPE cannot be used to prevent the
contact under this exception. This exception
may apply to a variety of typical irrigation
situations, e.g.:
• Workers moving irrigation equipment or
performing other tasks in the treated area
after the pesticide was correctly soil-
incorporated or injected, provided the
workers do not contact the soil subsurface bv
digging or other activities.
• Workers walking or performing other
tasks in furrows after the pesticides are
applied to the soil surface in a narrow band
on beds and there is no contact with those
treated surfaces.
c. Short Term — Workers may enter treated
2835
process to allow the Agency to initiate
an exception to WPS entry restrictions,
or to grant exceptions upon request from
interested persons, if the benefits
associated with otherwise-prohibited
early entry activities exceed the risks
associated with those early entry
activities.
(1) Such entry does not take place during
the first 4 hours after application and until
any inhalation exposure limits or ventilation
criteria are met;
(2) The entry does not involve more than
1 hour per day per worker;
(3) The worker does not perform tasks
defined in WPS to be hand labor (operating
irrigation equipment is not hand labor under
(4) The worker wears the early-entry PPE
specified on the pesticide labeling;
(5) Is correctly informed as required for
early-entry workers in the WPS; and
(6) all other applicable requirements of 40
CFR 170.112 are met.
(d) Agricultural Emergencies. The WPS
permits early entry by workers to perform
tasks including irrigation while wearing
early-entry PPE, and without time limits in
response to an agricultural emergency, as
defined in the regulation at 40 CFR
e. EPA-Approved Exceptions. Section
170.112(e) of WPS permits exceptions to the
general prohibition on work in treated areas
during REIs when EPA has approved a
special exception. Exceptions may be
requested of EPA as described in that section
ot the regulation.
The EPA publication Worker
Protection Questions &• Answers is
available through the docket at EPA
Headquarters.
II. Evidence Necessary to Support
Exception
The Worker Protection Standard
establishes at 40 CFR 170.112(e)(2), a
As specified in existing WPS at 40
CFR 170.112(e)(2), data supporting an
exception request should include:
(1) Crop(s) and specific production
task(s) for which the exception is
requested, including an explanation of
the necessity to apply pesticides of
types and at frequencies such that the
REI would interfere with necessary and
time-sensitive tasks for the requested
exception period.
(2} Geographic area, including unique
exposures or economic impacts
resulting from REI prohibitions.
(3) Evaluation, for each crop-task
combination, of technical and financial
viability of alternative practices, and
projection of practices most likely to be
adopted by growers if no exception is
granted, including rescheduling
pesticide application or irrigation tasks,
non-chemical pest control, machine
irrigation, or use of shorter-REI
pesticides.
(4) Per-acre changes in yield, market
grade or quality, and changes in revenue
and production cost attributable to REI
prohibitions for crop and geographic
area, specifying data before and after
WPS implementation. Also, include
factors which cause changes in revenue
market grade or quality; product
performance and efficacy studies; and
source of data submitted and the basis
for any projections.
(5) The safety and feasibility of the
requested exception, including
feasibility of performing irrigation
activity wearing early-entry PPE
required for pesticides used; means of
mitigating heat-related illness; time
required daily per worker to perform
irrigation activity; and methods of
reducing worker exposure. Mitigating
factors discussed should include
availability of water for routine and
emergency decontamination, and
mechanical devices to reduce worker
contact with treated surfaces.
Discussion of the costs of early entry
should include decontamination
facilities, worker training, heat stress
avoidance procedures, and provision
inspection, cleaning and maintenance of
rPE.
(6) Why alternative practices would
not be technically or financially
feasible:
-------
2836 Federal Register / Vol. 60,
•
III. Requests for Exception and
Supporting Evidence
Parties from the States of California
and Hawaii each have requested
exceptions to the WPS REI requirements
for workers performing tasks related to
irrigation. The full exception requests
are available through the docket at EPA
Headquarters, the Regions and the
States.
A. California Growers Request for
Exception
California growers have requested that
workers be permitted entry into treated
areas under an REI for an indefinite time
to perform irrigation tasks when
workers are (1) properly trained, (2) use
the label-specified PPE, (3) are provided
decontamination facilities, and (4) are
not allowed entry to the treated area for
at least 4 hours following pesticide
application. ..
California cited a broad range of soil
types, climates and crops requiring
irrigation tasks such as moving pipe,
turning on valves, checking sprinkler
and drip irrigation nozzles, and
removing debris or obstructions
impeding water flow. Requesters
indicate that these tasks "do not involve
substantial contact with treated plants.
The California requesters cite conditions
specific to their state to support an REI
exception.
1. Alternate practices. The California
requesters assert that alternative
practices are not technically practical
because the availability of irrigation
water is often at the discretion of the
irrigation district. They note that often
a grower does not know until the last
few hours when water will arrive from
the irrigation contractor.
The California requesters also state
that the failure to properly irrigate
plants in a timely manner induces plant
stress, disrupts integrated pest
management (IPM) practices, increases
plant susceptibility to pests, and may
ultimately increase pesticide use,
resulting in greater exposure to workers.
Finally, the requesters state that the 1-
hour limitation on early entry activity
per worker per day unnecessarily
restricts agricultural activities vital to
crop production.
2. California regulations. The
requesters cite California Regulations
(Article 3, Field Worker Safety, section
6770), which permit workers to perform
irrigation activities in treated areas
during a restricted-entry interval,
PI°1) Sprays have dried and dusts have
settled. . '
(2) The workers are informed ot the
identity of the pesticide applied, the
existence of the REI, and the protective
work procedures they are required to
follow. i
(3) Workers are wearing the personal
protective equipment required by the
pesticide label for early entry.
(4) The workers are instructed to
thoroughly shower with warm water
and soap as soon as possible after the
end of the work shift.
For certain pesticides, including all
pesticides with the signal word
DANGER and certain other pesticides
with a history of illness or injury
incidents involving workers exposed to
post-application residues, the California
regulations prohibit entry during a
restricted-entry interval to perform hand
labor tasks, such as picking, other hand
harvesting, tying, pruning, tree-limb
propping, disbudding, and other
nonharvest cultural practices that may
involve worker contact with plants.
Irrigation tasks specifically are not
included in this list of prohibited tasks.
For all other pesticides, entry during a
restricted-entry interval to perform
tasks, including hand labor tasks, is
permitted after sprays have dried and
dusts have settled, provided the
protections listed above are provided to
the worker.
The California requesters state that
heat-related illness will be mitigated by
training workers and field-crew
supervisors on heat stress symptoms
and first-aid procedures. They note that
drinking and handwash water and toilet
facilities currently are required for all
field workers under California
regulations; and that the location of the
nearest emergency medical care facility
is listed on crop sheets that must be at
each work site. They state also that WPS
PPE maintenance provisions and early-
entry restrictions will be required under
California regulations as soon as they
are revised to incorporate Federal
standards.
3. Economic impact. The California
requesters estimate a sizeable economic
impact if the requested exception is
denied, based upon an estimated crew
of two to four workers who require 6 to
8 hours to set up a sprinkler irrigation
system on a 20-acre block of a vegetable
crop. They state that the WPS
requirement for worker rotation after 1
hour is problematic because it would
reduce efficiency and increase costs to
recruit, hire, train and schedule
workers; irrigators are unwilling to work
for only 1 hour; and crop loss or
nonuniform crop maturation would
result from potential untimely irrigation
of sensitive crops and seedlings.
4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters
address the protective nature of the
requested exception by citing California
.
Department of Pesticide Regulation
(CDPR) records of reported pesticide
injuries through the California Pesticide
Illness Surveillance Program. The
requesters' evaluation of this
information alleges that allowing
protected workers into treated areas to
conduct irrigation activities for an
unlimited time after an initial period ot
prohibited entry does not result in
significant risk of illness or injury.
Requesters support their exception
request with data from DPR's pesticide
illness surveillance program, which
tracks potential pesticide injuries. They
state, "In 1990, there were
approximately 2,500 alleged pesticide
illnesses/ injuries reported. These
included occupational and non-
occupational situations. Of these, only
20 cases involved irrigators that were in
fields when exposure occurred. Only 1
of the 20 irrigation-related injury cases
was classified as 'definitely' related to
pesticides. In that case, the worker was
determined to be involved in an activity
that involved contact with containers
contaminated with pesticide residues.
In 1990, there were over 2.2 million
agricultural pesticide application
reports submitted in the state. The rate
of irrigator injuries to possible pesticide
exposure was 1 in over 110,000
applications."
B. Hawaii Request for Exception
The State of Hawaii provided EPA
with an exception request submitted by
an agricultural establishment, the
Hawaiian Commercial Sugar Company
(HC&S). The request related specifically
to irrigation activities related to planting
new crops, and appeared to comprise
full exemption from WPS REI
requirements for all agricultural
activities described in their request.
Requesters specifically cite their desire
to return to the pre-WPS standard
allowing agricultural workers to enter a
field after pesticide application, once
dusts have settled and sprays have
dried. It is noteworthy that this was not
allowed in the legislation delaying
implementation of some portions of the
WPS, which provided: "Under the
exception in section 2, no entry is
allowed for the first 4 hours after
application of the pesticide. This
restriction parallels the requirements in
the other exceptions to early entry
promulgated in the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) at 40 CFR 170.112."
Requesters state that during seed
planting there is a "buffer space"
between the cover machine and the
herbicide tractor to ensure that
agricultural workers are not exposed to
pesticide drift. The size of the buffer
space is dependent upon the wind
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11. 1995 / Proposed Rules 2837
direction. Requesters state that
herbicide sprays dry within a few
minutes, and that on a typical sunny
day drying occurs on contact. The
irrigation hook-up crew follows behind
the weed control operations, and
connect the irrigation tubing injected by
the mechanical planter, to the irrigation
mainlines existing in the field.
Requesters state that the majority of
irrigation work is done on the field
edge, which has the least amount of
pesticide.
Requesters state that timing of the
irrigation operation is critical, since
seed pieces are prone to desiccation and
disease, and the seed needs water to
germinate. Soil into which the seed
pieces are placed is dry; thus if the
fields are not irrigated immediately after
planting, seed pieces will not germinate.
Requesters also note that irrigation
system repair is conducted at the time
of planting. The drip irrigation system is
largely underground and the main line
at the field perimeter is reused for every
crop. Since it is underground, system
damages from harvesting of the previous
crop are not evident until planting of
the section is started. Drip hookup is
performed as soon as possible so system
damages can be repaired and the system
returned to function before the seed
dehydrates. Underground pipes are
composed of PVC (polyvinylchloride);
thus there is a delay of at least 1 day to
dry repair glues.
Requesters utilize furrow irrigation for
approximately 2,000 acres of the 36,000
acre plantation, utilizing cane wash
water from its factories. Installation of
feeder ditches follow herbicide
application in furrow irrigated fields.
Some fields also are "ratooned," where
cane stalks are severed at the base of the
plant during harvest, and the cane plant
regrows from the stubble. The
mechanical planter follows the emerged
cane line in ratooned fields and places
seed in the gaps where there are no
plants. Vegetation is present to heights
less than 1 foot. Requesters state that it
is readily evident when "sprays have
dried and dusts have settled" in
ratooned fields.
1. Alternate practices. The request
was limited to the time until new
preemergence herbicides are approved
for use in sugarcane fields. Requesters
note that application of water to the
field before the herbicide operation
would result in tractors stuck in the
mud and compaction of the moist soil.
They state that application of herbicides
immediately after planting is critical
because it allows for minimal use of
pesticides — less material is needed to
kill weeds as they try to emerge than to
kill weeds after they emerge. Requesters
state that capillary action of water is
relied upon to wet the seed, this
occurring within 24 to 72 hours
depending upon soil type. Requesters
state that if herbicide applications were
delayed until after seed pieces were
wetted, weed seeds would have
germinated and herbicide usage rates
would need to be increased.
Requesters also note that the HC&S is
located on the island of Maui, in a
valley with average wind speeds of
approximately 30 miles per hour.
Pesticide applications must be done
carefully to reduce drift to non-target
areas; timing of application is used as
the variable to control pesticide volume
applied, and tractors are used to
minimize herbicide usage by more
accurately directing material to the
target area. Rains from 10 to 40 inches
per year are very seasonal; therefore
requesters state that the plantation is
totally reliant upon drip irrigation for
growing crops.
2. Current regulations. Requesters
noted no pesticide regulations beyond
current pesticide label requirements
governing their operations. Requesters
cited Hawaii's Workers Compensation
Plan in discussing the safety and
feasibility of their requested exception.
3. Economic impact. Requesters state
that immature sugarcane stalks are high
in moisture content and vulnerable to
desiccation resulting in failure to
germinate. The cut ends of the stalk (as
well as damaged portions of the 40
percent of seed pieces which are
damaged physically), are avenues of
entry for disease organisms, specifically
the fungus Ceratocystis paradoxa or
pineapple disease. Requesters note that
timely treatment, planting and irrigation
of seed pieces thus is important.
Requesters note that tractor
application of herbicides replaced aerial
applications 7 years ago, in order to
reduce herbicide usage, improve
herbicide placement, reduce off-target
drift, and to protect workers and the
environment. Requesters also state that
aerial applications are estimated to cost
20% more than current tractor costs, or
$137,880 per year. Respraying by hand
or tractor application is estimated to
cost another $250,000 per year, to
address areas missed along roads and
pole lines, and increased weeds when
application is delayed due to
unfavorable wind conditions. Thus
requesters estimate that total increased
operating costs for aerial herbicide
applications in place of timely tractor
applications is $387,880 per year, an
increase of 55 percent over current
practice, as well as unquantifiable
effects of potential off-target drift and
potential for greater worker exposure.
Nighttime aerial application is
precluded by undulating terrain, poles
and lines transecting fields, difficulty in
determining flight path, and variable
wind.
Requesters also estimate that water
application before herbicide application
would impair field trafficability,
decrease plant growth, increase weeds,
require more pesticide use and
adiiitional worker exposure, and cost
approximately $301,600 or 42 percent
more than current costs. Requesters
estimate that using more tractors to
cover the treated seed would require
significant capital expenditure, with
veiy poor return on investment since
there will be significant amounts of
unproductive time between tractor
operations. They estimate an increase of
$232,000 in operating costs per year to
increase tractors and associated
additional manpower, an increase of 33
percent over current operating costs,
with no return on investment.
Requesters also considered utilizing
night operations to minimize the impact
of a 12-hour REI. They estimate an
increase of $188,873 in annual operating
costs, or 27 percent over current costs
for this alternative, primarily due to
missed areas, repair to damaged risers,
and installation of lights.
Finally, requesters estimate a cost of
$70'2,000 for adhering to a stated 12-
hour REI, due to delayed or reduced
germination of seed pieces, a loss of at
least 2 months in crop age, and the
added cost of hand replanting. They
estimate a loss of $2,332,800 in
plantation profitability due to yield
impacts.
4. Pesticide injuries. Requesters cite
the unique nature of sugarcane
cultivation in discussing the safety and
feasibility of their requested exception.
They note that, unlike fields with crop
canopies taller than workers, such as
cornfields or grape vineyards, newly
planted or ratooned sugarcane fields are
barei or have vegetation less than 1 foot
in height. They cite company policy
requiring all workers to wear long-
sleeved shirts, long pants, and eye
protection. They note that irrigation
hookup crews wear company-provided
rubber gloves and rubber boots, due to
constant contact with water. They state
that irrigation crews work on the field
edge, which has a minimum amount of
herbicide, and that agricultural workers'
frequent contact with water will wash
off any residue that may be contacted.
They note that workers have readily
available potable water supplies, ready
access to medical facilities, and ready
access to Workers Compensation claims
if they have a work related incident.
-------
Requesters state that company records
indicate 11 pesticide related incidents
between 1985 and 1993. They estimate
their records cover 80 handlers and 700
workers with field oriented tasks,
working 40 to 48 hours per week, 12
months per year, for 15,795,000
exposure hours. They report 10
unforeseen incidents involving
handlers, including exposure due to a
broken hose or fittings. Requesters note
that all but one incident occurred before
1990, when operational sequences were
changed to address the exposure
episodes. The one incident which
required absence from work did not
involve pre-emergence herbicide
application, but rather hand application
later in the crop cycle.
IV. The Agency's Exception Proposal
A. Background
Since the Worker Protection Standard
was promulgated in August 1992, the
Agency has received information from
growers and representatives from the
Departments of Agriculture in several
states regarding the i-hour-per-worker-
per-day limit during a restricted-entry
interval to perform irrigation-related
tasks. Most commenters, including the
National Association of the State
Departments of Agriculture (NASDA),
asserted that the restriction would cause
substantial disruption in the production
of a wide variety of agricultural crops
across a broad geographic area. NASDA
and others urged the Agency to consider
allowing entry during a restricted-entry
interval for an unlimited time per day
per worker, if the worker would not
nave substantial contact with treated
surfaces, including crop foliage.
They asked the Agency also to
consider establishing a single suite of
personal protective equipment that
could be worn by irrigation workers
rather than requiring them to wear the
early-entry PPE specified on the labeling
of the pesticide applied to the treated
area. They argued that often irrigation
workers need to work in several
different treated areas in a single
workday and that it would be
burdensome to require workers to
consult the pesticide label and to
change their PPE before entering each
different area. Although not directly
addressed in the exception requests
from California and Hawaii, these
concerns are reflected in EPA's
following proposed exception for
irrigation tasks, and in the comments
and information EPA solicits through
this notice.
The proposed exception specifically
excludes pesticides whose labeling
requires "double notification" — both
the posting of treated areas and oral
notification to workers. The following
Table lists the active ingredients subject
to this requirement, which were
identified in PR Notice 93-7.
B. Worker Protection Standard "Double
Notification" Active Ingredient List
The following Table 1 does not
contain the active ingredients in
products already bearing mandatory
posting requirements prior to adoption
of the WPS and which must be retained
under WPS. It may also contain a few
active ingredients which upon further
Agency review, such as during
reregistration, will be found not to
require double notification (posting of
treated areas and oral notification to
workers). EPA expects the list to be
amended prior to any final
determination by the Agency.
Nonetheless, EPA believes that this list
contains the bulk of the active
ingredients subject to double
notification, and the list is included in
this notice for the convenience of
commenters. These pesticides contain
an active ingredient categorized as
highly toxic when absorbed through the
skin (acute dermal toxicity), or as highly
irritating (corrosive) when it contacts
the skin, or otherwise are pesticides
considered by EPA as posing high risk
to workers for reasons such as suspected
delayed effects, epidemiological data, or
unusually long restricted-entry
intervals. The Agency requires "double
notification" for a pesticide when an
incidental exposure — for example,
contact from brushing against the
treated surfaces —has the potential to
cause an acute illness or injury or a
delayed effect, such as developmental
toxicity. For pesticides that contain
"double notification" requirements on
their labeling, the short-term (1 hour per
worker per day) exception at 40 CFR
170.112(c) would continue to apply.
TABLE 1 .—DOUBLE NOTIFICATION
ACTIVE INGREDIENT LIST
From PR Notice 93-7, Appendix 3-A
Common name
dodine
endothall,
dimethylcocoa-
mine.
endothall,
disodium salt.
ethephon
fonofos
(s)-(+)-lactic acid ..
metam-sodium ....
methamidophos ...
methyl bromide ....
methyl parathion ..
sabadilla alkaloids
sulprofos
tefluthrin
terbufos
TPTH
Chemical
code
044301
038905
038903
99801
041101
041701
28929
039003
101201
053201
053501
015801
056702
061601
057501
057201
111401
097601
002201
079501
078001
111501
128912
105001
083601
CAS Num-
ber
2439-10-3
129-67-9
16672-87-0
13194-48-4
944-22-9
79-33-4
137-42-8
10265-92-6
74-83-9
298-00-0
7786-34-7
54-11-5
1910-42-5
56-38-2
298-02-2
41198-08-7
2312-35-8
8051-02-3
3689-24-5
7664-93-9
35400-43-2
79538-32-2
13071-79-9
76-87-9
Common name
arsenic trioxide ....
chlorflurenol
chloropicrin
cuprous oxide
riisulfoton
Chemical
code
098301
110801
006801
007001
090601
098801
081501
025601
032501
CAS Num-
ber
116-06-3
1646-88-4
7778-39-4
1327-53-3
1563-66-2
2536-31-4
76-06-2
1317-39-1
298-04-4
The Agency has identified a range of
national irrigation options with varying
time and duration of entry, required
PPE, and levels of exposure. The
Pesticide Compliance Dates Extension
Act, Pub. L. No. 103-231, included
these irrigation provisions:
[A] worker may enter an area treated with
a pesticide product during the restricted
entry interval specified on the label of the
pesticide product to perform tasks related to
the production of agricultural plants if the
agricultural employer ensures that — (1) no
hand labor activity is performed; (2) no such
entry is allowed for the first 4 hours
following the end of the application of the
pesticide product; (3) no such entry is
allowed until any inhalation exposure level
listed on the product labeling has been
reached; and (4) the personal protective
equipment specified on the product labeling
for early entry is provided in clean and
operating condition to the worker.
(b) Protective Equipment for Irrigation
Work. — For irrigation work for which the
only contact with treated surfaces is to the
feet, lower legs, hands, and arms, the
agricultural employer may provide coveralls,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
2839
chemical resistant gloves, and chemical
resistant footwear instead of the personal
protective equipment specified on the label.
The Congressional Record of March
24, 1994 provides further information
concerning the legislative intent of the
nature of the irrigation exception:
Section 2(b) provides, until January 1,
1995, optional PPE for early entry workers
operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or
watering equipment where contact with the
treated surfaces is limited to hands, arms,
lower legs, and feet. Instead of providing the
PPE on the label specified for early entry, in
this situation, the agricultural employer can
provide to the irrigation workers the
following PPE: chemical resistant boots,
chemical resistant gloves, and coveralls. This
exception is only for workers performing
irrigation work.
In considering the terms of a proposed
national exception, one concern is the
need to learn from experience how the
exception is being implemented, and
whether workers truly are protected
under the terms of the exception.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
limit the exception to 2 years, and to
review and revise the terms of the
exception as appropriate based upon
experience during that 2 years.
C. Proposed Terms of Exception
The Agency is considering the
following proposed exception to early
entry restrictions for irrigation tasks:
A worker may enter a treated area
during a restricted-entry interval to
perform tasks related to operating,
moving, or repairing irrigation or
watering equipment, if the agricultural
employer ensures that the following
requirements are met:
(1) The worker's only contact with
treated surfaces (including, but not
limited to, soil, water, air, surfaces of
plants, crops, and irrigation equipment
if exposed to pesticides during
application) is to the feet, lower legs,
hands and forearms.
(2) The tasks could not be delayed
until after expiration of the restricted-
entry interval or the pesticide
application could not be delayed until
after the task is completed.
(3) The pesticide product does not
have a statement in the pesticide
product labeling requiring both the
posting of treated areas and oral
notification to workers ("double
notification").
(4) The personal protective equipment
for early entry is provided to the worker.
Such personal protective equipment
shall either: (a) conform with the label
requirements for early entry; or (b)
coveralls, chemical resistant gloves,
socks, and chemical resistant footwear.
(5) No hand labor activity is
performed.
(6) The time in treated areas under a
restricted-entry interval for any worker
does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour
period.
(7) The requirements of 40 CFR
170.112(c)(3) through (9) are met. These
are WPS requirements for all early-entry
situations that involve contact with
treated surfaces. They include (a) a
prohibition against entry during the first
4 hours, and until applicable ventilation
criteria have been met, and until any
label-specified inhalation exposure level
has been reached; (b) PPE definitions
and requirements; (c) label-specific
instructions; (d) heat-related illness
avoidance measures; (e)
decontamination requirements; and (f) a
prohibition against wearing home or
taking home PPE.
(8) Notice about the exception for
irrigation workers. The agricultural
employer shall:
(a) Notify early-entry irrigation
workers orally, before such workers
enter a treated area, that the
establishment is relying on this
exception to allow workers to enter
treated areas to complete irrigation
tasks.
(b) post information about the terms
and conditions of this exception. The
posted information shall convey the
following information:
(i) The establishment is operating
under the conditions of the exception
for irrigation workers.
(ii) No entry is allowed for the first 4
hours following an application, and
until any exposure level has been
reached or any ventilation criteria have
been met.
(iii) Time in treated areas under a
restricted-entry interval for any worker
does not exceed 8 hours in any 24 hour
period.
(iv) Decontamination and change
areas are provided.
(v) Basic safety training and label-
specific information must be provided
to early-entry irrigation workers.
(vi) The personal protective
equipment specified on the product
labeling for early-entry, or a set of
coveralls, chemical resistant gloves,
socks, and chemical resistant footwear
must be provided, cleaned, and
maintained for early-entry irrigation
workers.
(vii) Early-entry irrigation workers
must be instructed in how to put on,
use, and remove the personal protective
equipment.
(viii) Measures to prevent heat stress
must be implemented when
appropriate.
(ix) A pesticide safety poster and
information about pesticide applications
must be displayed in a central location.
(x) The exception expires on lanuarv
11,1997. y
(9) This exception shall expire 24
months after the effective date.
V,, Comments Solicited
The Agency is interested in a full-
range of comments and information on
these exception requests, and is
providing 45 days for submission of
comments. Comments should be
submitted in triplicate and addressed-to
the Document Control Officer (H7506C),
Oi'fice of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
A. Possible Exceptions for Irrigation
Tasks
The Agency requests comments on
whether an exception (if granted)
should be limited to a geographic region
thait would be comprised of two or more
States in one area. Comments are
requested on whether an exception
should be limited to California, should
be limited to Hawaii, should include
other states with irrigation issues
similar to California and Hawaii, or
should include the whole country.
In determining whether to grant an
exception, and, if so, whether the
exception should or should not be
limited to any particular geographic
areas, the Agency will assess whether
the risks and benefits associated with
early-entry irrigation tasks differ across
the country. In that regard, it should be
noted that the California and Hawaii
requests contained much information
that may not apply to other parts of the
country. This is particularly true with
regard to the issue of the need to
perform early-entry tasks. On this issue,
the requestors identified a number of
factors which may be unique to the two
States involved. Commenters are
encouraged to provide information
about conditions in other States, and are
particularly encouraged to include in
their comments whether (and to what
exteint) the comments apply to
particular geographic areas or to the
whole country.
The Agency particularly welcomes
comments and risk/benefit information
(including scientific data, where
available) on the California, Hawaii, and
Agency proposed exceptions,
addressing the following issues:
(1) The risks to workers under the
various proposed exceptions, and
whether risks differ among irrigation
tasks or crop sites.
-------
2840
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 7 / Wednesday. January 11. 1995 / Proposed Rules
(2) Whether use of personal protective
equipment while performing irrigation
work is feasible; and to what extent PPE
is necessary to reduce risk to workers
performing irrigation tasks.
(3) Whether it is reasonable to expect
early entry irrigation workers to wear
the early entry PPE required on the
pesticide label.
(4) Whether feasible alternative
practices would make routine early
entry unnecessary to perform irrigation
work.
(5) Whether an exception is necessary
to perform all irrigation tasks on all crop
sites, or whether the Agency decision
should differentiate among irrigation
tasks or crops.
(6) Whether an exception is necessary
in all States, or whether the Agency
decision should differentiate among
States or regions (two or more States in
one area) because of climate, water
availability, or for other reasons.
(7) The economic impact on the
agricultural industry (or portions of the
agricultural industry) of continued
limitation of irrigation tasks during WPS
restricted-entry intervals if the
requested exception (or part of the
exception) is not granted.
(8) Other States' regulation of
irrigation workers' exposure to
pesticides.
B. Exposure Data to Evaluate Irrigation
Exception Proposals
To fully evaluate the exception
proposals, the Agency solicits specific
information concerning the following:
(1) Potential worker exposure to
lesticide residues related to i
pesticide residues related to early-entry
irrigation activities, including setting-
up, running, maintaining, checking,
repairing, and moving irrigation
equipment for different irrigation
systems and equipment.
(2) The amount of potential worker
exposure/contact with surface residues
or pesticides, including residues on soil,
foliage, and irrigation pipes and
equipment, including the expected
timing, frequency, and duration of
exposure. .
(3) The potential for field/site
variables to affect potential exposure
such as type of crop, crop height and
density, crop row spacing, or whether
surface residues are wet or dry.
(4) Minimal exposure irrigation
practices including incidental or
intermittent exposure to surface
residues on soil, foliage, irrigation pipes
and equipment; versus potentially high
exposure practices involving prolonged
or continuous hand and upper body
exposure from contact with residues on
medium to tall crops, or moving
irrigation pipes that may have high
surface pesticide residues from being
exposed in the field during pesticide
spray operations.
C. Benefits Data to Support Exception
EPA is specifically interested in
benefits data that include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) Identification of the crops, specihc
production tasks and/or unique
geographic areas for which this
exception would apply. A well
supported explanation of the use
practices (e.g. typical rates, number and
methods of application) that would be
adversely impacted by denying the
exception.
(2) Evaluation of technically and
financially viable alternatives for each
crop/task combination and projection of
the most likely alternative(s) that would
be adopted by the growers in each
unique geographic area if no exception
is granted (e.g., rescheduling pesticide
application or irrigation tasks, using
non-chemical pest controls or shorter
REI pesticides, utilizing different
irrigation systems or agronomic
practices, producing different crops, or
any other adjustments that may be
relevant). The submitted evaluations of
impacts should be supported with
documented empirical data as fully as
possible; if experimental data are
lacking, the basis for projected impacts
must be adequately explained and
documented.
(3) Unique geographic estimates ot
grower impacts per acre for crop yield,
market grade or quality, revenues, and
production costs. These estimates
should be based on the assumption that
the growers will adopt the most likely
alternative(s). Any new investment costs
associated with the REI should be
appropriately annualized. All estimates
should be sufficiently documented for
items such as current crop production
budgets and comparative efficacy/
performance studies for alternative pest
control practices. Background
information such as five previous years
of data associated with total acres grown
or harvested, total production/yield,
farm level prices, market grades and
other relevant information for each
unique geographic area should be
provided in order to establish a
baseline.
(4) Aggregate grower level impacts on
an annual basis for all estimated
impacted acres in each unique
geographic area. Estimation of expected
crop price changes, if any, without the
exception and the basis for these
estimates. .
(5) Estimation of any other significant
economic impacts that are expected if
the exception is not granted. Examples
include impacts on consumers and
foreign trade, regional shifts in
commodity production, or social/
community effects associated with local
employment and income.
D. Other Valuable Data Solicited
The Agency also solicits comment
and information (including scientific
data, where available) on the Agency's
proposed exception and on several
possible modifications to the proposed
exception that the Agency is
considering. These modifications
include:
(1) Establishing specific criteria for
determining whether the early-entry is a
necessity rather than a convenience.
(2) Excluding from the exception all
pesticides with the signal word
DANGER in addition to (or rather than)
those with "double notification."
E. Applicability of Exceptions
EPA remains convinced that routine
entry for unlimited time periods into
areas remaining under a restricted-entry
interval should not be allowed except
under rare circumstances. Therefore, if
the Agency grants a special exception
for irrigation tasks, it intends, to the
extent feasible, to limit the exception to
situations where entry during the
restricted-entry interval is a technical
and economic necessity. The Agency
seeks comments and information about:
(1) Criteria limiting the exception to
situations where the availability of
irrigation water is unpredictable or the
length of the REI exceeds the acceptable
watering interval for the crop.
(2) Situations where entry during a
restricted-entry interval is an economic
necessity.
(3) Situations where entry during a
restricted-entry interval is a technical
necessity. : . ,
(4) Other possible criteria for limiting
an exception to those circumstances
where early entry is unavoidable.
(5) Excluding double-notification
pesticides from any exception it may
grant.
(6) Whether to exclude all products
with the signal word DANGER from any
exception it may grant. EPA notes,
however, that signal words are based on
the acute toxicity of the end-use
(formulated) product by any route of
entry. The signal word would not reflect
any concerns about delayed effects or
sensitization. Furthermore, a DANGER
signal word may be a result of an
irritating "inert" ingredient in the
formulated product that is volatile and
thus is no longer present beyond 4
hours after the application is complete.
Also, the DANGER signal word may be
based on oral or inhalation toxicity,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11. 1995 / Proposed Rules..
2841
which are not usually a concern for
exposures to residues on treated
surfaces.
(7) Physical activities involved in
irrigation. The Agency's proposed
exception would allow only those
irrigation tasks for which contact with
the treated surfaces would be limited to
the feet, lower legs, hands, and
forearms. These tasks would include
tasks such as operating irrigation gates,
adjusting irrigation valves, and checking
for or unclogging obstructions in areas
with low crops or widely spaced rows.
Carrying irrigation equipment that was
in the treated area during application on
one's shoulder or against one's chest
would NOT meet these criteria.
Therefore, the Agency solicits specific
information about potential worker
exposure to pesticide residues during
various irrigation activities, including
moving, installing, operating,
maintaining, checking, repairing, and
unclogging irrigation equipment. The
Agency also seeks comment and
information about whether the
irrigation-related tasks that would be
performed if the exception is granted
would result in exposures just to the
feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms, or
whether many such tasks would result
in more widespread exposures due to
contact with residues on medium to tall
crops or on residue-laden irrigation
equipment.
(8) Finally, EPA requests comment on
whether to allow employers of early-
entry irrigation workers to choose
whether to provide the PPE specified on
the pesticide label for early entry or the
exception-based PPE (coveralls plus
chemical-resistant gloves and footwear).
For any toxicity category pesticide, the
label-specified PPE might be more
protective, because it might include
coveralls over other work attire and/or
protective eyewear. However, since the
exposures are limited to the feet, lower
legs, hands, and forearms, this extra PPE
may not be necessary. Conversely, the
coveralls plus chemical-resistant gloves
and chemical-resistant footwear PPE in
the proposed exception are more
protective than the early-entry PPE
required for toxicity III and IV (signal
word CAUTION) pesticides, where
chemical-resistant footwear is not
required (labels will require coveralls,
chemical-resistant gloves, shoes, and
socks). EPA requests comment on
whether to require chemical-resistant
footwear for all irrigation workers under
this exception, because of the long
period of potential exposure. The
Agency did not include protective
eyewear in the proposed exception,
since exposure is limited to feet, lower
legs, hands, and forearms. Also many
pesticides that are highly irritating to
skin (and are excluded from this
exception) are also highly irritating to
the eyes. Therefore, many of the
products most irritating to the eyes also
will be excluded from the exception.
However, EPA solicits comment on
whether protective eyewear should be
included in the minimum PPE
requirement for early-entry irrigation
workers under any exception due to
concern about workers rubbing or
wiping residues into their eyes from
hands, gloves, or sleeves.
VI. Public Docket and Electronic
Comments
A record has been established for this
rulemaking under docket number "OPP-
250098" (including comments and data
submitted electronically as described
below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of
electronic comments, which does not
include any information claimed as
confidential business information (CBI),
is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Roomll32 of the
Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, CM
#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA. Written comments
should be mailed to: Public Response
and Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C) Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
As part of an interagency
"streamlining" initiative, EPA is
experimenting with submission of
public comments on selected Federal
Register actions electronically through
the Internet in addition to accepting
comments in traditional written form.
This proposed exception is one of the
actions selected by EPA for this
experiment. From the experiment, EPA
will learn how electronic commenting
works, and any problems that arise can
be addressed before EPA adopts
electronic commenting more broadly in
its rulemaking activities. Electronic
commenting through posting to the EPA
Bulletin Board or through the Internet
using the ListServe function raise some
novel issues that are discussed below in
this Unit.
To submit electronic comments,
persons can either "subscribe" to the
Internet ListServe application or "post"
comments to the EPA Bulletin Board. To
"Subscribe" to the Internet ListServe
application for this proposed exception,
send an e-mail message to:
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that
says "Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69 at the opening
meissage. When the "Notes" prompt
appears, type "open RIN- 2070-AC69"
to s.ccess the posted messages for this
document. To get a listing of all files
type "dir/all" at the prompt line.
Electronic comments can also be sent
directly to EPA at:
Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form
of encryption. To obtain further
information on the electronic comment
process, or on submitting comments on
this proposed exception electronically
through the EPA Bulletin Board or the
Internet ListServe, please contact John
A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253-
FAX: 202-260-3884; Internet:
richards.john@epamail.epa.gov).
Persons who comment on this
proposed rule, and those who view
comments electronically, should be
aware that this experimental electronic
commenting is administered on a
completely public system. Therefore,
any personal information included in
comments and the electronic mail
addresses of those who make comments
electronically are automatically
available to anyone else who views the
comments. Similarly, since all
electronic comments are available to all
users, commenters should not submit
electronically any information which
they believe to be CBI. Such information
should be submitted only directly to
EPA in writing as described earlier in
this Unit.
Commenters and others outside EPA
may choose to comment on the
comments submitted by others using the
RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA
Bulletin Board. If they do so, those
comments as well will become part of
EPA's record for this rulemaking.
Persons outside EPA wishing to discuss
comments with commenters or
-------
1995 / Proposed Rules;
/ Wednesday, January 11
Federal Register / Vol. 60
otherwise communicate with
commenters but not have those
discussions or communications sent to
EPA and included in the EPA
rulemaking record should conduct those
discussions and communications
outside the R1N-2070-AC69 ListServe
or the EPA Bulletin Board.
The official record for this
rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept
in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will
transfer all comments received
electronically in the RIN-2070-AC69
ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in
accordance with the instructions for
electronic submission, into printed,
paper form as they are received and will
place the paper copies in the official
rulemaking record which will also
include all comments submitted directly
in writing. All the electronic comments
will be available to everyone who
obtains access to the RIN-2070-AC69
ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board;
however, the official rulemaking record
is the paper record maintained at the
address in "ADDRESSES" at the
beginning of this document. (Comments
submitted only in written form will not
be transferred into electronic form and
thus may be accessed only by reviewing
them in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch as described
above.)
Because the electronic comment
process is still experimental, EPA
cannot guarantee that all electronic
comments \vill be accurately converted
to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes
aware, in transferring an electronic
comment to printed, paper form, ot a
problem or error that results in an
obviously garbled comment, EPA will
attempt to contact the comment
submitter and advise the submitter to
resubmit the comment either in
electronic or written form. Some
commenters may choose to submit
identical comments in both electronic
and written form to ensure accuracy. In
that case, EPA requests that commenters
clearly note in both the electronic and
written submissions that the comments
are duplicated in the other medium.
This will assist EPA in processing and
filing the comments in the rulemaking
record.
As with ordinary written comments,
at the time of receipt, EPA will not
attempt to verify the identities of
electronic commenters nor to review the
accuracy of electronic comments.
Electronic and written comments will
be placed in the rulemaking record
without any editing or change by EPA
except to the extent changes occur in
the process of converting electronic
comments to printed, paper form.
If it chooses to respond officially to
electronic comments on this proposed
rule, EPA will do so either in a notice
in the Federal Register or in a response
to comments document placed in the
rulemaking record for this proposed
rule. EPA will not respond to
commenters electronically other than to
seek clarification of electronic
comments that may be garbled in
transmission or conversion to printed,
paper form as discussed above. Any
communications from EPA employees
to electronic commenters, other than
those described in this paragraph, either
through Internet or otherwise are not
official responses from EPA.
VII. Agency Decision on Proposed
Exception
EPA will publish in the Federal
Register its decision whether to grant
the requests for exception, as well as its
final decision on a national exception.
EPA will base its decision on whether
the benefits of the exceptions outweigh
the costs, including the value of the
health risks attributable to the
exception. An exception may be
withdrawn by the Agency at any time it
the Agency receives poisoning
information or other data that indicate
that the health risks imposed by the
early-entry exception are unacceptable
or if the Agency receives other
information that indicates that the
exception is no longer necessary or
prudent.
List of Subjects
Administrative practice and
procedure, Labeling, Occupational
safety and health, Pesticides and pests.
Dated: January 3,1995.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
[FR Doc. 95-585 Filed 1-6-95; 12:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250101; FRU-4930-4]
Exceptions to Worker Protection
Standard Early Entry Restrictions;
Limited Contact Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed exceptions to rule;
request for comment.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an
exception to the Worker Protection
Standard for Agricultural Pesticides
(WPS), that would allow, under
specified conditions, workers to perform
early entry limited contact tasks for up
to 3 hours per day during a restricted
entry interval (REI). Early entry is entry
into a pesticide-treated area before the
expiration of the REI.
DATES: Comments, data, or evidence
should be submitted on or before
February 27,1995. EPA does not intend
to extend this comment period.
ADDRESSES: Comments identified by the
document control number OPP- 250101
should be submitted in triplicate by
mail to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations
Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. All written comments filed
pursuant to this notice will be available
for public inspection in Room 1132,
Crystal Mall #2,1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-
5805, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday thru Friday except legal
holidays.
Comments and data may also be
submitted electronically by any of three
different mechanisms: by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: Docket-
OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a
"Subscribe" message to
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and
once subscribed, send your comments to
RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA
Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing
202-488-3671, enter selection
"DMAIL," user name "BB—USER" or ^
919-541-4642, enter selection "MAIL,"
user name "BB—USER." Comments and
data will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII
file format. Electronic comments must
be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding
the use of special characters and any
form of encryption. All comments and
data in electronic form must be
identified by the docket number OPP-
_ 250101 since all five documents in this
separate part provide the same
electronic address. No CBI should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic
comments on this proposed rule, but not
the record, may be viewed or new
comments filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions
can be found in unit VI. of this
document. '
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Kronopolus, Certification,
Training and Occupational Safety
Branch (7506C), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (703) 305-7371.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday. January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
2843
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 170.112(e) of the Worker
Protection Standard for Agricultural
Pesticides (WPS) (40 CFR part 170),
published at 57 FR 38102 (August 21,
1992), provides the procedure for
considering exceptions to the WPS
provision that limits early entry during
a restricted entry interval (REI) to
perform agricultural tasks. EPA has
received a request for exception to the
early entry limitations for performing
limited contact tasks from the National
Association of State Departments of
Agriculture (NASDA). EPA is
considering a national exception to the
WPS early entry restrictions for
performing limited contact tasks. The
purpose of this Notice is to solicit
further information and comment to
assist EPA in determining whether the
conditions of entry under the proposed
exception would pose unreasonable
risks to workers performing the
permitted limited contact tasks during a
restricted entry interval. In addition,
EPA solicits further information about
the economic impact of granting or not
granting the proposed exception.
This proposed WPS rule amendment
is one of a series of Agency actions in
response to concerns raised since
publication of the final rule in August
1992 by those interested in and affected
by the rule. In addition to this proposed
amendment, EPA is publishing four
other notices soliciting public comment
on concerns raised by various affected
parties. Other actions EPA is
considering include: (1) modification to
the worker training requirements; (2)
exceptions to early entry restrictions for
irrigation activities; (3) reduced
restricted entry intervals (REIs) for low
risk pesticides; and (4) requirements for
crop advisors. The Agency is interested
in receiving comments on all options
and questions presented.
A. Worker Protection Standard
The Worker Protection Standard
(WPS) promulgated at 57 FR 38102,
August 21,1992, is intended to reduce
the risk of pesticide exposure and
related poisonings and injuries among
agricultural workers and pesticide
handlers. The WPS includes provisions
to: (1) eliminate or reduce exposure to
pesticides; (2) mitigate exposures that
occur; and (3) inform employees about
the hazards of pesticides. Provisions to
reduce exposure include application
restrictions, use of personal protective
equipment (PPE), and entry restrictions.
B. Entry Restrictions
Agricultural workers, in general, are
prohibited from entering a pesticide-
treated area during the restricted entry
interval (REI) specified on the product
labeling. REIs are the time period after
the end of the pesticide application
during which entry into the pesticide
treated area is restricted. In the absence
of pesticide-specific REIs, the WPS
establishes a range of interim REIs, from
12 to 72 hours, depending upon the
toxicity of the active ingredient(s) and
other factors.
C. Exceptions to Entry Bestrictions
The WPS contains exceptions to the
general prohibitions against workers
entering a pesticide-treated area during
the REI. The exception provisions of
§170.112 permit entry into the treated
area during the REI (i.e. early entry)
under specified conditions to perform
tasks that result in contact with treated
surfaces:
(1) Short term tasks. Section
170.112(c) permits exceptions to the
general prohibition on work in treated
areas during REIs for short-term tasks,
with adequate PPE, decontamination,
and exposure time limits.
(2) Agricultural emergencies. Section
170.112(d) permits exceptions to the
prohibition against entry into treated
areas during REIs for agricultural
emergencies. The WPS permits early
entry by workers to perform tasks while
wearing early-entry PPE, and without
time limits, in response to an
agricultural emergency.
(3) EPA-approved exception. Section
170.112(e) permits exceptions to the
prohibition on work in treated areas
during REIs when EPA has approved a
special exception. Case-by-case
exceptions may be granted if affected
persons or organizations persuade EPA
that the benefits of the exception
outweigh the risks associated with the
exception.
In addition, §170.112(b) establishes
an exception for activities where no
contact with treated surfaces will occur.
Under this provision, often referred to
as 'no contact' entry, workers are
allowed unlimited entry into pesticide-
treated areas before the expiration of the
REI without personal protective
equipment when no contact with
pesticide residues on treated surfaces or
in soil, water, or air will occur/
II. Request for Exception and
Supporting Evidence
In a July 8, 1994 petition for
rulemaking, NASDA requested that EPA
reduce WPS requirements for low
contact work during the REI. In
particular, NASDA asked for limited
PPE for low contact activities, consisting
of coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves,
ami footwear, and a "somewhat longer
period than the one-hour in twenty-four
hour period currently allowed by the
exception for short-term activities."
In a subsequent meeting with EPA on
low contact activities, NASDA
suggested defining low contact as
follows:
Low contact means a task related to the
production of agricultural plants that results
in minimal body exposure. Personal
protective equipment cannot be used to
achieve low contact status for purposes of
this definition, but rather the level of contact
must be inherent in the nature of the task
performed. The task must also meet one of
the following:
(1) Results in only incidental worker body
contact \vith treated surfaces due to the stage
of growth (seedlings) or nature of the crop
(size of plants), the way the task is performed
(use of long handled tools or operator
placement on equipment), or the way the
pesticide was applied (soil incorporated).
(2) Is a very short-term task, involving
worker body contact with treated surfaces
that are of only a few minutes' duration and
which occur at widely separated intervals.
This proposed definition was
developed with the help of the
American Association of Pesticide
Control Officials (AAPCO).
NASDA also provided EPA with lists
of tasks that they assert could require
entry into treated areas during an REI,
and proposed that allowance for the
accomplishment of these tasks be
covered under any definition of 'low
contact'. The lists of proposed low or
limited contact activities were provided
to NASDA by state pesticide regulatory
agencies. In reviewing the lists of tasks,
EPA found: (1) many of the tasks may
already be allowed under the exception
for activities with no contact set out in
§170.112(b), (2) other tasks were
identified as clearly hand labor tasks or
handler tasks that could result in
substantial contact with pesticide
treated surfaces, (3) many tasks were
irrigation-related activities, which EPA
is addressing in a separate exception
proposal, and (4) some were non-hand
labor tasks that could, in some
circumstances, be accomplished with
minimal contact with pesticide residues
on treated plants, soil, and other
surfaces, depending on how the task
was performed.
III. EPA'K Exception Proposal
A. Background
NASDA's membership includes state
Departments of Agriculture, the state
agencies that, in most instances, are
responsible for enforcing the WPS. EPA
-------
1995 / Proposed Rules
/ Wednesday, January 11,
2844
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No
has seriously considered NASDA's
request and acknowledges that there
may be certain non-hand labor tasks that
may be necessary while a treated area
remains under an REI, such that the
benefits resulting from the performance
of these tasks outweigh the risks
associated with the tasks as long as the
workers can perform the early entry
tasks with minimal contact. While the
WPS does provide in §170.112 for
exceptions for short-term tasks and 'no
contact' tasks, EPA recognizes that there
may be non-hand labor tasks that may
not be able to be performed under the
time limitations of the short-term (1
hour) exception, or may not completely
fit under the provisions of the no
contact or agricultural emergency
exceptions.
B. Discussion ofEPA's proposal
EPA proposes an exception that
would allow workers to perform limited
contact tasks for up to 3 hours during
the REI if: (1) the tasks must be
performed during the REI, (2) the
inhalation exposure level or ventilation
criteria have been met (3) the tasks
result in minimal contact with treated
surfaces, (4) contact with pesticides is
limited to forearms, hands, lower legs,
and feet, and (5) the specified PPE
requirements are met.
There may be non-hand labor tasks
that must be performed during the REI
that are necessary for crop production.
Examples of possible limited contact
tasks include: (1) the operation and
repair of weather monitoring
equipment, and frost protection
equipment, (2) repair of greenhouse
heating, air conditioning, and
ventilation equipment (3) repair of non
application field equipment, and (4)
maintaining and moving beehives.
The following scenarios provide
(1) The information collected from
weather monitoring equipment is often
critical for the successful
implementation of integrated pest
management and agricultural
production (e.g., rainfall amounts,
degree days). Weather information is
used to schedule pesticide and
irrigation applications, and it may be
necessary to enter the treated area
during an REI to collect the information.
Weather equipment may be stationed in
more than one location around a large
treated area, and it may take longer than
1 hour for the worker to walk to each
site to complete the information
collection. The worker must walk
through the treated area, but all of the
treated plants are well below knee-
height and/or are sufficiently spaced
apart so that the task may be
accomplished in a manner that results
in minimal contact with treated
surfaces, and such contact is only to
lower arms, hands, lower legs, and feet.
(2) On occasion, unanticipated repairs
must be made to non-application field
equipment while in the treated area
during an REI. The immediate repair of
the non-application field equipment is
necessary and important to crop
production. The nature of the
breakdown, and/or the size of the
equipment may hinder the removal of
the equipment from the treated field for
repair, and the repair may not be able
to be completed within an hour.
The proposed exception specifically
excludes pesticides whose labeling
requires "double notification", i.e., the
labeling requires both the posting of
treated areas and oral notification to
workers. EPA requires double
notification for a pesticide when
exposure — for example, contact with
treated surfaces — has the potential to
cause acute illness or injury. For
pesticides that contain double
notification requirements on their
labeling, the short-term (1 hour per
worker per day) exception at 40 CFR
170.112(c) and PPE requirements would
still apply. For the convenience of
commenters, the following Appendix A
lists the active ingredients subject to
WPS that may be subject to the double
notification requirement.
Appendix A
Worker Protection Standard "Double
Notification" Active Ingredient List
Please note that Appendix A (From
PR Notice 93-7, Appendix 3-A) is
incomplete in several respects: first, it
does not contain the active ingredients
in products already bearing mandatory
posting requirements prior to adoption
of the WPS and that must be retained
under WPS; second, it may contain a
few active ingredients that will be found
to not require double notification upon
further EPA review (such as
reregistration), and third, active
ingredients requiring double
notification may be added during
reregistration or other Agency action.
Nonetheless, EPA believes that this list
contains the bulk of the active
ingredients subject to double
notification. These listed pesticides
contain an active ingredient categorized
as highly toxic when absorbed through
the skin (acute dermal toxicity), or as
highly irritating (corrosive) when it
contacts the skin, or otherwise is
considered by EPA as high risk to
workers. In addition, the exception
excludes pesticides whose labels
prohibit any person from entering
during the REI. In other words, the label
does not allow the use of the exceptions
set out in §170.112.
COMMON NAME
aWtoarb
aldoxycarb
arsenic acid
arsenic trioxWe
carbofuran
chlortlurenol
chloropicrin
cuprous oxide
disulfoton
dodine
endolhall, dimethylcocoamine
endolhall, disodium salt
ethephon
CHEMICAL
CODE
098301
110801
006801
007001
090601
098801
081501
025601
032501
044301
038905
038903
099801
CAS NUMBER
116-06-3
1 646-88-4
7778-39-4
1327-53-3
1563-66-2
2536-31-4
76-06-2
1317-39-1
298-04-4
2439-10-3
129-67-9
16672-87-0
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2845
COMMON NAME
ethoprop
fonofos
(s)-{+)-lactic acid
metam-sodium
methamidophos ...
methyl bromide
methyl parathion
mevinphos
nicotine
paraquat
parathion
phorate
profenofos
propargite
sabadilla alkaloids ...
sulfotepp ;
sulfuric acid
sulprofos
tefluthrin
terbufos
TPTH
CHEMICAL
CODE
041101
041701
128929
039003
101201
053201
053501
015801
056702
061601
057501
057201
111401
097601
002201
079501
078001
111501
128912
105001
083601
CAS NUMBER
13194-48-4
944-22-9
79-33-4
137-42-8
10265-92-6
74-83-9
298-00-0
7786-34-7
54-11-5
1910-42-5
56-38-2
298-02-2
41198-08-7
2312-35-8
8051-02-3
3689-24-5
7664-93-9
35400-43-2
79538-32-2
13071-79-9
EPA is proposing to establish a
reduced set of PPE for limited contact
tasks, although the worker may wear the
PPE specified on the label even if the
early entry PPE specified on the label is
less restrictive than the reduced set.
Based on the limitations in the
exception, EPA expects that contact will
not be significant and a reduced set of
PPE will be adequate.
EPA is proposing to limit the
exception to 24 months (2 years), and to
review and revise the terms of the
exception as appropriate based upon
experience during that 2 years.
C. Proposed Terms of Exception
EPA is proposing an exception to the
early entry restriction for limited
contact tasks, and is considering the
following definition for 'limited contact
task':
"For the purposes of this exception,
the term 'limited contact task' means a
non-hand labor task that is performed
by workers that results in minimal
contact with treated surfaces (including
but not limited to soil, water, air,
surfaces of plants, and equipment), and
where such contact with treated
surfaces is limited to the forearms,
hands, lower legs, and feet."
Under the proposed exception, a
worker may enter a treated area during
a restricted entry interval to perform a
limited contact task if the agricultural
employer ensures that the following
requirements are met:
(1) The pesticide product does not
have a statement in the pesticide
product labeling requiring both the
posting of treated areas and oral
notification to workers ("double
notification"), or a restriction
prohibiting any person, other than an
appropriately trained and equipped
handler, from entering during the
restricted entry interval.
(2) No hand labor activity is
performed.
(3) The time in a treated area under
a restricted entry interval for any worker
does not exceed 3 hours in any 24 hour
period.
(4) The personal protective equipment
for early entry must be provided to the
worker by the agricultural employer for
all tasks. Such personal protective
equipment shall either: (a) conform with
the label requirements for early entry
PPE; or (b) consist of coveralls, chemical
resistant gloves, socks, and chemical
resistant footwear. In either case, the
PPE must conform to the standards set
out in §170.112(c)(4)(i) through (x).
(5) Workers are notified verbally,
before such workers enter a treated area,
that the establishment is relying on this
exception to allow workers to enter
treated areas to perform limited contact
tasks.
(6) The task cannot be delayed until
after the expiration of the restricted
entry interval, or the pesticide
application could not be delayed until
the task was completed.
(7) For all limited contact tasks, the
requirements of §170.112(c)(3) -(9) are
met. These are WPS requirements for all
early entry situations that involve
contact with treated surfaces, and
include (a) a prohibition against entry
during the first 4 hours, and until
applicable ventilation criteria have been
met, and. until any label specified
inhalation exposure level has been
reached, (b) informing workers of safety
information on the product labeling, (c)
provision, proper management, and care
of personal protective equipment, (d)
heat-related illness prevention, (e)
requirements for decontamination
facilities, and (f) prohibition on taking
personal protective equipment home.
IV. Options Considered
EPA considered including hand labor
tasks in this exception, but determined
that hand labor tasks could not be
performed with limited contact. The
WPS defines hand labor as any
agricultural activity performed by hand
or with hand tools that causes a worker
to have substantial contact with surfaces
(such as plants, plant parts, or soil) that
may contain pesticide residues. These
activities include, but are not limited to,
-------
2846
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
harvesting, detasseling, thinning,
weeding, topping, planting, sucker
removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing,
and packing produce into containers in
the field. Hand labor does not include
operating, moving, or repairing
irrigation or watering equipment or
performing the tasks of crop advisors.
Hand labor tasks involve substantial
contact and are by nature high exposure
scenarios and potentially high risk.
EPA considered eliminating the PPE
requirement for coveralls, but has
several concerns about eliminating this
requirement. Under §170.112(c), early
entry workers are required to remove
PPE before going home and may not
take it home. If only long sleeved shirts
and long pants are worn, it may not be
possible for workers to remove their
\vork clothes when they leave the
treated area, enter their vehicles, and
return home. This could result in
contamination of the vehicles from their
clothing, causing an increased exposure
risk to potentially toxic pesticide
residues for all vehicle occupants.
Additionally, EPA believes that
coveralls will assure greater risk
reduction for workers since the WPS
requires agricultural employers to
assure proper handling, care and
maintenance of these items. There is no
such requirement for personal clothing.
EPA considered requiring that
protective eyewear be included in the
minimum PPE requirement if required
on the product labeling for early entry
because of concern about workers
rubbing or wiping residues into their
eyes from hands, gloves, or sleeves. EPA
decided not to propose a requirement
for eyewear as part of the minimal set
at this time because the performance of
limited contact tasks should result in
minimal worker contact with treated
surfaces.
EPA considered eliminating PPE
requirements for tasks that must be
performed when unanticipated repairs
of non-application field equipment
arise, but rejected this option because
EPA believes that in some instances
equipment repair could result in
significant exposure. Unanticipated
equipment repairs would be expected to
occur infrequently, and some repairs
may be able to be performed with
almost no contact to treated surfaces.
EPA continues to be concerned that
some PPE is needed to provide adequate
protection for all worker activities given
the range and nature of equipment
repair tasks and the potential for even
limited exposure to highly toxic
pesticides.
V. Comments Solicited
EPA is interested in a full range of
comments and information on the
proposed exception and on the
exception options presented, and is
providing 45 days for the submission of
comments.
1. Need for an exception. EPA solicits
comment on whether early entry for
limited contact activities is necessary.
Specifically, EPA requests comments on
why specific limited contact tasks could
not normally be delayed until the
expiration of the REI, or why the
application could not be delayed until
the tasks are completed. EPA requests
comments on why alternative practices
would not be technically or financially
viable (such as placing beehives and
weather monitoring stations outside
areas normally treated with pesticides).
EPA also requests comments on the
economic impacts on agricultural
employers if they cannot enter the
treated area during the REI for limited
contact activities. Commenters should
be task specific in their response.
EPA requests information on the
expected costs in terms of decreased
yield, grade or quality or other
economic cost as a result of being
unable to perform some tasks during an
REI. In addition, EPA requests
information on the frequency of tasks
that must be done during an REI and the
amount of time required to complete
those tasks per occurrence and per
agricultural establishment for a typical
growing season.
2. Definition of "limited contact".
EPA requests specific comments on the
proposed definition of 'limited contact
tasks'. EPA is particularly concerned
about defining limited contact activities
in a way that may inadvertently result
in unnecessary routine early entry,
which may increase risk to workers.
Does the proposed definition encompass
tasks or activities that are inherently
high risk? Are there non-hand labor
activities that should be covered by the
exception but do not fall under the
definition as proposed? EPA also
requests information on whether worker
exposures for the tasks that fall within
the proposed exception could
reasonably be limited to lower legs and
feet, hands and forearms, or if greater
exposure would result due to the nature
of the activity.
EPA also solicits comments on
whether there are hand labor tasks that
must be done during the REI, and
whether these tasks can be
accomplished without subjecting
workers to substantial contact.
3. Safety and feasibility factors. EPA
requests information on the safety and
feasibility of a limited contact
exception. Information should include,
at minimum, the feasibility of
performing the limited contact activity
while wearing PPE; means of mitigating
heat stress concerns; the cumulative
amount of time required, per worker,
per day for necessary limited contact
activities; any suggested methods of
reducing the worker's exposure for a
given task; and any other alternative
practices, such as mechanical devices
that reduce workers' exposure to treated
surfaces. The information should
describe the costs (time and materials)
of providing the protective measures in
the terms of the proposed exception.
4. Duration of exposure. Because
exposure is determined both by the
amount and the duration of contact with
pesticides, EPA proposes to limit the
total amount of time in treated areas to
perform limited contact tasks to 3 hours
per worker per day. EPA believes most
limited contact activities can be
completed in significantly less than 3
hours, but certain circumstances may
exist that would necessitate more than
3 cumulative hours of early entry. EPA
requests comment on whether 3 hours is
adequate, or if some amount of time less
than 3 hours would be sufficient.
5. Exclusion of "double notification"
EPA requests comments on the
exclusion of double notification
pesticides from this proposed exception.
What impact, if any, on agricultural
growers might result if double
notification pesticides were to be
excluded from the limited contact
exception? Will the exclusion of double
notification pesticides from the
exception sufficiently reduce risk to
workers? EPA also requests information
on pesticide-related wbrker injuries or
illnesses as a result of performing the
types of tasks that would fall under this
proposed limited contact exception.
6. PPE requirements. EPA solicits
comments on the risks and benefits for
the PPE options under a limited contact
exception. Is PPE feasible for workers
performing limited contact tasks, and to
what extent is PPE necessary to reduce
worker risk for different tasks?
EPA specifically requests information
on whether protective eyewear should
be included in the minimum PPE
requirement if required on the product
labeling for early entry because of
concern about workers rubbing or
wiping residues into their eyes from
hands, gloves, or sleeves.
EPA is interested in any information
concerning whether there are certain
limited contact tasks (such as repair of
non-application equipment and frost
protection tasks) and early entry
situations (such as entry into fields that
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2847
have been treated with toxicity category
IV pesticides) that may not require the
use of PPE, or may allow the use of a
reduced set of PPE ( e.g., only
waterproof gloves and chemical
resistant boots).
7. Duration of exception. EPA
requests comments on whether the
proposed 24 month (2-year) limit is
appropriate for this exception, or why a
longer or shorter period may be more
practical.
VI. Public Docket and Electronic
Comments
A record has been established for this
rulemaking under docket number "OPP-
250101" (including comments and data
submitted electronically as described
below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of
electronic comments, which does not
include any information claimed as
confidential business information (CBI),
is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Roomll32 of the
Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, CM
#2,1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA. Written comments
should be mailed to: Public Response
and Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C) Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
EPA is interested in a full range of
comments and information on these
proposed revisions and particularly
welcomes comments supported by data.
Comments are requested on: (1) general
worker and handler hiring and
employment practices, such as the rate
of turnover and employment among
agricultural workers and handlers, (2)
the practicality and effectiveness of the
proposed elimination of the grace
period, including how the frequency of
hiring would affect the frequency of
training sessions, situations where
training before entry would not be
possible, mechanisms that are available
or will be available to provide training
on short notice and the estimated costs
of reducing or eliminating the grace
period or providing a weekly training
regimen, (3) the proposal to eliminate
the phase-in period for the training
grace period and (4) the retraining
interval, including the impacts of a
retraining interval of less than 5 years,
worker and handler retention of safety
training information over time, whether
agricultural workers and handlers have
a greater need for retraining than
workers in other occupations, the
effectiveness of the pesticide poster in
reinforcing previous training and the
burdens the various retraining options
might place on agricultural employers
or other entities that may perform
worker or handler training. Comments
should be distinguished as applying to
workers, handlers, or both, as
applicable.
As part of an interagency
"streamlining" initiative, EPA is
experimenting with submission of
public comments on selected Federal
Register actions electronically through
the Internet in addition to accepting
comments in traditional written form.
This Notice is one of the actions
selected by EPA for this experiment.
From the experiment, EPA will learn
how electronic commenting works, and
any problems that arise can be
addressed before EPA adopts electronic
commenting more broadly in its
rulemaking activities. Electronic
commenting through posting to the EPA
Bulletin Board or through the Internet
using the ListServe function raise some
novel issues that are discussed below in
this Unit.
To submit electronic comments,
persons can either "subscribe" to the
Internet ListServe application or "post"
comments to the EPA Bulletin Board. To
"Subscribe" to the Internet ListServe
application for this Notice, send an e-
mail message to:
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that
says "Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69 at the opening
message. When the "Notes" prompt
appears, type "open RIN- 2070-AC69"
to access the posted messages for this
document. To get a listing of all files,
type "dir/all" at the prompt line.
Electronic comments can also be sent
directly to EPA at:
Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov.
To obtain further information on the
electronic comment process, or on
submitting comments on this Notice
electronically through the EPA Bulletin
Board or the Internet ListServe, please
contact John A. Richards (Telephone:
202-260-2253; FAX: 202-260-3884;
Internet:
richards.john@epamail.epa.gov).
Persons who comment on this
Proposed Rule, and those who view
comments electronically, should be
aware that this experimental electronic
commenting is administered on a
completely public system. Therefore,
any personal information included in
comments and the electronic mail
addresses of those who make comments
electronically are automatically
available to anyone else who views the
comments. Similarly, since all
electronic comments are available to all
users, commenters should not submit
electronically any information which
they believe to be CBI. Such information
should be submitted only directly to
EPA in writing as described earlier in
this Unit.
Commenters and others outside EPA
may choose to comment on the
comments submitted by others using the
RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA
Bulletin Board. If they do so, those
comments as well will become part of
EPA's record for this rulemaking.
Persons outside EPA wishing to discuss
comments with commenters or
otherwise communicate with
cornmenters but not have those
discussions or communications sent to
EPA and included in the EPA
rulemaking record should conduct those
discussions and communications
outside the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe
or the EPA Bulletin Board.
The official record for this
rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept
in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will
transfer all comments received
electronically in the RIN-2070-AC69
LisSServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in
accordance with the instructions for
electronic submission, into printed,
paper form as they are received and will
place the paper copies in the official
rulemaking record which will also
include all comments submitted directly
in writing. All the electronic comments
will be available to everyone who
obtains access to the RIN-2070-AC69
ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board;
however, the official rulemaking record
is the paper record maintained at the
address in "ADDRESSES" at the
beginning of this document. (Comments
submitted only in written form will not
be transferred into electronic form and
thus may be accessed only by reviewing
-------
2848 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
them in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch as described
above.)
Because the electronic comment
process is still experimental, EPA
cannot guarantee that all electronic
comments will be accurately converted
to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes
aware, in transferring an electronic
comment to printed, paper form, of a
problem or error that results in an
obviously garbled comment, EPA will
attempt to contact the comment
submitter and advise the submitter to
resubmit the comment either in
electronic or written form. Some
commenters may choose to submit
identical comments in both electronic
and written form to ensure accuracy. In
that case, EPA requests that commenters
clearly note in both the electronic and
written submissions that the comments
are duplicated in the other medium.
This will assist EPA in processing and
filing the comments in the rulemaking
record.
As with ordinary written comments,
at the time of receipt, EPA will not
attempt to verify the identities of
electronic commenters nor to review the
accuracy of electronic comments.
Electronic and written comments will
be placed in the rulemaking record
without any editing or change by EPA
except to the extent changes occur in
the process of converting electronic
comments to printed, paper form.
If it chooses to respond officially to
electronic comments on this Proposed
Rule, EPA will do so either in a notice
in the Federal Register or in a response
to comments document placed in the
rulemaking record for this Proposed
Rule. EPA will not respond to
commenters electronically other than to
seek clarification of electronic
comments that may be garbled in
transmission or conversion to printed,
paper form as discussed above. Any
communications from EPA employees
to electronic commenters, other than
those described in this paragraph, either
through Internet or otherwise are not
official responses from EPA.
VII. EPA Decision on Proposed
Exception
EPA will publish in the Federal
Register its final decision on whether to
grant the request for a national
exception. EPA will base its decision on
whether the benefits of the exceptions
outweigh the costs. An exception may
be withdrawn by EPA at any time if EPA
receives poisoning information or other
data that indicate that the health risks
imposed by the early entry exception
are unacceptable or if EPA receives
other information that indicates that the
exception is no longer necessary or
prudent.
Dated: January 3,1995.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
[FR Doc. 95-586 Filed 1-6-95; 12:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
40 CFR Part 156
[OPP-00399; FRL^927-6]
Worker Protection Standard; Reduced
Restricted Entry Intervals for Certain
Pesticides, Request for Comments on
Draft Policy
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice, Request for Comment.
SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting comments
on a proposed policy, which would be
issued in a Pesticide Regulation Notice
(PRN) entitled: "Worker Protection
Standard: Reduced Restricted Entry
Intervals for Certain Pesticides. EPA
proposes to allow registrants to reduce
the interim Worker Protection Standard
(WPS) restricted entry intervals (REIs)
from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk
pesticides. A proposed list of active
ingredients that are candidates for
reduced interim WPS REIs would be
included in the PRN. End-use products
containing active ingredients that
appear on the list would be evaluated
using the criteria described within the
PRN to determine if the current REI may
be reduced to 4 hours. To facilitate the
availability of the proposed policy to
anyone who may be interested in
commenting, this notice presents the
proposed policy as it would appear in
a PRN.
DATES: Written comments, identified by
the docket number [OPP- 00399], must
be received on or before February 27,
1995.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments
to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations
Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. In person, bring comments
to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations
Division, RM 1132, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA. Telephone number for
the OPP Docket is (703) 305- 5805.
Information submitted and any
comment(s) concerning this notice may
be claimed confidential by marking any
part or all of that information as
"Confidential Business Information"
(CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
A copy of the comment(s) that does not
contain CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice to the submitter.
Information on the proposed notice and
any written comments will be available
for public inspection in Room 1128 at
the Virginia address given above, from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be
submitted electronically by any of three
different mechanisms: by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: Docket-
OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; by sending a
"Subscribe" message to
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and
once subscribed, send your comments to
RIN-2070-AC69; or through the EPA
Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing
202-488-3671, enter selection "DMAIL,"
user name "BB—USER" or 919-541-
4642, enter selection "MAIL," user
name "BB—USER." Electronic
comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All
comments and data in electronic form
must be identified by the docket number
OPP-00399 since all five documents in
this separate part provide the same
electronic address. No CBI should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic
comments on this proposed rule, but not
the record, may be viewed or new
comments filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions
can be found in unit XV. of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By
mail, Judy Smith or Ameesha Mehta,
Certification, Training, and
Occupational Safety Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location
and telephone number: llth floor,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA, 22202, (703)-
305-7666.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Agency is proposing to issue a Pesticide
Regulation Notice (PRN) to allow
registrants to reduce the current interim
WPS REIs from 12 to 4 hours for certain
low risk pesticides. In order to provide
ample opportunity for review and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 199Ji / Proposed Rules
2849
comment by all interested parties, this
notice presents the proposed policy as
it would appear in the PRN. Comments
are invited on all aspects of the
proposed PEN,' but particularly on
whether active ingredients should be
added to or deleted from the list of
candidate active ingredients, whether
the criteria for allowing the REI reduce
are appropriate, and whether there
should be a time limit within which
registrants may change their
registrations by notification, as opposed
to the submission of a formal
registration amendment.
This proposed policy is one of a series
of Agency actions in response to
concerns raised since the publication of
the final WPS in August 1992 by those
interested in and affected by the rule. In
addition to this draft PRN, EPA is also
proposing and seeking public comment
on actions regarding: (1) the worker
training requirements; (2) the early entry
restrictions for irrigation activities; (3)
restricted intervals (REIs) for limited
contact activities; and, (4) requirements
for crop advisors.
I. Summary of the Proposed PRN
The PRN would permit registrants to
reduce the current interim WPS REIs
from 12 to 4 hours for certain low risk
pesticides. Using the criteria outlined
below, the Agency screened 480 WPS
"in-scope" pesticides and determined
that the end-use products for 75 active
ingredients would be eligible for REI
reduction. Attachment A lists the
potential candidate active ingredients
that the Agency believes would be
eligible for REI reduction under the
PRN.
Registrants of end-use products
containing these active ingredients may
apply the criteria discussed below to
determine whether their product would
be eligible for the reduced REI. A
registrant who wishes the Agency to
consider an end-use product for a
reduced REI that does not meet all
criteria, would need to submit an
application for amendment of the
registration.
The Agency is proposing to allow
registrants to revise labeling to reflect
the reduced REI through a notification
process that could be used until August
31,1995. After that date, registrants
would need to submit applications for
amendment of a registration and await
Agency approval. Such applications
would be evaluated as routine
amendments and approved on the basis
of the criteria in the PRN.
If a registrant believes that an active
ingredient, not listed as a candidate for
reduced REI in Attachment A, meets the
criteria discussed below, and that
products containing that active
ingredient should be eligible for a
reduced REI through the notification
process, the registrant should
immediately contact Judy Smith at the
address provided in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
If the Agency determines at any time
that the reduced REI is not appropriate,
EPA will direct the registrant to revise
the REI on the label as appropriate.
II. Applicability
The PRN would only apply as
follows:
1. To products subject to the WPS
labeling requirements in 40 CFR part
156, subpart K.
2. To products containing one or more
of the active ingredients listed in
Attachment A. A product which
contains an active ingredient not listed
in Attachment A would not eligible for
the notification procedures in the PRN.
3. To currently registered end-use
products with interim WPS REIs. New
registrations would not be within the
scope of the PRN. Pending applications
for registration will be considered
against the criteria of this notice, and, if
acceptable, would be permitted the
reduced REI when registered.
III. Background
The 1992 WPS established an interim
minimum REI of 12 hours for all end-
use pesticide products for agricultural
uses. (Longer interim REIs were
established for more toxic products.)
The 12—hour minimum REI was
established for two reasons: (1) to
substitute for the "sprays have dried
and dusts have settled" REI previously
used; and (2) to incorporate a margin of
safety for unknown adverse effects.
The Agency has been requested by
numerous registrants and pesticide
users to consider reducing the minimum
12 hour REI for lower toxicity products
that they believe do not need a 12 hour
REI to protect workers.
The REIs established through the WPS
are interim measures until the
reregistration process or other
comprehensive EPA review process
results in a definitive REI
determination. In an effort to avoid
diversion of Agency resources from the
risk evaluation conducted in the
reregistration process, regulatory relief
in the form of a four hour REI is
proposed for those active ingredients
that clearly pose very low, post-
application risks to workers.
IV. Policy and Rationale
EPA has considered whether there
may be some end-use products for
which a 12-hour REI is not necessary,
and has identified a limited set of lower
toxicity active ingredients for which it
is prepared to allow reduction of the REI
for EPs that meet certain criteria. The
active ingredient list is limited because
a reduction of the WPS REI from 12 to
4 hours could result in dermal and eye
exposures that would equal exposures
experienced by entry immediately
following application, and because any
risk mitigation benefits gained by not
allowing workers to reenter treated areas
before 12 hours is lost. For these
reasons, the Agency is proposing to
permit only those end-use products that
contain active ingredients meeting the
criteria in Unit IV to be eligible for a
reduced REI.
The Agency believes that reducing the
REIs for pesticides which meet the
criteria below would not substantially
increase risks to workers. Reducing the
REI would provide agricultural
producers with greater flexibility and
may promote the use of these inherently
less toxic products over those with
greater risks and longer REIs.
After August 31,1995, registrants
must use the existing label amendment
process to request a reduction in a REI.
V. Criteria for Active Ingredient
Selection
EPA considered for inclusion in
Attachment A active ingredients in
three categories: microbial pesticides
(living organisms, including protozoans,
fungi, bacteria, and viruses);
biochemical pesticides (materials that
occur in nature and possess a non-toxic
mode of action to the target pest(s); and
certain conventional chemical
pesticides. The following criteria were
used, to select the active ingredients in
Attachment A:
1. The active ingredient is in Toxicity
category III or IV based upon data on
acute dermal toxicity, primary skin
irritation, and primary eye irritation.
Acute oral toxicity data were used in
place of acute dermal toxicity if no
acute dermal data were available.
2. The active ingredient is not a
sensitizer (or in the case of biochemical
and microbial active ingredients, no
known reports of hypersensitivity exist).
3. No known adverse health effects
are associated with the active
ingredient, i.e. carcinogenicity,
mutagenicity, developmental effects,
reproductive effects.
4. EPA does not possess incident
information (illness or injury reports)
that are "definitely" or "probably"
related to post- application exposures to
the active ingredient.
5. The active ingredient also may not
be a cholinesterase inhibitor.
-------
2850 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
The Agency determined that a total of
397 potential active ingredients were in
Toxicity Category 3 or 4 for at least one
of the following guideline studies: oral,
inhalation, dermal, skin irritation, and
eye irritation. After this initial
screening, 109 of the 397 active
ingredients whose end-use products
would have REIs greater than 12 hours
were excluded, resulting in 287
potential candidates. The REI's of these
109 active ingredients were set utilizing
chemical specific data via the
registration, reregistration, or special
review process. The remaining 287
active ingredients were then screened to
determine if both the dermal toxicity
and eye irritation tests resulted in
Toxicity Category 3 or 4, and the results
of the sensitization/hypersensitization
test were negative. Candidates failing to
meet this criteria were excluded from
consideration. This screen reduced the
number to 88 active ingredients. From
this group of 88 active ingredients, an.
additional 13 were excluded for
subchronic, developmental,
reproductive, mutagenicity, or
carcinogenicity concerns, or if the
registration was not supported
currently. This resulted in 75 active
ingredients as potential candidates for
REI reduction to 4 hours.
Some active ingredients are not
included on the list in Attachment A
because they have been the subject of a
reregistration eligibility document
(RED), in which the Agency concluded
that a 12 hour REI was necessary to
protect workers. These active
ingredients would not be eligible for
reduced REIs through the notification
process outlined in the PRN. It should
be noted that WPS does not apply to
pheromones utilized in insect traps and
will not be included in the PRN.
VI. Agency Determination for Adding
Active Ingredients To Candidate List
If a registrant believes an active
ingredient meets the criteria set forth in
Part IV of the PR Notice, and that
products containing that active
ingredient should be eligible for a
reduced REI through the notification
process, the registrant should contact
Judy Smith in Certification, Training
and Occupational Safety Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), 401 M St.,
SVV., Washington DC 20460, before
August 31,1995. If a registrant or other
party has information or data indicating
that an active ingredient should not be
on the candidate list, the registrant must
notify the Agency before August 31,
1995. To be considered for a reduced
REI, the active ingredient must meet the
criteria outlined in the PRN, based upon
studies determined by the Agency to be
acceptable. The registrant would be
required to submit the studies [or cite
their MRID numbers and provide copies
of Agency reviews that confirm that the
criteria are met]. For additional
information on this issue, registrants
should contact Judy Smith (703-305-
7666) as early in the comment period as
possible.
VTL Procedures for Determining
Eligibility of End-Use Products
If the active ingredient(s) is included
on Attachment A, the registrant must
evaluate the product to determine if the
EP is eligible for REI reduction. To be
acceptable, the following criteria must
be met. The registrant must certify to the
Agency that the EP meets all of the
criteria outlined below:
1. The registrant has submitted or
cited studies for the EP on acute dermal
toxicity, primary skin irritation, primary
eye irritation and skin sensitization (or
hypersensitivity if the product contains
a microbial or biochemical active
ingredient). The Agency need not have
completed these study reviews.
a. The registrant must cite the MRID
numbers for all studies submitted.
b. If EPA has permitted the use of
studies performed on a substantially
similar EP to fulfill the acute toxicity
data requirements, the registrant must
submit proof that EPA has approved the
use of these studies.
c. If EPA has waived a data
requirement for one or more of the
required studies, the registrant must
submit proof that the data were waived.
d. If all studies on the EP have not
been submitted, cited, or waived, the
REI may not be reduced for the end-use
product at this time.
2. Based on the acute toxicity studies,
the product is in Toxicity category III or
IV.
3. Based on the sensitization or
hypersensitivity studies, the product is
not a sensitizer or there have been no
reports of hypersensitivity.
4. The registrant has no data
indicating, and is not aware of, adverse
health effects associated with the EP,
i.e., carcinogenicity, mutagenicity,
developmental effects, reproductive
effects.
5. The registrant is not aware and has
not been informed of incident
information (illness or injury reports)
that are "definitely" or "probably" (as
defined by the California Incident
Reporting System) related to post-
application exposures to the product.
VIII. Procedure for Notification/
Certification
A. Notification Statement
For each product that qualifies for the
notification procedures, the registrant
would be required to submit:
1. An Application for Registration
(EPA Form 8570-1), identified as a
notification under this PRN.
2. Three copies of a revised label,
clearly marked to highlight the revised
REI.
3. The information required to
demonstrate that the product is eligible
for the reduced REI.
4. The following certification
statement:
I certify that this notification is consistent
with the provisions of PR Notice 95-x and
that no other changes have been made to the
labeling or the confidential statement of
formula of this product.
I further understand that if this notification
is not consistent with the terms of PR Notice
95-x, this product may be in violation of
FIFRA and I may be subject to enforcement
action and penalties under sections 12 and
14 of FIFRA. I understand that the Agency
may direct a change in the REI of a product
subject to this notice if the Agency
determines that a change is appropriate, and
that products may be subject to regulatory
and enforcement action if the appropriate
changes are not made.
B.Final Printed Labeling
For each product, filial printed
labeling must be submitted either as
part of the notification or separately in
accordance with PR Notice 82-2, before
the product may be distributed or sold.
IX. Sale and Distribution
After the PRN is issued and once the
registrant has submitted the information
and certification specified in Unit VIII,
the registrant would be able to sell or
distribute products bearing the
registrant-certified revised labeling that
was submitted to the Agency.
X. Permitted Relabeling of Product in
Channels of Trade
After the PRN is issued, registrants
revising their labeling to reduce an
interim REI from 12 hours to 4 hours
may revise labeling of products through
stickering or full relabeling. Stickering,
or full relabeling, may occur at sites
where product is not under direct
registrant control (such as distribution
or retail sites), by any person the
registrant designates, and without
registration of the site as a pesticide
producing establishment. The registrant,
however, retains full responsibility for
ensuring that such labeling
modifications are carried out correctly.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2851
XL Agency Determination to Revise the
REI
Registrants should note that FIFRA
sec. 6(a)(2) requires that they submit to
the Agency any information or data
concerning any adverse effect, illness or
injury associated with a product or its
use, including those resulting from post-
application exposures.
If, on the basis of information
received from a registrant or other
sources, the Agency determines that the
4-hour REI should be increased, the
Agency will inform the registrant of that
determination and of the new REI that
must replace the 4-hour REI. The
Agency will also inform the registrant at
that time of actions, if any, that must be
taken with respect to existing stocks of
product labeled with a 4-hour REI.
The Agency intends to bring
misbranding actions and issue stop sale,
use, and removal orders if the
appropriate changes and actions are not
taken immediately upon notification to
the registrant.
XII. Compliance
Registrants are responsible for the
content and accuracy of labeling and for
compliance with labeling requirements.
Registrants that submit notifications
which do not comply with the PRN or
EPA's requirements may be subject to
enforcement action under FIFRA
sections 12 and 14.
Registrants electing to sell or
distribute products bearing registrant-
verified revised labeling run the risk
that the proposed label is incorrect and
must be revised. In most cases,
incorrectly reducing the REI from 12
hours to 4 hours would be considered
a serious error possibly requiring stop-
sale orders, recalls, or civil penalties. A
serious error is one which may create a
potential for harm to workers, handlers,
or other persons, or the environment, or
when the errors prevent achievement of
basic goals of the WPS or FIFRA.
XIII. Consultations
EPA consulted with USDA and their
comments were considered in the
preparation of this document. In
addition, although this action is not a
"significant regulatory action" under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4,1993), it was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for a
10-day informal review. Any changes
made have been documented in the
public record.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4,1993), it has
been determined that this is not a
"significant regulatory action." This
action does not raise potential novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Nevertheless, this action was
submitted to OMB for review, and any
comments or changes made have been
documented in the public record.
XIV. Attachment A
Attachment A—Candidate List of Active
Ingredients Eligible for Reduced Entry
Intervals (EEIs).
Acetylchitin
Agrobacterium radiobacter
Ampelomyces quisqualis isolate M-10
Azadirachtin
B. t. subsp. aizawai
B. t. subsp. aizawai strain GC-91
B. t. subsp. israelensis
B. t. subsp. kurstaki
B. t. subsp. kurstaki HD-263
B. t. subsp. kurstaki strain EG2348
B. t. subsp. kurstaki strain EG2371
B. t. subsp. kurstaki strain EG2424
B. t. subsp. san diego
B. t. subsp. tenebrionis
Bacillus popilliae and B. lentimorbus
Bacillus sphaericus
Bacillus subtilis GB03
Bacillus subtilis MBI 600
Boron sodium oxide, tetrahydrate
Calcium oxytetracycline
Chlorsulfuron
Colletotrichum gleosporioides spores
Cytokinin
D-Phenothrin
Disparlure: cis-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane
Ethoxyquin
Fenridazon
Gibberellic acid
Gibberellin A4 mixt. with Gibberellin A7
Gliocladium virens G-21
Gossyplure: Hexadecadien-1-ol, acetate
Indole-3-butyric acid
Kinoprene
Lagendidium giganteum, mycelium or
oospores
Metsulfuron-methyl
Mineral oil
Muscalure, component of (E)-9-Tricosene
Muscalure, component of (Z)-9-Tricosene
Nicosulfuron
Nosema locustae
Oxytetracycline hydrochloride
Periplanone B
Phytophthora palmivora, chlamydospores
Polyhedral inclusion bodies of Douglas fir
tussock moth NPV
Polyhedral inclusion bodies of Heliothis
NPV
Polyhedral inclusion bodies of Neodiprion
sertifer NPV
Polyhedral inclusion bodies of Gypsy moth
NPV
Polyhedral occlusion bodies of Autographa
californica NPV
Polyhedral occlusion bodies of beet
armyworm NPV
Pseudomonas cepacia type Wisconsin
Pseudomonas fluorescens 1629RS
Pseudomonas fluorescens A506
Pseudomonas fluorescens EG-1053
Pseudomonas fluorescens Strain NCIB
12089
Pseudomonas syringae 742RS
Puccinia canaliculate (Schweinitz)
Langerheim (ATCC ???)
Sesame plant, ground
Siduron
Silica gel
Silicon dioxide
Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose
Sodium metaborate (NaBO2)
Soybean oil
Streptomyces griseoviridis
Streptomycin
Streptomycin sesquisulfate
Sulfometuron methyl
Thifensulfuron methyl
Tomato pinworm pheromone: (E)-4-
tridecen-1-yl acetate
Tomato pinworm pheromone: (Z)-4-
tridecen-1-yl acetate
Trincontanol
Triasulfuron
Trichoderma harzianum (ATCC 20476)
Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain KRL-
AG2
Trichoderma polysporum (ATCC 20475)
XV. Public Docket and Electronic
Commends
A record has been established for this
rulenaaking under docket number "OPP-
00399" (including comments and data
submitted electronically as described
below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of
electronic comments, which does not
include any information claimed as
confidential business information (CBI),
is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Room 1132 of the
Publi.c Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division
(75060), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, CM
#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA. Written comments
should be mailed to: Public Response
and Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C) Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
As part of an interagency
"streamlining" initiative, EPA is
experimenting with submission of
public comments on selected Federal
Regisiter actions electronically through
the Internet in addition to accepting
comments in traditional written form.
This proposed exception is one of the
actions selected by EPA for this
experiment. From the experiment, EPA
will learn how electronic commenting
works, and any problems that arise can
be addressed before EPA adopts
electronic commenting more broadly in
its rulemaking activities. Electronic
commenting through posting to the EPA
Bulletin Board or through the Internet
using the ListServe function raise some
-------
2852 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules
novel issues that are discussed below in
this Unit.
To submit electronic comments,
persons can either "subscribe" to the
Internet ListServe application or "post"
comments to the EPA Bulletin Board. To
"Subscribe" to the Internet ListServe
application for this proposed exception,
send an e-mail message to:
listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov that
says "Subscribe RIN-2070-AC69 ." Once you are
subscribed to the ListServe, comments
should be sent to: RIN-2070-
AC69@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov. All
comments and data in electronic form
should be identified by the docket
number OPP-00399 since all five
documents in this separate part provide
the same electronic address.
For online viewing of submissions
and posting of comments, the public
access EPA Bulletin Board is also
available by dialing 202-488-3671,
enter selection "DMAIL," user name
"BB—USER" or 919-541-4642, enter
selection "MAIL," user name "BB—
USER." When dialing the EPA Bulletin
Board type at the opening
message. When the "Notes" prompt
appears, type "open RIN- 2070-AC69"
to access the posted messages for this
document. To get a listing of all files,
type "dir/all" at the prompt line.
Electronic comments can also be sent
directly to EPA at:
Dockot-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form
of encryption. To obtain further
information on the electronic comment
process, or on submitting comments on
this proposed exception electronically
through the EPA Bulletin Board or the
Internet ListServe, please contact John
A. Richards (Telephone: 202-260-2253;
FAX: 202-260-3884; Internet:
richards.john@epamail.epa.gov).
Persons who comment on this
proposed rule, and those who view
comments electronically, should be
aware that this experimental electronic
commenting is administered on a
completely public system. Therefore,
any personal information included in
comments and the electronic mail
addresses of those who make comments
electronically are automatically
available to anyone else who views the
comments. Similarly, since all
electronic comments are available to all
users, commenters should not submit
electronically any information which
they believe to be CBI. Such information
should be submitted only directly to
EPA in writing as described earlier in
this Unit.
Commenters and others outside EPA
may choose to comment on the
comments submitted by others using the
RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe or the EPA
Bulletin Board. If they do so, those
comments as well will become part of
EPA's record for this rulemaking.
Persons outside EPA wishing to discuss
comments with commenters or
otherwise communicate with
commenters but not have those
discussions or communications sent to
EPA and included in the EPA
rulemaking record should conduct those
discussions and communications
outside the RIN-2070-AC69 ListServe
or the EPA Bulletin Board.
The official record for this
rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept
in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will
transfer all comments received
electronically in the RIN-2070-AC69
ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board, in
accordance with the instructions for
electronic submission, into printed,
paper form as they are received and will
place the paper copies in the official
rulemaking record which will also
include all comments submitted directly
in writing. All the electronic comments
will be available to everyone who
obtains access to the RIN-2070-AC69
ListServe or the EPA Bulletin Board;
however, the official rulemaking record
is the paper record maintained at the
address in "ADDRESSES" at the
beginning of this document. (Comments
submitted only in written form will not
be transferred into electronic form and
thus may be accessed only by reviewing
them in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch as described
above.)
Because the electronic comment
process is still experimental, EPA
cannot guarantee that all electronic
comments will be accurately converted
to printed, paper form. If EPA becomes
aware, in transferring an electronic
comment to printed, paper form, of a
problem or error that results in an
obviously garbled comment, EPA will
attempt to contact the comment
submitter and advise the submitter to
resubmit the comment either in .
electronic or written form. Some
commenters may choose to submit
identical comments in both electronic
and written form to ensure accuracy. In
that case, EPA requests that commenters
clearly note in both the electronic and
written submissions that the comments
are duplicated in the other medium.
This will assist EPA in processing and
filing the comments in the rulemaking
record.
As with ordinary written comments,
at the time of receipt, EPA will not
attempt to verify the identities of
electronic commenters nor to review the
accuracy of electronic comments.
Electronic and written comments will
be placed in the rulemaking record
without any editing or change by EPA
except to the extent changes occur in
the process of converting electronic
comments to printed, paper form.
If it chooses to respond officially to
electronic comments on this proposed
rule, EPA will do so either in a notice
in the Federal Register or in a response
to comments document placed in the
rulemaking record for this proposed
rule. EPA will not respond to
commenters electronically other than to
seek clarification of electronic
comments that may be garbled in
transmission or conversion to printed,
paper form as discussed above. Any
communications from EPA employees
to electronic commenters, other than
those described in this paragraph, either
through Internet or otherwise are not
official responses from EPA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 156
Labeling, Occupational Safety and
health, Pesticides and pest, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 3, 1995:
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 95-587 Filed 1-6-95; 12:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
-------
-------
------- |