FridayAugust 21, 1992컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴Part IIIEnvironmental Protection Agency컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴40 CFR Parts 156 and 170Worker Protection Standard, Hazard Information, Hand Labor Tasks on CutFlowers and Ferns Exception; Final Rule, and Proposed Rules    (This document was converted to ASCII from the electronic file thataccompanied the original signed documents transmitted to the Office of theFederal Register.  The original electronic file was certified to be a true copy ofthe original documents.  The official document appeared at 57 FR 38102 -38176 on August 21, 1992.) Federal Register/Vol. 57, No. 163/Friday, August 21, 1992/Rules and RegulationsENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY40 CFR Parts 156 and 170[OPP-300164A; FRL-3774-6]Rin 2070-AA49Worker Protection Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴SUMMARY: EPA is issuing final revisions to its regulations governing theprotection of workers from agricultural pesticides. These revised regulationsexpand the scope of the standard to include not only workers performinghand labor operations in fields treated with pesticides, but employees inforests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and employees who handle (mix, load,apply, etc.) pesticides for use in these locations. The regulations expandrequirements for warnings about applications, use of personal protectiveequipment, and restrictions on entry to treated areas, and add new provisionsfor decontamination, emergency assistance, contact with handlers of highlytoxic pesticides, and pesticide safety training. Pesticide registrants are requiredto add appropriate labeling statements referencing these regulations andspecifying application restrictions, restricted-entry intervals (REIs), personalprotective equipment (PPE), and notification to workers of pesticideapplications. EPA has determined that its present regulations are inadequateto protect agricultural workers and pesticide handlers who are occupationallyexposed to pesticides. The revised regulations are intended to reduce the riskof pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticidehandlers through implementation of appropriate exposure reduction measures.EFFECTIVE DATE:  This rule will become effective October 20, 1992.ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in triplicate and addressed to theDocument Control Officer (H7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Allcomments should bear the document control number OPP-300164A and willbe available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday, at the Office of Pesticides Program's Document Control Office, Rm.1132, Crystal Mall 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail:  James J. Boland, Acting Chief,Occupational Safety Branch (H7506C), Field Operations Division, Office ofPrevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency,401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and room number: Rm. 1114, CM 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-7666.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Federal Register notice discusses thebackground and events leading to this final rule revising the Worker ProtectionStandard; summarizes the public's comments on the provisions of the proposedrule (53 FR 25970, July 8, 1988); provides EPA's response to comments and finaldetermination with respect to provisions of the revised standard; discussesimplementation of the revised standard by registrants, the Agency, the States,and pesticide users; and provides information on the applicable statutory andregulatory review requirements. More detailed discussion of the publiccomments and the Agency's response are found in the Response to PublicComments in the docket. The Agency is interested in receiving additionalcomments, data, and other evidence concerning both the general prohibitionof routine hand labor tasks during a restricted-entry interval and themechanism for granting exceptions to that prohibition.  Written comments,data, or other evidence concerning these topics should be submitted on orbefore October 20, 1992. Upon review of these comments, EPA may modifythis final rule's restrictions upon entering an area that remains under arestricted-entry interval or the process by which the exception requests areconsidered.  As an aid to the reader, the following is an outline of the contents of thisdocument:I. Background  A. Legal Authority  B. History of the Worker Protection StandardII. Organization and Summary of the Final Rule  A. Organization of the Final Rule  B. Summary of the Worker Protection Standard  C. Summary of Risk-Benefit Analysis   D. Minor Crop Statement  E. Compliance DatesIII. Provisions of the Final Rule  A. Restrictions Associated with Applications  B. Entry Restrictions  C. Notice of Applications  D. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)  E. Decontamination  F. Emergency Assistance  G. Pesticide Safety Training and Information  H. Knowledge of Labeling Information  I. OtherIV. Labeling Statements  A. Background of Proposal  B. Reference Statement  C. Other StatementsV. Statutory Re  A. U.S. Department of Agriculture  B. Congressional Committees  C. FIFRA Scientific Advisory PanelVI. Implementation  A. Agency Implementation Strategy  B. Registrant Compliance  C. EPA Communication and Training Efforts  D. National Compliance Monitoring StrategyVII. Public DocketVIII.  Regulatory Requirements  A. Executive Order 12291  B. Regulatory Flexibility Act  C. Paperwork Reduction Act I.  Background A. Legal Authority    The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C.135) was enacted in 1947. Since then, pesticide products have been subject toFederal regulation under FIFRA. Today, they are required to be registered withEPA.    In 1972, FIFRA was amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide ControlAct (7 U.S.C. 136). The amendments broadened Federal pesticide regulatoryauthority by making it ``unlawful for any person to use any registered pesticidein a manner inconsistent with its labeling'' (7 U.S.C. section 136j(a)(2)(G)), andthey provided civil and criminal penalties for violations of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136l).The amendments also authorized EPA to provide regulations to carry out FIFRA(7 U.S.C. 136w(a)). These new or revised provisions augmented EPA's authorityto protect humans and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects ofpesticides.    During the congressional consideration of FIFRA amendments in 1972, it wasemphasized that FIFRA was to be implemented by EPA to protect employeeswho might be exposed to pesticides or their residues. The legislative history ofthe 1972 amendments indicates an express intent of Congress that farmers,farmworkers, and others be afforded such protection under FIFRA. The SenateCommittee on Agriculture and Forestry rejected the need to include a specificprovision in FIFRA to protect farmworkers. However, the Committee found``protection of man and the environment'' to be a broad term encompassingfarmers, farmworkers, and others who come into contact with pesticides, andstated that:   The Committee believes there can be no question. . .but. . .that the bill [TheFederal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (FEPCA)] requires theAdministrator to require that the labeling and classification of pesticides besuch as to protect farmers, farm workers, and others coming in contact withpesticides or pesticide residues. (S. Rep. No. 92-883, (Part II), 92nd Congress,2nd Session at 43-46 (1972) (Agriculture and Forestry), U.S. Code Congressionaland Administrative News 1972, p. 4063). B. History of the Worker Protection Standard    In 1974, EPA promulgated the regulations found at 40 CFR part 170 pursuantto its authority under FIFRA (39 FR 16888; May 10, 1974). That part, entitled``Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides,'' dealt only with thepesticide-related occupational safety and health of ``farm workers performinghand labor operations in fields after ground (other than those incorporatedinto the soil), aerial, or other type of application of pesticides'' (40 CFR 170.1).Part 170 consisted of four basic requirements: (1) A prohibition against sprayingworkers and other persons; (2) a general reentry interval for all agriculturalpesticides prohibiting reentry into treated fields until the sprays had dried ordusts had settled and longer reentry intervals for 12 specific pesticides; (3) arequirement for protective clothing for any worker who had to reenter treatedfields before the specific reentry period had expired; and (4) a requirement for``appropriate and timely'' warnings. Soil-incorporated pesticides, mosquitoabatement treatments and related public pest control programs, greenhousetreatments, livestock and other animal treatments, and treatments of golfcourses and similar nonagricultural areas were exempted from coverage.    EPA's authority to promulgate such requirements, including reentry intervalstandards designed to limit workers' occupational exposure to pesticides andpesticide residues (such as those in part 170) is established, not only in thelegislative history but in the courts. See, e.g., Organized Migrants in CommunityAction v. Brennan (OMICA) 520 F.2d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1975) and Public CitizenHealth Research Group, et al. v. Auchter 702 F.2d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1983).  In OMICA the Court of Appeals stated: Our own analysis of the statute [FIFRA]and its legislative history confirms EPA's ample statutory authority to issue fieldreentry standards to protect farm workers. (520 F.2d at 1165) . . . Even beforeFEPCA's enactment, EPA and predecessor agencies construed the labelingprovisions of FIFRA to require field reentry limitations for many pesticides. See 39Fed. Reg. 16888 (1974). However, these were merely informational until FEPCAmade them enforceable. See id. at 16889. It is clear from an examination ofthe explanatory statement accompanying EPA's proposed and final rules thatthese standards (part 170) were promulgated and implemented under thelabeling authority given EPA by FEPCA. (520 F.2d at 1168).    In June 1980, EPA announced a Label Improvement Program (LIP) underwhich labels of pesticide products are upgraded, improved, or revised to meetcurrent labeling standards. On March 29, 1983, EPA issued a Farm WorkerSafety LIP (PR Notice 83-2) calling for certain information to be placed onlabels of ``all outdoor agricultural use products which are applied to cropswhose culture requires hand labor.'' In effect, PR 83-2 implemented 40 CFRpart 170, promulgated 9 years before. PR 83-2 did not include mixing, loading,flagging, or equipment operation because part 170 was limited to farmworkersengaged in hand labor. Greenhouse treatments and forestry uses wereexcluded for the same reason. PR 83-2 defined the term ``hand labor tasks'' tomean crop production activities such as harvesting, detasseling, thinning,weeding, topping, planting, sucker removal, summer pruning, moving irrigationequipment, and other tasks performed in the field by farmworkers who couldhave substantial contact with pesticide-treated surfaces such as plants andplant parts.    An Agency review of 40 CFR part 170, conducted in 1983, concluded thatthe regulations were inadequate to protect agricultural workers. The reviewrevealed concerns about enforceability and coverage and cited continuingreports of worker poisonings. In 1984, EPA published an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking that announced its decision to revise part 170 andsolicited public comment (49 FR 32605; August 15, 1984). Most commentsfavored revising part 170, but they expressed wide differences in opinion aboutthe revisions needed.    EPA subsequently initiated a process of public participation known asregulatory negotiation. An Advisory Committee consisting of 25 representativesof farmworker unions, health care providers, agricultural trade associations,commercial pesticide applicators, pesticide registrants, State health andagriculture agencies, EPA, and other Federal agencies was constituted underthe Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). Negotiations began inNovember 1985. In early 1986, after several meetings, the representatives ofthe farmworker unions ended their participation. As a result, regulatorynegotiation consensus was not possible.    EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the July 8, 1988,Federal Register. The proposed revisions expanded the scope of part 170 toinclude all employees performing tasks related to the production of agriculturalplants on farms, in forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers ofpesticides intended for use on agricultural plants in these locations. The NPRMalso expanded requirements for notification to workers about applications, useof personal protective equipment (PPE), and restrictions on entry to treatedareas, and proposed to add new provisions for decontamination, emergencymedical assistance, maintaining contact with handlers of highly toxicpesticides, cholinesterase monitoring, and training. EPA also proposed topromulgate labeling regulations to require statements pertaining to generalworker protection, entry intervals, personal protective equipment, and postingof treated areas.    The proposed revisions were based on five major concerns. First, the Agencybelieved that data developed after 1974 on pesticide poisonings of workersrevealed the inadequacies and shortcomings in the scope and requirementsof part 170. Many of these data were placed into the record by EPA and otherparties to this rulemaking. Second, the Agency stated that the enforcementexperiences of EPA and the States over the years had led the Agency toconclude that a clearer exposition of liability and responsibility provisions wouldlead to improved worker protection. Third, the Agency had determined thatsince the reregistration program would not be completed for some pesticidesfor several years, measures were necessary to protect workers in the interim.Fourth, because EPA believed that protection should be provided to otherworkers, it proposed expanding coverage to workers not covered by thepresent part 170. Finally, the Agency noted the increased use oforganophosphate and carbamate pesticides since 1974. These pesticides tendto be more acutely toxic to humans than pesticides commonly used inagriculture in the past.    During July and August of 1988, EPA held more than 15 public meetings,mostly in agricultural areas of the country, to explain the proposed rules and toanswer questions (see 53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988). The major meetings were heldin: Washington, DC; Casa Grande, AZ; Fresno, CA; Greeley, CO; Orlando, FL;Forest Park, GA; Caldwell, ID; Des Moines, IA; Augusta, ME; Hagerstown, MD;Salisbury, MD; Holyoke, MA; New Paltz, NY; Maumee, OH; McAllen, TX; andYakima, WA.    In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency received 380comments totaling more than 2,000 pages.    After a careful review and analysis of the comments and data in therecord, the Agency is promulgating this final rule revising 40 CFR part 170(Worker Protection Standard) and adding part 156, subpart K (LabelingRequirements for Pesticides and Devices).II. Organization and Summary of the Final Rule A. Organization of the Final Rule    Many comments stressed that the proposal was confusing. EPA believes thatsome of the confusion stemmed from the format of the proposed revisions. Theproposed revisions included requirements for workers at four different use sitesand addressed many differing activities including hand-labor activities,non-hand-labor activities, early-entry activities, and handling activities.    EPA has changed the format of the final rule. The revisions to part 170 arenow in the form of two separate, more self-contained standards--one forpesticide handlers and one for workers on all covered sites: Farms, forests,greenhouses, and nurseries. This organization will reduce confusion and willmake it easier for employers and their employees to understand therequirements, to comply with the provisions, and to propose amendments ifdata so warrant in the future. B. Summary of the Worker Protection Standard    The provisions in the revised Worker Protection Standard are directed towardthe working conditions of two types of employees: those who handleagricultural pesticides (mix, load, apply, clean or repair equipment, act asflaggers, etc.) and those who perform tasks related to the cultivation andharvesting of plants on farms or in greenhouses, nurseries, or forests. There arethree types of provisions intended to: (1) Eliminate or reduce exposure topesticides; (2) mitigate exposures that occur; and (3) inform employees aboutthe hazards of pesticides. A summary of these provisions is given here.Discussions of these provisions and summaries of the public's comments onthese provisions are contained in Unit III of this preamble. More detaileddiscussion of the public's comments can be found in a document entitled``Summary of the Public Comments and the Agency's Response, WorkerProtection Standard'' in the docket.    1. Provisions to eliminate or reduce pesticide exposures. Exposure topesticides can be reduced by excluding workers from areas treated withpesticides, prohibiting handlers from applying a pesticide in a way that willexpose workers or other persons, and protecting handlers during handlingactivities. Hence, the final rule contains several provisions to achieve thispurpose such as application restrictions, entry restrictions, use of personalprotective equipment, and notification to workers of treated areas so they canavoid inadvertent exposures.    a. Application restrictions. Three types of restrictions apply duringapplications:    i. No pesticide may be applied in a manner that will cause it to contact anyperson except an appropriately trained and equipped handler.    ii. No person, except an appropriately trained and equipped handler, maybe in an area or, in some cases, near an area being treated with pesticides.    iii. The employer must make sure that any handler who is handling apesticide with a skull and crossbones symbol on the label is monitored visuallyor by voice at least every 2 hours. Handlers using fumigants in greenhousesmust be in continuous visual or voice contact with another handler.    b. Use of personal protective equipment (PPE).  Additional provisions tominimize exposure are directed toward the use of PPE. The appropriate PPEbased on the product's acute toxicity by route of exposure (dermal, ocular, orrespiratory) will be specified in the product labeling for the work activity(handling or early entry).    i. Persons handling the pesticide must wear the PPE specified for handlers onthe labeling of the pesticide being used.    ii. Persons entering a treated area before the expiration of a restricted-entryinterval (REI) who will contact anything that has been treated must wear PPEspecified in the labeling for early entry.    iii. When PPE is required by the product labeling for the activity to beperformed, the employer must: (1) Provide the PPE to each worker or pesticidehandler; (2) clean and maintain the PPE correctly; (3) make sure that eachhandler or worker wears and uses the PPE correctly; (4) prevent workers orhandlers from wearing home or taking home contaminated PPE; and (5) takeaction to prevent heat stress, if the work and the PPE might cause heat stress.    c. Entry restrictions. Access to pesticide-treated areas is limited after anapplication while the pesticide may still present a hazard. EPA's currentpractice is to set entry intervals (REIs) based on data collected and evaluatedfor this purpose, but many older pesticides in agricultural use today may nothave been evaluated for entry hazards. The collection and evaluation of suchdata may take several years. The final rule establishes REIs for all pesticideproducts which are used in the production of agricultural plants and for whichREIs have not been set according to current standards. Previously establishedentry intervals will be retained if they are based on entry data that meetAgency guidelines. Any other previously established entry interval is consideredto be ``interim'' and will be retained only if it is longer than the REI establishedby part 170.    In general, a 48-hour REI is established for any product containing an activeingredient that is in toxicity category I (most acutely toxic category) becauseof dermal toxicity or skin or eye irritation. The REI is extended to 72 hours in aridareas if any such active ingredient is an organophosphate and the product isapplied outdoors. A 24-hour REI is established for any product containing anactive ingredient that is in toxicity category II (moderately toxic) because ofdermal toxicity or skin or eye irritation. A 12-hour interval is established for allother products.    Workers are restricted from entering a pesticide-treated area for the REIspecified on the product labeling. With narrow exceptions, the time a workermay be in areas under an REI is limited and other safety measures arerequired. The activities that may take place in an area under an REI are limitedto tasks that do not require contact with treated surfaces, short-term tasks thatdo not require hand labor and tasks that may be necessary in an emergencyto save a crop. In addition, affected persons or organizations may request thatthe Agency grant case-by-case exceptions to the entry restrictions if theybelieve their industries, crops, or crop practices would bear an unreasonableeconomic burden under such restrictions.    d. Notification of applications. To help workers avoid inadvertent exposuresto pesticide-treated areas, the Agency is requiring employers to inform workersof where pesticides have been applied on the agricultural establishment. Thisnotification may take one or more forms:    i. All agricultural employees who may come near a treated area must benotified, either orally or by posting treated areas with warning signs, ofpesticide applications and areas under an REI on agricultural establishments.    ii. For selected pesticide products for which inadvertent early entry could beespecially hazardous, treated areas must be posted with warning signs, andoral warnings must be given to workers.    iii. For outdoor uses, there are no notification requirements if workers will notbe within 1/4 mile of the treated area during the application or before theexpiration of the REI.    iv. Treated areas must be posted for all pesticide applications ingreenhouses if workers will be in the greenhouse during the application orbefore the expiration of the REI.    2. Provisions to mitigate exposure -- a. Decontamination. Employeeshandling pesticides must be provided an ample supply of water for washingsplashed or spilled pesticides off themselves and for washing after thepesticide-handling activity is complete.    Workers entering treated areas where, within the last 30 days, a pesticidehas been applied or an REI has been in effect, must be provided facilities forwashing.    b. Emergency assistance. Although the Agency believes the precautionssuch as observing application restrictions and entry restrictions, using PPE, andnotifying workers of applications will decrease the frequency of acutepesticide poisoning or injury incidents, medical emergencies involvingagricultural workers and handlers may still arise. In such cases, prompt medicaltreatment is necessary to mitigate the extent of the injury or poisoning. Hence,the rule contains several duties related to emergency care:    i. The name and location of the nearest medical facility must be posted ata central location.    ii. If an agricultural worker or handler may have been poisoned or injured bya pesticide, the employer must make available transportation to a medicalcare facility.    iii. The employer must provide to the employee, or to medical personneltreating the employee, information about the pesticide(s) to which the workeror handler may have been exposed.    3. Provisions to inform employees about pesticide hazards. Since trainingand information are essential components of a successful occupationalrisk-reduction strategy, the final rule contains several requirements relating toproviding pesticide safety training and information to employees. These arerequirements for: (1) Pesticide safety training for all workers and handlers, (2)use of a pesticide safety poster, (3) access to labeling information, and (4)access to information about what pesticides have been used on theestablishment.    a. Training. All agricultural workers must have basic pesticide safety training.All handlers must have basic pesticide safety training, training on the handlingof pesticides, and training on the use of PPE.    A poster summarizing the elements of basic pesticide safety must be postedat a central location on the agricultural establishment to reinforce the safetytraining.    b. Access to product-specific information. Pesticide handlers must haveknowledge of and access to the information on the labeling of the productthey are using; early-entry workers must have knowledge of the information onthe labeling. Employees must have access for 30 days after the applicationand any REI to a centrally located listing of information about any productused on any area on the establishment. C. Summary of Risk-Benefit Analysis    EPA estimates that at least tens of thousands of acute illnesses and injuriesand a less certain number of delayed onset illnesses occur annually toagricultural employees as the result of occupational exposures to pesticidesused in the production of agricultural plants. These injuries and illnessescontinue to occur despite the protections offered by the existing part 170 andby product-specific regulation of pesticides. Therefore, the Agency hasdetermined that occupational exposures of agricultural employees topesticides and pesticide residues continue to cause adverse effects in a broadrange of agricultural sectors and that it needs to provide additional regulatoryprotection for such workers.    EPA could, as an alternative to issuing the pesticide product-specificaspects of this regulation, delay action until the development of additionalproduct-specific data and analyses permit a product-specific solution. Thesedata and analyses, in large part, will be generated through the ongoingreregistration process, but, under the present conditions, will not be completeduntil the year 2002 at the earliest.    EPA has chosen to issue a rule at this time, because EPA cannot, through aproduct-by-product review, quickly or adequately reduce the incidence ofpesticide-related injuries and illnesses. The Agency's workload precludes rapidreevaluation of large numbers of products, even if the needed data wereavailable now. Moreover, many of the protections of this rule are notproduct-specific. Instead, they establish general protections, such as training,notification, and decontamination, that are also vital in protecting agriculturalemployees from risks associated with pesticide use.     The Agency believes that this rule will reduce substantially the current illnessand injury incidents at modest cost to agricultural employers, pesticide handleremployers, and registrants. The rule requires: (1) Restrictions on entry byagricultural employees into pesticide-treated areas for, depending onpesticide toxicity, 12 to 48 hours (72 hours in certain limited circumstances)after application, (2) the use of PPE for persons handling agricultural pesticidesand for persons who must enter pesticide-treated areas before the expirationof the REI, (3) training for agricultural employees about hazards from exposuresto pesticides, (4) that information be provided to pesticide handlers andearly-entry workers, and be available to other agricultural employees, aboutthe specific pesticides to which they will be exposed, (5) that water, soap, andtowels be made available to agricultural employees to enable them to washoff pesticides and pesticide residues routinely and after emergency exposures,(6) that emergency assistance be made available to agricultural employees ifa pesticide-related illness or injury occurs or is suspected, (7) that agriculturalemployees, other than pesticide handlers, be prohibited in areas being treatedwith pesticides, and (8) that agricultural employees be notified of areas thatare being treated or that remain under an REI through oral warnings or throughwarning signs posted at the treated area, or, in the case of some particularlyhazardous pesticides, through both oral and posted warnings.    EPA, drawing on its expertise in regulating pesticides, has determined thatthese simple measures are likely to reduce substantially the number ofpesticide-related illnesses and injuries to agricultural employees. Both thefrequency of illness and injury incidents under existing conditions and theexpected reduction in the number and severity of these incidents due topromulgation of this rule are difficult to quantify. However, the Agency believesthat the reductions will be significant. In its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA),EPA has calculated an incremental first year compliance cost of $94.3 millionfor this rule and an annual incremental compliance cost of $49.4 million insubsequent years. The continuing annual incremental cost of this rulerepresents only one tenth of one percent of the total 1987 value of productionfor all agricultural sectors subject to this final rule. Assuming that the majority ofthe current acute illness and injury incidents in agricultural employees causedby occupational exposures to pesticides are prevented through compliancewith this new rule, there will be significant benefits to agricultural workers andpesticide handlers at a modest cost. Furthermore, the Agency is convincedthat a substantial number of additional incidents caused by delayed-onsetillnesses can be prevented through compliance with this new rule. Suchexpected avoidance of delayed-onset illnesses in workers and handlers wouldalso reduce the costs attributable to acute incidents avoided.    The Agency believes that, due to this new agricultural worker protectionrule, the benefits in decreasing the number and severity of pesticide-relatedillnesses and injuries to agricultural employees exceed the costs of the rule toagricultural employers, pesticide handler employers, and registrants. Therefore,EPA hereby promulgates this rule in the conviction that this mechanism is thebest means of reducing the unreasonable adverse effects frompesticide-related illnesses and injuries to agricultural employees in the nearterm.    Some persons who commented on the proposed worker protection rulequestioned the necessity for the rule in specific sectors of agriculture andrequested exemptions for those sectors. However, EPA believes that the recordof illness and injury incidents resulting from occupational exposures ofagricultural employees to pesticides used in the production of agriculturalplants and the undisputed inherent acute and delayed-onset toxicity of thoseagricultural pesticides supports the Agency's conclusion that such agriculturalemployees are subject to unreasonable adverse effects from pesticide useacross the broad range of agricultural sectors covered by this final rule.Furthermore, no persuasive evidence has been brought to the Agency'sattention which demonstrates that any individual sector of agriculture is notsubject to unreasonable risks of employee illness and injury. EPA is notpersuaded to delay promulgation of this rule until data and analyses specificto each agricultural sector and to each pesticide are generated.    Under FIFRA, EPA is authorized to promulgate regulations to mitigateunreasonable adverse effects that may result from exposures to pesticides. TheOccupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) is similar in that theOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is granted authority topromulgate regulations to mitigate ``a significant risk.'' A recent court decisionthat upheld the issuance of OSHA's hazard communication rule ( 29 CFR1910.1200) was based solely on a finding of generalized risk; the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated:   This rulemaking proceeding produced a performance-oriented informationdisclosure standard covering thousands of chemical substances used innumerous industries. For such a standard the significant risk requirement must ofnecessity be satisfied by a general finding concerning all potentially coveredindustries. A requirement that the Secretary assess risk to workers and need fordisclosure with respect to each substance in each industry would effectivelycripple OSHA's performance of the duty imposed on it . . . to protect allemployees to the maximum extent feasible . . . [Associated Builders andContractors, Inc. v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63 at 68 (3d Cir. 1988)].     For the same reasons, EPA is convinced that it is not required to make adetailed risk finding with regard to every pesticide product or to every sectorof agriculture before taking action to protect all agricultural employees. D. Minor Crop Statement     According to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology's June1982 report, PESTICIDES, Minor Uses/Major Issues:   Vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs, ornamentals, trees, and turfgrass are oftenreferred to as minor crops because the acreage and volume of production ofany one of the many crops in these groups are much below that of corn,soybean, wheat, or any of the other major field crops. Minor crops, as well asmajor crops, must be protected from insects, weeds, and diseases so as to beeconomically produced. Specialized pest control needs also exist for majorcrops in certain situations. Pesticides developed for use on minor crops and tomeet the specialized needs for major crops are referred to as minor usepesticides.     The minor use crops are the ones this Worker Protection Standard will impactthe most. Much of agricultural labor is used on minor crops, and it is in theproduction of these crops where the greatest chance of pesticide exposure toagricultural workers occurs. E. Compliance Dates    To ensure that pesticide product labeling bearing requirements of the newstandard does not find its way to users before information on compliance canbe disseminated, the new labeling may not be used until April 21, 1993.  Atthat time, specified selected provisions of the regulation will becomeenforceable to support new instructions to users on the labeling. After April 21,1994, all agricultural pesticide products sold or distributed by registrants mustbear the new labeling. After April 15, 1994, all provisions of the regulations areenforceable when pesticides with the revised labeling are used. After October23, 1995, all agricultural pesticide products sold or distributed by anyone mustbear the new labeling.III.  Provisions of the Final Rule A.  Restrictions Associated With Applications    Present part 170 prohibits the application of any pesticide in a way thatdirectly or through drift will contact workers or other persons who are notinvolved in the pesticide application. It also requires unprotected persons tovacate the area. The Agency proposed to continue this provision with somechanges.    1. General restriction. The NPRM proposed changes to the existing generalprohibition: ``No owner or lessee shall permit the application of a pesticide insuch a manner as to directly or through drift expose workers or other personsexcept those knowingly involved in the application. The area must be vacatedby unprotected persons.'' The Agency proposed to substitute the word``contact'' for the less precise term ``expose'' and to clarify the requirementthat unprotected workers must vacate the treated area during application bymodifying the language to: ``No worker shall be allowed or directed to enteror remain in an area during the application of any pesticide to the area, unlessthe worker is a handler involved in the application of the pesticide.'' Sincethese regulations apply only to workers, all references to ``other persons'' weredeleted in the proposal.    There were few comments on these application restrictions. One commentstated that workers should be permitted to remain in the treated area duringapplication under some conditions. For example, planting crews may need tobe in a field with the planter during an application of a granular pesticide;field crews may need to be in the same field but may be distant from the areaunder treatment; and workers should be able to remain in a treated area ifthey are upwind from the treatment or if an ``adequate barrier'' or buffer zoneseparates them from the application. Some comments expressed concern forprotecting the public from agricultural pesticide uses such as in retailgreenhouses, at ``you-pick'' farms, in parks and recreational areas, alongroads and rights-of-way, and in schools.    In the final rule, the language from the NPRM has been modified. Section170.110 states that ``during the application of any pesticide . . . the agriculturalemployer shall not allow or direct any person . . . to enter or to remain in thetreated area.'' The exception found in the proposal for a ``worker [who] is ahandler involved in the application'' has been changed to an exception for``an appropriately trained and equipped handler.'' These changes were madeto make it clear that only handlers trained and equipped as required by thisrule can be in an area during application. Other workers, even if protected,are not permitted to be in the area.    The Agency has been persuaded by the comments to reinsert the clause``and other persons'' into the section prohibiting application in a way that willcontact workers (� 170.210). Pesticide applicators must refrain from applyingpesticides in areas where any person is likely to be touched by thechemical--either directly or from the drift or fallout of the application. Thisresponsibility is irrespective of the relationship of the handler to the person in ornear the treated area. This provision is intended to protect workers or otherpersons on agricultural establishments in or near the treated area even if thosepersons have no reason or privilege to be in that location. The prohibition isconsistent with present part 170, which declares that applying pesticidesdirectly on anyone, whether a worker or any other person, is a misuse and issubject to penalty.    2. Application restrictions in nurseries and greenhouses. EPA proposed morestringent application restrictions for nurseries and greenhouses than the generalapplication restriction in present part 170 or those proposed for farms andforests. In greenhouses and nurseries, production areas are often closetogether. Plants requiring differing pesticide treatments and hand laborschedules may occupy the same bench or bed. In the NPRM, the applicationrestrictions were discussed under the heading of reentry restrictions, but severalcomments requested clarification of the proposed language. Therefore, in thefinal rule, EPA is separating the requirements into two parts, restrictionsassociated with applications and post-application entry restrictions.    In greenhouses, employees often do diverse tasks, including the applicationof pesticides, close to other activities. EPA recognized that exposure couldoccur to workers in areas adjacent to the treated area during some pesticideapplications and with some pesticide formulations.    The Agency proposed specific requirements for four different types ofapplications in greenhouses:    a. The entire enclosed area of the greenhouse must be vacated during theapplication of a pesticide applied as a fumigant, smoke, mist, aerosol, or fog,or whose label requires a respiratory protection device for applicators.    b. The pesticide-treated area plus 25 feet in all directions must be vacatedfor any application other than those in paragraph (a) above if there is noventilation in the enclosed area during the application and the pesticide isapplied from a height of more than 12 inches from the planting medium, or isapplied using fine spray droplets or a spray pressure greater than 40 psi.    c. The entire enclosed treated area in the greenhouse must be vacatedduring application if ventilation occurs in the enclosed treated area during thetypes of application described in paragraph (b) above.    d. Only the pesticide-treated area must be vacated during application ofpesticides applied from a height of 12 inches or less and applied as a dryformulation, or applied using coarse spray droplets and spray pressure less than40 psi.    Nursery exposure situations are similar to those in greenhouses, except thatnurseries: (1) Have lower inhalation hazards, because they are not enclosedstructures, (2) do not have ventilation systems that can be turned on and off atwill, but are constrained by the direction and speed of the wind, and (3)sometimes use aerial applications, upward-directed, and very high pressure(greater than 150 psi) sprays. The areas with restricted worker entry duringapplications in nurseries were defined by the types of applications:    i. For soil-directed applications, the restricted area is the treated area,    ii. For downward-directed applications, the restricted area is the treatedarea plus 25 feet downwind and 10 feet in other directions.     iii. For applications by aerial, upward-directed, or high-pressure sprays, therestricted area is the treated area plus any moistened or dusted area.    Most comments concurred with the proposed definitions of areas restrictedduring applications for greenhouses and nurseries. One comment stated thatthe 25-foot ``barrier'' zone was too small to be protective. Another requestedthat the 25-foot area restricted during applications not apply to pesticides intoxicity categories III and IV. One comment requested that ``soil-directed'' beredefined as pressure up to 60 psi if water breakers are used.    A few comments requested clarification of whether the specified 25-footarea restricted during application extended to areas beyond the greenhouseor, in nurseries, extended off the property.    The Agency agrees with the recommendations that greenhouse and nurseryrestrictions be clarified. The restrictions in greenhouses have been summarizedin a table containing the restrictions during applications and the entryrestrictions after application (� 170.110(c)). A similar table has been preparedfor applications in nurseries (� 170.110(b)).    To provide a more useful description of the area restricted duringapplication for employees in nurseries, the Agency specifies that an area of100 feet in each direction around the treated area must be vacated duringapplications using aerial, upward-directed, or high-pressure sprays instead of``the area dusted or misted''; EPA modified the area restricted duringapplication to 100 feet beyond the treated area in nurseries during fumigant,smoke, mist, fog, and aerosol applications.    The prohibition against applying pesticides in a way that will allow contactwith workers or other persons is absolute. If an applicator has reason to believethat workers (or other persons) may be contacted by a pesticide during apesticide application in a greenhouse or nursery, even if those workers (orother persons) are in compliance with the minimum distance requirements, theapplication may not take place until those workers (or other persons) leave thearea.    The Agency is not persuaded to exempt pesticides in toxicity categories IIIand IV from these provisions. The intent is to reduce occupational exposure topesticides, regardless of their acute toxicity. The Agency is concerned alsoabout possible subacute, chronic, and reproductive or developmental effectsfrom pesticide exposure.    The Agency concurs that, except for fumigation when the entiregreenhouse and any adjacent structures that cannot be sealed off from thetreated area must be vacated, subenclosures in the greenhouse arepermissible and these subenclosures constitute the area that must be vacatedduring application. If the treated area is enclosed, the 100- or 25-foot zonesare not required. The Agency's interpretation is that the 25-foot or 100-footareas restricted during application do not extend beyond the greenhouse, orbeyond the property line of the nursery. However, the prohibition againstcontacting workers or other persons does extend beyond such boundaries.    A few comments requested clarification of ``downwind'' in a nursery wherewind currents tend to be multidirectional over time. The Agency concurs withthis observation and has determined that requiring a 25-foot area beyond thetreated area in all directions will be more protective for workers.    3. Restrictions with fumigants. Although some comments suggested that theentry restrictions for fumigants were adequate, some stated that therestricted-entry area for a fumigant should be defined as the ``entire enclosedstructure'' rather than the ``enclosed area'' to differentiate between an areaenclosed by a temporary barrier and the greenhouse itself.    Some comments requested that ``fumigant'' be defined to distinguish it froma mist or an aerosol. One comment recommended prohibiting any early entryinto a greenhouse following fumigation except to determine fumigantconcentration or to facilitate ventilation. A comment requested that theventilation criteria for defining dispersed vapors specify the minimum numberof required air exchanges needed. Other comments stated that the proposedventilation criteria may not be adequate for large production areas if onlysmall windows or fans are used and recommended that replicated tests beconducted using available ventilation to determine the time necessary toachieve the permissible exposure level for a specific site.    In the final rule, the Agency defines a fumigant as ``any pesticide productthat is a vapor or gas, or forms a vapor or gas on application, and whosemethod of pesticidal action is through the gaseous state.'' Final part 156requires pesticide registrants to identify fumigants on the front panel of thelabel.    The Agency has determined that a fumigant application is complete onlywhen (1) any exposure level listed on the product labeling is reached, or (2) ifthere is no labeling specified exposure level, when one of the ventilationcriteria has been met. The fumigant continues to disperse throughout thetreated area after its release. Persons are exposed to the fumigant when theyenter fumigated areas to measure ambient concentrations of fumigant or tofacilitate ventilation by manipulating ventilation systems in greenhouses or byremoving tarpaulins or other coverings from outdoor fumigation sites. Thesepersons, therefore, are handlers of the fumigants. The Agency has changedthe definition of handlers to include such persons and has extended theapplication prohibition for fumigants in greenhouses to include the timeneeded to reach the exposure level listed in the labeling or to meet one of theventilation criteria. During this time, only handlers who have the protectionsmandated on the labeling and who meet the other requirements in part 170may enter the treated area. These handlers may enter the treated area onlyto measure the fumigant level, remove coverings, or operate the ventilationsystem.    The gaseous nature of fumigants requires that the entire structure, includingany adjacent structure that cannot be sealed off from the treated area, bevacated during application. Temporary barriers such as curtains or shields arenot designed to be air-tight and therefore would not prevent exposure topersons in areas adjacent to those barriers. EPA has reworded the applicationrestrictions for fumigant applications in greenhouses to specify that the entiregreenhouse plus any adjacent structure that cannot be sealed off from thetreated area, not just the ``entire enclosed area,'' is the treated area andtherefore is restricted.    The Agency concurs that a specific number of complete air exchangesshould be specified as constituting sufficient ventilation following a fumigantapplication (or other airborne application) in a greenhouse. The Agency hasconcluded that 10 is the minimum number of air exchanges needed. (If eachair exchange removed only 50 percent of the pesticide, 10 exchanges shouldleave approximately 1/1,024 of the original volume of pesticide.) In proposingthe ventilation criteria for ``vapors dispersed,'' EPA used the limited dataavailable and consulted with authorities in greenhouse pesticide applicationprocesses to establish appropriate and reasonably conservative criteria forprotecting workers from inhalation exposure following fumigation ingreenhouses.    Several comments noted that many greenhouses are acres large and thatworkers should be allowed to work in one end of the greenhouse while aspraying application is conducted in the other end of the greenhouse as longas any mechanical ventilation draws the drift away from the workers.    The restriction on ventilation was intended to protect workers from airbornevapors, spray, and dusts. Without ventilation, the transport of the pesticideoff-site would be minimal and presumably would move in all directionsequally. With ventilation (passive or active), air movement in any direction ispossible. The amount of drift is dependent on such factors as the size andweight of droplets or particles, the pressure of spray, the distance fromapplication equipment to treated surface, and the force and direction of theventilation. Even ``passive'' ventilation involves factors such as size of vents, thelocation of vents, and the outdoor wind currents. The Agency is not persuadedthat it is possible to predict the direction or distance that sprays or dusts mightdrift for all ventilation systems used by the greenhouse industry; therefore, it willcontinue to prohibit workers from remaining in an area surrounding theapplication. The dimensions of the area depend upon the type of formulationand the type of application. EPA agrees that after application is completed,the sprays and dusts will settle out of the air and no longer pose an exposurehazard to adjacent workers. Workers may enter the greenhouse afterapplication to work anywhere except in the treated area as defined by Table2 in � 170.110(c)(4).    In the NPRM, EPA listed criteria for determining when vapors have dispersedafter the application of a fumigant. Some comments requested clarificationand guidance on when vapors are considered dispersed following applicationof nonfumigant pesticides that require the use of a respirator duringapplication or that are applied as smoke, mist, fog, or aerosol.    The Agency has modified the application restrictions for pesticides that areapplied as fumigants, smokes, mists, aerosols, or fogs, and for applications thatrequire the use of a respiratory protection device, to include ventilation criteriathat must be met before workers are allowed to return to work anywhere in theenclosed area, or, in the case of fumigant applications, anywhere in the entiregreenhouse plus any adjacent structure that cannot be sealed off from thetreated area. B. Entry Restrictions    The Agency long has recognized the value of limiting agricultural workers'exposure to pesticides through the use of REIs. Present part 170 established thatno worker without the prescribed protective clothing should be allowed toenter a treated area to perform a hand labor task until the expiration of anREI. In the NPRM, EPA did not change this basic requirement, but did extendthe scope of this proscription to include any farm, forest, nursery, orgreenhouse workers who contact pesticide residues on treated surfaces or insoil, water, or air, not just those who are performing hand labor tasks. The NPRMrequired that other protections, such as PPE, training, and decontaminationfacilities, be provided to early-entry workers.    1. Restricted-entry intervals. Present part 170 established a generic``minimum'' REI for pesticides used on agricultural sites covered by that part,and it set specific REIs of either 24 or 48 hours for 12 pesticides. Other REIs havebeen established during the registration, reregistration, and special reviewprocesses. Some of these intervals are ``permanent'' (based on adequateentry data as required by 40 CFR part 158 or a waiver of data submission);others are interim intervals (not based on part 158 entry data) pending thegeneration of adequate data.     Under existing Agency policy, the establishment of REIs has been limited topesticides used on agricultural crops where workers perform ``hand laboroperations,'' involving ``substantial contact with treated surfaces.'' Workers mayhave contact with treated surfaces from activities such as moving irrigationpipes and scouting, tasks usually not considered as ``hand labor'' tasks. Theshift from routine preventive pesticide applications to the increasing use of pestcontrol on an as-needed basis has resulted in the need for more frequentpost-application entry by crop advisors, such as integrated pest management(IPM) scouts, professional pest management consultants, and growers, todetermine the status of insect, mite, disease, and weed pests at each stage ofcrop development. The amount of contact with treated surfaces in theseactivities depends on variables such as the height and density of the crop, thenature of the activity, the surface that contains the pesticide residue, andwhether residues are dry or wet.    Adverse effects on workers may result from a combination of the toxicity ofthe pesticide and the amount of exposure. Even small amounts of highly toxicpesticides can cause poisoning.    For these reasons, the Agency decided that any activity that results incontact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which theREI applies may be harmful to workers. Thus, the Agency proposed that REIsapply to all pesticide products used on agricultural plants as defined by thispart, regardless of type of worker activities associated with particularagricultural plants.    In proposing to revise part 170, the Agency did not contemplate a changeto the part 158 process for establishing permanent REIs. Rather, the proposedrevision to part 170 represents a change in current Agency policy of settinginterim REIs which apply until permanent REIs are established on the basis ofpart 158 entry data.    Therefore, part 156 retains all permanent REIs set by EPA on the basis ofadequate data. It also retains all previously established interim intervals thatare longer than those that would be established pursuant to this rulemaking inpart 156. 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.    2. Length of restricted-entry intervals. In the NPRM, the Agency proposed toretain the existing minimum REI of ``until sprays have dried, and dusts havesettled'' for most pesticide applications and to modify it by adding the phrase``or vapors have dispersed'' to protect workers immediately after applicationsof fumigants, mists, fogs, aerosols, or smokes. It also proposed specific REIs of 48hours for pesticides that contain organophosphates or N-methyl carbamatesin toxicity category I, and 24 hours for pesticides that containorganophosphates or N-methyl carbamates in toxicity category II and forother active ingredients in toxicity category I. The Agency considered otheroptions that reflect varying acute toxicities.    The comments on this issue focused on the length of the proposed intervalsand the bases for selecting the REIs.    a. Minimum restricted-entry intervals. Several comments endorsed theconcept of ``sprays dried, dusts settled, vapors dispersed'' as a minimum REI.Some comments requested the Agency to establish a minimum REI of 24 hoursfor all pesticides; others explicitly opposed a 24-hour minimum REI for allpesticides. Another comment suggested that there be no restricted-entryperiod less than 12 hours.    One comment stated that enforcement of ``sprays have dried, dusts havesettled, or vapors have dispersed'' would be difficult. Others stated thatdetermining when ``sprays have dried, dusts have settled, or vapors havedispersed'' is not feasible in some greenhouses because in propagation andmisting situations it is difficult to ascertain if sprays have dried because foliageis kept constantly wet.    The Agency agrees that in some circumstances it is difficult to determinewhen the sprays have dried, the dusts have settled, or the vapors havedispersed; judgment is required to assess when such an REI has expired. Therates at which sprays dry, dusts settle, or vapors disperse depend on factorssuch as temperature, humidity, rainfall, irrigation, dew deposition, wind, cropdensity, height, leaf configuration, amount of sunshine, and type of pesticideformulation used. Parts of a treated area may be dry while others are not dry.In dense crops, such as mature corn, the foliage in the center of the standmay be wet while the foliage in the outer areas, where a supervisor is mostlikely to check, may be dry. Rewetting of foliage because of rain, irrigation, ordew may cause confusion and uncertainty about whether the sprays havedried. Wind may make it difficult to determine whether dusts have settled.    Many comments requested the Agency to establish minimum REIs to protectagainst possible unknown chronic or delayed health effects. These commentsexpressed concern that because product-specific health-effect evaluationstake the Agency a long time to conduct, agricultural workers continue to beexposed to chemicals whose potential for causing birth defects, cancer,genetic mutations, and other systemic damage has not been tested. Theyrecommended that the Agency consider the potential chronic and otherdelayed health effects and establish longer REIs.    The Agency has decided to establish a minimum REI of 12 hours for allpesticide applications to replace the ``sprays have dried, dusts have settled,vapors have dispersed'' requirement. This will provide a margin of safetyagainst occupational exposure to all pesticides and eliminate the need forpesticide users to judge how long workers should be kept out of an area. Thedisruption to agriculture, and thus the cost, should be minimal; pesticides couldbe applied in the evening, and worker entry would be allowed the followingmorning. This REI of 12 hours could be modified through the reregistration (orregistration) process on a case-by-case basis most often involving submissionof full entry data (part 158).    The Agency will continue to establish REIs on a case-by-case basis forproducts where nonacute health effects are a concern.    b. Specific restricted-entry intervals. Although most comments supportedthe REIs proposed and many stated that in most circumstances agriculturewould be able to comply, one comment stated that REIs longer than theminimum should be reserved for compounds whose toxicity characteristics orexposure history indicated a need for longer intervals.    Some comments supported a 48-hour REI for all active ingredients in toxicitycategory I and a 24-hour REI for all those in toxicity category II. Othercomments requested that REIs not exceed days-to-harvest intervals or notedthat 48 hours is the maximum feasible REI under current crop productionmethods. Many comments supported 72-, 48-, and 24-hour REIs for pesticidesin toxicity categories I, II, and III, respectively. Others specifically opposed a72/48/24-hour scheme or stated that the REIs proposed should be determinedon a case-by-case basis when data indicate a need.    The Agency's proposal was based on California data showing that, from1976 to 1985, 90 percent of the systemic poisonings caused by activeingredients in toxicity category I and 70 percent caused by active ingredientsin toxicity category II involved either organophosphates or N-methylcarbamates. These data suggest a relationship between the classes ofchemicals used and poisonings. However, a few comments stated that theapparent relationship between chemical class and poisoning in the data is notunexpected; because of the types of crops grown in California, it is likely that90 percent of the products in toxicity category I and 70 percent of theproducts in toxicity category II applied were anticholinesterase compounds.    Many respondents objected to the distinction made betweenorganophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides and other pesticides inthe same toxicity category, stating that the subdivision of toxicity categories Iand II by chemical family is not defensible scientifically. These commentsasserted that it would be more appropriate to use acute toxicity data as thebasis for generic REIs, and to include all compounds in a toxicity category. Incontrast, some comments requested that only organophosphate andN-methyl carbamate pesticides have REIs.    After reevaluating this issue, the Agency agrees that chemical class shouldnot be a criterion for establishing REIs. The Agency expects that chemicals inthe same toxicity category will pose similar risks of adverse effects from acutetoxicity; thus, no distinction should be made among the chemical classeswithin a toxicity category. The Agency has changed the specific REIs. In thefinal rule, all pesticides in toxicity category II have REIs of 24 hours, and allpesticides in toxicity category I have REIs of 48 hours. All other pesticides (thosein toxicity categories III and IV) are subject to the 12-hour minimum REI.    Studies have shown that some organophosphates transform into more toxicproducts in arid conditions. The Agency has been persuaded that, in areasreceiving rainfall of less than 25 inches per annum, organophosphates that arein toxicity category I and that are used outdoors should have an REI of 72hours. Acceptable sources of statistics on average annual rainfall for an areaare nearby weather bureaus, such as one located at a local airport or oneaffiliated with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).    The Agency proposed that REIs be based on the acute toxicity of thetechnical grade of the active ingredient. Some comments requested that inertingredients be considered in setting REIs.    The Agency believes that the inert ingredients in pesticide productsgenerally are not of a nature, or do not remain in treated areas long enough,to present hazards for reentering workers. Accordingly, REIs will be based onthe possible hazards of residues of active ingredients. The Agency isreexamining the hazards of inert ingredients through a separate process.    The Agency proposed setting intervals based on the highest toxicitycategory indicated by available data on acute dermal toxicity or skin and eyeirritation potential, determined by the criteria of 40 CFR 156.10(h)(1) of thischapter. If no dermal toxicity data are available, oral toxicity data would beused to set REIs.    Workers may have dermal, oral, and respiratory exposure to pesticides; forworkers entering treated fields, the predominant route of exposure is dermal.The Agency considered using only dermal toxicity to establish REIs, but thepotential for eye and skin irritation and for respiratory exposure may besignificantly large in some entry situations. Cases of eye or skin irritation are fourtimes as common as those of systemic poisonings among reentering workers.    Inhalation exposure is a hazard in enclosed areas, such as greenhouses,especially after applications of fumigants or pesticides with high vaporpressure; it is less important as a hazard for entry into treated areas outdoors,except during removal of barriers, such as tarpaulins, after application of afumigant. Oral toxicity data are the most widely available data on pesticides,but oral exposure in agriculture is related to the worker's personal habits, suchas not washing hands and face before eating, drinking, or smoking.    The Agency has determined that entering areas while inhalation exposureremains a hazard is not safe or practical for persons other than appropriatelytrained and equipped pesticide handlers. Therefore, EPA has modified theentry restrictions in greenhouses to permit only handlers to enter greenhousesuntil air concentration levels or ventilation criteria have been met followingapplications of airborne pesticides or pesticides that require a respirator duringapplication. The Agency also has modified the definition of ``handler'' toinclude persons who must enter areas treated with soil fumigants to adjust orremove soil coverings, such as tarpaulins.    A few comments recommended that use patterns and mode of action beconsidered in setting REIs. Another recommended that the persistence of theresidues should be considered in setting REIs since some injuries, such as eyeinjuries or birth defects, are unrelated to the acute toxicity of the chemical.    Basing REIs on particular use patterns, on the mode of action, or on aparticular use's potential for exposure is not feasible because of variations inpotential exposure related to crop, cultural practices, and applicationtechniques. These considerations are appropriate for establishing permanentREIs on a case-by-case basis such as through the reregistration process.     c. Establishing entry restrictions in the future. The REIs established through thisfinal rule are intended to remain in effect until the reregistration process orother comprehensive EPA review process makes definitive REI determinations.In most circumstances, the Agency expects that any REI established as theresult of the later Agency review would prohibit early entry to perform routinehand labor tasks. However, such REIs would be based on a risk-benefitjudgment that takes into account the prohibition against routine early entry toperform hand labor tasks.     The Agency expects to establish appropriate entry restrictions on the basisof several types of data. These may include, as applicable, data on how theresidue degradation rate and dislodgeability (amount readily transferable froma surface to persons contacting that surface) are influenced by pesticideformulation type; temperature; humidity; soil type; rainfall, dew, and irrigationpractices; sunlight; crop type, height, and density; specific productionpractices, or worker activity and length of exposure. When feasible, theAgency may establish product-specific REIs that vary depending on one ormore of these parameters. For example, the Agency may establish longer REIsfor timed-release formulations, which are designed to release the activeingredient over an extended time period. The Agency may determine that, forsome tasks, shorter REIs are warranted for ``low crops'' than for tree crops andother ``high crops,'' such as corn, because workers' exposure levels would beexpected to be lower. The Agency may also determine that in areas withcharacteristically hot, arid conditions and certain soil types, longer REIs arewarranted for certain active ingredients because of slower degradation, highertransferability, and transformation of the active into more toxic forms. TheAgency may also impose longer REIs for some active ingredients in areas withheavy dew or frequent light rain because those actives are either activated bymoisture or transformed by moisture into more toxic forms. On the other hand,if adequate data exist, the Agency may decide that it is feasible to allow areduction in REIs when a specified amount of rain has fallen or over-the-topirrigation has been applied to the treated area.     Another type of product-specific restricted-entry determination mightinclude situations where data indicate that worker contact with the treatedsurfaces could be acceptably reduced through the use of minimal PPE ormechanical devices that physically separate the worker from the treatedsurfaces. Such determinations might, for example, allow early entry followingsoil-directed applications if the worker is wearing chemical-resistant footwearand is performing tasks that do not involve skin contact with the soil surface.Another possible restricted entry adjustment would be to prohibit all routinehand labor tasks for a specified time period, such as 1 or 2 days, and then toallow certain hand labor tasks during the remaining restricted-entry period ifcertain (perhaps minimal) PPE is worn and other precautions are taken. Stillanother possible restricted-entry adjustment might allow early entry (with orwithout minimal PPE) if devices, such as mechanical detasselers or roguers, areused that minimize worker exposure to treated surfaces. The final rule doescontain an exception that allows early entry for activities that involve nocontact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which theREI applies, including, but not limited to, soil, water, air, or surfaces of plants inthe treated area.     Unfortunately, it is unlikely that such product-specific decisions will beroutine, because of their complexity. Conveying such exceptions andrestrictions to users in a simple, intelligible manner is difficult. The necessarylabeling would be unduly complex. The Agency projects that such adjustmentswill be most likely in those situations where data indicate that a relativelylengthy REI is necessary under average conditions to adequately reduce risk,but where such a lengthy REI may make the pesticide's use infeasible forcertain crops for which hand labor is necessary within tight timeframes afterapplication. Under these circumstances, the Agency will consider alternativesto the prohibition of routine hand labor tasks throughout the REI. In any suchdeliberations, however, EPA will also consider whether workers can beadequately protected under a more complex set of entry requirements.     For the longer run, because of the many factors that affect worker exposureto pesticide residues, the Agency is exploring alternative methods ofestablishing REIs and alternatives to REIs. One possible approach involveson-site determination as to whether residues have degraded (or are otherwiseunavailable) to a degree deemed acceptable for workers to safely enter toperform hand labor tasks involving contact with treated surfaces. Onepromising technique involves immunoassay-based detection. Immunoassaytechniques could provide rapid, simple, and cost-effective methods fordetermining actual foliar or soil residue levels under field conditions. It isexpected that inexpensive kits can be developed that will yield results in ashort period of time, thus enabling site-specific determination as to whetherresidues have decreased to an Agency-established acceptable level forworker entry. This technology would also provide an effective means ofsignaling to the agricultural employer when residues remain sufficiently high soas to make worker entry unreasonably risky, even if the REI had expired.    EPA has determined that more research is required to developimmunoassay and other site-specific monitoring systems for field residues.However, the research data to date indicate that an immunoassay-basedsystem probably could be developed. Immunoassay devices use antibodies asreceptors to sample the environment of the exposed surface (persons, foliage,soil, etc). Specific antibodies to many pesticides of concern already havebeen developed and evaluated, but specific antibodies for other prioritycompounds need to be identified.     The Agency strongly encourages the rapid development of practical andreliable techniques of this kind and welcomes further information on ongoingresearch and the opportunity to cooperate with developers on the necessaryresearch. To support the goal of improving such technology, the Agency alsointends to consider requiring the development of such detection methods forthe registration or continued registration of selected pesticides. Furthermore, asproduct-specific reentry data are generated and analyzed, EPA willinvestigate the feasibility of adding information on the pesticide labeling thatindicates the acceptable residue levels on the specific surfaces of concern forthat product. Such information might encourage more rapid development andmarketing of site-specific test kits.    3. Entry before a restricted-entry interval expires--a. Entry for other thanhand labor tasks. Present part 170 allows workers to enter a treated areawithout PPE before the expiration of the REI if they are not performing handlabor tasks. The Agency proposed to modify this requirement by allowing entryinto pesticide-treated areas before the expiration of the REI without protectivemeasures only when there is no contact with pesticide residues on treatedsurfaces or in soil, water, or air. Pesticides would be considered to be in the air,for example, in a greenhouse or other enclosed area before the exposure levellisted on the labeling has been reached or one of the ventilation criteriaestablished by � 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling has been met. Examples of``no contact'' activities listed in the proposal included:    i. Operating a closed vehicle equipped with a properly functioningpositive-pressure filtration system.    ii. Performing tasks that do not involve contact with the soil subsurface aftera soil-incorporated or soil-injected pesticide application.    iii. Performing tasks that do not involve hand contact with the soil, plantingmedia, or plants after a soil-directed or basal-directed application whilewearing chemical-resistant footwear.    iv. Operating an open vehicle when the crop is not tall enough to brushagainst the worker or when pesticide residues could not drop from trees andother plants onto the worker.    v. Walking or riding through a pesticide-treated area on an aisle, a road, ora path, if the pesticide is applied or is directed in a way that would not causeresidues to drop on the worker and if the worker cannot brush against treatedplants or trees.    Many comments opposed any early-entry activities. It is not clear whethersome were against early entry in situations where there would be no contactwith pesticide residues.    The Agency recognizes the need to allow workers access to adjacentbenches or adjacent plants in greenhouses and nurseries to carry out otherplant production tasks. In the proposed regulation, the Agency intended toallow workers to pass through treated areas (walk around benches, downaisles, etc.) after the sprays and dusts had settled from the air, if no contactwith the treated surface would result. The Agency considered that walkingdown an aisle would result in ``no contact'' after sprays and dusts have settledif the worker was wearing shoes with chemical-resistant soles, even if the sprayor dust has been applied over a large area and the aisle has received somedeposit. Although the ``sprays and dusts have settled'' provision has beendeleted, the Agency believes that walking through a pesticide-treated areaon an aisle or path would constitute ``no contact'' as long as residues cannotdrop on the worker or the worker does not brush against treated surfaces.    The Agency does not intend that workers wearing PPE would be consideredto have ``no contact.'' Therefore, the example listed in the NPRM: ``Performingtasks that do not involve hand contact with the soil, planting media, or plantsafter a soil-directed or basal-directed application while wearingchemical-resistant footwear'' is not applicable to the final rule. The followingare examples of situations that may be considered no contact after sprays,dusts, and vapors have settled out of the air:     (a) The worker is wearing footwear and is walking in aisles or on roads,footpaths, or other pathways through the treated areas where the plants orother treated surfaces cannot brush against the worker and cannot drop ordrip pesticides onto the worker.     (b) The worker is in an open-cab vehicle in a treated area where the plantsor other treated surfaces cannot brush against the worker and cannot drop ordrip pesticides onto the worker.     (c) After a pesticide is correctly incorporated or injected into the soil, theworker is performing tasks that do not involve touching or disrupting the soilsubsurface.     (d) The worker is in an enclosed cab on a truck, tractor, or other vehicle.    The Agency will permit entry to a treated area when the worker will have``no contact'' with the treated surfaces.    b. Entry for short-term tasks. EPA proposed to allow worker entry into treatedareas after sprays have dried or dusts have settled, but before the REI hasexpired, to perform any activity, if the workers are provided appropriate PPE,training, and decontamination facilities. The Agency anticipated thatagricultural producers seldom would require workers to enter treated areasbefore the REI has expired because of the increased risk to the workers, thecost of providing PPE, and the problems of heat-related illnesses. It is expectedthat most agricultural management practices can be carried out after the REIexpires; thus, few workers would need these protective measures.    A few comments supported the proposal that early entry be permitted withthe use of PPE or stated that routine hand labor should be allowed if theworker is wearing the PPE required by EPA. Many comments opposed earlyentry even with the use of PPE. One comment noted that a requirement forthe use of PPE by field workers is not practical and is not likely to be adheredto in many situations. A comment stated that the REI should be sufficiently longso that at its expiration there are no further concerns or restrictions on eitherthe field activities or the clothing worn into the field.     Information gathered by the Agency during the process that led to theNPRM and comments that the Agency received in response to the NPRM haveconvinced EPA that entry during an REI to perform routine hand labor tasks israrely necessary, especially when the REI is 72 hours or less. The Agency notedin the NPRM that:   The Agency anticipates that agricultural producers will seldom require workersto reenter treated areas before the reentry interval has expired, because ofthe increased risk to the workers; the cost of providing PPE, decontaminationwater, and training; and the problems related to heat-induced illnesses. Sincemost agricultural management practices can be carried out after the reentryinterval expires, few workers will need these protective measures.     Furthermore, comments received in response to the NPRM questioned thefeasibility of workers wearing PPE while performing hand labor tasks undernormal agricultural field conditions. The Agency has studied the issue of PPE foragricultural field workers who are performing routine hand labor tasks and hasconcluded that routine use of PPE, such as chemical-resistant gloves,footwear, and headgear, two layers of clothing, and protective eyewear, forsuch field workers is, in general, not only impractical, but also may berisk-inducing due to heat stress concerns. The Agency has determined thathired agricultural workers, especially harvesters, have a disincentive to wearPPE; because they frequently are paid at a piece rate, they have littletolerance for anything that hinders their speed and efficiency. The Agencyconcludes that it is likely that the PPE would be removed or would be wornincorrectly if it were required routinely in most hand labor situations. Manycomments also observed that routine early entry during the REI was rarelynecessary.     After consideration of the comments and the available data, the Agencyhas concluded that, under most circumstances, allowing routine entry forunlimited time to areas under an REI, even with PPE, decontamination, andtraining, will not reduce adequately the risk of agricultural workers' exposure topesticides, and that the economic benefits associated with such routine earlyentry do not justify the risks associated with such early entry. Consequently, theAgency is convinced that routine hand labor tasks should not be allowedbefore the expiration of the REI, except in rare circumstances based oncase-by-case consideration.     In this final rule, the Agency has therefore prohibited most entry during theREI to perform routine hand labor tasks. The Agency will allow necessaryshort-term activities, such as operating irrigation equipment, in areas remainingunder an REI if: (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 by � 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling hasbeen met; (2) no hand labor tasks are performed; (3) the time in treated areasdoes not exceed 1 hour in any 24-hour period for a worker; (4) the requiredPPE is provided, cleaned, and maintained for the worker; (5) the requireddecontamination and change areas are provided; and (6) the required safetytraining and labeling-specific safety information have been furnished.    As stated in the NPRM, the Agency considers the risk of exposure forearly-entry workers to be comparable, in some situations, to the risk forpesticide handlers. Sometimes, early-entry workers may receive greaterexposure than that encountered by an applicator of the pesticide. TheAgency believes that there should be no entry to freshly treated areas for anyreason until the dusts or sprays have settled and some drying or volatilization ofthe formulation has taken place; thus it has prohibited entry to treated areasfor the first 4 hours after application. After 4 hours have elapsed, 1 hour shouldbe sufficient time to do necessary ``short-term'' tasks, which the Agency isaware must be done, and should minimize worker exposure.     c. Exceptions to the prohibition on routine early entry. Although the Agencyhas determined, in general, not to allow routine early entry even with the useof PPE, the Agency did receive information during the comment period fromthe cut flower and cut fern industry about the economic hardships that wouldresult in that particular industry if routine hand labor activities were prohibitedduring REIs. In that industry, it appears that the risk-benefit balance mightmilitate in favor of allowing some hand labor activity during the REI. While noinformation was submitted during the comment period demonstrating thatother industries might suffer a significant adverse economic effect if routineearly entry during REIs were disallowed, it is certainly possible that otherindustries, crops, or crop practices may be significantly affected by theprohibition of such routine early entry.     The Agency has, therefore, adopted an exception process that would allowinterested persons to demonstrate to the Agency that, in a particular industry,crop, or crop practice, an exception should be granted to the generalprohibition on routine early entry. Persons wishing to obtain an exception to theearly-entry restrictions would submit a request for such an exception to theAgency.     The Agency encourages persons who wish to submit such requests to submitthe requests as a group or association of affected parties, rather than asindividuals. EPA expects that the most efficient and effective request processwould ensue when a group or association of growers and/or workers withcommon interests present a single, consolidated request for an exception.Such a group request would both permit a more efficient review process andlend weight to the case that the exception was necessary to alleviate typicalconditions in the commodity or crop-practice situation for which theexception is being requested and was not a highly-specific localized situation.Requests for exceptions that are limited to a narrow geographic area, such asa single agricultural establishment, must be accompanied by persuasiveevidence that such a narrow geographic scope is appropriate.     The Agency also notes that all of the information pertinent to the specificexception must be submitted with the exception request. The rule states whattypes of crops and crop production practices might qualify for such anexception and what information must be supplied to the Agency in order foran exception to be considered. If a request for an exception is submitted tothe Agency without all of the required information, the Agency shall return therequest to the submitter. When a request for an exception that contains all ofthe required information is submitted to EPA, the Agency will publish a notice inthe Federal Register stating that an exception is being considered, describingthe nature of the exception, and allowing at least 30 days for interested partiesto comment. The Agency will also send a copy of such exception requests toUSDA at that time. EPA expects to cooperate with USDA in obtaininginformation necessary for analysis of the exception requests.     If such an exception is approved, the Agency will publish a noticedescribing the exception and the reasons for it in the Federal Register. The finalrule also provides a means for the Agency to withdraw exceptions if 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.     EPA will endeavor to review any requests for exceptions expeditiously. Asstated above, requests from registrants or groups/organizations are likely toyield the most efficient review process. Also, the more specific the request, themore readily the Agency can evaluate the full range of impacts. The Agencywill consider the economic urgency of the request and the timing of the pestconcern, crop, or production practice for which the exception is beingrequested. To expedite the exception process, EPA intends to establish aformal exception-review procedure that remains outside of the usualregistration and reregistration processes. A special organizational unit would bedesignated as responsible for receiving and processing exception requests,including establishing a mechanism for receiving comments, reviewing allsubmitted information, and facilitating the decision-making process amongthe Agency technical experts. EPA believes that this unique strategy will greatlyexpedite the exception process and allow the Agency to address exceptionsin a timely manner. With this process, EPA will endeavor to respond in a timelymanner when receiving requests for exceptions that contain all of the requiredinformation and will attempt to respond with special urgency to exceptionrequests that are particularly crucial due to unexpected pest problems orcrop-season timing.     The final rule provides that persons requesting an exception may assumethat the exception has been denied if EPA has not published its decisionwhether to grant the exception within 9 months from the comment-closuredate specified in the Federal Register notice in which the Agency announcedthat it would consider the exception, unless the Agency has taken action toextend its review period for a specified time interval due to the complexity ofthe exception request or to the number of exception requests concurrentlyunder Agency review.     While exception requests may be filed immediately, the Agency is alsointerested in receiving additional comments and information on both thegeneral prohibition of routine early entry for the performance of hand labortasks during REIs and the mechanism and criteria for granting exceptions tothat general prohibition. EPA is therefore providing an additional 60-dayperiod during which written comments, data, and other evidence concerningthese specific topics may be submitted to the Agency for consideration. Uponreview of these comments, EPA may modify this final rule where appropriate.This additional comment period should allow for possible refinement of this rulewithout delaying its implementation and without delaying the consideration ofexceptions that may prove to be necessary.     Comments that EPA has already received from the cut flower and cut fernindustry have convinced EPA that this industry, at least, probably warrants suchan exception. The decision that such an exception is probably warranted isbased on a balance of the risks and benefits that would result from such anexception (see proposed exception to rule published elsewhere in this issue ofthe Federal Register). The Agency is unaware of any specific informationindicating that crops or industries other than the cut flower and cut fernindustry would qualify for such an exception, but the exception processadopted in this final rule provides interested persons an opportunity to submitrelevant information to the Agency if they believe additional exceptions arewarranted.    d. Entry for agricultural emergencies. Several comments suggested thatearly entry be allowed for emergencies on a case-by-case basis. If there aresituations in which workers need to enter an area before the expiration of anREI, growers should be able to obtain permission, in advance, from the EPA orthe State lead agency.    The Agency recognizes there may be a need for workers to enter a treatedarea before the expiration of an REI to perform tasks, including hand labortasks, in agricultural emergencies. The Agency regards an agriculturalemergency as a sudden occurrence or set of circumstances that the employercould not have anticipated and over which the employer has no control,requiring entry into a treated area, when no alternative practices wouldprevent or mitigate a substantial economic loss. A substantial economic lossmeans a loss in profitability greater than that which would be expected on thebasis of experience and fluctuations of crop yields in previous years. Only lossescaused by the emergency conditions specific to the affected site andgeographic area are considered. The contribution of mismanagement cannotbe considered in determining the loss. Such emergencies might consist ofunexpected and severe adverse weather, such as frost, high winds, tornado, orhurricane, or an unexpected and severe pest outbreak immediately beforeharvest on a time-sensitive crop such as the soft fruits, soft vegetables, or floralcrops. If an emergency is anticipated through a weather forecast, pestoutbreak bulletin, or other means, it is not acceptable to proceed with apesticide application after becoming aware of an impending emergency andthen require workers, due to the emergency, to enter the treated area beforethe REI has expired.    The Agency has modified the early-entry restrictions to permit entry to areasunder REIs in agricultural emergencies if a State, Tribal, or Federal agencyhaving jurisdiction declares that the circumstances for an agriculturalemergency exist and the employer determines that the agriculturalestablishment is subject to the emergency. Entry is permitted if: (1) There is noentry for the first 4 hours after application and no entry thereafter until anyexposure level listed on the labeling has been reached or any ventilationcriteria established by � 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling has been met, (2) therequired PPE is provided, cleaned, and maintained for the worker, (3) therequired decontamination and change areas are provided, (4) the requiredgeneral training and label-specific information has been furnished, and (5)only tasks related to mitigating the emergency are performed. C. Notice of Applications    The Agency proposed that workers on an agricultural establishment benotified of pesticide applications and areas remaining under an REI. Anexception was proposed for farms, forests, and nurseries--no notificationwould be necessary if, from the start of application until the end of the REI, theworker would not enter, work in, remain in, or pass through, on foot or in anopen vehicle, the pesticide-treated area or any neighboring areas, includinggrowing areas and labor camps that are contiguous or separated only by aroadway from the treated area. A similar exception proposed for greenhousesstated that no notification would be required if, from the start of applicationuntil the end of the REI, the worker would not enter, work in, remain in, or passthrough the greenhouse. These exceptions were designed to limit thenotification requirement to those occasions where the most potential foraccidental worker exposure exists and where notification would prove mostuseful. Notification would not be required when pesticides are applied at timeswhen no workers are employed by the establishment or when pesticides areapplied to (or an REI is in effect at) distant areas of the establishment whereno work activities are occurring.    Some comments supported these exceptions; some requested that theexceptions be dropped and that workers be notified of any pesticide-treatedarea on the property, because crews may enter treated areas by mistake.One comment wanted to have information provided to workers aboutpesticides used in areas contiguous to the area where they will be working.Another noted that since only a small percentage of farms require hand laborfor cultivation or harvesting, it seems impractical to post fields when the onlyone who would be entering is the farmer who caused the field to be treated.    A few comments requested a definition of the word ``neighboring,'' andsome stated that ``neighboring areas'' should be defined as propertycontrolled and/or owned by the employer.    After careful consideration, the Agency has decided to retain but rewordthe exception to notification on farms and in nurseries and forests. The term``neighboring area'' has been deleted; the final rule requires notification ifworkers may be within 1/4 mile of the treated area's perimeter. This distancewas chosen for several reasons. First, data from studies show that residue driftfrom a treated area is negligible beyond 1/4 mile. Second, the Agencybelieves that 1/4 mile is the farthest distance that workers would be likely todigress from their path or work site for rest or meal breaks. Although theAgency believes that a prudent owner/operator of an agriculturalestablishment will inform adjacent property owners/operators of pesticideapplications at their mutual borders, EPA has determined that such arequirement is beyond the scope of this rule. The exception to notification ingreenhouses has not been changed.     The Agency has added an additional notification exception that applies toall agricultural establishments. Notice (oral or treated area posting) need notbe given to a worker if the worker (1) applied or supervised the application ofthe pesticide for which the notice would be given and (2) the worker isalready aware of the information that would be otherwise conveyed in an oralwarning. This exception exempts establishments from having to orally warn orpost warning signs at treated areas for an already-informed applicator of thepesticide. This exception would be especially important if the pesticideapplicator is the only worker on the establishment for whom notification wouldotherwise be required.    1. Oral notification. The Agency proposed that workers be given daily oralwarnings about pesticide-treated areas on farms and in forests, except asnoted above. The warnings would consist of: (1) The location and descriptionof the treated area, (2) the time during which entry is restricted, and (3)instructions not to enter the treated area until the REI has expired. The warningswould be required to be given in a manner the worker can understand.    Several comments supported the requirement for mandatory oral warningson farms and forests because large numbers of agricultural workers would notbe able to read material printed in English.    Some respondents felt that oral warnings should be required only on the firstwork day for any worker or when there is a change in the spraying schedulesbecause daily warnings may cause workers to ignore the repetitive message.Some comments stated that oral warnings would be unworkable in someagricultural operations because employees may report to work from differentlocations at different times of the day, e.g., coming from on-farm camps orlocal housing or being bused from cities or other farms.    Other comments objected to mandatory oral warnings and requested thatemployers be given a choice of using oral warnings or posting warning signs.One respondent suggested issuing cards containing information aboutspraying to workers in lieu of oral warnings.    Some comments stated that oral warnings are more effective if they includeinformation such as the name of the product or active ingredient, the locationof labeling, and/or safety information for the product and the REI.    Most comments supported a requirement that oral warnings becommunicated in a language the worker can understand. However, a fewnoted that it would be difficult for growers to find persons who could providetranslations into all the languages that might be needed.    The Agency has been persuaded that farm and forestry operations shouldhave the choice of notifying workers orally or by posting signs at the treatedarea. EPA is convinced that for highly diversified farms where different cropswould be grown close together or for large agricultural operations where manyworkers are employed, oral warnings may be impractical and may not be asprotective as posting signs at the treated area. However, the Agency believesthat most farm and forestry employers will opt to warn employees orally. Signsthat employers post must meet the same criteria as the signs for themandatory treated-area posting.    The Agency also has been persuaded to eliminate the requirement that oralnotification be given daily. Instead, employers are required to notify workersbefore the worker's first opportunity for exposure to any treated area.Regardless of whether the employer uses oral notification or posting, theAgency is requiring that application-specific and restricted-entry-specificinformation be posted at a central location accessible to all workers. Thisinformation will remind workers of areas where pesticides are being applied orwhere an REI is in effect. EPA is convinced that additional information aboutthe pesticide application can be conveyed more effectively through thesecentrally located notice areas than through oral notification. Providinginformation about applications on printed cards is not a practical alternativeto oral notification because of language problems and the cost of duplicatingthe information.    2. Posting pesticide-treated areas. Besides oral warnings, the Agencyproposed to require the posting of warning signs in areas of farms and foreststreated with pesticides having REIs greater than 48 hours, except when noworkers would be in the area, as discussed above. The Agency alsoconsidered other posting options, such as for pesticides with REIs more than 24hours.    Some comments supported the proposed posting requirements, but somestated that posting must be supplemented with oral notification, particularly onlarge farms and in forests where posting may be difficult.    Many comments advocated daily oral notification supplemented withmandatory posting so that persons working near the area or moving throughthe area are aware of the application and can avoid contact.    Some comments stated that areas treated with pesticides having REIsexceeding 24 hours should be posted because posting is an unequivocal wayof communicating to workers their right and duty not to enter a treated field.    Some comments said that posting for all pesticides with an REI of greaterthan 24 hours would be more consistent with the purpose of the proposed rulethan posting only for intervals greater than 48 hours. The latter, they said, wouldexempt nearly all pesticide applications from posting. They stated that oralwarnings alone are inadequate for warning workers of the hazards of entryfrom products in toxicity categories I and II and suggested the requirementmight be met by posting a map showing treated areas.    Other comments opposed any mandatory field posting requirement. Onestated that workers could be notified by a centrally located information board.    The Agency has reviewed the comments on mandatory field posting andhas decided to modify these requirements. The Agency has defined at leasttwo objectives for posting of treated areas: (1) Warning of areas treated withpesticides that are so toxic that incidental exposure, i.e., contact from brushingagainst the treated surfaces, could cause an acute illness or injury and (2)warning of areas treated with pesticides for which a short exposure could havethe potential for a delayed effect, such as developmental toxicity. The finalrule requires posting for all pesticides that contain active ingredients that areclassified as toxicity category I because of acute dermal toxicity or skinirritation potential. On a case-by-case basis, the Agency also may requireposting for other pesticides that the Agency deems may produce adversehealth effects from a short-term exposure.    The Agency will require that oral notification also be given to workers whenposting is required so that a second tier of warning is provided for thesepesticides. Pesticides meeting these criteria will have a statement in theirlabeling that the treated area must be posted and workers must be notifiedorally.     The Agency proposed that ``When several contiguous areas are to betreated with pesticides on a rotating or sequential basis, the entire area maybe posted.'' This would allow posting of a larger area than the treated areawhen a continuous spraying operation treats alternative rows or areas, ratherthan the entire area, on a sequential basis. Since posting of individual rows inthis case would be difficult and expensive, the Agency would allow the entirearea to be posted. However, no part of this entire area may be entered whilesigns are posted, except under the conditions specified in the regulation forearly entry. The Agency has retained this provision in the final rule.    3. Warning sign. The Agency proposed a standard warning sign containinga stern-faced person with an upheld hand containing the words ``DANGER -PESTICIDES - KEEP OUT.''    Although the sign proposed by the Agency received some support, manycomments requested modifications to the symbol or the wording. There weresuggestions that the sign should contain the skull and crossbones or should usesome international symbol.    After consideration of the comments, EPA remains opposed to the use ofthe skull and crossbones symbol for the reasons stated in the NPRM andbecause posting may be required by the Agency not only for the most acutelytoxic pesticides but also for some pesticides in other toxicity categories. Acutetoxicity is only one factor in determining what areas should be posted; postingwill be required by the Agency on a case-by-case basis during registration,reregistration, or special review for pesticides presenting other types of risks.Furthermore, farm, forest, and nursery establishments may choose to post allpesticide applications, and greenhouse establishments must post all pesticideapplications.    The Agency did not find an appropriate international symbol that it believedconveyed the desired message.    The Agency has not been persuaded that the basic design of the signshould be changed. The Agency is convinced that mandatory worker trainingwill promote worker recognition and understanding of the sign proposed in theNPRM.    Some comments expressed concern that the words ``Pesticides'' and/or``Danger'' make the sign too negative; others recommended that pesticidesignal words such as ``DANGER'' or ``CAUTION'' be reserved for use with specificmaterials that carry relevant toxicity classifications. Some suggested that to usethe word ``DANGER'' or the skull and crossbones symbol on posting signs wouldbe misleading and weaken the meaning of these signals where materials intoxicity categories III or IV might be involved.    Some comments requested that the signs be in as many languages asnecessary to reflect the composition of the work force; others requested thatadditional information be required on the signs, such as the name of thepesticide, the date and time applied, and where toxicity information may beobtained.    The Agency is persuaded to change the wording of the treated areawarning sign. The words ``DANGER/PELIGRO,'' ``PESTICIDES/ PESTICIDAS `` and``KEEP OUT/NO ENTRE'' will be required. The Agency realizes that Spanish/Englishsigns cannot be read by all workers, but it is impractical to require printing in allthe languages used by workers.    The Agency believes that removal of the words ``Pesticides'' and ``Danger''from the signs would defeat the purpose of the signs. Changing the wording toreflect the signal word for the pesticide used would require the employer tohave several sets of signs, which would be burdensome. The objective ofposting is to keep workers out of an area under treatment, not to inform themof the type or degree of hazard.    Because the Agency believes that a generic treated-area sign is the mostpractical, economical, and reasonable choice, it will not requireapplication-specific information to be listed on the sign. Such information maybe added to the sign if the information does not interfere with the othercomponents of the sign. Application-specific information will be required atthe centrally located notification area.    The Agency proposed that warning signs be visible from all usual points ofworker entry to the pesticide-treated areas, including each access road, eachborder with any labor camp adjacent to the pesticide-treated area, andeach foot path and other walking route that enters the pesticide-treatedarea. When there were no usual points of worker entry, signs were to beposted in the corners of the pesticide-treated area or in any other locationaffording maximum visibility.    Several comments requested that posting also be used to protect otherpersons, such as persons who live in houses or labor camps adjacent to thefields and persons who may be passing by fields. Some comments advocatedposting at specified distances along the perimeter of treated areas in additionto the usual points of access; others noted the difficulty in posting all entries toforested areas.    The Agency believes that ``at the usual points of entry'' is the mostreasonable requirement for placement of the signs. Posting at specifiedintervals along the perimeter is unnecessary and burdensome. Labor campswithin or adjacent to treated areas must be posted when posting is requiredfor the treated area. Posting a warning sign at a central location is aninadequate replacement for the posting of treated areas. Although postingmay be difficult for forestry operations, the Agency believes it is feasible to postat locations that may be considered usual points of access, such as at theplace where logging roads enter a treated area.    The Agency also recognizes the concerns expressed about warning personsother than workers. While the intent of the rule is to protect agricultural workers,the requirement for posting treated areas will provide warning to other peoplewho might enter the treated area inadvertently. The Agency intends toconsider additional actions to deal with exposures not covered by theseregulations. These include non-agricultural exposures, agricultural exposuresexcluded from these regulations, and exposures to the public.    4. Notice of applications in greenhouses and nurseries. In greenhouses andnurseries, the Agency proposed mandatory posting of all entry-restricted areasinstead of oral notification, unless there are no workers in the area.    Some comments supported the requirement as proposed, stating that therequirement to post pesticide-treated areas seems fair in lieu of oral warnings.Others objected to the requirement because nurseries were singled out formore restrictive posting requirements than forests or farms.    The Agency has considered the various comments and has decided toretain the mandatory posting requirement for pesticide applications ingreenhouses, but to change the requirement for nurseries. Although somenurseries are much like greenhouses with many crops grown in small areas,others more closely resemble farms. Therefore, the Agency is persuaded thatnursery employers, like farm employers, should be permitted to choosebetween oral notification and posting pesticide-treated areas except whenmandatory posting and oral notification are required by the labeling. D. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)    The predominant route of pesticide exposure in outdoor agricultural work isthrough the skin. Therefore, any barrier that can be placed between theemployee and the chemical to reduce contact with the skin reduces the riskof pesticide poisoning. EPA concluded, in the proposal, that except forenclosed cockpits and enclosed cabs with positive-pressure filtration systems,the only other practical barrier available to pesticide applicators is PPE. Formixers and loaders, closed systems and technological advances in containersand packaging, such as water-soluble bags, have potential, but work isneeded to perfect these approaches. The NPRM stated that PPE was the mostpracticable approach to reducing occupational exposure to agriculturalpesticides.    The proposal required the use of PPE appropriate to the pesticide and thework activity. The proposal also required employers to provide, clean, andmaintain such equipment.    Several comments stated that PPE should be the last resort for protectionand that engineering controls should be explored first. Some studies ofdesirable methods of protection have concluded that PPE ranks belowremoval of employees from areas where they may be exposed, system design,and mechanical protection. Some comments stated that the proposed ruledismisses mechanical techniques of reducing or eliminating exposure as beingunavailable or of limited utility and that this is in sharp contrast with otherregulatory proposals developed by EPA and other Federal agencies which``force technology'' by providing a lead time for nonmechanical solutions andthen requiring the application of the ``best available technology.''    Unlike industrial environments, which are more controlled and confined,agricultural settings do not lend themselves as easily to engineering controls.The Agency is aware of the emergence of engineering controls suitable foragricultural situations and is considering the adoption of such controls on aproduct-specific basis during the registration, reregistration, and SpecialReview processes. Until adequate engineering controls are developed andtested, PPE will remain the primary means of mitigating exposure foragricultural pesticide handlers. The elimination of routine early entry for handlabor activities may ``force'' the development of engineering controls, such asmechanical harvesters, weeders, and pruners, in crops where the timing ofsuch tasks is critical.    Some comments requested that closed system mixing and loading andenclosed cab application be required for all toxicity category I pesticides toreduce employee injuries.    Some comments agreed with the proposed reduction of PPE requirementsduring use of closed mixing/loading systems. However, another commentrequested that EPA not reduce PPE requirements for closed systemmixing/loading. It stated that pesticides are highly corrosive and that theAgency has no program to inspect and certify such systems. The commentasserted that the efficacy of closed systems has been impaired by the failureof the Agency or the manufacturers to establish uniform specifications forcontainer openings.    One comment stated that the regulation should contain incentives todevelop low-risk transfer and cleaning options. Requiring the use ofchemical-resistant gloves and aprons to transfer granules in a closed systemwill cause applicators to stay with more dangerous, but cheaper, conventionalsystems. Similarly, if self-cleaning mechanisms are provided for pesticideequipment, PPE requirements should be reduced.    Several comments requested that engineering controls such as wiperwands, low-pressure nozzles, and stream emitters be rewarded with reducedPPE requirements.    EPA considered requiring closed systems for mixing and loading all highlytoxic pesticide concentrates. The Agency has decided to encourage the useof such systems by reducing the amount of PPE required when closed systemsor enclosed cabs are used for mixing, loading, applying, or other handlingactivities, but it will not require the use of such systems. The Agency agreesthat for closed systems to be most effective in reducing exposure, the kindsand types of equipment used in such systems and the maintenance of suchequipment must be standardized. Such a program is beyond the scope of part170 as proposed; the Agency is investigating several types of engineeringcontrols and may require the use of such controls in the future. The Agencyalso agrees that ``rewards'' such as a reduction of PPE requirements areincentives for handlers to use engineering controls, but eliminating all PPErequirements during the use of closed systems does not seem to be prudent. Anumber of accidents are reported despite the use of closed systems.    One respondent requested that EPA require state-of-the art protectiveclothing for employees where appropriate; another was concerned that theAgency not establish excessively rigid requirements that would discourage useof improved knowledge or technology.    EPA intends to remain attentive to the development of innovative PPE andto adjust the PPE requirements as appropriate.    1. Personal protective equipment (PPE) for early-entry workers. The Agencyproposed minimum PPE requirements, based on the acute toxicity of theactive ingredient, for the protection of workers who enter treated areas beforethe expiration of an REI.    Several comments stated that early-entry PPE should be the same as thePPE required for handlers, presumably including respiratory protection. Anotherstated the Agency should have a better rationale for excluding inhalationtoxicity as a hazard for workers entering fields after dusts have settled, sprayshave dried, or vapors have dispersed.     The Agency intends to eliminate workers' respiratory exposure duringapplication (which is defined as continuing until the pesticide is no longerbeing dispersed) by prohibiting workers from being in or near the treated area.The Agency has concluded that respiratory protection is not needed duringthe permitted entry after application.    Many comments recommended that no early entry be allowed, becauseworkers will not use the PPE if the weather is too hot or will risk heat stress if theydo wear the equipment. A few comments objected to PPE other than normalwork attire for early-entry workers by expressing the belief that, in most cases,long-sleeved work shirts and long work pants provide adequate protection.    Several comments expressed dismay that no minimum PPE was establishedfor early-entry workers in areas treated with pesticides in toxicity categories IIIand IV and recommended that early-entry PPE for these pesticides should benormal work attire plus chemical-resistant gloves because many of thesechemicals are skin irritants. Others requested that coveralls andchemical-resistant gloves be the minimum PPE for early entry after all pesticideapplications.    In the NPRM, there was a generic REI for pesticides in toxicity categories IIIand IV of ``until sprays have dried, dusts have settled, or vapors havedispersed.'' Since the proposal contained a complete ban on hand laboractivities during that period, there was no need to specify PPE for early entryfor pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV.    In the final rule, the Agency has established a 12-hour REI in lieu of thegeneric ``until sprays have dried, dusts have settled, or vapors have dispersed''and specifies minimum PPE for early entry for all pesticides.    The prohibition on most early-entry activities in the final version of part 170has eliminated the need for most uses of early-entry PPE. For those exceptionalcircumstances when early entry is permitted, the Agency has decided torequire early-entry workers to wear the PPE required for an applicator of thepesticide (with the exception of respiratory protection) for pesticides in toxicitycategories I and II. The Agency has specified that the minimum attire for earlyentry for pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV will be coveralls, waterproofor chemical-resistant gloves, socks, and shoes. This minimum attire is based onthe Agency's desire to have the body protection (coveralls) provided,cleaned, and maintained for the worker and on the Agency's belief that someearly-entry workers may receive greater exposure to pesticides throughresidues in the treated area than handlers may receive during application. TheAgency reserves the right to establish different PPE requirements for early-entryactivities on a case-by-case basis if evidence supports such action.    The Agency does not believe that requiring PPE or ``normal work attire'' afterthe expiration of the REI is warranted. Where data indicate that suchprotection is needed, the Agency will establish such a requirement; however, itis more likely that the REI would be extended until the PPE would no longer beneeded.    2. Personal protective equipment (PPE) for pesticide handlers.   Ideally, eachpesticide product labeling should list specific PPE reflecting the formulation,anticipated exposure level, and toxicity of the product. These determinationsare made or are refined as products are registered or reregistered. However,the Agency acknowledges that many pesticide labels require PPE for handlersthat is inadequate by the Agency's present standards. The Agency proposedto establish PPE requirements until appropriate product-specific requirementscan be established. Registrants would be required to list the requirements onthe labeling for each pesticide product. In this final rule, the Agency isestablishing, through parts 156 and 170, minimum requirements for PPE forhandlers of all agricultural pesticides in various exposure situations.    Handlers, such as those mixing, loading, and applying pesticides and thoseinvolved in flagging, repairing, adjusting, changing, or cleaning equipmentface potentially dangerous levels of exposure to pesticides unless adequateprotection is used. The risk of exposure is especially high for handlers whoperform all these tasks and for persons, such as commercial pesticide handlers,who perform these tasks frequently.    Results of numerous studies indicate that more than 97 percent of thepesticide to which the body is exposed during handling (especially duringspray applications) is deposited on the skin. The hands and forearms accountfor the highest percentage of total dermal exposure. For ground applicators,mixers, and loaders, respiratory exposure constitutes a small percentage oftotal exposure in outdoor handling operations unless highly volatile formulationsare involved. Respiratory exposure cannot be ignored in outdoor applications,however, since nearly 100 percent of any pesticide that enters through thelungs and gastrointestinal tract is absorbed. When pesticides are used inenclosed structures, the risk of respiratory exposure is greater than whenpesticides are used outdoors.    a. Basis for the requirements. The Agency considered whether the toxicitycategory of the formulated product was the appropriate basis for the PPErequirements for pesticide handlers. When the formulated pesticide product isdiluted by the user, the resulting solution may be less toxic than theconcentrated formulated product. When EPA establishes product-specific PPErequirements during registration or reregistration, it uses any availableregistrant-supplied data on the acute toxicity of the diluted product todetermine the appropriate PPE for exposure to the diluted product. TheAgency proposed to base the requirements on the toxicology of theformulated product. By submitting data on the toxicity of the diluted pesticideproduct, however, registrants could reduce the PPE requirements for handlers,except for mixers and loaders who would be exposed to concentrates.    The Agency proposed that handlers of pesticides that are in toxicitycategory III or IV because of acute dermal or skin irritation potential berequired to wear ``normal work attire'' (long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes,and socks). For pesticides that are in toxicity category III because of dermaltoxicity or skin irritation potential, handlers also would be required to wearchemical-resistant gloves. For pesticides that are in toxicity category III or IVbecause of inhalation toxicity or eye irritation potential, the Agency proposedno minimum PPE requirements, but reserved the option of requiring PPE forthose hazards on a product-specific basis as warranted by evidence.    Most comments supported the Agency's proposal to base PPE requirementson the toxicity of the formulated product and the Agency's use of a table todetermine the appropriate attire for a pesticide product.    Some comments recommended that PPE for applicators be based on thetoxicity of the dilute product; another requested that PPE be based on thetype of formulation as well as the acute toxicity. One comment stated thattoxicity should not be the sole determinant of PPE and that use pattern andmode of action must be considered.    This regulation allows registrants that have data on the toxicity of the diluteproduct to use that data in establishing the PPE requirements for handlersexposed to the diluted product. However, basing PPE on the type offormulation, the use pattern, or the mode of action is best accomplished on aproduct-specific basis during the case-by-case review of a product.Therefore, the Agency will not consider these factors in establishing the genericPPE requirements for pesticide handlers in part 156.    b. Types of personal protective equipment (PPE) required--i. Bodyprotection.  In the current regulations, ``protective clothing'' is defined as ``atleast a hat or other suitable head covering, a long-sleeved shirt andlong-legged trousers or a coverall-type garment (all of closely woven fabriccovering the body, including arms and legs), shoes and socks.'' The Agencynow deems this clothing inadequate to protect either handlers or workersentering treated areas before the expiration of the REI.    In the NPRM, the Agency proposed minimum PPE requirements that wouldvary according to: (1) The acute toxicity of the pesticide, (2) the type ofemployee activity, (3) route of exposure, and (4) the presence of engineeringcontrols. Under the proposal, all handlers and early-entry workers exposed topesticides in toxicity category I or II because of either dermal toxicity or skinirritation potential would be required to wear a protective suit over normalwork attire.    Some comments requested that chemical-resistant protective suits berequired for handling all pesticides in toxicity categories I and II, especially forairblast applications. One comment requested a change in the definition of``protective suit'' to include suits made of nonwoven materials.    The Agency has changed the term ``protective suit'' to ``coverall'' andchanged the definition. ``Coverall'' means any loose-fitting one- or two-piecegarment that covers, at a minimum, the entire body except the feet, hands,and head.    The Agency considered requiring the use of a chemical-resistant protectivesuit when handling pesticides in toxicity category I (acute dermal), but waspersuaded that two layers of clothing provide adequate protection. Tominimize dermal exposure to pesticides, protective garments must be worn tocover any body area(s) of concern. Cotton or cotton and polyester, i.e.,woven fabrics, are preferred for work clothing because they are morecomfortable to wear, and they can be washed. Appropriate protectivecoverings, such as coveralls, can reduce the exposure to pesticide users' trunkarea, arms, and legs by 99 percent. One study concluded that the use ofrubberized clothing did not provide more protection than the regular workclothing (consisting of cotton shirts and trousers worn under long-sleevedcoveralls). The final rule, however, allows users to wear a chemical-resistantprotective suit as an alternative to the two layers of clothing. The developmentof various types of disposable chemical-resistant garments made of nonwovenmaterials, such as Tyvek (spunbonded olefinic fibers), gives pesticide users awide choice of protective materials.    Most comments on the requirement to wear a protective coverall overanother layer of clothing asked the Agency to reconsider; objections centeredon the problems of heat-related illness and discomfort associated withwearing two layers of clothing in the summer months. One comment statedthat if a protective suit is worn and becomes contaminated, it can bediscarded and replaced with a clean suit on site, whereas if the normal workattire becomes contaminated, the worker may have to return home incontaminated clothing.    Numerous comments stated that the more uncomfortable protectiveclothing becomes, the more likely it is that employees will avoid wearing theprotective clothing or the more likely they will not complain to the appropriateauthority about the lack of protective clothing in the event the employer failsto furnish such clothing. Another comment stated that, in an emergency,stripping the coverall off quickly, washing, and putting on the extra coverallthat is required to be kept at the decontamination site would be moreprotective than a false sense of security brought by two layers of clothing.    Some comments stated that convincing handlers to wear a coverall andchemical-resistant gloves would be a major breakthrough in PPE and that arequirement for two layers of protection might discourage any compliance.    The Agency considered the comments on the requirement for handlers andearly-entry workers to wear a long-sleeved shirt and long pants under acoverall in activities involving pesticides that are in toxicity category I or IIbecause of dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential. A review of the literaturerevealed several studies supporting the concept of layering as an effectiveprotective system; the protection afforded by protective clothing isproportional to the thickness and the closeness of the weave.    The Agency recognizes that the use of PPE in hot, humid working conditionsmay lead to heat stress and discomfort. But the alternative of requiring the useof a single-layered chemical-resistant suit would not solve these problems. TheAgency does not consider a coverall without an additional layer of clothing tobe protective for pesticides with an acute dermal toxicity value in toxicitycategory I or II. The Agency does recognize, however, that pesticides in toxicitycategory I present a greater hazard and risk than those in toxicity category II.Therefore, the Agency will require either a chemical-resistant protective suit ora coverall worn over a long-sleeved shirt and long pants when handlingpesticides classified as toxicity category I for dermal toxicity or skin irritation. Forhandling pesticides classified in toxicity category II for dermal toxicity or skinirritation, a chemical-resistant protective suit or coveralls worn over a layer ofclothing that covers the trunk area (e.g., T-shirts and shorts) is specified.    Many comments agreed with the proposed PPE requirements for ``normalwork attire,'' which was defined as long pants, a long-sleeved shirt, shoes, andsocks, for handlers of pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV. But severalother comments requested that more than ``normal work attire'' be requiredfor handlers of pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV.    The Agency has considered the comments regarding the PPE required forhandling pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV and has determined thatthe PPE proposed is adequate to protect handlers of these pesticides. TheAgency has written the PPE requirements to create an incentive for users tochoose less acutely toxic pesticides whenever possible.    Several comments requested EPA to clarify that its intent was to establish``normal work attire'' for pesticide-handling activities and not for all work onagricultural establishments.    To eliminate the confusion, the phrase ``normal work attire'' is not used in thefinal rule. PPE and other clothing required for handling the pesticide will bespecified on pesticide labeling.    ii. Hand protection. Dermal exposure of the hands and forearms is the mostsignificant route of pesticide exposure for hand laborers, applicators, mixers,loaders, and other persons who are exposed occupationally to agriculturalpesticides and their residues. It has been estimated that chemical-resistantgloves can reduce hand exposure by as much as 98 percent.    The Agency proposed to require chemical-resistant gloves for all early-entryand pesticide handling situations involving pesticides that are in toxicitycategories I, II, or III because of dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential. (Nogloves were required for early-entry or pesticide handling situations forpesticides in toxicity category IV). Leather gloves, uncoated cloth gloves, andfingerless gloves are not acceptable, because liquid and particulate pesticidescan penetrate them. The Agency considered an exception for early-entryworkers handling roses, because sturdy, flexible glove materials such as leatherwill withstand the wear and tear from thorns while providing sufficient dexterity.    Few comments discussed glove materials. The greenhouse industry asked tobe permitted to wear leather gloves while working with roses and other thornyplants.    The Agency has determined that multiple-use cotton gloves andcotton-lined gloves are not acceptable for use in pesticide handling or earlyentry because they are difficult to decontaminate after use. If suitablepuncture-resistant and chemical-resistant gloves are not obtainable, theAgency will allow the use of leather gloves for working in thorny plants, withtwo restrictions: (1) Chemical-resistant glove liners must be worn, and (2)leather gloves that have been worn once for protection from pesticideexposure shall thereafter be worn only with chemical-resistant liners.    A few comments stated that either the pesticide registrant or EPA shouldgive more specific guidance on how to determine which glove materials arechemical-resistant to specific pesticide formulations.    The Agency concurs and has developed a guidance package for pesticideusers on the selection, use, and maintenance of chemical-resistant gloves. Thefinal rule requires registrants to specify in the product labeling the appropriatetype of gloves to be used with the product. EPA will continue to cooperatewith the American Society for Testing and Materials to develop testing criteriafor chemical resistance in gloves and to sponsor research into the chemicalresistance of various glove materials.    iii. Foot protection. The feet may be exposed to pesticides from spills,splashes, or downward sprays, and from walking through vegetation afterapplication while sprays are still wet. The Agency proposed to requirechemical-resistant footgear for handlers and workers entering areas treatedwith pesticides in toxicity category I or II (dermal/skin irritation).    A few comments stated that wearing chemical-resistant footwear can beuncomfortable and may cause a foot disease similar to trench foot. Manycomments urged the Agency to reconsider the requirement forchemical-resistant footwear in forests, stating that leather boots are worn fortraction on rocks and debris, protection from pests and snakes, and fordurability. The comments stated that the safety hazards of working in thisenvironment increase if chemical-resistant boots or boot covers are required.    Because of the problems inherent in decontaminatingnon-chemical-resistant footwear, the Agency will continue to require the useof chemical-resistant footwear for pesticides in toxicity categories I and II(dermal toxicity or skin irritation). However, the Agency is persuaded by thecomments that for physical safety, pesticide handlers and early-entry workersin rough terrain should be permitted to wear leather boots if chemical-resistantboots of sufficient traction and durability are not obtainable.    iv. Eye protection. The eyes and face may be exposed whenever there is achemical splash or a high level of mists, vapors, or dusts during mixing, loading,and applying pesticides or whenever residues are dislodged from foliarsurfaces above the head of the worker. The Agency proposed to require theuse of goggles or a face shield by all handlers and early-entry workersexposed to pesticides with toxicity category I or II eye irritation potential.Goggles or a face shield also would be required during mixing and loadingusing pressurized closed systems because of the high risk of exposure andserious eye injury if the system ruptured.    Many comments pointed out that goggles and face shields areuncomfortable during prolonged use in hot weather and that there should besome provision for employees who wear eyeglasses. Others commented thatfor most pesticides and use circumstances, several styles of eye protectionprovide near goggle-level protection at greatly increased levels of wearercomfort and with less tendency to fog.    The Agency is persuaded that safety glasses with protective shields at theeyebrows and temples provide adequate eye protection in most pesticidehandling and early-entry situations. Because they are more acceptable thangoggles to employees, they would be more likely to be used. The regulation,therefore, has been modified to require the use of ``protective eyewear'' inhandler and early-entry situations involving pesticides in toxicity categories Iand II for eye irritation. When ``protective eyewear'' is required, the employershall provide goggles, a face shield, or safety glasses with side shields andbrow guards.    For products in toxicity category I for eye irritation, the Agency may, on acase-by-case basis, require the labeling to include a requirement for the useof goggles or a face shield.    v. Respiratory protection. The Agency proposed to require handlers andother workers who enter treated areas before vapors have dispersed to wearrespiratory protection devices approved by the National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Mine Safety and HealthAdministration (MSHA), if the pesticide is in toxicity category I or II for inhalationtoxicity. The Agency did not propose to require respiratory protection forhandlers of pesticides with inhalation toxicity classified in toxicity category III orIV or for workers entering treated areas after pesticide vapors have dispersed.    Several comments pointed out that although several types of respiratorshave NIOSH/MSHA approval for protection against pesticides, NIOSH does nottest respirators for individual pesticides. Therefore, requiring ``a NIOSH- orMSHA-approved respirator'' does not assure the use of the most appropriaterespirator for a specific pesticide. The comments also noted that the NIOSHinstructions that accompany air-purifying respirators refer the user to thepesticide label for limitations of use. Some comments urged the Agency torequire pesticide manufacturers to provide respirator instructions in the productlabeling.    Most comments urged the Agency to require respirator fit-testing before arespirator is used and a physician's approval that the handler's physicalcondition will permit him/her to use a respirator safely. One comment statedthat the use of forced air respirators would eliminate some of the fitness and fittesting problems.    Several comments suggested that the selection, use and maintenance ofrespirators be consistent with the program described in the OSHA standards (29CFR 1910.134) and/or that the specific recommendations be provided in theAgency's rule.    The Agency agrees with the comments regarding the need for acomprehensive respirator use program encompassing selection, correct use,and appropriate maintenance of respirators. EPA has developed a guidancedocument on the use of respirators in agriculture. The language in the final ruleoffers some guidance on changing filters, cartridges and canisters in theabsence of direction from the manufacturer; part 156 requires the registrant tospecify what type of respirator should be used with a product that requiresrespiratory protection for handling.    c. Exceptions to personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements. TheAgency has retained the requirements proposed for aerial applicators. Pilots inenclosed cockpits will not be required to wear PPE. Pilots in open cockpits mustwear the PPE required for a ground applicator of the product in use, exceptthat chemical-resistant footwear is not required, and a helmet with visor maybe used in lieu of a hat and protective eyewear. Pilots in both types ofequipment must wear the protective gloves required by the labeling whenentering or exiting a plane whose exterior is contaminated by pesticideresidues.    The Agency proposed that pesticide handlers in the enclosed cabs ofground vehicles should be exempt from PPE requirements. If the enclosed cabdid not contain a properly functioning gas- or vapor-removing ventilationsystem, any labeling requirement for a respirator would be in effect, but allother PPE would be waived. Fully enclosed cabs without air filtration havebeen shown to reduce dermal (but not respiratory) exposure substantially forairblast applicators. The Agency was concerned, however, that heat buildup inunventilated enclosed cabs might lead applicators to open windows forcomfort, which would negate the benefit of the enclosed cab. The Agencyspecifically sought comment on this issue. The Agency also was concernedabout the possibility of handlers leaving the enclosed cab in the treated area,becoming contaminated, and then returning to the enclosed cab. Therefore,EPA proposed that all PPE required for a ground applicator of the pesticidemust be available for use any time the handler leaves the cab in the treatedarea.    Most comments expressed concern that applicators in cabs withoutventilation will open the window on a warm day, thus negating the cab'sprotection.    Many suggested that full PPE should be required for operators in anenclosed cab without ventilation. One comment noted that there is no way toeliminate the need for handlers to leave the cab in the treated area; sinceprotective clothing must be worn, employers will use this as an excuse for notproviding protective cabs. An equipment manufacturer commented that theirstudies have shown that contaminated clothing (gloves on the steering wheelor dash, etc.) is a major source of chemical contamination inside cabenclosures.    The Agency acknowledges the potential for defeat of the enclosed cab'sprotection by opening windows or by contaminating the interior of the cabwith clothing or equipment containing pesticide residues. However, EPAsupports the use of engineering controls in lieu of PPE where feasible; anenclosed cab used correctly is protective. The Agency is aware that pesticideapplications in many regions of the country take place where discomfort fromheat is not a factor, even in enclosed cabs. The Agency is aware also of manysituations where the applicator is not the mixer or loader or the person whorepairs or adjusts the application equipment, and therefore would not berequired to change into or out of PPE for these activities. Under theseconditions, it would be inappropriate to require PPE in the enclosed cabs.Therefore, the Agency continues to waive the PPE requirements, with theexception of any respirator requirement, for applicators in enclosed cabs. If thewindows of the cab are opened at any time during the application or theenclosure is otherwise breached, the cab is no longer considered enclosed,and applicators would be required to wear the PPE required on the pesticidelabeling for applicators of the product.     Users must wear PPE when leaving the cab only if they will contactpesticide-treated surfaces in the treated area. They may leave the cab for arest stop or other reason (other than handling pesticides) without wearing PPE ifthey will not be in contact with pesticide-treated surfaces in the treated area.The applicator may leave the cab and walk away from the just-treated areawithout PPE.    The Agency is concerned that the interior of the enclosed cab may becontaminated from pesticide-contaminated clothing worn or taken into thecab. Therefore, the Agency changed the language of the rule to prohibit suchan action. Once PPE is worn in the treated area, it may not be worn into ortaken into the cab.    A few comments concurred with the Agency's proposal to waive the use ofall PPE, including respirator, if the enclosed cab has a properly functioning,positive-pressure ventilation system that removes vapors from the air. TheAgency based its proposal on studies indicating that positive-pressure,charcoal- filtered ventilation systems on enclosed cabs can remove morethan 99 percent of pesticide vapors and sprays during air intake. Othercomments stated that enclosed cabs were unproven as protection forairborne hazards and that data are needed that demonstrate theeffectiveness of the protection offered by an enclosed cab.    The Agency believes that incentives should be used to encourage the useof engineering controls instead of PPE when such technology exists. In the finalrule, persons occupying an enclosed cab that has a properly functioningventilation system, which is used and maintained in accordance with thatmanufacturer's written operating instructions and which is declared in writingby the manufacturer or by a government agency to provide respiratoryprotection equivalent to or greater than the respirator required by thepesticide labeling, may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes andsocks for labeling-specified PPE.    d. Duties relating to personal protective equipment (PPE). The Agencyproposed that all PPE required by the pesticide product labeling for aparticular work activity be provided to handlers and early-entry workers andthat the employer clean and maintain such equipment.    In the final rule, EPA has modified the language to clarify who is responsiblefor fulfilling the various requirements and provisions. This section now specificallystates that the employer shall provide the appropriate PPE in clean andoperating condition. This provision does not prohibit handlers who own PPE,such as a respirator, from using that equipment. The employer, however, wouldbe required to assure that such equipment is cleaned and maintained. Theemployees would not be allowed to wear home or to take home theequipment unless it had been cleaned first.    A few comments indicated uncertainty about who would provide ``normalwork attire'' (long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, and socks) when it isrequired by the labeling and whether it is considered to be PPE. The Agencydoes not include normal work attire in the definition of PPE; therefore, it is notpart of the employer's responsibility to provide or maintain this attire.    The Agency perceives the appropriate decontamination of PPE as a majorarea of concern. Significant levels of some pesticides can remain in clothing orequipment if it is not laundered correctly or if prescribed decontaminationprocedures are not followed. Surveys of pesticide users, especially agriculturalworkers, indicate that a large percentage do not follow any precautionaryprocedures when cleaning contaminated clothing and equipment. If PPE isreused without cleaning or laundering, the protective effect may be reducedor eliminated. Therefore, the Agency has determined that it is appropriate forthe employer to assure that PPE is cleaned and maintained properly before it isreused.    The proposal required that after each use all PPE be washed thoroughlywith detergent and hot water or be cleaned according to the manufacturer'sinstructions and that it either be dried thoroughly before being stored or beplaced in a well-ventilated place to dry. The Agency also proposed that PPEbe stored away from pesticide-contaminated places and be storedseparately from personal clothing to avoid contamination of either clean PPEor clean personal clothing.    A few readers interpreted the proposal as requiring laundry facilities on-site(on the farm, forest, or nursery, or in the greenhouse). It does not.    Several comments said EPA did not provide sufficient guidance for theimplementation of the proposed cleaning and maintenance provisions. Twocomments questioned appropriate decontamination for chemical-resistantprotective clothing and equipment; fabric clothing can be laundered daily,but chemical-resistant suits are expensive and are damaged by constantlaundering in hot water. One was concerned that conventional washing ofchemical-resistant suits may result in low-level contamination of the insidesurfaces that might not occur otherwise. It suggested modifying the languageto state that chemical-resistant suits, hats, boots, and gloves need not bewashed or cleaned daily, but must be kept in a condition of cleanlinessconsistent with employee safety.    Several comments questioned the conditions under which the employeemay be permitted to wear or to take home ``normal work attire'' that hasbecome contaminated. To prevent these situations, some commentsadvocated that the employer should be responsible for cleaning andmaintaining ``normal work attire,'' i.e., long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes,and socks worn during handling or early-entry activities when it is specified onthe labeling.    Several comments from the forestry industry asserted that it was awkward toclean and maintain PPE in typical forestry situations. Some of these requestedthat PPE and laundry requirements be eliminated for pesticides in toxicitycategories III and IV and for diluted pesticides in toxicity categories I and II.    The Agency has studied the comments on this issue. As stated above,normal work attire is not considered to be PPE; thus, the employer has noresponsibility to provide it. However, EPA is concerned about employees'wearing or taking home pesticide-contaminated clothing or equipment,regardless of whether the clothing is provided by the employer or by theemployee. The Agency, therefore, is inclined to require that employers cleanand maintain any attire an employee wears while handling pesticides orperforming early-entry tasks. However, such an option was not discussed in theNPRM, and the economic impact of such a requirement has not beenassessed. The Agency must study the costs and logistics involved in such arequirement and may publish a proposal on this issue for public comment at alater time. Although it would be prudent for employers to clean and tomaintain pesticide-contaminated work clothing for their employees, it is not arequirement of this final rule.    If a pesticide used in forestry requires the use of PPE, such equipment mustbe cleaned and maintained by the employer. This cleaning and maintenanceneed not be done on the employer's premises or immediately following use.EPA left flexibility in the requirement to allow for employers to collectcontaminated PPE and to clean it at their convenience at a location ofchoice. Therefore, forestry employers could provide their handlers (andearly-entry workers) with a clean set of PPE for each day of handling activitiesand provide a chemical-resistant container that could be securely fastened,such as a sturdy plastic bag, for storing the contaminated PPE until it iscleaned.    EPA's directive to wash PPE in hot water and detergent is the alternativewhen there are no directions from the manufacturer on how to clean andmaintain equipment. The goal is to remove pesticide residues as completely aspossible so that the equipment is clean the next time it is used. Evidenceindicates that non-chemical-resistant clothing and equipment, as well asmany chemical-resistant items, should be cleaned in hot water and aheavy-duty detergent to remove pesticide residues most efficiently. Ifmanufacturers of chemical-resistant gloves, boots, or protective suits indicateanother method of cleaning and maintaining the equipment, it must befollowed.    EPA proposed that persons responsible for cleaning the PPE would beinformed that the equipment might be contaminated with pesticides. Only afew comments were received on this issue. One comment requested that anyperson cleaning the PPE be required to provide written verification that he hasbeen warned of the hazards.    EPA concurs with the sense of the comment and has rewritten the rule torequire the employer to inform persons who clean or launder PPE or otherpesticide-contaminated items of the possibility that such items may becontaminated with pesticides and of the potentially harmful effects fromexposure to pesticides. The employer must also inform these persons of theappropriate procedure(s) for handling and cleaning such items.    Some comments requested more specific guidance as to who would beresponsible for inspecting the PPE before each day of use. A few suggestedthat the inspector be a certified applicator; others suggested that training onthe appropriate inspection of PPE would be beneficial.    It is the employer's responsibility to assure that the PPE is maintainedproperly, and this includes inspecting the PPE for damage and other defects.This may be done by the employer, by a designated supervisor, or by theemployees if they have been instructed in the care and cleaning of PPE. TheAgency believes that it is not practical in many agricultural situations to requirea certified applicator to inspect all PPE before each day of use.    EPA concurs that information on procedures for inspecting PPE would beuseful. The Agency has developed a guidance brochure on the maintenanceand inspection of PPE such as protective eyewear, gloves, protectivefootwear, chemical-resistant protective suits, hats or hoods, and coveralls.    e. Heat-related illness (heat stress). Although chemical-resistant suits are notpart of the minimum PPE proposed by this regulation, they are required by thelabeling for a few pesticides. The NPRM prohibited tasks requiringchemical-resistant suits where a combination of temperature, humidity, andtime required to complete a task might be expected to cause heat-inducedillness. The onset of these illnesses depends on a variety of factors, and EPAexpressed the belief in the NPRM that users could be expected to anticipatewhen work activities might result in heat stress.    Many comments expressed concern about the risk of heat stress inagriculture with respect to the use of PPE when handling pesticides in warmclimates, stating that guidance and training were central to enablingemployers and employees to prevent heat-related disorders. Nearly everycomment disagreed with EPA's assumption that the employer could ascertainwhen heat-related illness was a risk and asked EPA to give guidance aboutthe conditions that would warrant limiting work due to heat stress concerns.    Some comments stated that it is inappropriate and unfair to ask employersto make decisions about heat-induced illness, a complicated and potentiallylife-threatening condition; farmers and ranchers have no training in healthcare. The comments stated that the employee should be trained to recognizethe early signs and symptoms of heat-induced illness and be permitted to takework breaks, remove chemical-resistant suits (in a clean area), seek medicalattention, or take other reasonable measures to alleviate those symptoms.    A few comments requested that PPE not be used or that the protective suitbe permitted to be unzipped during applications when the applicator wasupwind of the spray. Some comments stated that environmental conditions insome States or regions make wearing any PPE a problem because of extremeheat or humidity.    A few comments requested that specific temperature and humidityguidelines be established.    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health offered somerecommendations for reducing heat stress when PPE is required.    EPA has determined that heat-related illness is a potential problem with theuse of many types of PPE. Therefore, the Agency has modified the language inthe rule to state that the employer should use appropriate precautions toprevent heat-related illness (� 170.240(g)). EPA has developed a guidancedocument that addresses recognition, prevention, and treatment of heat stressunder agricultural working conditions. This document can be used byemployers to determine suitable measures for preventing heat-related illness,as required by the rule.    EPA also believes that training handlers and early-entry workers torecognize the early warning signs and symptoms and to implementappropriate first-aid measures for heat-related illness will help to minimize therisk of such illnesses. Thus, EPA has modified the requirements for the trainingprograms for handlers and the instructions for early-entry workers to includeinformation about heat-related illness.    The establishment of specific temperature and humidity limits wasdetermined to be inappropriate, because they are only two of several factorsthat contribute to the onset of heat-related illness. The Agency is persuadedthat employers may be able to complete necessary pesticide handlingactivities, even in very warm weather, by acclimating handlers and early-entryworkers, providing plenty of drinking water, modifying work schedules andwork/rest cycles, and using portable cooling devices. E. Decontamination    The Agency proposed that water, soap, and single-use towels be availableduring any work activity where there is potential employee contact withconcentrated or diluted pesticides or with surfaces that have been treatedwith pesticides.    For pesticide handlers and early-entry workers, decontamination facilitieswould be required at all times since these activities have the greatest risk ofexposure. For persons working in treated areas after the REI has expired, theAgency proposed to limit the requirement to activities in areas that have beentreated during the current growing season.    Many comments questioned the need for decontamination facilities duringan entire crop cycle, stating that a time should be specified.    The Agency believes that there is a need for decontamination facilities afterthe end of the REI. The Agency recognizes, however, that some pesticides mayhave been applied long before workers enter the area. EPA agrees with thecomments that suggested that the proposed requirement might be excessive,and it sought to determine what might be a reasonable time during whichdecontamination facilities should be available.    Knaak, Iwata, and Maddy, in a 1989 investigation of a series of pesticidepoisoning incidents that occurred after the expiration of an REI, found that themedian time from application in these incidents was 29 days. The Agency hasstudied more recent data regarding the incidence of multiple-case systemicillnesses of agricultural field workers from exposure to residues oforganophosphates in California. Among the 44 incidents for which data wereprovided, the mean length of time from application to poisoning was 20 days,with a median of 16 days. The range was from less than 1 day to 66 days,although this latter figure was an outlier and did not appear to be wellsubstantiated. Excluding parathion (no longer registered for most crops) andthis outlier, the longest period between application and reentry poisoning was39 days. The Agency believes that poisoning incidents that occur more than 30days beyond the REI probably stem from a miscalculation in establishing theREI that is listed on the labeling.    As part of the Pesticide Hazard Assessment Project funded by EPA in 1985, acomputer model was developed to estimate how long hazardous residuesmight persist. For one of the pesticides studied the hazard was predicted toremain for 30 days after the REI had expired. The Agency is seeking tocorroborate and refine this model. In the meantime, the Agency believes itshould institute a safety factor in the Worker Protection Standard tocompensate for this potential variability.    In response to the comments, the Agency has modified the language in thefinal rule to require decontamination facilities for workers entering a treatedarea for which an REI is in effect and for workers entering a treated area within30 days after the expiration of the REI.    The NPRM also stated that the water shall be potable, in adequate supply,at a temperature that will not injure the eyes, and reasonably accessible toeach worker's place of work.    There were many comments about the proposed rule's reference to potablewater. Those supporting the requirement for potable water said that OSHArequirements for field sanitation already require potable water in the fields.Comments from representatives of the forestry industry pointed out thatpotable water might not be available to forestry workers working in areas withno vehicular access.     Those opposing the requirement for potable water stated that farm wellsare not required to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements, so it isunreasonable to expect water supplied from a farm to meet this standard forquality. In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), theU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated that the decontaminationprovisions of the draft final rule would be unreasonably burdensome toemployers because of the requirement for potable water for handwashingpurposes. They stated that the standard for potable water is higher thannecessary for washing purposes and that clean water should be sufficient.Clean water, they suggested, would be readily available from farm andirrigation wells, whereas potable water may not be. USDA believes thatchanging the decontamination provisions to permit the use of clean waterwould greatly reduce the burden and expense to farm employers withoutsignificantly reducing worker protection. They suggested that an appropriatestandard might be the regional or local standard for water safe for swimming.    As stated in the NPRM, the Agency proposed the standard of ``potable'' forthe quality of water for two primary reasons:   (1) ``OSHA's Field Sanitation Standard (29 CFR 1928.110) requires potablewater in the fields for hand laborers, intended not only for washing but also fordrinking purposes. Even though EPA's proposed requirement was intended toprovide water only for washing, in practice the water may be used by workersfor drinking as well.''   (2) ``[O]nly 'potable' water can be defined in such a way thatnoncompliance can be clearly ascertained.''     At the time of the proposal, EPA believed that since OSHA uses the potablewater standard for its Field Sanitation Standard, it would be easier foremployers to comply with one water standard than with two. However, EPAwas reminded by commenters that approximately 89 percent of agriculturalestablishments are not currently covered by OSHA's Field Sanitation Standardand that EPA should be responsive to the burden to employers on thoseestablishments.     EPA has been persuaded by the comments that a standard of ``potable''may impose a substantial burden to agricultural employers, without aconcomitant benefit to workers. EPA believes the goal of this requirementshould be to ensure that workers and handlers will be provided with water thatwill not cause illness or injury when it contacts their skin or eyes and will notcause illness or injury if they should happen to swallow it. Thus, the Agency hasbeen persuaded to eliminate the requirement for ``potable'' water and insteadhas required the provision of water that meets the stated performancestandards. This will permit employers to equip decontamination sites with waterwhich is used for drinking on the agricultural establishment, but which may notmeet the standard of potability in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.     In reexamining the options, EPA considered establishing the quality standardof ``clean'' water defined as water safe for swimming. However, the Agencywas unable to ascertain how agricultural employers would be able to applysuch a standard. In adopting a standard of water quality different from apotability standard, EPA remains concerned that in practice, some workersmay drink the water, especially if no alternative source of drinking water wereavailable in the field. Moreover, the Agency has concluded that water mustbe of a quality safe for drinking because (1) workers and handlers mayaccidentally swallow water in the process of washing/flushing their faces oreyes, and (2) workers and handlers may mistake wash water for drinking water.EPA believes that placarding water to indicate that it is not for drinkingpurposes would be a difficult and unwieldy requirement given the range oflanguages and degree of illiteracy among workers. EPA concurs with OSHA'sstance in the preamble to the Field Sanitation Standard that they ``would liketo eliminate the use of signs in several languages to identify different classes ofwater quality in the same workplace and the errors that occur when watersupplies are confused.''     The Agency believes that defining decontamination/eyeflush water, in part,as water that ``will not cause illness or injury if swallowed'' will allowenforcement officials to ascertain noncompliance. EPA expects that the waterused for drinking purposes on the agricultural or handler establishment willusually be the source of water for washing and eyeflushing. EPA notes thatthose establishments currently complying with the requirement for providingpotable handwashing water to workers under OSHA's Field Sanitation Standardwould also be in compliance with the EPA requirement for decontaminationwater if the same water were used. It is important to note, however, that EPA isnot exercising any statutory authority in this rulemaking to address the generalsanitation hazards addressed by the OSHA Field Sanitation Standard.    The Agency recognizes the difficulty in providing decontamination sites foremployees working in areas with no vehicular access and is modifying thedecontamination requirements for activities performed more than 1/4 milefrom the nearest place of vehicular access. For these remote work sites, therequired decontamination site may be located at the nearest place ofvehicular access, instead of within 1/4 mile of each worker or handler. Workersand handlers may use clean water from springs, streams, lakes, or othersources for routine and emergency decontamination at the remote work site, ifsuch water is more accessible than the decontamination water located at thenearest place of vehicular access. The Agency has concluded that, in suchcircumstances, the risks from the use of water of uncertain quality are likely tobe less than the risks from delay in removing pesticides or pesticide residuesfrom the skin or eyes.    Some comments stated that ``reasonably accessible'' needs definition.Numerous comments suggested that decontamination sites should be nogreater than 1/4 mile from employees. Others noted that the restricted-entryarea is where contamination may occur, that decontamination sites should bemade available there, and that water in a tank is protected in a treatmentarea.    The Agency believes that the language of this requirement should beconsistent with the language of the OSHA Field Sanitation Standard requiringthat the decontamination site must be reasonably accessible, not to exceed1/4 mile or approximately a 5-minute walk from each worker's place of work.As a result, the rule has been revised to include a specific distancerequirement of 1/4 mile. For agricultural workers, the decontamination site mustnot be in an area under an REI. For early-entry activities, the decontaminationsite may be in the area where the employees are working. For applicationactivities, the decontamination site may be in the area being treated if thesoap, single-use towels, and clean change of clothing are in enclosedcontainers and the water is running tap water or is enclosed in a container.    The Agency proposed that an eyeflush dispenser be provided duringhandling and early-entry situations involving a product that is a severe eyeirritant, i.e., toxicity category I or II for eye irritation, signified to the user by arequirement for protective eyewear on the labeling. The dispenser would beimmediately available for emergency use, e.g., it would be carried by thehandler or on the handler's vehicle. The Agency solicited comment on whetherthe dispenser needs to be available during all activities or only certain ones,whether each employee should carry a dispenser, and whether carrying a1-pint dispenser on one's person represents undue weight burden.    The comments supported the requirement for requiring eyeflush dispensersfor mixers and loaders. Several comments stated that eyeflush equipmentshould be available for all employees, but that not all workers need to carryeyeflush dispensers; only handlers have such a need. Again, language such as``otherwise immediately accessible'' was thought to be vague. One commentincluded a copy of an OSHA Field Directive that cautions about the possibilityof contamination of eyeflush water by acanthamoebae. Some commentssuggested that if a pesticide is a hazard to eyes, it is best if each person carriesa dispenser, but if that is not possible, a full pint for each 2 or 3 persons shouldbe made available. Several comments noted that eyeflush containers carriedby employees may be contaminated by pesticides.    The Agency is concerned that the language of the proposed rule may haveled to some misconception about what water may be used for flushing theeyes in case of emergency. The decontamination water that must be providedfor routine washing and emergency whole-body cleansing must not causeillness or injury when it contacts the eyes. Therefore, the Agency has added``emergency eyeflushing'' as one of the basic functions to be met by thatwater. EPA wants to make clear that while special eyeflush dispensers may beused, any source of water that meets the standards for decontamination in thefinal rulemaking is acceptable for flushing the eyes. In appropriate instances,the language of the rule has been altered to change the requirement from``eyeflush dispenser'' to ``eyeflush water.'' In addition, these requirements havebeen combined in this final rulemaking to avoid confusion.     In response to comments about workers and handlers who need moreimmediate access to eyeflush equipment, the Agency requires that theemergency eyeflush water shall be carried by the handler or early-entryworker, or shall be on the vehicle or aircraft which the handler or early-entryworker is using, or shall be otherwise immediately accessible. Again, EPA wantsto make clear that this water does not necessarily have to be in a dispenser.Any nearby source of adequate amounts of water meeting the definition ofdecontamination water satisfies this requirement.     The Agency is persuaded of the importance of protecting against bacterialand other types of contamination of the water used for washing andeyeflushing. Therefore, the final rule will require employers to assure that ``at alltimes when the water is available'' to workers and handlers, it will remain of aquality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts theskin or eyes or if it is swallowed. The agricultural employer and handleremployer will be responsible for making sure that the water is replaced andthe container is cleaned often enough to prevent bacterial or othercontamination that could cause illness or injury to employees using the waterfor washing or eyeflushing. In most circumstances this would mean replacingwater in containers at least daily and regular cleaning of those containers. F. Emergency Assistance    EPA proposed that all employees be informed of the name, address, andtelephone number of the nearest physician, clinic, or hospital equipped toprovide medical care in a pesticide poisoning or injury emergency. Thisinformation was to be displayed in a prominent location on the agriculturalestablishment at all times.    In pesticide poisonings or injury emergencies, the victims may be unable totransport themselves to the nearest medical facility. Therefore, EPA proposedthat prompt transportation to an appropriate medical facility be madeavailable when there is reason to believe that a worker or a handler has beenpoisoned or injured by a pesticide. In a possible pesticide poisoning or injury,the most effective medical care can be provided only through a correctdiagnosis and prompt administration of the appropriate antidote or treatment.A doctor must know the name of the product or active ingredient to which theworker or handler has been exposed to ascertain the appropriate treatment.Thus, EPA proposed that in an emergency, workers and handlers be provided,if available, the product name, registration number, active ingredient(s), andfirst aid or antidote information and other information about the use of thepesticide and possible exposure to the worker or the handler. This information isavailable to pesticide users from the labeling of the product or from theirknowledge of the product; the requirement to provide information did notrequire that the user maintain records or keep pesticide labels or containers.     In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), the USDAstated that EPA needed to clarify when the employer is responsible for makingavailable to the worker prompt transportation to an appropriate emergencyfacility. USDA stated that they interpret this provision to be applicable onlywhile the employee is on the employer's property. EPA agrees and has clarifiedin the rule that the agricultural employer must provide such transportationwhen a worker is on the employer's establishment, including in any labor camplocated on the establishment. The Agency has similarly clarified in the final rulethat the handler employer must provide emergency transportation when ahandler is at the place of employment or at the handling site.    The Agency found no other information among the few comments on thisrequirement to cause it to reconsider other aspects of the requirement; theyremain in the final rule essentially as proposed. G. Pesticide Safety Training and Information    Based on the conviction that training and information are essentialcomponents of a successful risk-reduction strategy, the NPRM proposedseveral requirements related to providing pesticide safety training to handlersand information to workers: (1) General pesticide safety information for workersthrough a poster to be displayed in the work place, (2) pesticide safety trainingfor handlers and early-entry workers, (3) labeling-specific information tohandlers, and (4) labeling-specific information to workers on request.    1. General pesticide safety information--a. Poster. The Agency proposed torequire that general pesticide safety information be displayed on a poster in aprominent location on each agricultural establishment during the growingseason. The poster would contain statements concerning pesticide hazardsand recommended safety practices, the location of emergency medical carefacilities, a sample of the warning signs used for posting treated areas, andstatements concerning the rights and duties of employers, supervisors, andworkers. All information would appear in English; if some workers read onlyanother language, the poster either would be translated into that language orcontain a statement in that language recommending that the workers havesomeone explain the information to them. Workers would be informed of thelocation of the information and would be allowed reasonable access to it.    The Agency considered whether other methods of communicating thisinformation to workers, such as oral instructions or a training program giveneither by employers or by other providers, would be more effective than aposter, and asked for comment on this issue.    Most comments favored a requirement for a pesticide safety poster. Therewere specific criticisms focused on the proposed content of the poster. Somecomments stated that the language was too forceful; others criticized thelanguage for not being emphatic enough. Some comments requested thatthe poster have definitions of the signal words used on labeling.    There were several comments concerning the location of the poster. Onesuggested that more than one poster be displayed per establishment; anotherrecommended that pesticide users distribute information sheets to their workersto avoid intimidation and retaliation should workers attempt to study theinformation presented on a poster.    Some comments pointed to the difficulty of posting information at forestwork sites and requested flexibility to post at the crew headquarters orassignment area.    The final rule maintains the requirement for agricultural employers andhandler employers (other than employers on commercial pesticide handlingestablishments) to display pesticide safety information in a poster format at acentral location, with some modification of the proposed requirement.Although the final rule also requires that workers and handlers receive oral oraudiovisual training in pesticide safety, the Agency believes that, at least forworkers who are literate, a pesticide safety poster will serve as an importantreinforcement and reminder of the information learned in the training program.A poster also will provide a convenient place in the workplace to make noteof specific emergency medical information, i.e. telephone numbers andaddresses.     The Agency concurs with many of the comments concerning linguisticcomplexity, emphasis, and other aspects of the proposed pesticide safetyposter. It has decided that the exact wording and format do not belong inpart 170 because changes may be needed as EPA and others gain newinformation about pesticide safety. In lieu of requiring the employer to displayspecified items of information, EPA is requiring that general topics be coveredin simple, emphatic language. EPA intends to publish a poster designed toaddress many of the concerns raised in the comments and intended to meetthe part 170 requirement. Employers may use the EPA poster or a poster ofsimilar content that meets the requirements of part 170. The Agency will makesuch a poster available through numerous distribution sources and willencourage other organizations to produce similar posters.    The final rule permits employers of forestry workers or handlers to display theposter at a place other than the forest work site, as long as it is reasonablyconvenient for workers or handlers and they are informed of the location. EPAdoes not believe that it is necessary for employers to distribute this informationto workers or handlers in written form. EPA believes that the requirement asworded makes it clear that only one poster need be displayed per agriculturalestablishment, even if there are several work sites, e.g., more than onegreenhouse or field, as long as each employee has access to it. EPA hasmade no changes to the employer's duties to maintain the poster in legiblecondition and update the emergency medical care information as necessary.    EPA has been convinced by comments that requiring the items ofinformation on the poster to be translated is impractical. Since the purpose ofthe poster in the final rule is to reinforce worker or handler training, which mustbe given in a manner the worker or handler can understand, the requirementfor translation has been dropped.    b. Training for agricultural workers. The Agency's request for comment on themost appropriate method for conveying basic pesticide safety information toworkers stimulated many responses. The comments strongly supported somecombination of oral, audiovisual, and written training in pesticide safety for allagricultural workers who may be exposed to pesticides or pesticide residues.Comments favoring training for all workers came not only from workeradvocates such as unions and legal and health service providers, but alsofrom universities, chemical companies, State lead agencies and other Stateagencies, growers, and grower organizations. A Farm Bureau chapter statedthat it supported a one-time instruction given for employees, i.e. at harvest orat time of employment.    The comments stated that employers need to convey safety information toall workers orally because workers cannot or will not read written materials; oralinstruction and training are the most effective means to communicateinformation.    The few comments opposing training for workers were concerned about thelogistics of doing the training, but did not oppose the concept of such training.In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture stated a concern about requiring training foragricultural workers before their first work period.   They state: ``In effect, thetraining provision will require that an employer provide training at thebeginning of the season, and then, each time an additional worker orreplacement worker is hired. . . . Given the extremely high variability andturnover within labor intensive agricultural work groups (1,000 percent is notuncommon), this procedure . . . would frequently result in virtually continuoustraining of small groups of new hires by each employer.''    The Agency believes that providing information about ways to avoid or tomitigate occupational exposure to pesticides will reduce pesticide-relatedillnesses and injuries among agricultural workers significantly, and it has beenconvinced by the public comments that training as well as displaying a posterwill better convey this information. A poster may be effective in conveying asimple message, but training more effectively conveys larger amounts ofinformation. Reliance on a poster also presents problems relating to language,literacy, and accessibility. Many agricultural workers go directly to the work site,rather than to a central location; these workers would have neither theopportunity nor the incentive to examine a poster. For workers not literateeither in English or their native language, adding a paragraph to the poster inany language advising them to have the poster explained to them would dolittle good. From the comments, EPA has concluded that an oral or audiovisualtraining program is an essential complement to a poster in communicatingpesticide safety information to workers, and therefore such a requirement is anecessary component of worker protection standards.    Although training each worker involves more employer effort than displayinga poster, the Agency has determined that the burden will not be significant. Intheir comments, many employers noted that they train their workers inpesticide safety, either because they feel it is important, or because theybelieve they are subject to the OSHA Hazard Communication regulations.    EPA has developed videotape and slide-tape training programs in Englishand in Spanish. The Agency intends to update these materials to correspondto the requirements of the final rule. These updated materials may be used byemployers, the Cooperative Extension Service, State agencies, health careproviders, and others; employers may obtain and use the training materialsthemselves or make arrangements to have workers trained by others.    The final rule has been modified to include a training requirement forworkers. The modified rule requires agricultural employers to assure that beforethe 6th day that any worker enters any areas on the agricultural establishmentwhere, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or an REI hasbeen in effect, the worker receives pesticide safety training. For the first 5 yearsafter the effective date of the rule, however, the rule allows employers up tothe 16th day that any worker enters any areas on the agriculturalestablishment where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied oran REI has been in effect, to assure that the worker receives pesticide safetytraining. The Agency's intent is that workers receive training as soon as ispracticable in each work situation, but not necessarily before their firstexposure. In most instances, the Agency believes that whenever permanentemployees and crews of employees are hired, the training could take placebefore the new-hires' first exposure period.     The longer time period (approximately 3 work-weeks for the first 5 years andapproximately 1 work-week thereafter) allows agricultural employers moreflexibility in arranging for training of workers they employ. Such flexibility will bemost useful for establishments where there is frequent turnover in theworkforce, such as with large crews of seasonal labor, or where one or more ofthe workers do not understand either English or Spanish and a person who cantranslate the training to such workers must be located. After the 5-year period,most of the existing agricultural workforce already should be trained and onlyworkers new to agriculture will need to be trained. In addition, by the end ofthe 5-year period, agricultural employers should have access to trainingmaterials and translators in the necessary languages. Therefore, beginning 5years from the effective date of the revised final WPS, workers must be trainedbefore their sixth day of entrance to areas where, within the last 30 days, apesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect.     The 6th (or 16th, as applicable) day of entry is not limited to a growingseason or calendar year. It is the 6th (or 16th) day of exposure beginning whena worker enters areas on the agricultural establishment following a treatmentwith a pesticide to which the Worker Protection Standard applies. To avoidkeeping track of such workers' days of exposure, two options are available tothe agricultural employers. First, they can make sure that all workers are trainedbefore their first exposure in such areas. Second, they can hire only thoseworkers who have already received training and who possess a valid trainingcertificate.     The Agency is also attempting to mitigate repetitive training by establishinga relatively lengthy (about 20 months) lead time before the training provisionsof the final rule are enforceable. This lead time will allow a substantial numberof workers to be trained in the interim. Once a large percentage of workershave been trained, the concern about repetitive training diminishes, becausemany new hires already will have received training.     The risks from pesticide residues decrease as the time increases betweenapplication and entry into treated areas. The Agency recognizes that in somecircumstances or under some conditions residues might remain as long as 30days after the end of an REI. Workers who enter the areas after that time havelittle to gain from the use of exposure-mitigation techniques. As a result, agrower who applies a preplant herbicide in March and uses no other pesticidetreatments during the growing season would not be obliged to train workerswho are hired to harvest the crop in October. Therefore, the Agency haschosen to require training for workers who enter an area where, within the last30 days, a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect.     All early-entry workers must be trained before they are allowed to enter anarea before the REI has expired. Workers must receive training before they areallowed to enter treated areas before the expiration of an REI to perform taskspermitted under � 170.112 and involving contact with anything that has beentreated with the pesticide, including, but not limited to, soil, water, or surfacesof plants, because EPA believes that their risk of exposure is higher than that forworkers entering after the expiration of the REI.     Workers and early-entry workers must be given the specified training inpesticide safety, unless they: (1) Satisfy the training requirement for pesticidehandlers under this regulation, (2) satisfy the training requirement under part171 of this chapter, or (3) are currently certified private or commercialpesticide applicators.    The training program must be presented in a manner the worker canunderstand, using nontechnical terms. The general pesticide information mustbe presented either orally using written materials, or audiovisually. As aminimum, the person conducting the training must have been trained as apesticide handler under part 170.     The training may be presented using a translator or through sign language, ifthe employer assures that the worker can understand the information beingpresented. The fact that an employer does not normally provide training in theparticular language of a job applicant, or that translation services are notreadily available, does not absolve an employer of his training responsibilitiesunder the WPS. Employers who provide training under the WPS should becognizant that a refusal to hire an applicant who is unable to understand thelanguage or languages in which the employer usually provides training mayconstitute discrimination on the basis of national origin. Discrimination on thebasis of national origin is actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964or under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). There is alsoa possibility that the failure of an employer to provide training in any languageand, instead to consistently require current training certificates from applicantsfor those jobs whose activities require WPS training, could thereby be causing adisparate impact which could, under some circumstances, be interpreted asconstituting discrimination based on national origin. Employers desiringinformation regarding their responsibilities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Actof 1964 or the anti-discrimination provisions of the IRCA may contact the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission or the Special Counsel for ImmigrationRelated Unfair Employment Practices of the U.S. Department of Justice,respectively.    The training programs for workers must include the same basic informationas those for handlers, except for topics that are relevant only to handlers. Forexample, worker training need not include information related to the formatand meaning of pesticide labeling or to transportation, storage, and disposalof pesticides. Worker training must include information about the workerprotection requirements of part 170 such as application and entry restrictions,the posting of warning signs and the design of the warning sign, oral warnings,the availability of specific information on applications, and protection againstretaliatory acts. This will ensure that workers know what protection they shouldbe receiving so they can encourage compliance with part 170.     The final rule requires that workers be retrained at 5-year intervals,measured from the end of the month in which the training is completed. TheAgency believes that such renewal of WPS worker training will be adequate toconvey the basic pesticide safety precepts to workers and to provide timelyupdates and reinforcement, without undue burden. The presence of therequired pesticide safety poster in the workplace will serve as a reminder ofpesticide safety practices for workers whose training may have occurred sometime in the past.    In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), USDAexpressed concern about the absence of a formal mechanism to avoidrepetitive training of each new hire on each agricultural establishment andwelcomed the opportunity to work with EPA to develop such a verificationprogram. A change to the rule was made. The rule now states that if theagricultural employer determines that a worker possesses an EPA-approvedWPS training certificate and has no reason to believe it is invalid, thatdetermination shall meet the requirements of assuring that the worker hasbeen trained. The revised final rule requires trainers to assure that appropriateWPS training has been given to a worker before the training certificate isissued.     EPA expects that a wide variety of groups would be qualified to conductWPS training and issue EPA-approved training certificates, including grower orcommodity organizations, pesticide dealers, worker advocacy or interestgroups, or others.        The use of an EPA-approved WPS training certificate is optional. TheAgency encourages those trainers who, voluntarily, would like to maintainrecords or issue cards to workers to do so.     EPA and USDA intend to establish a joint task force to develop andimplement a mechanism for verification of training. The task force would seekto reduce the amount of duplication in training and to establish a voluntarysystem of training verification. Once the mechanism for verification of traininghas been determined, the Agency will issue guidance regarding the specificnature of the verification system. Such guidance is expected to include thefollowing topics: (1) Criteria that the Agency will use for determining whichpersons or agencies will distribute the training certificates to prospectivetrainers; (2) description, format, and content of the training certificate; (3)mechanism for ascertaining the expiration of the training certificate; (4)content of the certification statement that prospective trainers would have tosign in order to receive the training certificates.    2. Training for handlers. The Agency proposed that general pesticide safetytraining would be required for all persons who are employed to handlepesticides intended for use on agricultural crops on farms or in forests, nurseries,or greenhouses. This requirement would be waived if the handler were certifiedas a private or commercial applicator. Each handler was to be instructed by atrainer who met certain minimum qualifications. The training program also hadto meet minimum standards.    Many comments noted that EPA's handler training was similar to the trainingin chemical hazards required by OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard andquestioned whether both requirements were necessary. There was concernthat the apparent duplication of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standardmay cause confusion for the growers and regulatory agencies.    EPA acknowledges that there may be some confusion regarding therelationship between the training required by the OSHA HazardCommunication Standard and by this standard and is working with OSHA todefine more clearly the roles of the two agencies in hazard communication forpesticides users. For additional information on this topic, see EPA's proposedamendment to 40 CFR part 170 published elsewhere in this issue of the FederalRegister.    Most comments on the training requirements for handlers supported theconcept of such training. However, a few comments opposed any trainingrequirement for pesticide handlers because they thought private applicatorcertification for all persons who handle agricultural pesticides would beburdensome and impractical.    EPA does not intend to require private applicator certification for all whohandle agricultural pesticides, but the Agency does believe it is important thatall persons who handle agricultural pesticides have training in basic pesticidesafety.    Some comments that strongly supported the concept of handler traininghad reservations or criticisms regarding specific provisions of the trainingrequirements.    A few comments stated that being certified should not exempt handlersfrom being trained under part 170, noting that the proposed handler trainingrequirements exceed the private applicator certification requirements in someStates.    The Agency acknowledges that there may be variation among the States inthe content and effectiveness of certification programs. EPA is revising thecertification regulations (40 CFR part 171) to upgrade the national ``core''requirements for certification of private and commercial applicators. When therevisions to part 171 are promulgated, all State certification programs forpesticide applicators will be required to contain the components of theupgraded national ``core'' requirements. The Agency is confident that all Statecertification programs then will meet or exceed the minimum requirements fortraining of pesticide handlers contained in part 170.    Several comments said that training should be specific to the task beingperformed, not general pesticide safety training and that, like labeling, trainingshould fit the toxicity of the substance.    EPA is not persuaded that job- or product-specific instruction by supervisorsis an effective substitute for basic pesticide safety training. The Agency isconvinced that pesticide handlers will be more willing to observe job specificsafety instructions and to cooperate in hazard reduction provisions, such asusing PPE, if they are informed of the reasons for such provisions. Therefore, thisfinal rule retains the requirement for general pesticide safety training for allpesticide handlers.    Some respondents questioned where to find information required for thetraining program, especially regarding spill cleanup and chronic health effects.    EPA intends that the training programs for pesticide handlers stress basicprinciples of safe pesticide handling. Pesticide-specific information is requiredto be furnished to each handler before each handling task. EPA intended thatthe information on health effects should focus on types of possible healtheffects, such as acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization(allergic effects), that may be associated with pesticide exposure, not onproduct-specific effects. Information in the training program regardingpesticide spill cleanup would be limited to the generally accepted three-stepprocedure of containment, removal, and disposal. Information on how todispose of a specific spilled material will not be included in the general trainingprogram. Any handler assigned to clean up a spill would need to have anyinformation on the pesticide labeling regarding spill cleanup procedures,precautions, or requirements specific to that product. If no specific informationis listed on the pesticide labeling, the employer has no requirement under thispart to seek out additional spill-specific information or instructions.    The Agency is supportive of those who want to train handlers beyond theminimum requirements in part 170 and encourages such initiatives. EPA isdeveloping a new regulation regarding the appropriate procedures fordisposal of pesticides and pesticide containers. When the rule is promulgated,the information is expected to be incorporated into pesticide labeling and canbe conveyed to the handler on a product-specific basis.    The handler also must be informed of any pesticide-specific warnings orinformation regarding any health effects listed on the labeling of the pesticidebeing handled.    One comment questioned the relevancy of environmental information inworker protection training. The Agency believes such training is relevant toworker protection. Many environmental concerns are applicable not only tothe organisms in the environment, but also to workers and other persons whomay be in that environment. Ground and surface water warnings, for example,are designed to protect not only aquatic organisms, but also workers andother persons who may be using the water for drinking, cooking, bathing, etc.The Agency notes that FIFRA defines ``environment'' as including ``water, air,land, and all plants and man and other animals living therein, and theinterrelationships which exist among these.''    A number of comments suggested that handlers receive instructionconcerning the part 170 handler protection requirements so they can assist inprotecting themselves and be aware of noncompliance. One comment saidthat the training should cover the anti-retaliation provisions of the regulationand employees's rights to file complaints.    EPA agrees with these comments and has added such a subsection to thetraining requirements.    In � 170.230, EPA has made some modifications to the content of thetraining program in addition to those discussed above. The topics have beenreordered, and some have been combined. Several subsections have beenrewritten to improve their clarity. A subsection has been added requiringinstruction in the recognition and avoidance of heat-related illness associatedwith the use of PPE.    The Agency's proposal to require a trainer to be a certified private orcommercial applicator or to be designated by a State or Federal agency as atrainer of certified applicators received considerable attention.    Some comments objected to permitting certified applicators, especiallyprivate applicators, to run training programs. Being certified has no bearing oncompetency to train others in pesticide safety, they maintained, and thisprovision may lead to unqualified persons providing training. Comments alsosaid that trainers should be required to attend a continuing education courseon how to instruct pesticide handlers.    A number of comments requested that other people who meet EPArequirements be permitted to run training programs for handlers or that thetrainer should not be required to be a certified applicator. They pointed outthat many agricultural professionals could do such training, such as countycooperative extension agents, university professors, consultants, and properlytrained supervisory personnel.    Several respondents stated that a trainer was not necessary at all;employees handling pesticides could be given written information onpesticides to meet training requirements, if the handler is able to read. Anothercomment said that States should determine how training will be done.    The Agency continues to believe that the physical presence of a person torun the program and to respond to the questions of participants is critical tothe success of the training. EPA will require the presence of a trainer sincemany of those needing training may have little formal education and may notbe able to read and comprehend written materials without help. The Agencyis aware that some States have developed successful training programs forcertified applicators that do not require the presence of a trainer.  EPA willallow States to adopt training programs that are more comprehensive than theFederal program. If any State wishes to establish an autotutorial programaccompanied by some measurement of understanding, EPA will review theprogram to determine whether it is as comprehensive as the program requiredby this regulation.    After considering these comments, the Agency has decided that the mostrelevant trainer qualification is previous training in pesticide use and safety.Certified applicators, whether private or commercial, would have someknowledge and experience in pesticide handling; with the assistance of writtenand audiovisual materials they should be able to respond to most questions onthis topic. The Agency believes that most agricultural establishments eitheremploy a certified applicator or contract for the services of a certifiedapplicator in the course of business. Therefore, the Agency does not expectthat a large number of people will need to obtain certification to act astrainers under this part. The Agency also does not envision or promote the ideathat agricultural employers will use the certification system as an alternative tothis handler training requirement.    A person designated as a qualified trainer of certified applicators orpesticide handlers by a State, Tribal, or Federal agency having jurisdiction iseligible to be a trainer under part 170. EPA is also persuaded by the commentsthat stated that a trainer could be a person who has completed atrain-the-trainer or continuing education course. In the final rule, the Agencyhas modified the trainer qualification requirement to specify that a person whohas completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer course is eligible to be atrainer of handlers under this part.    EPA did not propose to require verification of training, because it wasconcerned that this could be considered a requirement for private certifiedapplicator recordkeeping--a requirement specifically prohibited by FIFRAsection 11.    Some comments expressed the view that section 11 of FIFRA prohibits theAgency from issuing regulations requiring recordkeeping by private applicators.    A number of comments urged some type of training verification withmandatory recordkeeping. Some suggested cards be issued to trainedhandlers; others suggested that the trainer be required to maintain records oftraining program participants. Many comments were concerned about thelack of recordkeeping requirements. They stated that without verification oftraining, violations will occur, enforcement will be difficult, and employees willbe trained more than once.    Some comments argued that requirements to keep records of workertraining would not be prohibited by FIFRA section 11, claiming that arequirement for persons acting as trainers to keep records of trainees wouldnot be the imposition of a recordkeeping requirement on a private applicatorwho voluntarily chose to act as a trainer.    Several comments suggested eliminating private applicators as trainerssince they cannot be required to keep records and suggested that onlycertified commercial applicators should be eligible to conduct this trainingbecause they could be required to keep records.    EPA did not propose recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rulebecause of possible concerns that such recordkeeping might be inconsistentwith section 11 of FIFRA. The Agency has concluded that section 11 does notprohibit the Agency from requiring trainers, including trainers who happen tobe private applicators, to keep records verifying any training they give underpart 170. Because the Agency did not propose a recordkeeping requirementfor trainers in the proposed rule, however, EPA is not adopting any suchrequirements in the final rule. If experience under the final rule indicates thatrecordkeeping would be warranted, EPA will revisit this issue.    Although the training provision may be difficult to enforce in some caseswithout written verification, the Agency will seek enforcement of the provisionand expects that the compliance rate will be high enough that significant riskreduction will be accomplished.     In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), USDAexpressed concern about the absence of a formal mechanism to avoidrepetitive training of each new hire on each agricultural establishment andwelcomed the opportunity to work with EPA to develop such a verificationprogram. A change to the rule was made. The rule now states that if thehandler employer determines that a handler possesses an EPA-approved WPStraining certificate and has no reason to believe it is invalid, that determinationshall meet the requirements of assuring that the handler has been trained. Therevised final rule requires trainers to assure that appropriate Worker ProtectionStandard training has been given to a handler before the training certificate isissued. As described under the section about worker training, EPA and USDAintend to establish a joint task force to develop and implement a mechanismfor verification of training. The task force would seek to reduce the amount ofduplication in training and to establish a voluntary system of trainingverification.     The use of an EPA-approved WPS training certificate is optional. TheAgency encourages those trainers who, voluntarily, would like to maintainrecords or issue cards to handlers to do so.    Some respondents misinterpreted the proposed rule's silence on the issue offrequency of handler training to indicate that retraining before each handlingepisode was necessary; others assumed that training was required eitherannually or upon initial employment each year.    Numerous comments raised questions such as when and how often trainingshould be done. Some suggested it should be a one-time instructionconducted at the beginning of the growing season or at the time ofemployment; others wanted to see training required annually or more often.    The Agency did not specify in the NPRM how often pesticide safety trainingmust be conducted. However, the final rule requires training for handlers to berenewed at least once every 5 years, measured from the end of the month inwhich the training is completed. The Agency believes that such renewal ofWPS handler training will be adequate to convey the basic pesticide safetyprecepts to handlers and to provide timely updates and reinforcement,without undue burden. Mandatory annual retraining of the same employeespresenting general information that typically does not change over the courseof a year would be a burden on employers.    EPA intends to develop model training programs that will facilitatecompliance with part 170. The Agency's plans in this respect are discussed inmore detail in Unit VI of this preamble. Although the Agency expects that mostpesticide safety training will be conducted using materials developed by EPA,it does not believe that this must be the only source of training materials. Onthe other hand, some assurance of the adequacy of privately developedmaterials is desirable. The final rule specifies the minimum content for suchmaterials (� 170.230). H. Knowledge of Labeling Information    1. Access to labeling. The Agency proposed that any information from thelabeling of any pesticide that is being used be provided upon request to thehandler. This requirement was intended to provide handlers withproduct-specific pesticide safety information that will increase their ability toprotect themselves and others.    Some comments stated that product-specific information is important butthat handlers may be too intimidated to request the information from thesupervisor or employers.    Some comments suggested that the Agency delete the access-to-labelingprovisions because the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard has beenexpanded to include agricultural employees. One recommended that the rulebe changed to allow growers to retain either the pesticide label or theMaterial Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).    EPA has amended this section (� 170.232) to address these concerns.Handlers must read or must be informed of, in a manner that they canunderstand, all labeling requirements related to the safe use of the pesticidesuch as signal words, human hazard precautions, PPE requirements, first aidinstructions, and any additional precautions relating to the handling activity. Inaddition, the handler must have access to the labeling at all times during thehandling activity in case a question arises about the use requirements. Thisdoes not mean that multiple copies must be made and carried with eachhandler, but that the product container itself or a copy of the labeling must beavailable in a place where it may be consulted if necessary.    The Agency believes that almost all respondents supported its intendedgoal, which was to assure that all handlers, including those working in anassisting or nonsupervisory capacity, are aware of the product-specificinstructions for the pesticide being handled. If handlers are not aware oflabeling requirements, it is more likely the product will not be used inaccordance with labeling, a violation of FIFRA. In this regard, a MSDS is not anadequate substitute for product labeling. Although an MSDS may containuseful information about the safe handling and storage of the material andthe risks associated with exposure to the material, it will not address all theenforceable use requirements on the pesticide labeling. The Agency considersthat giving instructions in the relevant labeling requirements would assure thisawareness and that reading the labeling also would be adequate. EPA agreesthat handlers may be intimidated from requesting the labeling, and that evenif a request is made, the labeling may not be read or understood.    2. Labeling information for early-entry workers. The Agency did not proposethat early-entry workers have access to labeling information.    Some comments noted that early-entry workers would needproduct-specific information to have knowledge of the specific hazardsassociated with their early-entry assignment and that it would be appropriatefor early entry workers to have access to the labeling.    EPA agrees that it is essential for workers who enter a treated area beforethe expiration of an REI to have job and product-specific instructions inpesticide safety. Therefore, the Agency has added language under the entryrestrictions in the subpart on agricultural workers. This language provides thatbefore being allowed to enter a treated area during the REI, the workers eithermust read the product labeling or must be informed in a manner that they canunderstand of all labeling requirements related to human hazards orprecautions, first aid, symptoms of poisoning, PPE specified for early-entry, andany other labeling requirements related to safe use.    3. Product-specific information for workers. The Agency proposed to requirethat product-specific information be provided to workers, on request, for alltreated areas subject to notification, beginning on the day the pesticide is tobe applied and continuing at least until the expiration of the REI. The requiredinformation included: (1) The specific location and description of the areatreated or to be treated, (2) the brand name, active ingredients, and EPAregistration number of the pesticide used, and (3) the restricted-entry interval.In the NPRM, the Agency stated that it considered requiring this information tobe displayed at a central location, such as a notice board, or to be written onwarning signs.    Few comments were opposed to providing this information. Most werecritical of the requirement as written, however, and recommended posting theinformation at a central location. Numerous comments were opposed to anyrequirement that compels workers to request information, because workers aretoo intimidated to request information from the employer, fearing that such arequest could jeopardize their jobs.    The Agency is convinced that workers must have unhampered access toproduct-specific information about the pesticides to which they are exposedoccupationally. The Agency was persuaded by the comments that someagricultural workers may be intimidated and that oral communication of thisinformation may be complex and inconvenient. The Agency has amended thissection to require employers to list the product-specific information in a centralplace on the agricultural establishment and to allow workers unimpededaccess to this information. The information must include: (1) The location anddescription of the treated area, (2) the product name, (3) the EPA registrationnumber, (4) the active ingredient(s) of the pesticide, (5) the time and date thepesticide was applied, and (6) the REI for the pesticide.    While the Agency acknowledges the similarity between this requirementand requirements of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard, EPA will notrequire that an MSDS or similar fact sheet be made available, because such arequirement was not proposed in the NPRM. EPA and OSHA are committed tocooperating, within the constraints of their respective statutes, to minimizeconfusion and to avoid duplication of the requirements of the two agencies.    EPA has prepared a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the WPS thatrequests comments on the feasibility and utility of requiring that MSDSs or factsheets be made available to agricultural employees. This NPRM is beingpublished in this issue of the Federal Register. I.  Other    1. Cholinesterase monitoring. EPA proposed that commercial pesticidehandlers exposed to toxicity category I or II organophosphate pesticides for 3consecutive days or for any 6 days in a 21-day period be monitored forcholinesterase inhibition. The Agency solicited and received comments on: (1)The types of employees to be monitored and, in particular, whether therequirement should be extended to private handlers, (2) the length ofexposure (whether a more sensitive ``trigger'' with fewer days exposure wouldbe more appropriate), and (3) the difficulties, costs, and advantages ofday-based and symptom-based triggers.    Although some comments stated that only commercial handlers hadsufficient exposure to warrant monitoring, many comments stated that privatepesticide handlers also may have sufficient exposures to warrant cholinesterasemonitoring and that this requirement should apply to all handlers. Somecomments stated that applying the requirement only to commercial handlerscreates a double standard for protection that is not supportable. Several comments supported the inclusion of all agricultural employees in amedical monitoring requirement because the cholinesterase monitoringrequirement of the proposal afforded no protection for early-entry workers orother workers. Other comments stated that a medical monitoring program forall employees would be unnecessary and impractical.    A few comments stated that cholinesterase monitoring was unnecessarybecause of all the other requirements being initiated with part 170. Somesuggested that cholinesterase monitoring be an option rather than arequirement; voluntarily implemented programs probably would be moresuccessful than imposed programs.    Most respondents supported the Agency's proposed ``trigger'' of 3consecutive days or any 6 days of exposure in a 21-day period. Some,however, stated that while a day-based trigger may be of use in detectingadverse health effects over time, it is of limited use in addressing accidentsituations or brief overexposure; a symptom-based trigger is too ill defined foruse as a regulatory tool and could be confusing to both the employer and thesupervising physician as to its applicability. One comment stated that a triggerbased on hours (rather than days) of exposure would be a more rational wayof including the highly exposed. Some comments suggested alternativetriggers. A few reviewers stated that the Agency had given no rationale for thetrigger chosen and asked how it had been determined. One suggested thatdetermining the ideal trigger would have to wait until more data wereavailable. Some comments suggested eliminating a trigger and requiring thetesting on a preset schedule.    Many comments, both those for and those against a cholinesterasemonitoring requirement, expressed concern about the recordkeeping thatwould be necessary to implement a monitoring program and to followmigratory and seasonal workers.    Some comments opposed monitoring because of the cost. Two commentsincluded estimates that monitoring would cost $70 per test or $200 to $400 peremployee over the growing season, exclusive of the costs of recordkeepingand additional physician fees. Others noted that lost work time and cost oftransporting handlers to a physician's office where the test could be performedwould be a burden to employers. In some remote rural areas, the testingwould necessitate long-distance travel to the nearest qualified physician. Onecomment warned that the expense of the test and the time off work probablywould result in this regulation being ignored. In contrast, another commentstated that the reduced medical disability costs among handlers would easilyoutweigh the costs of implementing a monitoring program.    Numerous comments expressed concerns regarding the validity and thereliability of cholinesterase testing methods, the availability of qualifiedlaboratories to support a cholinesterase monitoring program, and thesufficiency of most physicians' knowledge about the toxicity of pesticides andability to interpret the results of cholinesterase tests properly.    The Agency is concerned about many of the problems of cholinesterasemonitoring, including the difficulty in finding knowledgeable physicians to setup monitoring programs and qualified laboratories to perform the analyses. Thecomments noted that a quality control program for laboratories would beneeded nationwide if a monitoring program were to be successful. EPA is notprepared to establish such a program nationwide at this time.    The Agency believes that despite the practical difficulties associated with anationwide program, the monitoring of employee exposure is a prudentoccupational health practice and encourages employers wishing to operatesuch programs. To facilitate voluntary programs, the Agency has required thatpesticides that contain cholinesterase-inhibiting compounds be identified assuch in the labeling of the product. The Agency also is interested incooperating in research or evaluations that might be done on new or existingexposure monitoring programs.     The Agency is concerned, however, that even reliable blood-levelcholinesterase monitoring often would not prevent pesticide poisoningincidents. Blood samples are taken at intervals--weekly, biweekly, ormonthly--during the exposure season; the handler may accumulate enoughexposure between samples to become ill. In addition, the delay betweensampling and the evaluation of the test results is such that most handlers willreceive more exposure before the test results are known. Before such amonitoring system can indicate that handlers should be removed from furtherexposure to cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides because their bloodcholinesterase levels are dangerously low, the handlers may have receivedenough additional exposure to precipitate acute poisoning.    EPA is troubled by the reactive nature of available cholinesterase monitoringmethods. The Agency would prefer to explore methods of monitoringexposures to cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, and perhaps to otherpesticides, which are more likely to be preventive. One promising approachinvolves immunoassay-based detection. Immunoassay techniques couldprovide rapid, simple, and cost-effective monitoring methods for exposuremonitoring systems under field conditions. It is expected that inexpensive kitscan be developed that will yield quantitative results in less than 30 minutes,thus enabling more frequent monitoring and rapid response if unacceptableexposure is indicated. This technology could provide an effective means ofsignaling to the pesticide handler when exposure is unacceptably high.     EPA has determined that more research is required to developimmunoassay monitoring systems for pesticide handlers. However, the researchdata to date indicate that an immunoassay-based personal monitoringexposure system probably could be developed. Immunoassay devices useantibodies as receptors to sample the environment of the exposed persons.Specific antibodies to many pesticides of concern already have beendeveloped and evaluated, but specific antibodies for other prioritycompounds need to be identified. Ideally, a sampling system would bedeveloped to incorporate all of the compounds of concern. The Agencystrongly encourages the rapid development of practical and reliabletechniques of this kind and welcomes further information on ongoing researchand the opportunity to cooperate with developers on the necessary research.To support the goal of improving exposure monitoring technology, the Agencyalso intends to consider requiring the development of such detection methodsfor the registration or continued registration of selected pesticides.    In conclusion, although a blood-level cholinesterase monitoring programmay be prudent for some handlers, EPA has determined that imposing anationwide requirement for such monitoring is not justified at this time. TheAgency is not convinced that such a program would provide benefitscommensurate with the costs entailed. The Agency intends to pursue thedevelopment of more effective exposure monitoring systems, such as theimmunoassay-based system discussed above.    EPA intends to reconsider the need for and the appropriate form ofexposure monitoring for pesticide handlers after this final Worker ProtectionStandard has been implemented. This will give the Agency the opportunity toevaluate more thoroughly the ongoing research in this area and the results ofnew or existing exposure monitoring programs. The Agency expects to issue aproposed rule in this area in about 3 years.    2. Relationship between OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and EPA'sWorker Protection Standard. The proposed revisions to the Worker ProtectionStandard (WPS) were published July 8, 1988; the following month, August 8,1988, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published anotice of proposed rulemaking which would modify its Hazard CommunicationStandard (HCS). In the preamble to these proposed modifications, OSHA statesthat the HCS would apply to workers who are exposed to pesticide residuesafter application.    EPA received numerous comments that pointed to the potential overlap ofsome requirements of the WPS with those of the HCS. Those who wrote wereconcerned that the requirements of the two standards might duplicate eachother or might be conflicting. A few were concerned about possible conflictswith similar State laws. All want to see EPA and OSHA resolve any potentialconflict before their respective regulations are made final.    Some respondents felt that OSHA should have responsibility for defininghazard communication in agriculture; more felt that EPA should have theresponsibility where pesticides are used. Some asked that theaccess-to-labeling provisions of the WPS be deleted because of the OSHAregulation calling for access to MSDSs.    Some growers claimed they should be exempt from the WPS because theyare covered by OSHA. Worker representatives want EPA to require training forall workers, as the HCS does.    EPA has made a commitment to work with OSHA within the constraints ofeach Agency's statutes to minimize confusion and to avoid duplicationbetween the requirements of each Agency. Section 4(b)(1) of theOccupational Safety and Health Act precludes OSHA from regulating workingconditions or hazards with respect to which other Federal agencies exercisestatutory authority to prescribe or to enforce standards or regulations affectingoccupational safety or health (29 U.S.C. 653(4)(b)(1)).  In part 170, however,EPA has exercised statutory authority only with regard to agricultural workingconditions or hazards that are related to pesticides. The Occupational Safetyand Health Act and its regulations may apply to other agricultural workingconditions or hazards and to nonagricultural working conditions (e.g., officework) that may take place on agricultural establishments. Among theregulations that may be applicable to nonpesticide working conditions inagriculture are the Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1928.21) and theField Sanitation Standard (29 CFR 1928.110). Since the OSHA Field SanitationStandard addresses general sanitary hazards, rather than pesticide hazards,EPA believes its applicability is not affected by part 170. IV. Labeling Statements A.  Background of Proposal    The Agency noted in the NPRM that for part 170 to be enforceable underthe misuse provision of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), its requirements must beincorporated onto pesticide labels or labeling. Rather than require that theregulations be printed in their entirety on each product, EPA proposed thatpart 170 be incorporated by means of a reference statement. In addition tothe reference statement, those requirements of part 170 that were productspecific, such as personal protective equipment and restricted-entry intervals,and product-specific information necessary for compliance with part 170, suchas whether the product is a fumigant, would appear as statements onlabeling. Requirements applicable to all products, such as providingdecontamination water, would not appear as statements on labeling.    The NPRM proposed that the required worker protection labeling statementsbe consolidated for the convenience of registrants in a new subpart K of part156, ``Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices.'' The Agencyproposed specific regulatory text and labeling statements for part 156, andsolicited comment on the labeling aspects of the Worker Protection Standard.The Agency also discussed how it would implement these labeling changes aspart of its pesticide registration program. B. Reference Statement    The comments were divided evenly in opposing or supporting the proposalto reference part 170 on the label rather than including the full text of allrequirements in labeling. Comments that opposed the proposal to referencepart 170 gave reasons such as: (1) The problem of availability of the specificrequirements of the regulation should it not be incorporated in pesticidelabeling in its entirety, (2) the need for information at the use site, and (3) theundermining of the ``read the label'' and the ``label is the law'' message thatusers have been trained to follow. They suggested that noncompliance is morelikely for requirements that are not on the label. Several comments stressed theneed for wide dissemination of the requisite information. Two commentssuggested that users should not be referred to part 170 but toAgency-generated guides, instructional materials, or popularized versions ofthe regulations.     The Agency acknowledges the need for pesticide users to have access tofull information about the legal requirements for use of a pesticide. It also notesthat in many cases the quantity of information on pesticide labeling isconsiderable. Confusion in understanding labeling statements may result innoncompliance as surely as difficulty in obtaining the information may result innoncompliance. The Agency intends to develop and to make available,through its outreach activities and with the assistance of the CooperativeExtension Service, State pesticide-regulating agencies, and the traditionalnetworks of communication with the agricultural community such ascommodity organizations and industry associations, information to assist users inunderstanding and complying with part 170. EPA believes that suchinformation will minimize the need for users to seek out the Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) to understand their duties. The Agency intends to completethe development of basic training materials prior to implementing part 170. TheAgency considered requiring registrants to distribute a copy of part 170 witheach sale of agricultural pesticides, but concluded that such requirementwould result in waste through duplication. However, the Agency encouragesany efforts registrants choose to make to communicate part 170 requirementsto users. The Agency has retained its approach in the final rule of referencingpart 170 on the label, but has changed the language in the referencestatement for the purposes of brevity and clarity. C. Other Statements    Other changes have been made to part 156 in response to comments. Theproposed wording of the labeling statements for restricted-entry intervals,notification, and personal protective equipment have been shortened.     One comment suggested that the signal word be required to appear inSpanish for products in toxicity categories III and IV as well as on products intoxicity categories I and II.    The Agency believes that for the most toxic products, where there is asignificant risk of serious injury by accidental exposure, it is reasonable torequire translation of a limited amount of critical information, such as the signalword, into Spanish because it is the primary language for many agriculturalworkers in the United States. Extending this translation requirement to additionalproducts, information, or languages would add verbiage to already crowdedproduct labels without increasing the likelihood of avoiding additionalpesticide poisonings. EPA permits a product to bear labeling in languagesother than English, but it will not require translation as part of the final rule.    A number of changes to worker protection statements have been made inthe final rule in response to comments. These changes have focused on riskmitigation measures such as the entry restrictions, notification about treatedareas, and use of personal protective equipment by handlers and otherworkers entering treated areas prior to the expiration of a restricted-entryinterval. The restricted-entry statements are to be placed in the ``Directions ForUse'' section of the pesticide labeling under the subheading of ``AgriculturalUse Requirements'' to consolidate most worker protection statements in oneplace.    No comments were received in reference to the proposed notificationstatements. Several changes to the notification section have been made inthe final rule. The wording of the statement was changed to ``notify workers ofthe application by warning them orally and posting warning signs at entrancesto treated areas'' rather than merely ``subject to posting'' to distinguish thestatement from other general requirements of part 170 which involve thedisplay of written materials. The subsection related to location of the statementon the labeling has been modified to require that the notification requirementbe in the Agricultural Use Requirements section of the labeling with the otherrequired worker protection statements.    No comments were received on the proposed personal protectiveequipment statements. In the final rule the Agency has made a number ofadministrative and technical changes to these sections. These are reflected inchanges in the terminology used in the table for the protective equipmentrequirements for handling activities in 40 CFR 156.212(e). For example, the term``coveralls'' has been used instead of ``protective suit'' and ``protectiveeyewear'' has been used instead of ``goggles or face shield.''    Two differences between the proposed and the final rule relate to PPElabeling statements. Wherever possible throughout the PPE section, the Agencyhas taken the approach of specifying the exact wording of PPE labelingstatements and specifying which products are subject to the statement. Thegoals of this approach are to reduce the burden on registrants in interpretingpart 156 in the process of revising product labeling and to reduce the need forregistrants to consult with EPA about PPE labeling language.    Another difference between the proposed and the final rule is the way inwhich information about acceptable types of PPE is conveyed to users.Specific types of glove materials will be recommended on the labeling, andspecific types of respirators will be required on the pesticide labeling. Whereprotection of a certain body area is called for, e.g., eye protection, thelabeling will not list all acceptable kinds of protective eyewear. Instead, thelabeling statement will list ``protective eyewear,'' and users will refer to thestandardized definition of acceptable kinds of PPE for eye protection in 40 CFR170.240 (the section of the pesticide-handling subpart which covers PPE), inthe EPA-prepared guidance brochure on protective eyewear, or in other newEPA training materials dealing with PPE. Through these definitions and throughhandler training programs, users should become accustomed to the criteria foracceptable types of PPE, and EPA believes this will reduce labeling verbiagerelated to PPE.    EPA has made every effort to minimize the additional labeling languagenecessitated by the revisions to part 170 and to eliminate excess verbiage. Atthe same time, EPA recognizes that use restrictions can ordinarily be enforcedonly through labeling statements. EPA's approach, therefore, has been to putusers on notice, via the labeling, of the regulations with which they mustcomply.    One comment suggested requiring the identification of the toxicity categoryon product labels. Signal words are intended to convey the relative acutetoxicity of products in a manner users can understand easily. Since users maynot be aware of the criteria on which toxicity categories are based, theAgency believes that the toxicity category would not be useful on labelingand that the signal word is sufficient.    In the final rule, EPA has specified the location, or alternative locations, forall required statements. The final rule allows that statements be consolidated,to the extent possible, for the convenience of the reader and that statementsbe at the beginning of the directions for use to emphasize their importance.         V. Statutory Review A.   U.S. Department of Agriculture    As required by FIFRA section 25(a), a copy of this final rule was provided tothe Secretary of Agriculture on June 7, 1991. On March 27, 1992, the Secretaryprovided written comments on this final rule. The Secretary offered manycomments that led EPA to revise the final rule, its cost estimates, and itsapproach to implementation of the final rule. Following is a summary of theprincipal comments by the Secretary, together with the Agency's responses.The full texts of the Secretary's comments and EPA's responses are contained inthe docket for this rule.     Comment 1B1: USDA expressed concern about the impact ofrestricted-entry intervals (REIs) that exceed 72 hours.     Response: USDA's concern is due to two aspects of the draft final rule: (a) Arequirement that registrants must retain existing REIs that are longer than thosethat would be established through the Worker Protection Standard, and (b) aredefinition of ``restricted-entry interval'' -- instead of allowing early entry ifminimal protective clothing is worn, the rule now prohibits all early entry toperform hand labor tasks, except for a few narrow exceptions. Therefore, thisrule might subject users to considerable costs that were not contemplatedwhen these longer REIs were set. EPA believes that USDA has a valid concernregarding longer REIs established before the promulgation of this rule.      EPA has ascertained that REIs exceed 72 hours for only a few currentlyregistered active ingredients--usually for only a few uses of each. EPA isreviewing such uses for each of the few active ingredients in light of currentinformation. The review is based on the availability of reentry data, poisoningincidents, or other evidence that could help determine: (a) Whether routineearly entry to perform hand labor tasks must be prohibited for the entire REI tomitigate risk to hand laborers, or (b) whether early entry for hand laborers withpersonal protective equipment (PPE) and other protections could be permittedon pesticide labeling as an appropriate temporary mechanism to respond toUSDA's concerns about disruptions and costs to growers who are usingpesticides with REIs longer than 72 hours, or (c) whether anotherproduct-specific strategy should be adopted.     EPA will notify registrants of this review process and will request thatregistrants notify EPA of longer REIs that may have been overlooked in theAgency's search. With cooperation from affected registrants, EPA expects tocomplete the review process in time for those registrants to alter their labelingwithin the time allotted in this rule.     Comment 1B2: Activities that entail only slight contact with treated surfacesshould be subject to a reduced standard, and provision should be made topermit necessary agricultural worker activities with the use of PPE, particularlywhen REIs exceed 72 hours.      Response: The final rule contains an exception that allows early entry foractivities that involve no contact with anything that has been treated with thepesticide to which the REI applies, including, but not limited to, soil, water, air,or surfaces of plants in the treated area. However, when contact with treatedsurfaces will occur, EPA is unable to predict on a generic basis which activities,crops, and situations will involve only ``slight'' contact. This can be determinedonly through data review, usually as part of the registration or reregistrationprocess. See preamble discussion in Unit III--establishing entry restrictions in thefuture.      During the formal comment period for this rulemaking, EPA received manycomments from the cut flower and cut fern industry about the economichardship that prohibiting routine hand labor during REIs would cause theirindustry. The Agency did not receive comments from other industries orcommodity organizations that indicated that they would sustain such ahardship and the Agency has no information indicating that any crops orindustries other than the cut flower and cut fern industry would be significantlyaffected by the entry restrictions imposed by this final rule.  However, theremay be other industries, crops, or crop practices that would bear anunreasonable economic burden under such restrictions. Therefore, the final ruleallows the Agency to grant exceptions to the entry restrictions on acase-by-case basis.      Comment 1B3: USDA believes it is imperative that EPA clarify whether theprohibition on early entry to perform hand labor tasks applies toState-established REIs.      Response: States determine the restrictions that apply to State-establishedREIs. The final rule's restrictions on entry apply solely to REIs that appear onfederally approved pesticide product labeling. On some occasions, registrantsrequest the addition of a State-established REI to their federally approvedproduct labeling. If EPA approves such an addition, a decision will be madeon a case-by-case basis as to whether to prohibit routine early entry toperform hand labor tasks during the entire State-established REI. EPA maychose to create an exception on individual product labeling to allow, after theexpiration of the EPA-mandated REI, early entry to perform routine hand labortasks with certain limited PPE and work clothing.     Comment 1B4: USDA supports the concept of providing training to workerswho may be exposed to potentially dangerous pesticides.     Response: None required.     Comment 1B5: USDA expressed concern that the manner in which training isrequired is unreasonably burdensome.      Response: USDA's concern is that if EPA requires training before each workeris potentially exposed, then training one or more times daily could be requiredof employers with frequent employee turnover, as is common in some handlabor crews. Such training might have to be conducted on the spot, such as atthe side of the field, and would likely be less beneficial to the worker andonerous to the employer.     EPA will continue to require that early entry workers must be trained beforeentering areas and contacting treated surfaces while an REI is in effect,because their risks are expected to be higher. EPA has made a change,however, in the training requirement for non-early-entry workers. The modifiedrule continues to require training for all agricultural workers. However, ingeneral, the modified rule requires agricultural employers to assure that whenany worker enters any areas on the agricultural establishment where, within thelast 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect, theworker receives pesticide safety training before their 6th day of entry into suchtreated areas on any particular agricultural establishment. However, for the first5 years after the effective date of the rule, workers must be trained beforetheir 16th day of entry into such treated areas on any particular agriculturalestablishment.      Finally, it should be noted that EPA deliberately established a relativelylengthy (about 20 months) lead time before the training provisions of the finalrule would be enforceable. This lead time was established, in part, so that asubstantial number of workers could be trained in the interim. Once a largepercentage of workers have been trained, the concern about repetitivetraining diminishes, because many new hires already will have receivedtraining.     This issue does not pertain to handlers' for whom risks are expected to behigher--the rule requires that handlers receive training before they handlepesticides.     Comment 1B6: USDA expressed concern about the absence of a formalmechanism to avoid repetitive training of each new hire on each agriculturalestablishment. USDA welcomes the opportunity to work with EPA to developsuch a verification program.     Response: Two changes to the final rule were made. The rule now requirestraining for workers or handlers to be renewed at least once every 5 years. Inaddition, the rule now states that if the agricultural employer determines that aworker possesses an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standard trainingcertificate that the employer has no reason to believe is invalid, thatdetermination shall meet the requirements of assuring that the worker hasbeen trained. The revised final rule requires trainers to assure that appropriateWorker Protection Standard training has been given to a worker before thetraining certificate is issued.     Comment 1B7: Additional funding will be required if EPA anticipates thatUSDA will meet some of the training requirements of this rule.     Response: EPA has not assumed that USDA will be the vehicle to meet thetraining requirements. The Agency believes that employers will train mostworkers and handlers. In addition, EPA will promote training by other interestedpersons and organizations by conducting train-the-trainer courses and bydeveloping suitable training materials and making them available for trainers'use. However, EPA seeks to work closely with USDA in the development ofWorker Protection Standard training materials, including materials designed totrain workers and pesticide handlers and materials targeted at aiding growersin learning how to comply with the revised rule. EPA also seeks to cooperatewith USDA in the development and implementation of the training verificationsystem and other projects designed to inform the regulated audience aboutthe revised rule and how to comply with it.      Comment 1B8: Making agricultural producers responsible for employees'own safety actions is unrealistic.     Response: While compliance is primarily a duty of employers under the finalrule, enforcement officials have authority to consider the facts of the casebefore making a determination of whether a violation has occurred. TheAgency agrees, for example, that it would be unfair for employers who expendconsiderable efforts to assure compliance to be treated in the same manneras less conscientious employers who tolerate or encourage noncompliance.However, the Agency believes that it is more appropriate not to intrude byregulation into this area. Enforcement officials have traditionally based theircompliance decisions on the facts of an individual case.     Comment 1B9: USDA questions the requirement that a listing of all pesticidesapplied must be displayed in a central location until 30 days after the REI hasexpired.      Response: The NPRM, which proposed that the information be provided toworkers upon request, generated many comments. The majority of thecommenters, including worker organizations, State agencies, and a land-grantuniversity, recommended that the information be provided to workers throughposting. The National Agricultural Chemicals Association recommended arequirement that the information be provided with each oral warning. Somecommenters cited worker intimidation as the reason for opposing the proposalthat information be supplied upon request. Others cited the potentialdifficulties that employers would have in complying with individual oral requestsfor such information. EPA was persuaded by the comments to require theposting of this information at a central place. On that basis, in turn, EPA waspersuaded to drop the proposed daily oral warnings and require one-time oralwarnings instead. EPA believes that most employers would find daily oralwarnings more onerous than a one-time posting in a central location.     Comment 1B10: The rule needs to clarify when the employer is responsiblefor making available to the worker prompt transportation to an appropriateemergency facility. USDA interprets this to be applicable only while theemployee is on the employer's property.     Response: EPA has clarified in the final rule that the agricultural employermust provide such transportation when a worker is on the employer's property,including in any labor camp located on the property. The Agency has similarlyclarified in the final rule that the handler employer must provide emergencytransportation when a handler is at the place of employment or at thehandling site.     Comment 1B11: The decontamination provisions are unreasonablyburdensome to employers because of the requirement for potable water forhandwashing purposes.      Response: A change to the final rule was made. EPA replaced therequirement for potable water with a requirement for water that is of a qualityand temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin oreyes or if it is swallowed.     Evidence indicates that the drinking water on many agriculturalestablishments has not been test for potability.  EPA continues to require waterof such quality that, if accidently swallowed, would not cause illness or injury,because it is concerned that workers will accidently use decontaminationwater for drinking purposes. In addition, the Agency recognizes that waterused to wash the face may accidently enter the mouth. EPA believes that thisis a simple standard that will be easy for employers to understand and complywith.     Comment 1B12: The cost for eyeflush dispensers should be accounted for.     Response: USDA's comments on the cost analysis of eyeflush dispensers led,in part, to EPA's reexamination of the requirement. The language of the rulehas been altered to change the requirement from ``eyeflush dispenser'' to``eyeflush water,'' and the requirements for decontamination water andeyeflush water have been combined in the rule to avoid confusion. Inaddition, the requirement for weekly replacement of nonsterile eyeflush waterhas been deleted and a performance standard has been added that requiresemployers to ensure that the decontamination and eyeflush water remains ``ofa quality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contactsthe skin or eyes or if it is swallowed.''     Eyeflush dispensers are no longer specifically required at decontaminationsites; instead, eyeflush water is required. For example, eyeflush water may bethe water in a carboy containing the decontamination water or may berunning water from a tap. While special eyeflush dispensers may be used, anysource of water that meets the standards for decontamination in the finalrulemaking is acceptable for flushing the eyes. Eyeflush dispensers would berequired only when handlers or early-entry workers must carry eyeflush water.This would occur only when handlers or early-entry workers are required by thepesticide labeling to wear protective eyewear and when they do not havedecontamination water otherwise immediately accessible to them, such asrunning water nearby or a carboy on a vehicle they are using.     Comment 1B13: USDA questions whether it is reasonable to requiredecontamination facilities and training for a period of 30 days after theexpiration of the REI.     Response: EPA reconsidered the 30-day time period due to comments fromboth USDA and Congress, and remains convinced that pesticide safety trainingand access to decontamination water are necessary for a considerable timeafter the REI expires. (Congress requested a time period longer than 30 days.)The final rule continues to require that worker training and decontaminationwater be provided for 30 days after the expiration of the REI.     The 30-day period was an attempt to limit and better define the sometimesopen-ended time period in the NPRM that was ``any surface that has beentreated with a pesticide during the agricultural crop production cycle in whichthe task occurs.'' (NPRM � 170.38(a)) In addition, it is important to note that thisfinal rule is establishing minimum REIs. These REIs are intended as temporarysafeguards until product-specific reviews are conducted. At that time, theAgency anticipates that longer REIs will be established on some of theproducts, based on restricted-entry-related incidents or on entry data.      On the other hand, even permanent product-specific REIs are based on``average'' conditions. They do not and cannot take into account differencesdue to temperature and humidity; rainfall, dew, and irrigation practices;degree of sunlight; crop type, height, and density; region-specific productionpractices; or worker activity and length of exposure.     Evidence indicates the importance of washing pesticides off as soon aspossible after an exposure to mitigate adverse effects. Retainingdecontamination requirements for a period of 30 days after the expiration ofan REI minimizes the chances that workers will be harmed by residues,decreases their chronic exposures to pesticides, and lessens the risk of delayedeffects that may be unrecognized at present. Studies also indicate the valueof training in any program to reduce risk and increase safety.      EPA has concluded that providing workers with pesticide safety training andsupplying them with water, soap, and towels for routine washing for a period of30 days after the expiration of an REI is a prudent and inexpensive measure toprotect them from a variety of opportunities for exposure to pesticides.      Comment 1B14: EPA should establish regional climate-basedrestricted-entry intervals, and the need for decontamination provisions andsafety training should be based on the pesticide persistence expected in aparticular region.     Response: When EPA establishes product-specific REIs all available data forthe product are considered. All such REIs must be set on a case-by-casebasis, after detailed review of the properties and uses of the pesticide. Such adetailed review is not possible in a regulation of the scope of the WorkerProtection Standard. Part 170 establishes only ``interim'' REIs to strengthendeficient existing protections until a more thorough review can be performed.     As discussed in response to Comment 1B13, restricted-entry intervals will, forthe most part, be based on ``average'' conditions. Even in the ideal situation,where entry is based on on-site field tests, situations will arise where workers willbe exposed to unacceptable levels of residues. These situations include beingcontacted by drift from nearby applications, mistakes in warnings about areasnot yet safe to enter, ``hot spots'' within treated areas from spills, or applicationmistakes, etc. In addition, the establishment of a residue level that is ``safe'' forentry involves, at this time, only an analysis of exposure to a specific producton a specific occasion, and is often based only upon acute toxicity data. TheAgency is also concerned about acute and delayed health effect risks fromthe cumulative effect of multiple exposures to a single product and multipleexposures to multiple products. Since the opportunities for exposure are sovariable, training employees once every 5 years and providingdecontamination facilities for a period of 30 days after the restricted-entryinterval seem to be prudent, low-cost measures that can reduce thepesticide-related illnesses and injuries that may stem from such exposures.      Comment 1B15: USDA takes exception to the term ``decontaminationfacilities'' after the expiration of the REI when the risk of pesticide exposure isnegligible and suggests ``personal hygiene facilities'' or simply ``handwashingfacilities.''    Response:  EPA will continue to call the provision ``decontaminationfacilities,'' because the term best describes the purpose of providing soap,towels, and water to pesticide handlers, early-entry workers, and agriculturalworkers working in areas that have recently been treated with pesticides. TheAgency does not consider the risk of pesticide exposure to be negligible forthese employees.      Comment 1B16: USDA is concerned that regulation beyond the harvestinterval could be misinterpreted in a manner that would generateunwarranted food safety concerns.     Response: Preharvest intervals and entry restrictions are based on differentcriteria. Entry restrictions are based on the expected skin or eye exposure thatworkers might receive during an entire workday from exposure to residues onfoliage, fruit, other plant parts, and in or on the soil, water, or air. Preharvestintervals are based on the expected dietary intake of the edible portion of thecrop based on amounts consumed. The Agency has concluded that fieldworkers often will have a far greater opportunity for exposure than theconsumers of the crop they pick. Finally, the uncertainties associated with anyREI have already been discussed. This uncertainty has led EPA to requireprudent, but economical, worker protections after the REI has expired.      Comment 1B17: In informal discussions between EPA and USDA about thisfinal rule, USDA expressed concern about limiting the access of cropconsultants and IPM scouts to treated areas immediately following pesticideapplications and during REIs.     Response: EPA has changed the final rule to allow persons who areperforming duties as crop advisors to have access to treated areas without atime limitation. A crop advisor is defined as any person who is assessing 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. EPA was unwilling to exempt crop advisors from all of theprotections provided by this rule, but has defined them as pesticide handlers ifthey enter an area during a pesticide application or REI. As pesticide handlers,they must receive such protections as handler training (unless already certifiedapplicators), PPE and the availability of decontamination facilities. However,since crop advisors who are employed by commercial establishments (ratherthan directly for the agricultural establishment) are not workers covered bypart 170 protections, their presence in a treated area after the expiration ofthe REI will not trigger notification requirements, such as oral warnings, treatedarea posting, or posting of application-specific information, and the operatorof the establishment need not supply them with decontamination sites. TheAgency bases this change on its conclusion that crop advisors are likely to beparticularly well-informed about pesticide risks and how to protect themselves.     Comment 1B18: USDA raised concerns about the Regulatory ImpactAnalysis.     Response: In light of USDA's concerns, EPA reexamined the RegulatoryImpact Analysis for this final rule. The Agency used USDA-provided data anddata from other sources to update and refine the analyses for the variousrequirements of the rule. The full text of EPA's responses to USDA's concerns iscontained in the docket and in EPA's revised Regulatory Impact Analysis for thisrule. B. Congressional Committees     As required by FIFRA section 25(a), a copy of this final rule was provided tothe Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate andthe Committee on Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives. Commentswere provided by Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Charlie Rose.Following is a summary of each comment by Senator Leahy andRepresentative Rose, together with the Agency's response.     Comment 1B1: Supports covering greenhouse, nursery, and forestry workers.     Response: None required.     Comment 1B2: Supports prohibiting routine hand labor activities prior to theexpiration of the applicable restricted-entry interval.     Response: None required.     Comment 1B3: Supports covering all farms regardless of size.     Response: None required.     Comment 1B4: Supports training for workers as well as handlers.     Response: None required.     Comment 1B5: All field workers should be given crop sheets.     Response: The Agency agrees that workers should have access toinformation about the hazards of the specific pesticides to which they may beexposed during their work activities. Crop sheets provide workers with hazardinformation for all the pesticides that may be applied to the crops they areworking with. The Agency is establishing a system whereby information on thespecific pesticide(s) actually used on a crop will be posted at a centrallocation to which workers will have access. The Agency is also proposing tomake MSDSs or comparable pesticide-specific fact sheets available toworkers. The information posted at the central location, coupled withMSDS-type information, will allow workers to determine the hazards of thespecific pesticides they may be exposed to during their work activities.     Comment 1B6: The training for workers and handlers should includeinformation on the workers' rights and the growers' responsibilities.     Response: The Agency agrees that workers and handlers should be awareof the protections they are entitled to under the Worker Protection Standard.The Agency has incorporated such a provision into the training requirementsfor workers and handlers.     Comment 1B7: All worker and handler training should be ongoing andupdated as needed.     Response: The Agency supports the concept of ongoing training and theupdating of information as needed. A change to the final rule was made. Thefinal rule now requires training for workers or handlers to be renewed at leastonce every 5 years, measured from the end of the month in which the trainingis completed. The Agency believes that such renewal of WPS training will beadequate to convey the basic pesticide safety precepts to handlers and toprovide timely updates and reinforcement, without undue burden.     This final rule requires the continual presence of a pesticide safety poster toserve as ongoing reinforcement of training for workers and handlers onagricultural establishments. The final rule also requires employers to update asnecessary the information about the location of the nearest emergencymedical facility. In addition, updated information about specific pesticides towhich the workers may be exposed will be provided to workers as specifiedunder the notification provisions.     Comment 1B8: Supports establishing a minimum restricted-entry interval(REI) for all pesticides and setting REIs for toxicity category I and II pesticideswithout distinguishing those of a specific chemical class.     Response: None required.     Comment 1B9: In all dry areas, all toxicity category I pesticides should havea 72-hour restricted-entry interval.     Response: During the ongoing reregistration of pesticides, the Agency isrequiring registrants to supply data about foliar and soil dissipation rates onproducts for which this information is relevant. When the Agency has thenecessary data, it will establish product-specific REIs based on the product,and, as applicable, on the crops or sites where it is used, cultural practices,varying climatic conditions, and application techniques. At present, theAgency has data to indicate that some organophosphates transform intomore toxic products in arid conditions. There are no data to indicate that otherchemical classes of pesticides undergo similar transformations. Without data tosupport a longer REI for chemical families other than organophosphates, theAgency has extended the REI to 72 hours for organophosphate pesticides only.The transformation of organophosphates into more toxic products is related tothe lack of moisture in the soil and conditions of very low humidity. Theseconditions are generally found only in areas where rainfall is consistently below25 inches a year. The Agency believes that defining arid-like conditions, suchas a combination of percent humidity, days without measurable dew orrainfall, and percent soil moisture, is unsuitable for establishing these ``interim''REIs.    Comment 1B10: Generic REIs should be established on the basis of thehighest acute toxicity rating, whether dermal or oral. (Methomyl poisoningincidents in California cited as basis.)      Response: Studies of fieldworker exposures indicate that the predominantexposures in outdoor situations are to the skin and eyes. Except in those fewsituations where fieldworkers have eaten fruits or vegetables before thepreharvest interval has expired, the Agency is unaware of validatedfieldworker poisoning incidents where the primary route of exposure was oral.The worker training materials being developed by the Agency include specificwarnings not to eat fruits and vegetables unless a supervisor indicates that it issafe to do so. In this final rule, the Agency intends to establish REIs based onthree parameters: dermal toxicity, skin irritation potential, and eye irritationpotential. If dermal toxicity data are unavailable, the oral toxicity data will beused. For example, under this strategy, methomyl would be assigned a 48-hourREI because it is a toxicity category I eye irritant.     With respect to the methomyl incidents cited by Congress, preliminaryreports indicate that, under special environmental conditions, methomyldissipation is not following the predicted pattern and rate. EPA will adjust REIsfor methomyl to reflect these special environmental conditions, if there areindications that the incidents were not unique. The Agency is unaware of dataor conclusions by experts that the oral LD50 is a more accurate assessment ofthe actual hazard to workers than dermal LD50, either in these methomylincidents or in other fieldworker poisoning incidents.      Comment 1B11: Continue protections for workers for a minimum of 60 daysafter the expiration of the restricted-entry interval.     Response: EPA reconsidered the 30-day time period due to comments fromboth USDA and Congress. The Agency has studied more recent dataregarding the incidence of multiple-case systemic illnesses of agricultural fieldworkers from exposure to residues of organophosphates in California. Amongthe 44 incidents for which data were provided, the mean length of time fromapplication to poisoning was 20 days, with a median of 16 days. The rangewas from less than 1 day to 66 days, although this latter figure was an outlierand did not appear to be well substantiated. Excluding parathion (no longerregistered for most crops) and this outlier, the longest period betweenapplication and reentry poisoning was 39 days. The Agency believes thatpoisoning incidents that occur more than 30 days beyond the REI probablystem from a miscalculation in establishing the REI that is listed on the labeling.Therefore, EPA decided to continue to require that decontamination water beprovided for 30 days after the expiration of the REI. See EPA's response toUSDA's Comment 1B13 for a more complete discussion.     Comment 1B12: Moving or repair of irrigation equipment should bedesignated as a hand labor task, since workers performing such tasks are likelyto come in contact with treated surfaces.     Response: EPA concurs that moving and repairing irrigation equipment maycause workers to contact treated surfaces. However, the Agency believes thatthis contact will be short-term and mostly nonsubstantial. The Agency realizesthat moving, adjusting, or repairing irrigation equipment may be necessarywhile an area remains under a REI. The Agency has, however, placed strictlimitations on early entry to perform such tasks. These include: (1) No entry forthe first 4 hours after an application, (2) a limit of 1 hour per worker per day forperforming such early entry tasks, (3) PPE provided, cleaned, and maintainedfor the workers, (4) special instructions provided, including information aboutthe hazards of the pesticide(s) to which the workers will be exposed, and (5)special decontamination and change area provisions.     Comment 1B13: A responsible agency should determine whether or not anemergency actually exists before early entry due to an agricultural emergencyis permitted.     Response: The Agency intends that early entry due to an agriculturalemergency be an extremely rare circumstance. Therefore, this final rulerequires two separate determinations that an emergency exists: (1) Aresponsible agency must declare that circumstances exist that might cause anagricultural emergency on an establishment. For example, a State, Tribal, orFederal agency having jurisdiction over the establishment would have todeclare that a potentially crop-damaging drought, hail storm, high winds,hurricane, tornado, freeze, or frost has occurred (or is predicted to occur) inthe area where the agricultural establishment is located.  (2) In addition, theagricultural employers must declare: (a) That they could not have anticipatedthe circumstances that led to the emergency when they applied thepesticide, (b) that they had no control over the circumstances that led to theemergency, (c) that no practices other than early entry will prevent or mitigatea substantial economic loss involving the crop in that treated area, and (d)that the loss of profit without early entry will be greater than that which wouldbe expected on the basis of experience and the fluctuations of crop yields inprevious years. EPA believes that these rigorous determinations will precludewidespread or improper use of the emergency provisions.     Comment 1B14: Strongly object to the exemption for cut flower and cut fernworkers for early entry. Congress notes that California prohibits early entry forhand labor without apparent deleterious effect on the cut flower industry.     Response: A change to the final rule has been made. The Agency hasadopted an exception process that would allow interested persons todemonstrate to the Agency that, in a particular industry, an exception shouldbe granted to the general prohibition on routine early entry. Persons wishing toobtain an exception to the early-entry restrictions would submit a request forsuch an exception to the Agency. Comments that EPA has already receivedfrom the cut flower and cut fern industry have convinced EPA that this industry,at least, probably warrants such an exception. The decision that such anexception is probably warranted is based on a balancing of the risks andbenefits that would result from such an exception (see proposed exception torule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). However, theAgency is interested in a full range of comments and information on thisproposed exception and has provided 30 days for interested parties tocomment. The Agency particularly welcomes comments supported byinformation, such as evidence demonstrating whether the risks to workerswould be acceptable, whether the use of personal protective equipment inthese circumstances would be feasible, and whether there are feasiblealternative practices that would make routine early entry unnecessary. TheAgency also would welcome any additional information concerning the likelyeconomic impact on this industry of a prohibition of routine hand labor tasksduring the restricted-entry intervals.      While EPA has concluded that it would be difficult to ensure worker safetyduring widespread and routine early entry, narrow exceptions, such as this one,can receive adequate management attention to help ensure compliancewhen such early entry is critical to a crop.     The Agency notes that although California law prohibits all early entry workinvolving hand labor, California does not currently impose REIs beyond ``sprayshave dried/dusts have settled'' for many of the pesticides used by the cutflower and cut fern industry. In addition, California has established only a24-hour REI for toxicity category I pesticides, with longer REIs for specificorganophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides. This final rule isestablishing a minimum 12-hour REI for all pesticides plus a 24-hour REI for alltoxicity category II (dermal and ocular routes) pesticides and a 48-hour REI forall toxicity category I (dermal and ocular routes) pesticides. Thus, whileCalifornia prohibits early entry, its entry standards for this industry are generallyless stringent than those of EPA's final rule. The economic impact of complyingwith EPA's REIs is likely to be higher than compliance with California's entrylimitations, unless an exception is provided.     Comment 1B15: Urge a requirement for cholinesterase monitoring of allcommercial and private pesticide handlers who may handleorganophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides.     Response: The Agency believes that monitoring of employee exposure is aprudent occupational health practice. However, as explained in the preamble(Unit III.I), EPA is concerned about many of the problems of cholinesterasemonitoring.     EPA intends to reconsider the need for and the appropriate form ofexposure monitoring for pesticide handlers after this final rule is implemented.This will give the Agency the opportunity to evaluate more thoroughly theongoing research in this area and the results of new or existing exposuremonitoring programs. The Agency expects to issue a proposed rule in this areain about 3 years.     Comment 1B16: Cholinesterase testing of field workers should be required inpoisoning incidents involving organophosphate or N-methyl carbamatepesticides.     Response: EPA presumes that treating medical personnel would prescribesuch testing when appropriate and that prudent employers would encouragesuch diagnostic tests. However, the focus of this rule is prevention of poisoningincidents for persons occupationally exposed to agricultural pesticides. It doesnot address diagnosis or treatment of pesticide illnesses or injuries. Diagnostictesting was not proposed in the NPRM and the Agency deems such arequirement beyond the scope of this rule.     Comment 1B17: Supports evacuation of greenhouse workers duringfumigation application and restricted-entry periods.     Response: None required.     Comment 1B18: Supports mandatory posting of treated areas ingreenhouses.     Response: None required.     Comment 1B19: Unrealistic to expect that unprotected workers couldreenter treated areas in greenhouses and nurseries without exposure topesticide-treated surfaces.     Response: The Agency is convinced that there are situations in whichworkers may reenter many areas in nurseries and greenhouses withoutcontacting treated surfaces, and has chosen to permit such entry. An exampleof such entry is when workers are wearing footwear and are walking throughthe aisles of treated areas where the plants or other treated surfaces cannotbrush against the worker and cannot drop or drip pesticides onto the worker.Under the final rule, worker entry into treated areas is prohibited when contactwould take place.     Comment 1B20: Concerned about the adequacy of the ventilation andbuffer zone criteria established for greenhouses and nurseries and urge furtherstudy of the effectiveness of the standards in practice.     Response: The Agency is interested in cooperating in research orevaluations that might be done on this aspect of the regulation and has heldsome preliminary discussions as to the best design of such a research project.     Comment 1B21: Not requiring notification for workers who are not expectedto come within 1/4 mile of a treated area is inappropriate.     Response: EPA acknowledges that workers frequently are required to movethroughout the field or nursery to accomplish their assigned tasks. This final rulerequires employers to notify workers of any pesticide application on theestablishment unless the employer makes sure that the worker will not be in thetreated area and will not walk within 1/4 mile of the treated area. As apractical matter, if workers move throughout an establishment, their employermust notify them of all treated areas on the establishment remaining under anREI. The exception to the notification requirement is intended to be in effectonly when pesticides are applied at times when workers are not present on theproperty or when pesticides are applied to distant areas of the establishmentwhere no work activities are occurring. Some farms, nurseries, and forests arevast or noncontiguous; requiring workers to be notified of areas greatly distantfrom their place of work would be pointless and counterproductive.     Comment 1B22: Concern about EPA's rejection of the skull and crossbonessymbol for the restricted-entry sign.     Response: The Agency acknowledges that the skull and crossbones is a farmore recognized symbol for ``highly toxic'' or ``very poisonous'' than any otherpictorial representation. For precisely that reason, FIFRA requires the skull andcrossbones symbol on the labels of pesticides that are highly toxic orally,dermally, or through inhalation. EPA prohibits the use of the skull andcrossbones symbol on any other pesticide label. The Agency has consistentlytaught pesticide users that the skull and crossbones is the symbol for the mosthighly toxic pesticides, i.e. those where only a few drops by mouth could befatal.      For this reason, the Agency is convinced that the skull and crossbones is notappropriate for notifying workers of areas remaining under an REI. While someof these areas may have been treated with highly toxic pesticides, other areasmay have been treated with moderately or slightly toxic pesticides. Ratherthan diluting the impact of the skull and crossbones symbol, EPA has chosen tocreate a new symbol for restricted entry.     The Agency is taking several steps to assure recognition and acceptance ofthe new symbol: (1) The symbol is mandatory nationwide. States and industriescurrently using other signs and symbols must use the EPA-mandated sign. (2)Mandatory worker training programs must explain the symbol to workers. (3)The EPA-mandated pesticide safety poster will serve as a reminder to workersby depicting the restricted-entry sign and its meaning.      Comment 1B23: The implementation time frames are too long. Allregulations should be mandatory within 8 months.     Response: Implementation and enforcement of the revised Rule dependson the misuse provision of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) that states it is unlawful ``touse any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.'' Thus,the provisions of the Worker Protection Standard must be in the labeling ormust be linked to pesticide product labeling as directions for use before theycan be implemented or enforced. Although the Agency strongly believes thatthe protective measures of this final rule should become effective as soon aspracticable, it has concluded that a phased and orderly schedule ofrelabeling, information dissemination and training, and enforcement is neededto facilitate both registrant compliance with the new labeling requirementsand user understanding and compliance with the worker protection standard.     Therefore, the Agency will require that no revised labels appear in themarketplace for approximately the first 8 months after promulgation so theAgency will have an opportunity to explain the requirements to users.Thereafter, product-specific requirements will be enforceable when theyappear on labeling. Twenty months is the latest time that labeling may berevised by the registrants. EPA expects many labeling revisions will occur earlierthan the 20-month deadline.     Comment 1B24: The regulatory protections ignore chronic health risks.     Response: The Agency is concerned about minimizing both acute andchronic health risks. Several provisions of this final rule are designed, at least inpart, to reduce chronic health risks. These include: (1) Incorporating informationabout chronic risks and how to avoid them into the mandatory worker andhandler training programs, (2) providing decontamination sites for 30 daysbeyond the expiration of the REI, (3) establishing a minimum REI of 12 hours forall pesticides, and (4) establishing for all handlers and early-entry workersminimum PPE and work clothing requirements designed to minimize dermalexposure to all pesticides, regardless of their acute toxicity. EPA believes thatthese protections against acute risks, if adhered to consistently over time, willprotect against chronic risks as well, by reducing exposures that may give riseto chronic effects. On the other hand, the Agency has concluded that morestringent pesticide-specific protections (such as REIs or PPE) based on chronichealth risks should more appropriately be set after case-by-case review.     Comment 1B25: No buffer zones are required to protect workers in the fieldfrom drift.     Response: The Agency recognizes that drift from nearby applications is acommon cause of exposure for agricultural workers. This final rule specificallyrequires that both the pesticide handler and the handler's employer mustmake sure that the pesticide is not applied so as to contact, either directly orthrough drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trainedand equipped handler. EPA considers this protection so crucial that it is theone situation where a generic requirement from the Standard is listed on eachpesticide product label.     Comment 1B26: Toxicological concerns about inert ingredients are ignored.     Response: The Agency is concerned about minimizing risks to workers andhandlers of any chemicals of toxicological concern, whether they are active orinert ingredients. In establishing PPE requirements for handlers and early-entryworkers in the final rule, the Agency considers the toxicity of the formulatedpesticide product. The toxicity of the formulated product encompasses thetoxicological characteristics of both the active ingredient(s) and the inertingredient(s).      In establishing REIs, however, the Agency has determined that the propertiesof the active ingredient(s) are the main toxicological concern. Many of theinert ingredients that might otherwise pose a toxicological hazard are volatileand will not remain on the treated surface beyond the first few hours. Similarly,EPA has chosen to consider only the toxicity of the active ingredient(s) inestablishing REIs and in determining which products must contain arequirement for both oral warnings and treated area posting.     In a process separate from this rule, EPA is evaluating and, whereappropriate, reducing the risks posed by inert ingredients. In addition, theAgency will evaluate the risks of all formulations, including their inertingredients, during its accelerated reregistration program, now underway. TheAgency has concluded that further attention to inert ingredients in the finalrule is unnecessary. C. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel    Pursuant to FIFRA section 25(d), a copy of this final rule was provided to theFIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP waived review of the final rule.VI. Implementation A.  Agency Implementation Strategy    1. Phased implementation. The Agency is establishing differentimplementation dates for the requirements in part 170 and the changesrequired in pesticide labeling found in part 156.    The first amended labeling under part 156 would be available to users nosooner than April 21, 1993.  As pesticide products with amended labeling areused, EPA will begin to enforce the provisions of part 170 that are related tothe new specific requirements on pesticide product labeling forrestricted-entry intervals, personal protective equipment, and notificationabout treated areas.    After April 21, 1994, all products covered by this rule must have amendedlabeling when they are distributed or sold by registrants.     After April 15, 1994, EPA will begin to enforce the remaining provisions ofpart 170.    Implementation and enforcement of the revised Worker Protection Standarddepend upon the misuse provision of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) that states it isunlawful ``to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with itslabeling.'' Thus, the provisions of this revised standard must be in the labeling ormust be linked to pesticide product labeling by reference before they can beimplemented or enforced.    Currently, changes in directions for use ordinarily are incorporated in theirentirety into the labeling of each affected pesticide product. Implementationand enforcement of new directions for use occur when a pesticide productwith the changed labeling is used. The Agency has determined thatimplementation of the Worker Protection Standard through this mechanismwould be difficult. Only worker protection requirements that vary from productto product will be placed on the pesticide product labeling as specificdirections for use. Part 170 requirements that do not vary among affectedproducts will not be repeated in each product's labeling; the Agency willreference these standards on pesticide product labeling.    Placing requirements related to the directions for use in documents that arereferenced on the pesticide product labeling, but which do not accompanythe product in commerce, is unusual. Although the Agency believes theprotective measures of the revised part 170 should become effective as soonas possible, it has concluded that a phased and orderly schedule ofrelabeling, information dissemination, and enforcement is needed to facilitateboth registrant compliance with the new labeling requirements and userunderstanding and compliance with the Worker Protection Standard.    The requirements of the revised Worker Protection Standard related to aproduct's potential hazard to users and other persons will be on the label or inthe product labeling. A registrant of an affected pesticide product will berequired to specify: (1) A prohibition from applying the pesticide in a mannerthat contacts anyone except appropriately trained and equipped handlers,(2) PPE for handling and early-entry activities, (3) a restricted-entry interval,and (4) when appropriate, that workers be notified orally and by posting ofsigns at the treated areas.    Although the concepts of not applying pesticides when workers or otherpeople may be contacted, of using PPE to handle pesticides, of restrictingentry to treated areas, and of notification about pesticide-treated areas arefamiliar to agricultural pesticide users, this rulemaking modifies theserequirements in significant ways. Since these product-specific provisions areessential to the safe use of a pesticide, the Agency is unwilling to delay theirimplementation. Consequently, all product-specific requirements will beeffective as soon as they appear on pesticide product labeling. However, theAgency will require that no such labeling changes appear in the marketplaceuntil there has been an opportunity to explain them to users.    Other new requirements apply to all pesticide products used in theproduction of agricultural plants. These include the requirements for traininghandlers and agricultural workers, for providing pesticide-specific informationto employees, and for providing decontamination water and emergencyassistance for handlers and workers. It is not practical to describe theserequirements fully in the product labeling. Therefore, it will take time tocommunicate these requirements to the agricultural community and for thatcommunity to implement them. As a result, enforcement of the generalrequirements will be delayed as described below. (Unit VI.A.2.)    2. Implementation of part 170. EPA will implement part 170 in two phases:    a. Accelerated implementation of provisions supporting product-specificlabeling.  Specific requirements related to restricted-entry intervals andnotification about treated areas are being added or changed through thisrevision of part 170.    To implement the requirements that will be found on some product labelingfor restricted-entry intervals, and the instructions to both orally warn and posttreated areas, sections of part 170 that concern these requirements and theexceptions to these requirements must be implemented quickly to preventunintended burden on the user during the phase-in period of compliance withthis regulation. The sections of part 170 that will have acceleratedimplementation, i.e. that will be enforced as the associated statements appearin pesticide labeling are:     i. Sections of part 170 related to entry restriction. Section 170.112(a)(1)through (a)(4) states the general restrictions on worker entry to treated areasprior to the expiration of an REI. Section 170.112(b) describes an exception tothe general restrictions and permits entry if the worker will have no contactwith anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which the REIapplies. Sections 170.112(c)(1) through (3) describe the exemption for earlyentry to perform short-term tasks and describe the requirements for thatexemption which will be implemented on an accelerated schedule. Sections170.112(d)(1) through (2)(ii) plus 170.112(c)(3) that is referenced in (d)(2)(iii)describe the exemption for early entry due to an agricultural emergency anddescribe the requirements for that exemption which will be implemented onan accelerated schedule.     ii. Sections of part 170 related to requirements about oral warnings andposting of treated areas.  Implementation of the requirements to both orallywarn and post treated areas in the labeling requires implementation of �170.120(a)(3) and (b)(3), which tell the employer the exceptions to the oralwarning and treated-area posting requirements.    b. Implementation of part 170 provisions that are generic to all pesticideuses. The enforcement of the remaining or ``generic'' provisions (i.e. those thatapply to all pesticides uses) in the final rule will begin April 15, 1994.    The phased implementation dates for part 170 are intended to allow timefor EPA and cooperating organizations to develop, reproduce, and distributethe training and instructional materials necessary to encourage compliance. Ifpart 170 implementation were to be triggered solely by the appearance ofrevised labeling, some users would have to comply with part 170 beforeinstructional materials were available to assist them in doing so.    3. Implementation of part 156. The Agency is establishing two separatesale/distribution dates for registrants. The first date regulates the earliest datethat a registrant is allowed to sell or distribute a pesticide product with labelingamended to include part 156 statements. This date is the effective date of part170 (which is 60 days after publication of the final rule) plus 6 months. Duringthis time the Agency will execute an implementation outreach program. Thesecond date, 18 months after the effective date of part 170, is the time bywhich all affected pesticide products sold or distributed by registrants wouldbe required to contain the appropriate part 156 statements in their labeling.    In the past, EPA has not placed constraints on registrants as to how soonpesticide products bearing Agency-required changes to labeling could besold or distributed; the emphasis has been on the maximum time registrantswould be allowed for changing labeling. However, in the implementation ofthe Worker Protection Standard, registrants will not be allowed to sell ordistribute pesticide products with labeling amended to include part 156label-specific requirements or the generic part 170 reference statement priorto an established date. This constraint is to prevent pesticide labeling with thenew worker protection statements pursuant to this final rule from becomingavailable to users before EPA and cooperating organizations can disseminatethe information necessary to tell users how to comply with the requirements.Otherwise, users could face the dilemma of being required to comply withprovisions without the necessary information on how to do so.    A summary of the implementation schedule is given in the following Table 1:                        Table 1.--Implementation Time Table컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�           Time               Part 156 Activities        Part 170 Activities컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�Publication in the         Inform registrants of      Initiate outreach to Federal Register of part   required label changes     regulated community to 170 and part 156 (notice   (LIP or PR notice).        inform affected parties to registrants of                                     about the rule, mandatory labeling                                    particularly the changes).                                             accelerated provisions,                                                       i.e. the requirements                                                       in the labeling for                                                       restricted-entry                                                       intervals, treated area                                                       posting and oral                                                       notification to                                                       workers, and use of                                                       personal protective                                                       equipment.60 days after              Effective date.            Effective date, publication.                                          including the process                                                       for requesting                                                       exceptions to                                                       restricted-entry                                                       intervals.6 months after effective   Earliest date that         Start compliance efforts date of part 156 and       products with amended      on newproduct-specific part 170.                  labeling may be sold or    requirements on                            distributed by             labeling (accelerated                            registrants.               provisions of part                                                       170).April 15, 1994.                                       Start enforcement of                                                       part 170 ``generic''                                                       provisions whenever a                                                       pesticide product with                                                       amended labeling is                                                       used.18 months after part 156   All pesticide products and part 170 effective     sold or distributed by date (12 months after      registrants must bear earliest sale or           labeling referencing distribution date for      part 170 and other part registrants).              156 labeling statements.36 months after part 156   Pesticide products sold/ and part 170 effective     distributed by any date.                      person must bear amended                            labeling.컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�B.  Registrant Compliance    A large number of products will be affected by the new requirements, andan orderly relabeling process is necessary to avoid confusion, to ensure clearand appropriate labeling to guide users, and to facilitate registrantcompliance. Thus, the Agency has included in this preamble instructions toregistrants and compliance deadlines for changes to pesticide labelingrequired by the new subpart K, part 156 (``Worker Protection Statements''). TheAgency has tried to make the new labeling requirements as self-explanatoryas possible to reduce the need for registrant inquiries.    1. Applicability of part 156, subpart K statements. This section providesguidance to registrants in determining which of their products may beaffected by the new part 156 subpart K, whether existing worker protectionstatements should be retained, and how new part 156 subpart K labelingstatements should be determined.    a. Scope. Products affected by part 156 subpart K are, with someexceptions, those products registered for use in the production of agriculturalplants (40 CFR 156.200(b)). The scope of agricultural pesticides for purposes ofsubpart K is broad and refers to any product registered for use in theproduction of agricultural plants on farms, or in forests, nurseries, orgreenhouses; these terms are defined in 40 CFR 170.3. Part 156, subpart Kapplies to products that may be applied directly to agricultural plants or togrowing areas. Any such product must bear the subpart K statements, exceptas noted below.    Several types of products that may be registered for application on farms,or in forests, nurseries, or greenhouses need not bear the subpart K statements.These are defined by the exceptions to the handler applicability section ofpart 170 (40 CFR 170.202(b)). If a product has both exempted uses andcovered uses, the subpart K statements must appear on labeling.    Under subpart K, a reference statement on the label will direct users to part170, which contains more specific requirements than those listed in thelabeling.    b. Existing statements. Various types of worker protection statementscurrently appear in the labeling of many agricultural products. Most of thesestatements will be modified or will be replaced by the new subpart Krequirements. Several comments on the proposed rule requested clarificationof the relationship between subpart K and PR Notice 83-2, which called forcertain worker protection statements, based on part 170, to be placed onagricultural product labels. EPA is revoking PR Notice 83-2 effective as of April21, 1993, and registrants of products subject to PR Notice 83-2 must modifytheir labeling according to subpart K requirements. Some products within thescope of subpart K were not subject to PR Notice 83-2, including productsregistered for uses in forests and in greenhouses, for use on nurseryornamentals, and for use on crops whose culture does not involve commonlyrecognized hand labor tasks.    In addition to PR Notice 83-2 statements, some products currently bearstatements pertaining to REIs and PPE that were required through registration ora Registration Standard or Special Review decision on an active ingredientcontained in the product. The status of existing REI and PPE statements will begoverned by the relevant subpart K sections on these topics (40 CFR 156.208and 156.212). The Agency will issue a PR Notice to registrants with detailedguidelines on how to evaluate existing labeling statements and on what newlabeling statements to adopt.     c. New statements. Four types of worker protection statements may apply toproducts covered by the new subpart K: General statements, REI statements,worker notification statements, and PPE statements.    i. General. All products must carry a standard reference statement alertingthe user that the product must be used according to part 170 (40 CFR156.206(b)). A standard statement prohibiting users from allowing a pesticide tocontact nonhandlers directly or through drift also must appear on all products(40 CFR 156.206(a)). A different version of this statement was required by PRNotice 83-2; that version must be replaced by the revised version. Productsrequired to use either DANGER or WARNING as signal words (toxicity category Ior II products) also must use the Spanish signal word PELIGRO or AVISO on thelabel, and a phrase in Spanish instructing the reader to have the labelexplained before using the product (40 CFR 156.206(e)).    If the product contains an active ingredient that is an organophosphate oran N-methyl carbamate, this information must be in the labeling either as partof the product name or in the Statement of Practical Treatment (First Aid)section of the labeling (40 CFR 156.206(c)(1)). This information is required in thelabeling to aid employers who want to provide cholinesterase monitoringprograms for their employees.    If the product is a fumigant, its status as a fumigant must be conveyed aspart of the product-name or product-type information, placed close to theproduct name (40 CFR 156.206(c)(2)).    ii. Restricted entry. Products covered by subpart K must have a standard REIstatement. Fumigants will retain their current entry restrictions, but thestatements must be converted to the format of the subpart K restricted-entrystatements (40 CFR 156.208(d)). The standard restricted-entry statement (40CFR 156.208(a)) includes the restricted-entry interval (determined by 40 CFR156.208(c),(d),(e), or (f)).    Some existing labeling bears entry-restriction statements. In determining theappropriate subpart K restricted-entry interval (REI), three situations arepossible:    First, a product that has a product-specific REI based on foliar or soildissipation data for the product (or for each active ingredient in the product)that have been submitted to and accepted by EPA, must retain this REI (40CFR 156.208(e)).    The second situation involves products that have an REI that is notproduct-specific. Here the existing REI must be compared to the REI thatwould apply using the criteria in 40 CFR 156.208(c); the longer of the two REIswould be the restricted-entry interval.     Third, a product that has no REI (this would include products prohibitingentry ``until sprays have dried or dusts have settled'' and other products) mustuse the criteria of 40 CFR 156.208(c) to determine the appropriate REI unless alldata required to set a product-specific interval are submitted to andaccepted by EPA and a specific REI is approved.     Under the criteria of 40 CFR 156.208(c), REIs are determined by comparingavailable acute toxicity data for the active ingredients in a product.Registrants must use any obtainable results of toxicity testing (i.e., toxicitycategory) for the three relevant routes of exposure (dermal toxicity, skinirritation effects, and eye irritation effects) for each active ingredient in theproduct. If necessary, formulators should seek verification of toxicity categoryinformation from their suppliers. In some circumstances, acute oral toxicity orthe toxicity of a registered technical product may be used. Among the acutetoxicity data used in the comparison, the most toxic toxicity categorydetermines the REI: 48 hours for toxicity category I, 24 hours for toxicitycategory II, or 12 hours for toxicity category III and toxicity category IV (40 CFR156.208(c)). When no acute toxicity data are available for one or more of theactive ingredients, registrants must use the toxicity category of the formulatedproduct indicated by the signal word in the comparison.    When the REI has been determined, the appropriate number of hours isinserted into the restricted-entry statement of 40 CFR 156.208(b), unless the REIvaries crop by crop.    If a product contains a toxicity category I active ingredient that is acholinesterase-inhibiting organophosphate ester, a statement must be addedrequiring a 72-hour REI when the product is applied outdoors in an area wherethe average annual rainfall is less than 25 inches a year (40 CFR156.208(c)(2)(i)).    EPA reserves the right to modify any subpart K restricted-entry interval for aproduct in the future. For example, this may occur either at the beginning orend of a Special Review for an active ingredient in the product (40 CFR156.204(a)) or on evaluation of foliar or soil dissipation data, or other relevantdata, showing that a different REI is warranted (40 CFR 156.204(b)). Registrants,or others, may undertake to develop, at their discretion, foliar dissipation orother exposure data that would lead to the establishment of aproduct-specific REI; until that time, an interim REI will apply to the product.    iii. Notification to workers. Each product in toxicity category I for acutedermal toxicity or skin irritation potential, other products designated by EPA,and each fumigant that may be used in greenhouses must carry a standardstatement indicating that workers must be given notification of the applicationboth orally and by posting of treated areas (40 CFR 156.210). A definition of afumigant appears in 40 CFR 156.203.    iv. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and work clothing. All products mustbear statements specifying minimum PPE or work clothing as determined bysubpart K. Appropriate PPE or work clothing is required by subpart K for allhandling activities (40 CFR 156.212) and activities in treated areas before theexpiration of an REI.    If a product has PPE or work clothing statements on the labeling, theregistrant must compare these existing statements with the requirements ofsubpart K, and use the more protective or more specific item of PPE or workclothing for each area of the body to be protected. If product labelingprohibits the wearing of gloves or boots, such a prohibition must be retainedon labeling as it is worded. The format of all PPE and work clothing statementsshould be that described in subpart K, even if a more protective or morespecific item is being retained. The following are examples of comparisons ofdegree of protection or specificity between PPE items in subpart K and PPEitems now on product labeling:    (1) A coverall is more protective than a long-sleeved shirt and long pants.    (2) A chemical-resistant (or liquidproof, waterproof, rubber, etc.) suit, raingear or rain suit is more protective than a coverall or long-sleeved shirt andlong pants.    (3) Chemical-resistant gloves are more protective than cotton, cloth, paper,or leather gloves.    (4) Chemical-resistant footwear is more protective than shoes and socks.    (5) Air-supplied or self-contained respirators are more protective than otherclasses or types of respirators.    (6) A cartridge or canister respirator is more protective than a dust/mistmask or dust/mist respirator.    As indicated below, certain words and phrases on existing labeling must bereplaced by terms described in subpart K.    Unless the registrant has data that indicate a particular type of material(s) ismore chemically resistant to a particular pesticide product or a particular typeof pesticide products, the labeling statements for the use of gloves in subpart Kmust be followed. ``Chemical resistant'' must be used instead of such terms as``liquidproof,'' ``rubber,'' ``natural rubber,'' ``vinyl,'' ``synthetic rubber,''``impervious,'' ``neoprene,'' ``plastic,'' ``impermeable,'' or ``nonporous.''  Theterm ``waterproof'' must be used in place of ``water-resistant'' or other terms ifthe pesticide is used dry or as an aqueous solution.    Unless the registrant has data indicating that the NIOSH/MSHA approvalnumber prefix listed in subpart K is inappropriate for a particular pesticideproduct or a particular type of pesticide product, NIOSH/MSHA approvalnumber prefixes indicated in subpart K shall be substituted for the generalphrase ``NIOSH/MSHA approved'' in respirator statements on existing labeling.For a dust/mist mask, the NIOSH/MSHA approval number prefix is ``TC-21C.'' Fora cartridge respirator, the NIOSH/MSHA approval number prefix is ``TC-23C.''For a canister respirator, the NIOSH/MSHA approval number is prefix ``TC-14G.''For a supplied-air respirator, the NIOSH/MSHA approval number prefix is``TC-19C.'' For a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), the NIOSH/MSHAapproval number prefix is TC-13F.''    To determine the appropriate PPE requirements for handling activities, thetable in 40 CFR 156.212(e) is used in conjunction with the acute toxicity dataon the formulated product for each route of exposure listed in the table.Registrants must determine the toxicity category of the formulated product foracute dermal toxicity, skin irritation potential, eye irritation potential, and acuteinhalation toxicity. If the acute toxicity data for dermal or inhalation exposureare not available, the acute oral toxicity may be used as a surrogate. (If acutetoxicity data for any of these routes of exposure are not available, the toxicitycategory of the formulated product as a whole must be used as a substitutefor each such route of exposure.) Given the toxicity category for each route ofexposure, the table gives the appropriate item or items of PPE or work clothingnecessary to protect that part of the body. All such items taken togethercomprise the basic ``outfit'' to be worn by the handler. This ``outfit,'' in the formof a list of PPE and work clothing items, is inserted into a standardized handlerPPE statement (40 CFR 156.212(d)(3)).    In addition to the basic handler outfit statement, statements related toexposure pattern are required for products in toxicity categories I and II (40CFR 156.212(i)). For products that must be mixed or loaded, there must be astatement requiring the use of a chemical-resistant apron unless there is arequirement for a chemical-resistant suit (40 CFR 156.212(i)(1)). If overheadexposure is possible during handling, there must be a statement requiring theuse of a wide-brimmed hat or a chemical-resistant hood (40 CFR156.212(i)(2)). If equipment is used to mix, load, or apply the product, theremust be a statement requiring the use of a chemical-resistant apron forpersons who clean or repair equipment unless there is a requirement for achemical-resistant suit (40 CFR 156.212(i)(3)).    If a product is sold as a concentrate and diluted for application, registrantsmay submit to the Agency or cite additional acute toxicity data on the dilutedproduct. The PPE requirements for all handlers except mixer/loaders would thenbe based upon the data on the product as diluted for application.    The appropriate PPE and work clothing requirements for early-entryactivities are the same as for applicators, except no respiratory protectiondevice would be needed for early entry to pesticide-treated areas. Inaddition, the minimum PPE for early-entry activities consists of coveralls,chemical-resistant (or waterproof) gloves, shoes, and socks.    The Agency reserves the right to modify the subpart K requirements for PPEand work clothing for a product at some future time. This might occur at thebeginning or end of a Special Review, or on review of data showing thatdifferent requirements are warranted.    d. Labeling format--i. Language and location of labeling. Specificlanguage for worker protection labeling statements has been employed insubpart K to facilitate registrant compliance and to eliminate unnecessaryvariation among agricultural product labeling.    Each section of subpart K describing a required worker protection statementspecifies a location on labeling for that statement. Most worker protectionstatements are required to be grouped near the beginning of the Directions forUse section of the product labeling under the heading Agricultural UseRequirements. General statements such as the reference to part 170 wouldappear first. The only statements required to appear elsewhere on labeling arethe Spanish signal word and explanatory statement, which must appear closeto the English signal word; the identification of the type of product(organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate), which must be associated withthe product name or in the Statement of Practical Treatment (First Aid) section;identification of a fumigant, which must appear as part of or close to theproduct name; and the PPE statements, which must appear in the Hazards toHumans (and Domestic Animals) section of the labeling. At the discretion ofthe registrant, any existing worker protection statements that are notsuperseded or modified by subpart K may be relocated under this overallworker protection heading, unless this would reduce existing protectionassociated with nonagricultural uses.    ii. New or amended product labeling. As of April 21, 1993, labelingsubmitted with applications for new or amended registration must comply withsubpart K. The Agency will review and approve labeling for new productsunder normal Agency procedures.     iii. Existing products. Registrants of products that are registered as of theeffective date of subpart K and that fall within the scope of subpart K mustrevise their product labeling to comply with the new requirements in one of thefollowing ways:    (1) Subpart K labeling followed exactly. The Agency is specifying precisewording and exact requirements for worker protection labeling so thatregistrants of existing products will be able to revise product labeling moreeasily within the timeframes established. If a registrant certifies that the WorkerProtection Standard PR Notice wording is followed exactly for a specificproduct, no Agency approval is required. The registrant must submit thefollowing:    (A) An Application for Amended Registration (EPA Form 8570-1). Under``Subject of Amendment'' in section II of the application, the registrant mustidentify the subject of the amendment as ``WORKER PROTECTIONCERTIFICATION'' and include a certification statement such as, ``All productsbeing sold or distributed after April 21, 1994, will be in compliance with thelabeling requirements of 40 CFR part 156, subpart K.''     (B) A copy of the product's revised labeling (draft or final) with the changeshighlighted, preferably with a felt-tipped marker. The Agency may choose toreview this labeling as a check on the correctness of the registrant'scompliance with subpart K.    (2) Subpart K labeling not followed exactly. If a registrant wishes to usewording different from that required by the Worker Protection Standard PRNotice, an amended registration must be approved. The registrant must submitthe following:    (A) An Application for Amended Registration (EPA Form 8570-1). Under``Subject of Amendment'' in section II of the application, the registrant mustidentify the subject of the amendment as ``WORKER PROTECTION LABELINGAMENDMENT'' and include a statement such as, ``The applicant requests theAgency to review proposed revised labeling text that differs from 40 CFR part156, subpart K.''     (B) Five copies of the product's proposed draft labeling with the changeshighlighted, preferably with a felt-tipped marker.    EPA encourages registrants seeking amendments under section 3(b) tosubmit their applications as soon as possible after the effective date of thisregulation. EPA cannot assure that these amendments to registration will beapproved in time to incorporate the revised language on the labeling by thedeadlines. As stated above, the Agency intends that the standard andimplementing labeling statements be put in place as quickly as possible. Thus,it is unlikely that EPA will grant an extension of time merely because a speciallabeling amendment has been proposed. This policy does not precluderegistrants from requesting special amendments to registration; registrants,however, are required to meet applicable deadlines for labeling changesregardless of the status of any special amendment to registration.    iv.  Where to send amended application. Applications for amendedregistration and other labeling must be submitted to the address listed in theWorker Protection Standard PR Notice and must be received on or before April21, 1994.  After this date, no product may be distributed or sold by theregistrant (or a supplemental registrant) unless it is in compliance with the newsubpart K. After October 23, 1995, all products distributed or sold by any personmust bear labeling statements in compliance with the new subpart K.    v. Earliest distribution or sale. Finally, it should be noted that no product withthe subpart K labeling statements may be distributed or sold by a registrantprior to April 21, 1993, even though the registrant may submit certification andEPA may approve new or amended products with subpart K labeling prior tothat date.    vi. Failure to comply. If the items listed above, such as a certificationstatement, and, if applicable, the final printed labeling are not submitted on orbefore the date specified above, the Agency may issue a ``Notice of Intent toCancel'' under FIFRA section 6(b). If, after a certification is reviewed, theAgency determines that the registrant has incorrectly labeled the product, theproduct may be deemed to be misbranded in violation of FIFRA section12(a)(1)(E) or the Agency may issue a ``Notice of Intent to Cancel'' underFIFRA section 6(b). C. EPA Communication and Training Efforts    EPA has been engaged in the promotion of pesticide safety in agriculturefor many years. In the course of this program, the Agency has developedworking relationships with other Federal, State, and private organizations withsimilar objectives. It has sponsored the production and distribution of manytypes of pesticide safety materials. With the promulgation of the revised WorkerProtection Standard, the Agency intends to develop appropriate materials toinform pesticide users and agricultural workers of the new requirements and tofacilitate compliance.    1. Product labeling. The labeling of each agricultural pesticide productsubject to part 170 will indicate, by means of a reference statement, that theproduct must be used according to these regulations. Requirements that varyfrom product to product, such as restricted-entry intervals and personalprotective equipment, will appear as specific labeling statements, whilerequirements that do not vary among products, such as provision ofdecontamination sites, will not be repeated in each product's labeling.    2. Development of materials. To assist agricultural employers and pesticideusers in complying with the revised Worker Protection Standard, the Agencyintends to develop or to cooperate in the development of new educationalmaterials and to revise some existing educational materials. These materialsmay be used by agricultural employers, migrant health clinics, CooperativeExtension offices, unions, commodity organizations, and similar groups.    a. Compliance materials. In addition to the promulgation of part 170standard, the Agency intends to develop compliance guides and audiovisualcompliance programs for agricultural employers and handler employers. Theseguides and programs will summarize and explain the regulations and will assistagricultural employers and handler employers to understand theirresponsibilities under part 170.    b. Training programs for handlers and workers. Existing written andaudiovisual training programs on pesticide safety are expected to be revisedas one source of assistance to agricultural employers and handler employers intraining their employees in pesticide safety. The training programs also may beused by others such as migrant health clinics, State agencies, and workerorganizations to train agricultural workers and handlers. The training programsthat are planned are handbooks, slides/tapes and videos in English andSpanish. They will be designed to meet the pesticide safety trainingrequirements of the new part 170.    c. Pesticide safety poster.  A bilingual pesticide safety poster for agriculturalworkers, entitled ``Be Safe With Pesticides/Use Pesticidas Con Cuidado,'' hasbeen developed by the Agency and has been distributed widely with theassistance of cooperating organizations. EPA plans to revise the poster andintends that display of this revised poster will fulfill the pesticide safety posterrequirement of part 170.    d. Guidelines on the selection and use of personal protective equipment(PPE). Numerous comments from the public addressed the need for moreinformation and guidance on the selection, use, and maintenance of PPE,including the avoidance of heat stress. The Agency has developedinformational materials to provide guidance to pesticide users on these topics.The Agency also intends to develop guidance documents on cholinesterasemonitoring to assist employers who have or want to have such a program.    3. Liaison with other agencies and organizations. In the past, EPA has hadthe assistance of a number of governmental agencies, farmworker serviceorganizations, and trade associations in communicating with the agriculturalcommunity. The Agency will continue to work with these groups to informaffected persons of their rights and responsibilities under the revised standard,to assist in the reproduction and distribution of educational materialsdeveloped by the Agency and to encourage compliance on the part of theirmembers and clients. D. National Compliance Monitoring Strategy    The Agency's approach to enforcement of the Worker Protection Standardwill be based on development of a National Compliance Monitoring Strategyfor worker protection.    Pesticide use enforcement under FIFRA is dependent upon two broadauthorities, the authority to regulate the distribution and sale of pesticides andthe authority to require that registered pesticides be used according to theirlabeling. In most States, enforcement is by State regulatory agencies throughCooperative Enforcement Agreements with EPA. EPA intends to assureenforcement of part 170 primarily through these agreements. The NationalCompliance Monitoring Strategy will be developed in partnership with theState regulatory agencies and will guide all enforcement activities related tothis regulation.    To achieve maximum compliance, the Agency plans a majorcommunication effort to inform the regulated community of the newrequirements. The registrant of a pesticide product subject to part 170 will begoverned by the timeframes for product relabeling laid out above. Once arelabeled product is used, it must be used in accordance with its labeling orthe user will be in violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G). The product will bear areference statement notifying the user that the product must be used inaccordance with part 170.    The relationship between State and Federal entities in the enforcement ofpesticide use regulations is governed by FIFRA section 26(a). With theexception of Nebraska, Wyoming, and (in part) Colorado, all States haveprimary use enforcement authority and have entered into CooperativeEnforcement Agreements with EPA. EPA regional offices annually negotiate theterms of these agreements with State regulatory agencies. Starting in fiscalyear 1990, these agreements have included a specific section on workerprotection enforcement activities. EPA expects that individual Statecompliance monitoring strategies will be developed once the NationalCompliance Monitoring Strategy is completed. These strategies will describeinspection and complaint response schemes and compliance communicationactivities to be conducted in each State. Development of interagencycoordination agreements among various State agencies concerned withpesticide use and worker safety may be part of each State's strategy. EPA alsoanticipates that registrant compliance with worker-protection-relatedregistration requirements will be monitored through activities agreed uponunder Cooperative Enforcement Agreements.    Toward the accomplishment of these goals, money has been allocated tothe States in EPA's budget for fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1992 for thedevelopment of worker protection programs and related complianceactivities. In States where Cooperative Enforcement Agreements are not inplace, EPA regional inspectors will conduct compliance monitoring programsbased on the National Compliance Monitoring Strategy for this regulation.VII.  Public Docket    Documents relied upon by the Agency in the development of this final rule,including public comments submitted on the proposed rule, have been giventhe document control number OPP-300164A and are available for publicinspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legalholidays, at the Office of Pesticide Programs' Document Control Office, Rm.1132, CM 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. VIII. Regulatory Requirements A.  Executive Order 12291    Under Executive Order 12291, a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) has beendeveloped and has been submitted to the Office of Management andBudget (OMB). This document is available for public inspection at the addressgiven at the beginning of this Notice. A summary of the document follows.     EPA believes that the benefits that will accrue to agricultural workers andhandlers from implementation of the WPS include the reduction in lost timefrom the workforce, reduced medical expenses, and increased well-beingand productivity through being less affected by pesticide poisoning. These andany related benefits cannot be adequately quantified with available data. The Agency is convinced that the benefits to society from avoided incidents ofacute, allergic, and delayed adverse effects from occupational exposures toagricultural-plant pesticides exceed the costs attributable to this final rule.    The final rule would serve to protect a labor force of 3.9 million exposedeither directly or indirectly to pesticides as a result of their occupations onfarms, in forests, in nurseries, in greenhouses, or in commercialpesticide-handling operations. This work force includes 1.4 million hired workersand handlers on farms, 92,000 hired workers and handlers in nurseries andgreenhouses, and 10,000 hired workers and handlers in forests. There are also38,000 commercial handlers who handle agricultural-plant pesticides. Inaddition, 2.36 million agricultural-establishment operators and unpaid workers(presumably family members) handle agricultural-plant pesticides or performtasks related to the production of agricultural plants on farms, nurseries, andgreenhouses.      EPA estimates that the incremental costs of this final rule will be about $95million in the first year and about $50 million annually thereafter. To facilitatecomparison with other regulations, EPA has also calculated the incrementalcosts by annualizing them over 10 years at several illustrative interest rates.Using 3% and 10%, the annualized costs of this final rule would be about $54and $56 million per year respectively. The annual cost of the rule is thereforeexpected to be $50 to $60 million dollars, while the estimated annual benefitsof this final rule include avoiding 8,000 to 16,000 physician-diagnosed(nonhospitalized) acute and allergic pesticide poisoning incidents, avoidingabout 300 hospitalized acute and allergic pesticide poisoning incidents, andavoiding potentially important numbers of cancer cases, seriousdevelopmental defects, stillbirths, persistent neurotoxic effects, andnondiagnosed acute and allergic poisoning incidents.B. Regulatory Flexibility Act    This final rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980(Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) for its impact on smallbusinesses. The results of that review have been incorporated into theRegulatory Impact Analysis and are discussed in more detail in that document(available for public inspection at the address listed at the beginning of thisNotice). A summary follows.     The revised final rule exempts owners of agricultural establishments andmembers of their immediate family from the provisions pertaining to safetytraining and information, decontamination facilities, notification of pesticidetreatments, and emergency assistance. EPA presumes that owners and familymembers will provide themselves and each other with these protections, andhas chosen not to regulate such behavior. This decision represents a significantexemption for small entities, since about 45 percent (251,000 of 560,000) of theagricultural establishments within the scope of the WPS do not hire labor andare, therefore, exempt from all but a few of the final rule's requirements.     As a result, the analysis reveals that agricultural establishments without hiredlabor will bear a low cost-burden as compared to agricultural establishmentswith hired labor. The incremental continuing annual costs averaged across allestablishments without hired labor are about $15 per establishment, whereasthe costs averaged across all hired-labor agricultural establishments are about$140 per establishment per year. Non-hired-labor feed and grain farms, whichmake up the largest crop segment, will incur incremental continuing annualcosts averaging about $10 per farm. Hired-labor feed and grain farms willincur incremental continuing annual costs averaging about $55 per farm.     None of the provisions of the regulation provide a direct efficiency of size toestablishments with many employees. Most of the provisions are totally ormostly variable (per worker) costs.  However, two provisions that contain somefixed (per establishment) cost elements are training and notification. Eventhese provisions are not directly efficiency-of-size cost factors, due to: (1) Thediverse and sporadic nature of pesticide-use and labor-use practices, and (2)the exceptions and options in the rule that allow employers to select the mostcost-effective option for their particular circumstance.     The variability in the cost-factors due to these exceptions and options isdifficult to quantify. Therefore, the analysis of the impact on 1-workeragricultural establishments versus the impact on 10-worker agriculturalestablishments is a ``worst-case'' analysis that assumes that all costs of trainingand notification are fixed rather than variable. This results in an overestimate ofthe impact of this rule to 1-worker agricultural establishments. However, evenwith the overestimate, results indicate that the burden is not unreasonablyhigher for such small establishments. The average incremental continuingannual cost due to all provisions for a feed and grain farm with one hiredemployee is about $25 (or $25 per employee). For a feed and grain farm with10 hired employees, it is about $115 per year (or $10 per employee). Forvegetable/fruit/nut establishments with one hired employee, the averageincremental continuing annual cost for all provisions is about $95 perestablishment (or $95 per employee). The cost is about $650 (or $65 peremployee) for a vegetable/fruit/nut establishment with 10 hired employees.     The Agency has determined that the burden on small agricultural businessesdoes not outweigh the risk to handlers and workers employed in thosebusinesses, and that further exemptions from the regulation for small businesseswould not be warranted.  C. Paperwork Reduction Act    The information collection requirements contained in this rule have beenapproved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under theprovisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and havebeen assigned OMB Control Number 2070-0060.     The reporting burden for registrants is estimated to average 5.9 hours perproduct, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing andreviewing the collection of information.    Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, toChief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, Environmental Protection Agency,401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460 and to the Office of Management andBudget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 156 and 170     Environmental protection, Labeling, Pesticides and pests, Intergovernmentalrelations, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.  Dated:  August 13, 1992.William K. Reilly,Administrator.    Therefore, chapter I of Title 40 is amended in subchapter E, to read asfollows:Part 156--Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices    1. In part 156:    a. The authority citation for part 156 continues to read as follows:  Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y.    b. Section 156.10 is designated as subpart A, and the subpart heading isadded, � 156.10 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(2)(viii), and subparts Bthrough J are added and reserved, to read as follows:Subpart A--General Provisions� 156.10 Labeling requirements.*****    (i) ***    (2) ***    (viii) Worker protection statements meeting the requirements of subpart K ofthis part.*****    c. New subpart K, consisting of �� 156.200, 156.203, 156.204, 156.206,156.208, 156.210, and 156.212, is added, to read as follows:Subpart K--Worker Protection StatementsSec.156.200Scope and applicability. 156.203Definitions.156.204Modification and waiver of requirements.156.206General statements.156.208Restricted-entry statements.156.210Notification-to-workers statements.156.212Personal protective equipment statements.Subpart K--Worker Protection Statements� 156.200 Scope and applicability.    (a) Scope. (1) This subpart prescribes statements that must be placed onthe pesticide label and in pesticide labeling. These statements incorporate byreference the Worker Protection Standard, part 170 of this chapter. Therequirements addressed in these statements are designed to reduce the risk ofillness or injury resulting from workers' and pesticide handlers' occupationalexposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants onagricultural establishments as defined in � 170.3 of this chapter. Thesestatements refer to specific workplace practices designed to reduce oreliminate exposure and to respond to emergencies that may arise from theexposures that may occur.    (2) This subpart prescribes interim requirements that must be placed on thepesticide label and in pesticide labeling. These interim requirements pertain torestricted-entry intervals, personal protective equipment, and notification. Ona case-by-case basis, these interim requirements will be reviewed and maybe revised during reregistration or other agency review processes.    (b) Applicability. (1) The requirements of this subpart apply to eachpesticide product that bears directions for use in the production of anyagricultural plant on any agricultural establishment as defined in � 170.3 of thischapter, or whose labeling reasonably permits such use.    (2) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to a product that bearsdirections solely for uses excepted by � 170.202(b) of this chapter.    (c) Effective dates. (1) The effective date of this subpart is October 20, 1992.    (2) No pesticide product bearing labeling amended and revised as requiredby this subpart shall be distributed or sold by a registrant prior to April 21, 1993.    (3) No product to which this subpart applies shall be distributed or soldwithout amended labeling by any registrant after April 21, 1994.     (4) No product to which this subpart applies shall be distributed or soldwithout amended labeling by any person after October 23, 1995.� 156.203 Definitions.    Terms in this subpart have the same meanings as they do in the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. In addition, thefollowing terms, as used in this subpart, shall have the meanings stated below:    Fumigant means any pesticide product that is a vapor or gas or forms avapor or gas on application and whose method of pesticidal action is throughthe gaseous state.    Restricted-entry interval means the time after the end of a pesticideapplication during which entry to the treated area is restricted. � 156.204 Modification and waiver of requirements.    (a) Modification on Special Review. If the Agency concludes in accordancewith � 154.25(c) of this chapter that a pesticide should be placed in SpecialReview because the pesticide meets or exceeds the criteria for human healtheffects of � 154.7(a)(1)(2) or (6) of this chapter, the Agency may modify thepersonal protective equipment required for handlers or early-entry workers orboth, the restricted-entry intervals, or the notification to workers requirements.    (b) Other modifications. The Agency, pursuant to this subpart and authoritiesgranted in FIFRA sections 3, 6, and 12, may, on its initiative or based on datasubmitted by any person, modify or waive the requirements of this subpart, orpermit or require alternative labeling statements. Supporting data may beeither data required by Subdivisions U or K of the Pesticide AssessmentGuidelines or data from medical, epidemiological, or health effects studies.The Pesticide Assessment Guidelines contain the standards for conductingacceptable tests, guidance on evaluation and reporting of data, definition ofterms, further guidance on when data are required, and examples ofacceptable protocols. They are available through the National TechnicalInformation Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. A registrant whowishes to modify any of the statements required in � � 156.206, 156.208,156.210, or 156.212 must submit an application for amended registration unlessspecifically directed otherwise by the Agency.� 156.206 General statements.    (a) Application restrictions. Each product shall bear the statement: ``Do notapply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, eitherdirectly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area duringapplication.'' This statement shall be near the beginning of the DIRECTIONS FORUSE section of the labeling under the heading AGRICULTURAL USEREQUIREMENTS.    (b) 40 CFR Part 170 reference statement. (1) Each product shall bear thereference statement: ``Use this product only in accordance with its labelingand with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170.'' This statement shallbe placed on the product label under the heading AGRICULTURAL USEREQUIREMENTS.    (2) Each product shall bear the statement: ``This standard containsrequirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests,nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It containsrequirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergencyassistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining tothe statements on this label [in this labeling] about [use any of the followingthat are applicable] personal protective equipment, restricted-entry interval,and notification to workers.'' These statements shall be placed immediatelyfollowing the reference statement required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section,or they shall be placed in the supplemental product labeling under theheading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS.    (3) If the statements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are included insupplemental labeling rather than on the label of the pesticide container, thecontainer label must contain this statement immediately following thestatement required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section: ``Refer to supplementallabeling entitled AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the DIRECTIONS FOR USEsection of the labeling for information about this standard.''    (4) If the statements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are included insupplemental labeling, they must be preceded immediately by the statementin paragraph (b)(1) of this section under the heading AGRICULTURAL USEREQUIREMENTS in the labeling.    (c) Product-type identification. (1) If the product contains anorganophosphate (i.e., an organophosphorus ester that inhibits cholinesterase)or an N-methyl carbamate (i.e., an N-methyl carbamic acid ester that inhibitscholinesterase), the label shall so state. The statement shall be associated withthe product name or product-type identification or shall be in the STATEMENTOF PRACTICAL TREATMENT or FIRST AID section of the label.    (2) If the product is a fumigant, the label shall so state. The identificationshall appear:    (i) As part of the product name; or    (ii) Close to the product name, as part of the product-type identification oras a separate phrase or sentence.    (d) State restrictions. Each product shall bear the statement: ``For anyrequirements specific to your State, consult the agency in your Stateresponsible for pesticide regulation.'' This statement shall be under the headingAGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling.    (e) Spanish warning statements. If the product is classified as toxicitycategory I or toxicity category II according to the criteria in  � 156.10(h)(1), thesignal word shall appear in Spanish in addition to English followed by thestatement, ``Si Usted no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se laexplique a Usted en detalle. (If you do not understand the label, find someone to explain it to you in detail.)'' The Spanish signal word ``PELIGRO'' shall beused for products in toxicity category I, and the Spanish signal word ``AVISO''shall be used for products in toxicity category II. These statements shall appearon the label close to the English signal word.(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number2070-0060.)� 156.208 Restricted-entry statements.    (a) Requirement. Each product with a restricted-entry interval shall bear thefollowing statement: ``Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areasduring the restricted-entry interval (REI).'' This statement shall be under theheading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling.    (b) Location of specific restricted-entry interval statements. (1) If a producthas one specific restricted-entry interval applicable to all registered uses of theproduct on agricultural plants, the restricted-entry interval for the product shallappear as a continuation of the statement required in paragraph (a) of thissection and shall appear as follows: ``of X hours'' or ``of X days'' or ``until theacceptable exposure level of X ppm or mg/m3 is reached.''    (2) If different restricted-entry intervals have been established for somecrops or some uses of a product, the restricted-entry statement in paragraph(b)(1) of this section shall be associated on the labeling of the product with thedirections for use for each crop each use to which it applies, immediatelypreceded or immediately followed by the words ``Restricted-entry interval'' (orthe letters ``REI'').    (c) Restricted-entry interval based on toxicity of active ingredient--(1)Determination of toxicity category. A restricted-entry interval shall beestablished based on the acute toxicity of the active ingredients in theproduct. For the purpose of setting the restricted-entry interval, the toxicitycategory of each active ingredient in the product shall be determined bycomparing the obtainable data on the acute dermal toxicity, eye irritationeffects, and skin irritation effects of the ingredient to the criteria of �156.10(h)(1). The most toxic of the applicable toxicity categories that areobtainable for each active ingredient shall be used to determine therestricted-entry interval for that product. If no acute dermal toxicity data areobtainable, data on acute oral toxicity also shall be considered in thiscomparison. If no applicable acute toxicity data are obtainable on the activeingredient, the toxicity category corresponding to the signal word of anyregistered manufacturing-use product that is the source of the activeingredient in the end-use product shall be used. If no acute toxicity data areobtainable on the active ingredients and no toxicity category of a registeredmanufacturing-use product is obtainable, the toxicity category of the end-useproduct (corresponding to the signal word on its labeling) shall be used.    (2) Restricted-entry interval for sole active ingredient products. (i) If theproduct contains only one active ingredient and it is in toxicity category I bythe criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the restricted-entry interval shallbe 48 hours. If, in addition, the active ingredient is an organophosphorus esterthat inhibits cholinesterase and that may be applied outdoors in an areawhere the average annual rainfall for the application site is less than 25 inchesper year, the following statement shall be added to the restricted-entryinterval statement: ``(72 hours in outdoor areas where average annual rainfallis less than 25 inches a year).''    (ii) If the product contains only one active ingredient and it is in toxicitycategory II by the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, therestricted-entry interval shall be 24 hours.    (iii) If the product contains only active ingredients that are in toxicitycategory III or IV by the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, therestricted-entry interval shall be 12 hours.    (3) Restricted-entry interval for multiple active ingredient products. If theproduct contains more than one active ingredient, the restricted-entry interval(including any associated statement concerning use in arid areas underparagraph (c)(2)(i) of this section) shall be based on the active ingredient thatrequires the longest restricted-entry interval as determined by the criteria in thissection.    (d) Exception for fumigants. The criteria for determining restricted-entryintervals in paragraph (c) of this section shall not apply to any product that is afumigant. For fumigants, any existing restricted-entry interval (hours, days, oracceptable exposure level) shall be retained. Entry restrictions for fumigantshave been or shall be established on a case-by-case basis at the time ofregistration, reregistration, or other Agency review process.    (e) Existing product-specific restricted-entry intervals. (1) A product-specificrestricted-entry interval, based on data collected in accordance with �158.390 of this chapter and Subdivision K of the Pesticide AssessmentGuidelines, shall supersede any restricted-entry interval applicable to theproduct under paragraph (c) of this section.    (2) Product-specific restricted-entry intervals established for pesticideproducts or pesticide uses that are not covered by part 170 of this chaptershall remain in effect and shall not be placed under the headingAGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling.    (f) Existing interim restricted-entry intervals. (1) An interim restricted-entryinterval established by the Agency before the effective date of this subpart willcontinue to apply unless a longer restricted-entry interval is required byparagraph (c) of this section.    (2) Existing interim restricted-entry intervals established by the Agency forpesticide products or pesticide uses not covered by part 170 of this chaptershall remain in effect and shall not be placed under the headingAGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling.(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number2070-0060.)� 156.210 Notification-to-workers statements.    (a) Requirement. Each product that meets the requirements of paragraph(b) of this section shall bear the posting and oral notification statementsprescribed below. The statements shall be in the DIRECTIONS FOR USE sectionof the labeling under the heading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS.    (b) Notification to workers of pesticide application. (1) Each product thatcontains any active ingredient classified as toxicity category I for either acutedermal toxicity or skin irritation potential under the criteria in � 156.10(h)(1) shallbear the statement: ``Notify workers of the application by warning them orallyand by posting warning signs at entrances to treated areas.'' If no acutedermal toxicity data are obtainable, data on acute oral toxicity of the activeingredient shall be considered instead. If no data on acute dermal toxicity, skinirritation potential, or acute oral toxicity are obtainable on the activeingredient, the toxicity category corresponding to the signal word of anyregistered manufacturing-use product that is the source of the activeingredient in the end-use product shall be used. If none of the applicableacute toxicity data are obtainable on the active ingredient and no toxicitycategory of the registered manufacturing-use product is obtainable, thetoxicity category of the end-use product corresponding to the product's signalword shall be used.    (2) Each product that is a fumigant and is registered for use in a greenhouse(or whose labeling allows use in a greenhouse) shall bear the statement: ``Forgreenhouse applications, notify workers of the application by warning themorally and by posting warning signs outside all entrances to the greenhouse.''(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number2070-0060.)� 156.212 Personal protective equipment statements.    (a) Requirement. Each product shall bear the personal protectiveequipment statements prescribed in paragraphs (d) through (j) of this section.    (b) Exceptions. (1) If personal protective equipment were required for aproduct before the effective date of this subpart, the existing requirementsshall be retained on the labeling wherever they are more specific or moreprotective (as specified in EPA guidance materials) than the requirements inthe table in paragraph (e) of this section.    (2) Any existing labeling statement that prohibits the use of gloves or bootsoverrides the corresponding requirement in paragraph (e) of this section andmust be retained on the labeling.    (3) If the product labeling contains uses that are not covered by part 170 ofthis chapter, the registrant may adopt the personal protective equipmentrequired in this section for those uses. However, if the personal protectiveequipment required in this section would not be sufficiently protective or wouldbe onerously overprotective for uses not covered by part 170 of this chapter,the registrant must continue to apply the existing personal protectiveequipment requirements to those uses. The labeling must indicate whichpersonal protective equipment requirements apply to uses covered by part170 of this chapter and which personal protective equipment requirementsapply to other uses.    (c) Location of personal protective equipment statements--(1) Personalprotective equipment statements for pesticide handlers. Personal protectiveequipment statements for pesticide handlers shall be in the HAZARDS TOHUMANS (AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS) section of the labeling. The requiredstatements may be combined to avoid redundancy as long as therequirements and conditions under which they apply are identified.    (2) Personal protective equipment statements for early-entry workers.Personal protective equipment statements for early-entry workers shall beplaced in the DIRECTIONS FOR USE section of the labeling under the headingAGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS and immediately after the restricted-entrystatement required in � 156.208(a).    (d) Personal protective equipment statements for pesticide handlers. (1) Thetable in paragraph (e) of this section specifies minimum requirements forpersonal protective equipment (as defined in � 170.240 of this chapter) andwork clothing for pesticide handlers. This personal protective equipmentrequirement applies to any product that presents a hazard through any routeof exposure identified in the table (acute dermal toxicity, skin irritationpotential, acute inhalation toxicity, and eye irritation potential).    (2) The requirement for personal protective equipment is based on theacute toxicity category of the end-use product for each route of exposure asdefined by � 156.10(h)(1). If data to determine the acute dermal toxicity or theacute inhalation toxicity are not obtainable, the acute oral toxicity shall beused as a surrogate to determine the personal protective equipmentrequirements for that route of exposure. If data to determine the acute toxicityof the product by a specific route of exposure (including acute oral toxicity inlieu of acute dermal or acute inhalation toxicity) are not obtainable, thetoxicity category corresponding to the signal word of the end-use productshall be used to determine personal protective equipment requirements forthat route of exposure. If the signal word is ``CAUTION,'' toxicity category III willbe used.    (3) The minimum personal protective equipment and work clothingrequirements specified in this section shall be included in a statement such asthe following: ``Applicators and other handlers must wear: (body protectionstatement); (glove statement, if applicable); (footwear statement, ifapplicable); (protective eyewear statement, if applicable); (respiratorstatement, if applicable).'' The format of statements given in this paragraph isoptional, but it is recommended for clarity.    (e) Summary of personal protective equipment requirements. The followingTable 1 summarizes the personal protective equipment requirements by routeof exposure and toxicity category:      Table 1.--Minimum Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Work Clothingfor Handling Activities컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴��                                                     Toxicity Category of End-Use Product Route of Exposure컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�                                   I                      II                      III                     IV컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴��Dermal Toxicity or      Potential\1\Coveralls   Coveralls worn over    Long-sleeved shirt and  Long-sleeved shirt and Skin Irritation         worn over long-         short-sleeved shirt     long pants             long pants                         sleeved shirt and       and short pants                         long pants                        Socks                   Socks                   Socks                   Socks                        Chemical-resistant      Chemical-resistant      Shoes                  Shoes                         footwear                footwear                        Chemical-resistant      Chemical-resistant     Chemical-resistant      No minimum\4\                         gloves\2\               gloves\2\               gloves\2\Inhalation Toxicity     Respiratory protection  Respiratory protection  Nominimum\4\           No minimum\4\                         device\3\               device\3\Eye Irritation          Protective eyewear      Protective eyewear      Nominimum\4\           No minimum\4\ Potential컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴��\1\ If dermal toxicity and skin irritation potential are in different toxicitycategories, protection shall be based  on the more toxic (lower numbered) category.\2\ For labeling language for chemical-resistant gloves, see paragraph (f) ofthis section.\3\ For labeling language for respiratory protection device, see paragraphs(g) and (h) of this section.\4\ Although no minimum PPE is required by this section for this toxicitycategory and route of exposure, the Agency  may require PPE on a product-specific basis.    (f) Chemical-resistant gloves labeling statements for pesticide handlers. Ifthe table in paragraph (e) of this section indicates that chemical-resistantgloves are required, the glove statement shall be as specified in paragraph(f)(2), (3), (4), or (5) of this section.    (1) Exception. The registrant shall specify a glove type other than thatselected through the criteria in paragraphs (f)(2) through (5) of this section ifinformation available to the registrant indicates that such a glove type is moreappropriate or more protective than the glove type specified in this section.The statement must specify the particular types of chemical-resistant glove(such as nitrile, butyl, neoprene, and/or barrier-laminate).    (2) Solid formulations. For products formulated and applied as solids orformulated as solids and diluted solely with water for application, the glovestatement shall specify: ``waterproof gloves.''    (3) Aqueous-based formulations. For products formulated and applied as awater-based liquid or formulated as a water-based liquid and diluted solelywith water for application, the glove statement may specify: ``waterproofgloves'' instead of the statement in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.    (4) Other liquid formulations. For products formulated or diluted with liquidsother than water, the glove statement shall specify: ``chemical-resistant (suchas nitrile or butyl) gloves.''    (5) Gaseous formulations and applications. For products formulated orapplied as gases, any existing glove statement established before the effectivedate of this subpart, including any glove prohibition statement, will continue toapply. If no glove statement or glove prohibition now exists, the glovestatement shall specify ``chemical-resistant (such as nitrile or butyl) gloves.''    (g) Existing respirator requirement for pesticide handlers on productlabeling--(1) General requirement. If a statement placed on a product'slabeling before the effective date of this subpart indicates that respiratoryprotection is required, that requirement for protection shall be retained. Thestatement must specify, or be amended to specify, one of the followingrespirator types and the appropriate MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix:    (i) Dust/mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH/ approval number prefixTC-21C; or    (ii) Respirator with an organic-vapor-removing cartridge and a prefilterapproved for pesticides with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-23C orwith a canister approved for pesticides with MSHA/NIOSH approval numberprefix TC-14G; or     (iii) Supplied-air respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-19C or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with MSHA/NIOSHapproval number TC-13F.    (2) Respirator type already specified on labeling. If the existing respiratoryprotection requirement specifies a respirator type, it shall be retained. Therespirator statement must be revised, if necessary, to conform to the wording inparagraph (g)(1) of this section.    (3) Respirator type not already specified on labeling. If the existingrespiratory protection requirement on product labeling does not specify arespirator type as listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, the specificrespirator type shall be that required in the criteria in paragraphs (g)(3)(ii)through (vi) of this section.     (i) Exception. The registrant shall specify a different type of respiratoryprotection device if information, such as vapor pressure value, is available tothe registrant to indicate that the type of respiratory protection deviceselected through the criteria in paragraphs (g)(3)(ii) through (vi) of this sectionwould not be adequately protective, or might increase risks to the userunnecessarily.    (ii) Gases applied outdoors. For products that are formulated or applied asa gas (space and soil fumigants) and that may be used outdoors, therespiratory protection statement shall be: ``For handling activities outdoors, useeither a respirator with an organic-vapor-removing cartridge with a prefilterapproved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-23C), or acanister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefixTC-14G).''    (iii) Gases used in enclosed areas. For products that are formulated orapplied as a gas (space and soil fumigants) and that may be used ingreenhouses or other enclosed areas, the respiratory protection statement shallspecify: ``For handling activities in enclosed areas, use either a supplied-airrespirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-19C, or aself-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with MSHA/NIOSH approvalnumber TC-13F.''    (iv) Solids. For products that are formulated and applied as solids, therespiratory protection statement shall specify: ``dust/mist filtering respirator(MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C).''    (v) Liquids in toxicity category I. For products that are formulated or appliedas liquids, and, as formulated, have an acute inhalation toxicity (or itssurrogate as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section) in category I, therespiratory protection statement shall specify: ``either a respirator with anorganic-vapor-removing cartridge with a prefilter approved for pesticides(MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-23C), or a canister approved forpesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix 14G).''    (vi) Liquids in toxicity category II. For products that are formulated or appliedas liquids, and, as formulated, have an acute inhalation toxicity (or itssurrogate as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section) in category II, therespiratory protection statement shall specify: ``For handling activities during(select uses applicable to the product: airblast, mistblower, pressure greaterthan 40 p.s.i. with fine droplets, smoke, mist, fog, aerosol or direct overhead)exposures, wear either a respirator with an organic-vapor-removing cartridgewith a prefilter approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefixTC-23C), or a canister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval numberprefix 14G). For all other exposures, wear a dust/mist filtering respirator(MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C).''    (h) New respirator requirement established for pesticide handlers in thispart--(1) General requirement. If the table in paragraph (e) of this sectionindicates a respiratory protection device is required, and existing productlabeling has no respiratory protection requirement, the registrant shall add arespiratory protection statement that specifies a: ``dust/mist filtering respirator(MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C).''     (2) Exception. The registrant shall specify a different type of respiratoryprotection device if information, such as vapor pressure value, is available tothe registrant to indicate that the type of respiratory protection devicerequired in paragraph (h)(1) of this section would not be adequatelyprotective or might increase risks to the user unnecessarily.    (i) Additional personal protective equipment requirements for pesticidehandlers. In addition to the minimum personal protective equipment and workclothing requirements given in the table in paragraph (e) of this section, thelabeling statement for any product in toxicity category I or II on the basis ofdermal toxicity or skin irritation potential (or their surrogate as specified inparagraph (d)(2) of this section), shall include the following personal protectiveequipment instructions, additions, or substitutions as applicable:    (1) If the product is not ready-to-use and there is no existing requirementfor a chemical-resistant suit, the following statement shall be included:``Mixers/Loaders: add a chemical-resistant apron.''    (2) If the application of the product may result in overhead exposure to anyhandler (for example, applicator exposure during airblast spraying of orchardsor flagger exposure during aerial application), the following statement shall beincluded: ``Overhead Exposure: wear chemical-resistant headgear.''    (3) If any type of equipment other than the product container may be usedto mix, load, or apply the product, and there is no requirement for achemical-resistant protective suit, the following statement shall be included:``For Cleaning Equipment: add a chemical-resistant apron.''    (j) Personal protective equipment for early-entry workers. This paragraphspecifies minimum requirements for personal protective equipment (as definedin � 170.240 of this chapter) and work clothing for early-entry workers.    (1) For all pesticide products, add the statement: ``For early entry to treatedareas that is permitted under the Worker Protection Standard and that involvescontact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water,wear: (list the body protection, glove, footwear, protective eyewear, andprotective headgear, if applicable, statements specified for applicators andother handlers, but omit any respiratory protection statement).''    (2) If the body protection statement in the personal protective equipmentrequirement for handlers specifies a long-sleeved shirt and long pants,``coveralls'' must be specified in the statement of personal protectiveequipment for early-entry workers.    (3) If there is no statement requiring gloves and no prohibition against glovesfor applicators and other handlers under the heading HAZARDS TO HUMANS(AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS) in the labeling, add a requirement for ``waterproofgloves'' in the statement of personal protective equipment for early-entryworkers.(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number2070-0060.)    2. By revising part 170 to read as follows:PART 170--WORKER PROTECTION STANDARDSubpart A--General Provisions Sec.170.1Scope and purpose.170.3Definitions.170.5Effective date and compliance dates.170.7General duties and prohibited actions.170.9Violations of this part.Subpart B--Standard for WorkersSec.170.102Applicability of this subpart.170.110Restrictions associated with pesticide applications.170.112Entry restrictions.170.120Notice of applications.170.122Providing specific information about applications.170.124Notice of applications to handler employers.170.130Pesticide safety training.170.135Posted pesticide safety information. 170.150Decontamination.170.160Emergency assistance.Subpart C--Standard for Pesticide HandlersSec.170.202Applicability of this subpart.170.210Restrictions during applications.170.222Providing specific information about applications.170.224Notice of applications to agricultural employers.170.230Pesticide safety training.170.232Knowledge of labeling and site-specific information.170.234Safe operation of equipment.170.235Posted pesticide safety information. 170.240Personal protective equipment. 170.250Decontamination.170.260Emergency assistance.  Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.Subpart A--General Provisions� 170.1 Scope and purpose.    This part contains a standard designed to reduce the risks of illness or injuryresulting from workers' and handlers' occupational exposures to pesticides usedin the production of agricultural plants on farms or in nurseries, greenhouses,and forests and also from the accidental exposure of workers and otherpersons to such pesticides. It requires workplace practices designed to reduceor eliminate exposure to pesticides and establishes procedures for respondingto exposure-related emergencies.� 170.3 Definitions.    Terms used in this part have the same meanings they have in the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. In addition, thefollowing terms, when used in this part, shall have the following meanings:    Agricultural employer means any person who hires or contracts for theservices of workers, for any type of compensation, to perform activities relatedto the production of agricultural plants, or any person who is an owner of or isresponsible for the management or condition of an agricultural establishmentthat uses such workers.    Agricultural establishment means any farm, forest, nursery, or greenhouse.    Agricultural plant means any plant grown or maintained for commercial orresearch purposes and includes, but is not limited to, food, feed, and fiberplants; trees; turfgrass; flowers, shrubs; ornamentals; and seedlings.    Chemigation means the application of pesticides through irrigation systems.     Commercial pesticide handling establishment means any establishment,other than an agricultural establishment, that:    (1) Employs any person, including a self-employed person, to apply on anagricultural establishment, pesticides used in the production of agriculturalplants.    (2) Employs any person, including a self-employed person, to perform on anagricultural establishment, tasks as a crop advisor.     Crop advisor means any person who is assessing 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.     Early entry means entry by a worker into a treated area on the agriculturalestablishment after a pesticide application is complete, but before anyrestricted-entry interval for the pesticide has expired.    Farm means any operation, other than a nursery or forest, engaged in theoutdoor production of agricultural plants.    Forest means any operation engaged in the outdoor production of anyagricultural plant to produce wood fiber or timber products.    Fumigant means any pesticide product that is a vapor or gas, or forms avapor or gas on application, and whose method of pesticidal action is throughthe gaseous state.    Greenhouse means any operation engaged in the production ofagricultural plants inside any structure or space that is enclosed with nonporouscovering and that is of sufficient size to permit worker entry. This term includes,but is not limited to, polyhouses, mushroom houses, rhubarb houses, and similarstructures. It does not include such structures as malls, atriums, conservatories,arboretums, or office buildings where agricultural plants are present primarilyfor aesthetic or climatic modification.    Hand labor means 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, 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.    Handler means any person, including a self-employed person:      (1)  Who is employed for any type of compensation by an agriculturalestablishment or commercial pesticide handling establishment to whichsubpart C of this part applies and who is:    (i) Mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides.    (ii) Disposing of pesticides or pesticide containers.     (iii) Handling opened containers of pesticides.    (iv) Acting as a flagger.    (v) Cleaning, adjusting, handling, or repairing the parts of mixing, loading, orapplication equipment that may contain pesticide residues.    (vi) Assisting with the application of pesticides.    (vii) Entering a greenhouse or other enclosed area after the application andbefore the inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has been reached orone of the ventilation criteria established by this part ( � 170.110(c)(3)) or in thelabeling has been met:    (A) To operate ventilation equipment.    (B) To adjust or remove coverings used in fumigation.    (C) To monitor air levels.    (viii) Entering a treated area outdoors after application of any soil fumigantto adjust or remove soil coverings such as tarpaulins.    (ix) Performing tasks as a crop advisor:     (A)  During any pesticide application.    (B) Before the inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has beenreached or one of the ventilation criteria established by this part (�170.110(c)(3)) or in the labeling has been met.    (C) During any restricted-entry interval.     (2)  The term does not include any person who is only handling pesticidecontainers that have been emptied or cleaned according to pesticideproduct labeling instructions or, in the absence of such instructions, have beensubjected to triple-rinsing or its equivalent.    Handler employer means any person who is self-employed as a handler orwho employs any handler, for any type of compensation.    Immediate family includes only spouse, children, stepchildren, fosterchildren, parents, stepparents, foster parents, brothers, and sisters.    Nursery means any operation engaged in the outdoor production of anyagricultural plant to produce cut flowers and ferns or plants that will be used intheir entirety in another location. Such plants include, but are not limited to,flowering and foliage plants or trees; tree seedlings; live Christmas trees;vegetable, fruit, and ornamental transplants; and turfgrass produced for sod.    Owner means any person who has a present possessory interest (fee,leasehold, rental, or other) in an agricultural establishment covered by thispart. A person who has both leased such agricultural establishment to anotherperson and granted that same person the right and full authority to manageand govern the use of such agricultural establishment is not an owner forpurposes of this part.    Restricted-entry interval means the time after the end of a pesticideapplication during which entry into the treated area is restricted.    Treated area means any area to which a pesticide is being directed or hasbeen directed.    Worker means any person, including a self-employed person, who isemployed for any type of compensation and who is performing activitiesrelating to the production of agricultural plants on an agriculturalestablishment to which subpart B of this part applies. While persons employedby a commercial pesticide handling establishment are performing tasks ascrop advisors, they are not workers covered by the requirements of subpart Bof this part. � 170.5 Effective date and compliance dates.    (a) Effective date. The effective date for this part, including � 170.112(e),shall be October 20, 1992.    (b) Accelerated provisions. The compliance date shall be April 21, 1993, for:    (1) Section 170.112(a) through (c)(3);    (2) Section 170.112(d)(1) through (d)(2)(ii);    (3) The requirement of � 170.112(c)(3) as referenced in � 170.112(d)(2)(iii);    (4) The requirement of � 170.112(c)(3) as referenced in � 170.112(e)(5);    (5) Section 170.120(a)(3); and    (6) Section 170.120(b)(3).    (c) All other provisions. The compliance date for all other provisions of thispart shall be April 15, 1994.� 170.7 General duties and prohibited actions.    (a) General duties. The agricultural employer or the handler employer, asappropriate, shall:    (1) Assure that each worker subject to subpart B of this part or each handlersubject to subpart C of this part receives the protections required by this part.    (2) Assure that any pesticide to which subpart C of this part applies is usedin a manner consistent with the labeling of the pesticide, including therequirements of this part.    (3) Provide, to each person who supervises any worker or handler,information and directions sufficient to assure that each worker or handlerreceives the protections required by this part. Such information and directionsshall specify which persons are responsible for actions required to comply withthis part.    (4) Require each person who supervises any worker or handler to assurecompliance by the worker or handler with the provisions of this part and toassure that the worker or handler receives the protections required by this part.    (b) Prohibited actions. The agricultural employer or the handler employershall not take any retaliatory action for attempts to comply with this part orany action having the effect of preventing or discouraging any worker orhandler from complying or attempting to comply with any requirement of thispart.� 170.9 Violations of this part.    (a) Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.136 et seq.) (FIFRA) section 12(a)(2)(G) it is unlawful for any person ``to use anyregistered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.'' When this part isreferenced on a label, users must comply with all of its requirements exceptthose that are inconsistent with product-specific instructions on the labeling.For the purposes of this part, EPA interprets the term ``use'' to include:    (1) Preapplication activities, including, but not limited to:    (i) Arranging for the application of the pesticide;    (ii) Mixing and loading the pesticide; and    (iii) Making necessary preparations for the application of the pesticide,including responsibilities related to worker notification, training of handlers,decontamination, use and care of personal protective equipment, emergencyinformation, and heat stress management.    (2) Application of the pesticide.    (3) Post-application activities necessary to reduce the risks of illness andinjury resulting from handlers' and workers' occupational exposures to pesticideresidues during the restricted-entry interval plus 30 days. These activitiesinclude, but are not limited to, responsibilities related to worker training,notification, and decontamination.    (4) Other pesticide-related activities, including, but not limited to, providingemergency assistance, transporting or storing pesticides that have beenopened, and disposing of excess pesticides, spray mix, equipment washwaters, pesticide containers, and other pesticide-containing materials.    (b) A person who has a duty under this part, as referenced on the pesticideproduct label, and who fails to perform that duty, violates FIFRA section12(a)(2)(G) and is subject to a civil penalty under section 14. A person whoknowingly violates section 12(a)(2)(G) is subject to section 14 criminalsanctions.    (c) FIFRA section 14(b)(4) provides that a person is liable for a penalty underFIFRA if another person employed by or acting for that person violates anyprovision of FIFRA. The term ``acting for'' includes both employment andcontractual relationships.    (d) The requirements of this part, including the decontaminationrequirements, shall not, for the purposes of section 653(b)(1) of Title 29 of theU.S. Code, be deemed to be the exercise of statutory authority to prescribe orenforce standards or regulations affecting the general sanitary hazardsaddressed by the OSHA Field Sanitation Standard, 29 CFR 1928.110, or otheragricultural, nonpesticide hazards.Subpart B--Standard for Workers� 170.102 Applicability of this subpart.    (a) Requirement. Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, thissubpart applies when any pesticide product is used on an agriculturalestablishment in the production of agricultural plants.    (b) Exceptions. This subpart does not apply when any pesticide is applied onan agricultural establishment in the following circumstances:    (1) For mosquito abatement, Mediterranean fruit fly eradication, or similarwide-area public pest control programs sponsored by governmental entities.    (2) On livestock or other animals, or in or about animal premises.    (3) On plants grown for other than commercial or research purposes, whichmay include plants in habitations, home fruit and vegetable gardens, andhome greenhouses.    (4) On plants that are in ornamental gardens, parks, and public or privatelawns and grounds that are intended only for aesthetic purposes or climaticmodification.    (5) By injection directly into agricultural plants. Direct injection does notinclude ``hack and squirt,'' ``frill and spray,'' chemigation, soil-incorporation, orsoil-injection.    (6) In a manner not directly related to the production of agricultural plants,including, but not limited to, structural pest control, control of vegetation alongrights-of-way and in other noncrop areas, and pasture and rangeland use.    (7) For control of vertebrate pests.    (8) As attractants or repellents in traps.    (9) On the harvested portions of agricultural plants or on harvested timber.    (10) For research uses of unregistered pesticides.    (c) Exemptions. For the purposes of this subpart, the owners of agriculturalestablishments need not assure that the protections in � 170.112(c)(5) through(9); � 170.112(c)(5) through (9) as referenced in �� 170.112(d)(2)(iii) and170.112(e); and �� 170.120, 170.122, 170.130, 170.135, 170.150, and 170.160 areprovided to themselves and members of their immediate family while they areperforming tasks related to the production of agricultural plants on their ownagricultural establishment. However, they must provide any protectionsrequired by these sections to other workers and other persons who are notmembers of their immediate family and are encouraged to provide theprotections to themselves and members of their families.� 170.110 Restrictions associated with pesticide applications.    (a) Farms and forests. During the application of any pesticide on a farm orin a forest, the agricultural employer shall not allow or direct any person, otherthan an appropriately trained and equipped handler, to enter or to remain inthe treated area.     (b) Nurseries. In a nursery, during any pesticide application described incolumn A of Table 1 of this paragraph, the agricultural employer shall not allowor direct any person, other than an appropriately trained and equippedhandler, to enter or to remain in the area specified in column B of Table 1 ofthis paragraph. After the application is completed, until the end of anyrestricted-entry interval, the entry-restricted area is the treated area.  Table 1.--Entry-Restricted Areas in Nurseries During Pesticide Applications컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�   A. During Application of a Pesticide:       B. Workers are Prohibited in:컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�(1) (a) Applied:                             Treated area plus 100 feet in all                                              directions on the nursery  (i) Aerially, or  (ii) In an upward direction, or  (iii) Using a spray pressure greater than   150 psi, or(b) Applied as a:  (i) Fumigant, or  (ii) Smoke, or  (iii) Mist, or  (iv) Fog, or  (v) Aerosol.(2)(a) Applied downward using:               Treated are plus 25 feet in all                                              directions on the nursery  (i) A height of greater than 12 inches   from the planting medium, or  (ii) A fine spray, or  (iii) A spray pressure greater than 40   psi and less than 150 psi.(b) Not as in 1 or 2(a) above but for which a respiratory protection device is required for application by the product labeling.(3) Applied otherwise.                       Treated area컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�    (c) Greenhouses. (1) When a pesticide application described in column A ofTable 2 under paragraph (c)(4) of this section takes place in a greenhouse, theagricultural employer shall not allow or direct any person, other than anappropriately trained and equipped handler, to enter or to remain in the areaspecified in column B of Table 2 until the time specified in column C of Table 2has expired.    (2) After the time specified in column C of Table 2 under paragraph (c)(4)of this section has expired, until the expiration of any restricted-entry interval,the agricultural employer shall not allow or direct any worker to enter or toremain in the treated area as specified in column D of Table 2 underparagraph (c)(4) of this section, except as provided in � 170.112.    (3) When column C of Table 2 under paragraph (c)(4) of this sectionspecifies that ventilation criteria must be met, ventilation shall continue until theair concentration is measured to be equal to or less than the inhalationexposure level the labeling requires to be achieved. If no inhalation exposurelevel is listed on the labeling, ventilation shall continue until after:    (i) Ten air exchanges are completed; or    (ii) Two hours of ventilation using fans or other mechanical ventilatingsystems; or    (iii) Four hours of ventilation using vents, windows or other passive ventilation;or    (iv) Eleven hours with no ventilation followed by 1 hour of mechanicalventilation; or    (v) Eleven hours with no ventilation followed by 2 hours of passiveventilation; or    (vi) Twenty-four hours with no ventilation.    (4) The following Table 2 applies to paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of thissection.                    Table 2.--Greenhouse Entry Restrictions Associated With PesticideApplications컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴��                                                                                           D. After theExpiration of                                                                                           Time in ColumnC Until the   A. When a Pesticide is       B. Workers are Prohibited             C. Until:            Restricted-Entry Interval          Applied:                         in:                                                 Expires, theEntry-                                                                                               RestrictedArea is:컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴��(1) As a fumigant             Entire greenhouse plus any    The ventilation criteriaof   No entry restrictions after                               adjacent structure that       paragraph (c)(3) of this     criteria in column C are                               cannot be sealed off from     section are met              met                               the treated area(2) As a                      Entire enclosed area          The ventilation criteria of  Entire enclosed area is the                                                             paragraph (c)(3) of this      treatedarea                                                             section are met  (i) Smoke, or  (ii) Mist, or  (iii) Fog, or  (iv) Aerosol(3) Not in 1 or 2 above, and  Entire enclosed area          The ventilation criteriaof   Treated area for which a respiratory                                     paragraph (c)(3) of this protection device is                                        section are met required for application by the product labeling(4) Not in 1, 2, or 3 above,  Treated area plus 25 feet in  Application iscomplete       Treated area and:                          all directions in the                               enclosed area  (i) From a height of   greater than 12 in. from   the planting medium, or  (ii) As a fine spray, or  (iii) Using a spray   pressure greater than 40   psi(5) Otherwise                 Treated area                  Application is complete      Treated area컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴��� 170.112 Entry restrictions.    (a) General restrictions. (1) After the application of any pesticide on anagricultural establishment, the agricultural employer shall not allow or directany worker to enter or to remain in the treated area before therestricted-entry interval specified on the pesticide labeling has expired, exceptas provided in this section.    (2) Entry-restricted areas in greenhouses are specified in column D in Table2 under � 170.110(c)(4).    (3) When two or more pesticides are applied at the same time, therestricted-entry interval shall be the longest of the applicable intervals.    (4) The agricultural employer shall assure that any worker who enters atreated area under a restricted-entry interval as permitted by paragraphs (c),(d), and (e) of this section uses the personal protective equipment specified inthe product labeling for early-entry workers and follows any other requirementson the pesticide labeling regarding early entry.     (b) Exception for activities with no contact. A worker may enter a treatedarea during a restricted-entry interval if the agricultural employer assures thatboth of the following are met:     (1) The worker will have no contact with anything that has been treatedwith the pesticide to which the restricted-entry interval applies, including, butnot limited to, soil, water, air, or surfaces of plants; and     (2) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in thelabeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria established by �170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling have been met.    (c) Exception for short-term activities. A worker may enter a treated areaduring a restricted-entry interval for short-term activities if the agriculturalemployer assures that the following requirements are met:    (1) No hand labor activity is performed.    (2) The time in treated areas under a restricted-entry interval for any workerdoes not exceed 1 hour in any 24-hour period.    (3) No such entry is allowed for the first 4 hours following the end of theapplication, and no such entry is allowed thereafter until any inhalationexposure level listed in the labeling has been reached or any ventilationcriteria established by � 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling have been met.    (4) The personal protective equipment specified on the product labeling forearly entry is provided to the worker. Such personal protective equipment shallconform to the following standards:    (i) Personal protective equipment (PPE) means devices and apparel thatare worn to protect the body from contact with pesticides or pesticideresidues, including, but not limited to, coveralls, chemical-resistant suits,chemical-resistant gloves, chemical-resistant footwear, respiratory protectiondevices, chemical-resistant aprons, chemical-resistant headgear, andprotective eyewear.    (ii) Long-sleeved shirts, short-sleeved shirts, long pants, short pants, shoes,socks, and other items of work clothing are not considered personal protectiveequipment for the purposes of this section and are not subject to therequirements of this section, although pesticide labeling may require that suchwork clothing be worn during some activities.    (iii) When ``chemical-resistant'' personal protective equipment is specifiedby the product labeling, it shall be made of material that allows nomeasurable movement of the pesticide being used through the materialduring use.    (iv) When ``waterproof'' personal protective equipment is specified by theproduct labeling, it shall be made of material that allows no measurablemovement of water or aqueous solutions through the material during use.    (v) When a ``chemical-resistant suit'' is specified by the product labeling, itshall be a loose-fitting, one- or two-piece, chemical-resistant garment thatcovers, at a minimum, the entire body except head, hands, and feet.    (vi) When ``coveralls'' are specified by the product labeling, they shall be aloose-fitting, one- or two-piece garment, such as a cotton or cotton andpolyester coverall, that covers, at a minimum, the entire body except head,hands, and feet. The pesticide product labeling may specify that the coverallsbe worn over a layer of clothing. If a chemical-resistant suit is substituted forcoveralls, it need not be worn over a layer of clothing.    (vii) Gloves shall be of the type specified by the product labeling. Gloves orglove linings made of leather, cotton, or other absorbent materials must not beworn for early-entry activities unless these materials are listed on the productlabeling as acceptable for such use. If chemical-resistant gloves with sufficientdurability and suppleness are not obtainable for tasks with roses or other plantswith sharp thorns, leather gloves may be worn over chemical-resistant liners.However, once leather gloves have been worn for this use, thereafter theyshall be worn only with chemical-resistant liners and they shall not be worn forany other use.    (viii) When ``chemical-resistant footwear'' is specified by the productlabeling, it shall be one of the following types of footwear: chemical-resistantshoes, chemical-resistant boots, or chemical-resistant shoe coverings wornover shoes or boots. If chemical-resistant footwear with sufficient durability anda tread appropriate for wear in rough terrain is not obtainable for workers, thenleather boots may be worn in such terrain.    (ix) When ``protective eyewear'' is specified by the product labeling, it shallbe one of the following types of eyewear: goggles; face shield; safety glasseswith front, brow, and temple protection; or a full-face respirator.    (x) When ``chemical-resistant headgear'' is specified by the productlabeling, it shall be either a chemical-resistant hood or a chemical-resistanthat with a wide brim.    (5) The agricultural employer shall assure that the worker, before enteringthe treated area, either has read the product labeling or has been informed,in a manner that the worker can understand, of all labeling requirementsrelated to human hazards or precautions, first aid, symptoms of poisoning,personal protective equipment specified for early entry, and any other labelingrequirements related to safe use.    (6) The agricultural employer shall assure that:    (i) Workers wear the personal protective equipment correctly for its intendedpurpose and use personal protective equipment according to manufacturer'sinstructions.    (ii) Before each day of use, all personal protective equipment is inspectedfor leaks, holes, tears, or worn places, and any damaged equipment isrepaired or discarded.    (iii) Personal protective equipment that cannot be cleaned properly isdisposed of in accordance with any applicable Federal, State, and localregulations.    (iv) All personal protective equipment is cleaned according tomanufacturer's instructions or pesticide product labeling instructions beforeeach day of reuse. In the absence of any such instructions, it shall be washedthoroughly in detergent and hot water.    (v) Before being stored, all clean personal protective equipment is driedthoroughly or is put in a well-ventilated place to dry.    (vi) Personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides is keptseparately and washed separately from any other clothing or laundry.    (vii) Any person who cleans or launders personal protective equipment isinformed that such equipment may be contaminated with pesticides, of thepotentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides, and of the correct way(s)to handle and clean personal protective equipment and to protectthemselves when handling equipment contaminated with pesticides.    (viii) All clean personal protective equipment is stored separately frompersonal clothing and apart from pesticide-contaminated areas.    (ix) Each worker is instructed how to put on, use, and remove the personalprotective equipment and is informed about the importance of washingthoroughly after removing personal protective equipment.    (x) Each worker is instructed in the prevention, recognition, and first aidtreatment of heat-related illness.    (xi) Workers have a clean place(s) away from pesticide-storage andpesticide-use areas for storing personal clothing not in use; putting on personalprotective equipment at the start of any exposure period; and removingpersonal protective equipment at the end of any exposure period.    (7) When personal protective equipment is required by the labeling of anypesticide for early entry, the agricultural employer shall assure that no worker isallowed or directed to perform the early-entry activity without implementing,when appropriate, measures to prevent heat-related illness.    (8) During any early-entry activity, the agricultural employer shall provide adecontamination site in accordance with � 170.150.    (9) The agricultural employer shall not allow or direct any worker to wearhome or to take home personal protective equipment contaminated withpesticides.    (d) Exception for an agricultural emergency. (1) An ``agriculturalemergency'' means a sudden occurrence or set of circumstances which theagricultural employer could not have anticipated and over which theagricultural employer has no control, and which requires entry into a treatedarea during a restricted-entry interval, when no alternative practices wouldprevent or mitigate a substantial economic loss. A substantial economic lossmeans a loss in profitability greater than that which would be expected basedon the experience and fluctuations of crop yields in previous years. Only lossescaused by the agricultural emergency specific to the affected site andgeographic area are considered. The contribution of mismanagement cannotbe considered in determining the loss.    (2) A worker may enter a treated area under a restricted-entry interval inan agricultural emergency to perform tasks, including hand labor tasks,necessary to mitigate the effects of the agricultural emergency, if theagricultural employer assures that all the following criteria are met:    (i) A State, Tribal, or Federal Agency having jurisdiction declares theexistence of circumstances that could cause an agricultural emergency onthat agricultural establishment.    (ii) The agricultural employer determines the agricultural establishment issubject to the circumstances declared under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this sectionthat result in an agricultural emergency meeting the criteria of paragraph(d)(1) of this section.    (iii) The requirements of paragraphs (c)(3) through (9) of this section are met.    (e) Exception requiring Agency approval. The Agency may, in accordancewith paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section, grant an exception from therequirements of this section. An exception may be withdrawn in accordancewith paragraph (e)(6) of this section.     (1) Requesting an exception. A request for an exception must be submittedto the Director, Office of Pesticide Programs (H-7501C), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 and must beaccompanied by two copies of the following information:     (i) The name, address, and telephone number of the submitter.     (ii) The time period for which the exception is requested.    (iii) A description of the crop(s) and specific crop production task(s) forwhich the exception is requested. Such a description must include anexplanation as to the necessity of applying pesticides of a type and at afrequency such that the restricted-entry interval would interfere with necessaryand time-sensitive hand labor tasks for the period for which the exception issought.    (iv) A description of the geographic area for which the exception isrequested. If the exception request is for a limited geographic area, theexplanation must include a description as to why the circumstances ofexposure or economic impact resulting from the prohibition of routine handlabor tasks during the restricted-entry interval are unique to the geographicarea named in the exception.     (v) An explanation as to why, for each requested crop-task combination,alternative practices would not be technically or financially viable. Suchalternative practices might include: rescheduling the pesticide application orhand labor activity; using a non-chemical pest control alternative; using analternative to the hand labor tasks, such as machine cultivation; or substitutinga pesticide with a shorter restricted-entry interval. This information shouldinclude estimates or data on per acre revenue and cost of production for thecrop and area for which the exception is requested. These estimates or datashould include: the situation prior to implementation of this final rule, thesituation after implementation of this final rule if the exception is not granted,the situation after implementation of this final rule if the exception is granted,and specific information on individual factors which cause differences inrevenues and costs among the three situations.    (vi) A description or documentation of the safety and feasibility of such anexception, including, but not limited to, the feasibility of performing thenecessary hand labor activity while wearing the personal protectiveequipment required for early entry for the pesticide(s) expected to be applied,the means of mitigating heat-related illness concerns, the period of timerequired daily per worker to perform the hand labor activity, any suggestedmethods of reducing the worker's exposure, and any other mitigating factors,such as the availability of running water for routine and emergencydecontamination and mechanical devices that would reduce the workers'contact with the treated surfaces. The information should include the costsassociated with early-entry, such as decontamination facilities, specialinformation and training for the workers, heat stress avoidance procedures,and provision, inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of personal protectiveequipment. EPA will not grant exceptions where the costs of early entry equalor exceed the expected loss in value of crop yield or quality.    (2) Notice of receipt. (i) When a request for an exception is submitted to theAgency along with all of the information required in paragraph (e)(1) of thissection, the Agency shall issue a notice in the Federal Register stating that anexception is being considered, describing the nature of the exception, andallowing at least 30 days for interested parties to comment.     (ii) If a request for an exception is submitted to the Agency without all of theinformation required in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the Agency shall returnthe request to the submitter.     (3) Exception decision. EPA will publish in the Federal Register its decisionwhether to grant the request for exception. EPA will base its decision onwhether the benefits of the exception outweigh the costs, including the valueof the health risks attributable to the exception. If the exception is granted, thenotice will state the nature of and reasons for the exception.     (4) Presumptive denial. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of thissection, persons requesting an exception may assume that the exception hasbeen denied if EPA has not issued its decision whether to grant the exceptionwithin 9 months from the comment-closure date specified in the FederalRegister notice in which the Agency announced, in accordance withparagraph (e)(2) of this section, that it would consider the exception.     (ii) Persons requesting an exception may not assume that the request hasbeen denied as provided by paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section if the Agencyhas taken action to extend its review period for a specified time interval due tothe complexity of the exception request or to the number of exceptionrequests concurrently under Agency review. EPA shall state the reason(s) forthe delay in issuing a decision on the exception request. A notice of such anaction may be published in the Federal Register or persons who requested theexception may be directly notified of the action.     (5) Agricultural employer duties. When a worker enters a treated areaduring a restricted-entry interval under an exception granted underparagraph (e) of this section, the agricultural employer shall assure that therequirements of paragraphs (c)(3) through (9) of this section are met, unlessthe notice granting the exception specifically indicates otherwise.    (6) Withdrawing an exception. An exception may be withdrawn by theAgency at any time if the Agency receives poisoning information or other datathat indicate that the health risks imposed by this early-entry exception areunacceptable or if the Agency receives other information that indicates thatthe exception is no longer necessary or prudent. If the Agency determines thatan exception should be withdrawn, it will publish a notice in the FederalRegister, stating the basis for its determination. Affected parties would thenhave 30 days to request a hearing on the Agency's determination. Theexception, however, would be discontinued as of the date specified by EPA inthe notice, which may include any of the 30-day period and the time requiredfor any subsequent hearing process. Thereafter the Agency will decidewhether to withdraw the exception and will publish a notice in the FederalRegister stating its decision. � 170.120 Notice of applications.    (a) Notification to workers of pesticide applications in greenhouses. Theagricultural employer shall notify workers of any pesticide application in thegreenhouse in accordance with this paragraph.    (1) All pesticide applications shall be posted in accordance with paragraph(c) of this section.    (2) If the pesticide product labeling has a statement requiring both theposting of treated areas and oral notification to workers, the agriculturalemployer shall also provide oral notification of the application to the worker inaccordance with paragraph (d) of this section.    (3) Notice need not be given to a worker if the agricultural employer canassure that one of the following is met:    (i) From the start of the application until the end of the application andduring any restricted-entry interval, the worker will not enter, work in, remain in,or pass through the greenhouse; or    (ii) The worker applied (or supervised the application of) the pesticide forwhich the notice is intended and is aware of all information required byparagraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.    (b) Notification to workers on farms, in nurseries, or in forests of pesticideapplications. The agricultural employer shall notify workers of any pesticideapplication on the farm or in the nursery or forest in accordance with thisparagraph.    (1) If the pesticide product labeling has a statement requiring both theposting of treated areas and oral notification to workers, the agriculturalemployer shall post signs in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section andshall provide oral notification of the application to the worker in accordancewith paragraph (d) of this section.    (2) For any pesticide other than those for which the labeling requires bothposting and oral notification of applications, the agricultural employer shallgive notice of the application to the worker either by the posting of warningsigns in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section or orally in accordancewith paragraph (d) of this section, and shall inform the workers as to whichmethod of notification is in effect.    (3) Notice need not be given to a worker if the agricultural employer canassure that one of the following is met:     (i) From the start of the application until the end of the application andduring any restricted-entry interval, the worker will not enter, work in, remain in,or pass through on foot the treated area or any area within 1/4 mile of thetreated area; or    (ii) The worker applied (or supervised the application of) the pesticide forwhich the notice is intended and is aware of all information required by (d)(1)through (3) of this section.    (c) Posted warning signs. The agricultural employer shall post warning signsin accordance with the following criteria:    (1) The warning sign shall have a background color that contrasts with red.The words ``DANGER'' and ``PELIGRO,'' plus ``PESTICIDES'' and ``PESTICIDAS,''shall be at the top of the sign, and the words ``KEEP OUT'' and ``NO ENTRE''shall be at the bottom of the sign. Letters for all words must be clearly legible.A circle containing an upraised hand on the left and a stern face on the rightmust be near the center of the sign. The inside of the circle must be red,except that the hand and a large portion of the face must be in a shade thatcontrasts with red. The length of the hand must be at least twice the height ofthe smallest letters. The length of the face must be only slightly smaller than thehand. Additional information such as the name of the pesticide and the dateof application may appear on the warning sign if it does not detract from theappearance of the sign or change the meaning of the required information. Ablack-and-white example of a warning sign meeting these requirements,other than the size requirements, follows:    [Insert graphics here]    (2) The sign shall be at least 14 inches by 16 inches in size, and the lettersshall be at least 1 inch in height unless a smaller sign and smaller letters arenecessary because the treated area is too small to accommodate a sign ofthis size. If a smaller sign is used, it must meet the proportions and otherrequirements described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.    (3) On farms and in forests and nurseries, the signs shall be visible from allusual points of worker entry to the treated area, including at least each accessroad, each border with any labor camp adjacent to the treated area, andeach footpath and other walking route that enters the treated area. Whenthere are no usual points of worker entry, signs shall be posted in the corners ofthe treated area or in any other location affording maximum visibility.    (4) In greenhouses, the signs shall be posted so they are visible from all usualpoints of worker entry to the treated area including each aisle or other walkingroute that enters the treated area. When there are no usual points of workerentry to the treated area, signs shall be posted in the corners of the treatedarea or in any other location affording maximum visibility.    (5) The signs shall:    (i) Be posted no sooner than 24 hours before the scheduled application ofthe pesticide.    (ii) Remain posted throughout the application and any restricted-entryinterval.    (iii) Be removed within 3 days after the end of the application and anyrestricted-entry interval and before agricultural-worker entry is permitted, otherthan entry permitted by � 170.112.    (6) The signs shall remain visible and legible during the time they are posted.    (7) When several contiguous areas are to be treated with pesticides on arotating or sequential basis, the entire area may be posted. Worker entry, otherthan entry permitted by � 170.112, is prohibited for the entire area while thesigns are posted.    (d) Oral warnings. The agricultural employer shall provide oral warnings toworkers in a manner that the worker can understand. If a worker will be on thepremises during the application, the warning shall be given before theapplication takes place. Otherwise, the warning shall be given at thebeginning of the worker's first work period during which the application istaking place or the restricted-entry interval for the pesticide is in effect. Thewarning shall consist of:    (1) The location and description of the treated area.    (2) The time during which entry is restricted.    (3) Instructions not to enter the treated area until the restricted-entry intervalhas expired.� 170.122 Providing specific information about applications.    When workers are on an agricultural establishment and, within the last 30days, a pesticide covered by this subpart has been applied on theestablishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, the agriculturalemployer shall display, in accordance with this section, specific informationabout the pesticide.    (a) Location, accessibility, and legibility. The information shall be displayed inthe location specified for the pesticide safety poster in  � 170.135(d) and shallbe accessible and legible, as specified in � 170.135(e) and (f).    (b) Timing. (1) If warning signs are posted for the treated area before anapplication, the specific application information for that application shall beposted at the same time or earlier.     (2) The information shall be posted before the application takes place, ifworkers will be on the establishment during application. Otherwise, theinformation shall be posted at the beginning of any worker's first work period.    (3) The information shall continue to be displayed for at least 30 days afterthe end of the restricted-entry interval (or, if there is no restricted-entryinterval, for at least 30 days after the end of the application) or at least untilworkers are no longer on the establishment, whichever is earlier.    (c) Required information. The information shall include:    (1) The location and description of the treated area.    (2) The product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) ofthe pesticide.    (3) The time and date the pesticide is to be applied.    (4) The restricted-entry interval for the pesticide.� 170.124 Notice of applications to handler employers.    Whenever handlers who are employed by a commercial pesticide handlingestablishment will be performing pesticide handling tasks on an agriculturalestablishment, the agricultural employer shall provide to the handler employer,or assure that the handler employer is aware of, the following informationconcerning any areas on the agricultural establishment that the handler maybe in (or may walk within 1/4 mile of) and that may be treated with apesticide or that may be under a restricted-entry interval while the handler willbe on the agricultural establishment:    (a) Specific location and description of any such areas; and     (b) Restrictions on entering those areas. � 170.130 Pesticide safety training.    (a) General requirement--(1) Agricultural employer assurance. Theagricultural employer shall assure that each worker, required by this section tobe trained, has been trained according to this section during the last 5 years,counting from the end of the month in which the training was completed.     (2) Requirement for workers performing early-entry activities. Before aworker enters a treated area on the agricultural establishment during arestricted-entry interval to perform early-entry activities permitted by  �170.112 and contacts anything that has been treated with the pesticide towhich the restricted-entry interval applies, including but not limited to, soil,water, or surfaces of plants, the agricultural employer shall assure that theworker has been trained.    (3) Requirement for other agricultural workers--(i) Training before the 6thday of entry. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, before the6th day that a worker enters any areas 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 the worker has been trained.    (ii) Exception for first 5-year period. Until October 20, 1997, and except asprovided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, before the 16th day that a workerenters any areas 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 the worker has been trained. After October 20, 1997,this exception no longer applies.    (b) Exception. A worker who is a currently certified as an applicator ofrestricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter or who satisfies thetraining requirements of part 171 of this chapter or who satisfies the handlertraining requirements under � 170.230(c) need not be trained under thissection.    (c) Training programs. (1) General pesticide safety information shall bepresented to workers either orally from written materials or audiovisually. Theinformation must be presented in a manner that the workers can understand(such as through a translator) using nontechnical terms. The presenter also shallrespond to workers' questions.    (2) The person who conducts the training shall meet at least one of thefollowing criteria:    (i) Be currently certified as an applicator of restricted-use pesticides underpart 171 of this chapter; or    (ii) Be currently designated as a trainer of certified applicators or pesticidehandlers by a State, Federal, or Tribal agency having jurisdiction; or    (iii) Have completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program approvedby a State, Federal, or Tribal agency having jurisdiction; or    (iv) Satisfy the training requirements in part 171 of this chapter or in  �170.230(c).    (3) Any person who issues an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standardworker training certificate must assure that the worker who receives the trainingcertificate has been trained in accordance with (c)(4) of this section.    (4) The training materials shall convey, at a minimum, the followinginformation:    (i) Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during workactivities.    (ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, includingacute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.    (iii) Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.    (iv) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.    (v) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.    (vi) How to obtain emergency medical care.    (vii) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, includingemergency eyeflushing techniques.    (viii) Hazards from chemigation and drift.    (ix) Hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.    (x) Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home.    (xi) Requirements of this subpart designed to reduce the risks of illness orinjury resulting from workers' occupational exposure to pesticides, includingapplication and entry restrictions, the design of the warning sign, posting ofwarning signs, oral warnings, the availability of specific information aboutapplications, and the protection against retaliatory acts.     (d) Verification of training. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of thissection, if the agricultural employer assures that a worker possesses anEPA-approved Worker Protection Standard worker training certificate, then therequirements of paragraph (a) of this section will have been met.    (2) If the agricultural employer is aware or has reason to know that anEPA-approved 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 5years 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.� 170.135 Posted pesticide safety information.    (a) Requirement. When workers are on an agricultural establishment and,within the last 30 days, a pesticide covered by this subpart has been appliedon the establishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, theagricultural employer shall display, in accordance with this section, pesticidesafety information.     (b) Pesticide safety poster. A safety poster must be displayed that conveys,at a minimum, the following basic pesticide safety concepts:    (1) Help keep pesticides from entering your body. At a minimum, thefollowing points shall be conveyed:    (i) Avoid getting on your skin or into your body any pesticides that may beon plants and soil, in irrigation water, or drifting from nearby applications.    (ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or usingthe toilet.    (iii) Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues(long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf).    (iv) Wash/shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on cleanclothes after work.    (v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing themagain.    (vi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled orsprayed on the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo, and change intoclean clothes.    (vii) Follow directions about keeping out of treated or restricted areas.    (2) There are Federal rules to protect workers and handlers, including arequirement for safety training.    (c) Emergency medical care information. (1) The name, address, andtelephone number of the nearest emergency medical care facility shall be onthe safety poster or displayed close to the safety poster.    (2) The agricultural employer shall inform workers promptly of any change tothe information on emergency medical care facilities.    (d) Location. (1) The information shall be displayed in a central location onthe farm or in the nursery or greenhouse where it can be readily seen andread by workers.    (2) The information shall be displayed in a location in or near the forest in aplace where it can be readily seen and read by workers and where workersare likely to congregate or pass by, such as at a decontamination site or anequipment storage site.    (e) Accessibility. Workers shall be informed of the location of the informationand shall be allowed access to it.    (f) Legibility. The information shall remain legible during the time it is posted.� 170.150Decontamination.    (a) Requirement. If any worker on an agricultural establishment performs anyactivity in an area where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been appliedor a restricted-entry interval has been in effect and contacts anything that hasbeen treated with the pesticide, including, but not limited to, soil, water, orsurfaces of plants, the agricultural employer shall provide, in accordance withthis section, a decontamination site for washing off pesticide residues.    (b) General conditions. (1) The agricultural employer shall provide workerswith enough water for routine washing and emergency eyeflushing. At all timeswhen the water is available to workers, the employer shall assure that it is of aquality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts theskin or eyes or if it is swallowed.    (2) When water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing pesticides, it shallnot be used for decontamination or eyeflushing, unless the tank is equippedwith properly functioning valves or other mechanisms that prevent movementof pesticides into the tank.    (3) The agricultural employer shall provide soap and single-use towels ateach decontamination site in quantities sufficient to meet workers' needs.     (4) To provide for emergency eyeflushing, the agricultural employer shallassure that at least 1 pint of water is immediately available to each workerwho is performing early-entry activities permitted by � 170.112 and for whichthe pesticide labeling requires protective eyewear. The eyeflush water shall becarried by the early-entry worker, or shall be on the vehicle the early-entryworker is using, or shall be otherwise immediately accessible.    (c) Location. (1) The decontamination site shall be reasonably accessible toand not more than 1/4 mile from where workers are working.    (2) For worker activities performed more than 1/4 mile from the nearestplace of vehicular access:     (i) The soap, single-use towels, and water may be at the nearest place ofvehicular access.    (ii) The agricultural employer may permit workers to use clean water fromsprings, streams, lakes, or other sources for decontamination at the remotework site, if such water is more accessible than the water at thedecontamination site located at the nearest place of vehicular access.    (3) The decontamination site shall not be in an area being treated withpesticides.    (4) The decontamination site shall not be in an area that is under arestricted-entry interval, unless the workers for whom the site is provided areperforming early-entry activities permitted by � 170.112 and involving contactwith treated surfaces and the decontamination site would otherwise not bereasonably accessible to those workers.    (d) Decontamination after early-entry activities. At the end of any exposureperiod for workers engaged in early-entry activities permitted by  � 170.112and involving contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticideto which the restricted-entry interval applies, including, but not limited to, soil,water, air, or surfaces of plants, the agricultural employer shall provide, at thesite where the workers remove personal protective equipment, soap, cleantowels, and a sufficient amount of water so that the workers may washthoroughly.� 170.160 Emergency assistance.    If there is reason to believe that a person who is or has been employed onan agricultural establishment to perform tasks related to the production ofagricultural plants has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides usedon the agricultural establishment, including, but not limited to, exposures fromapplication, splash, spill, drift, or pesticide residues, the agricultural employershall:    (a) Make available to that person prompt transportation from theagricultural establishment, including any labor camp on the agriculturalestablishment, to an appropriate emergency medical facility.    (b) Provide to that person or to treating medical personnel, promptly uponrequest, any obtainable information on:    (1) Product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredients of anyproduct to which that person might have been exposed.    (2) Antidote, first aid, and other medical information from the productlabeling.    (3) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide on theagricultural establishment.    (4) The circumstances of exposure of that person to the pesticide.Subpart C--Standard for Pesticide Handlers� 170.202 Applicability of this subpart .    (a) Requirement. Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, thissubpart applies when any pesticide is handled for use on an agriculturalestablishment.    (b) Exceptions. This subpart does not apply when any pesticide is handledfor use on an agricultural establishment in the following circumstances:    (1) For mosquito abatement, Mediterranean fruit fly eradication, or similarwide-area public pest control programs sponsored by governmental entities.    (2) On livestock or other animals, or in or about animal premises.    (3) On plants grown for other than commercial or research purposes, whichmay include plants in habitations, home fruit and vegetable gardens, andhome greenhouses.    (4) On plants that are in ornamental gardens, parks, and public or privatelawns and grounds and that are intended only for aesthetic purposes orclimatic modification.    (5) In a manner not directly related to the production of agricultural plants,including, but not limited to, structural pest control, control of vegetation alongrights-of-way and in other noncrop areas, and pasture and rangeland use.    (6) For control of vertebrate pests.    (7) As attractants or repellents in traps.    (8) On the harvested portions of agricultural plants or on harvested timber.    (9) For research uses of unregistered pesticides.    (c) Exemptions. For the purposes of this subpart, owners of agriculturalestablishments need not assure that the protections in  �� 170.210(b) and (c),170.222, 170.230, 170.232, 170.234, 170.235, 170.240(e) through (g), 170.250, and170.260 are provided to themselves or to members of their immediate familywho are performing handling tasks on their own agricultural establishments.However, they must provide any protections required by these sections toother handlers and other persons who are not members of their immediatefamily, and are encouraged to provide the protections to themselves andmembers of their families.� 170.210Restrictions during applications.    (a) Contact with workers and other persons. The handler employer and thehandler shall assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either directlyor through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriatelytrained and equipped handler.    (b) Handlers handling highly toxic pesticides. The handler employer shallassure that any handler who is performing any handling activity with a productthat has the skull and crossbones symbol on the front panel of the label ismonitored visually or by voice communication at least every 2 hours.    (c) Fumigant applications in greenhouses. The handler employer shall assure:    (1) That any handler who handles a fumigant in a greenhouse, including ahandler who enters the greenhouse before the acceptable inhalationexposure level or ventilation criteria have been met to monitor air levels or toinitiate ventilation, maintains continuous visual or voice contact with anotherhandler.    (2) That the other handler has immediate access to the personal protectiveequipment required by the fumigant labeling for handlers in the event entryinto the fumigated greenhouse becomes necessary for rescue.� 170.222 Providing specific information about applications.     When handlers (except those employed by a commercial pesticidehandling establishment) are on an agricultural establishment and, within thelast 30 days, a pesticide covered by this subpart has been applied on theestablishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, the handleremployer shall display, in accordance with this section, specific informationabout the pesticide.    (a) Location, accessibility, and legibility. The information shall be displayed inthe same location specified for the pesticide safety poster in � 170.235(d) ofthis part and shall be accessible and legible, as specified in � 170.235(e) and(f) of this part.     (b) Timing. (1) If warning signs are posted for the treated area before anapplication, the specific application information for that application shall beposted at the same time or earlier.    (2) The information shall be posted before the application takes place, ifhandlers (except those employed by a commercial pesticide handlingestablishment) will be on the establishment during application. Otherwise, theinformation shall be posted at the beginning of any such handler's first workperiod.    (3) The information shall continue to be displayed for at least 30 days afterthe end of the restricted-entry interval (or, if there is no restricted-entryinterval, for at least 30 days after the end of the application) or at least untilthe handlers are no longer on the establishment, whichever is earlier.    (c) Required information. The information shall include:    (1) The location and description of the treated area.    (2) The product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) ofthe pesticide.    (3) The time and date the pesticide is to be applied.    (4) The restricted-entry interval for the pesticide. � 170.224 Notice of applications to agricultural employers.    Before the application of any pesticide on or in an agriculturalestablishment, the handler employer shall provide the following information toany agricultural employer for the establishment or shall assure that anyagricultural employer is aware of:    (a) Specific location and description of the treated area.    (b) Time and date of application.    (c) Product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s).    (d) Restricted-entry interval.    (e) Whether posting and oral notification are required.    (f) Any other product-specific requirements on the product labelingconcerning protection of workers or other persons during or after application. � 170.230 Pesticide safety training.    (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 5 years, counting from the end ofthe month in which the training was completed.    (b) Exception. A handler who is currently certified as an applicator ofrestricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter or who satisfies thetraining requirements of part 171 of this chapter need not be trained under thissection.    (c) Training programs. (1) General pesticide safety information shall bepresented to handlers either orally from written materials or audiovisually. Theinformation must be presented in a manner that the handlers can understand(such as through a translator). The presenter also shall respond to handlers'questions.    (2) The person who conducts the training shall meet at least one of thefollowing criteria:    (i) Be currently certified as an applicator of restricted-use pesticides underpart 171 of this chapter; or    (ii) Be currently designated as a trainer of certified applicators or pesticidehandlers by a State, Federal, or Tribal agency having jurisdiction; or    (iii) Have completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program approvedby a State, Federal, or Tribal agency having jurisdiction.     (3) Any person who issues an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standardhandler training certificate must assure that the handler who receives thetraining certificate has been trained in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) ofthis section.    (4) The pesticide safety training materials must convey, at a minimum, thefollowing information:    (i) Format and meaning of information contained on pesticide labels and inlabeling, including safety information such as precautionary statements abouthuman health hazards.    (ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, includingacute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.    (iii) Routes by which pesticides can enter the body.    (iv) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.    (v) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.    (vi) How to obtain emergency medical care.    (vii) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures.    (viii) Need for and appropriate use of personal protective equipment.    (ix) Prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of heat-related illness.    (x) Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing ofpesticides, including general procedures for spill cleanup.    (xi) Environmental concerns such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards.    (xii) Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home.    (xiii) Requirements of this subpart that must be followed by handleremployers for the protection of handlers and other persons, including theprohibition against applying pesticides in a manner that will cause contactwith workers or other persons, the requirement to use personal protectiveequipment, the provisions for training and decontamination, and theprotection against retaliatory acts.    (d) Verification of training. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of thissection, if the handler employer assures that a handler possesses anEPA-approved Worker Protection Standard handler training certificate, thenthe requirements of paragraph (a) of this section will have been met.     (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 5 years 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.� 170.232Knowledge of labeling and site-specific information.    (a) Knowledge of labeling information. (1) The handler employer shall assurethat before the handler performs any handling activity, the handler either hasread the product labeling or has been informed in a manner the handler canunderstand of all labeling requirements related to safe use of the pesticide,such as signal words, human hazard precautions, personal protectiveequipment requirements, first aid instructions, environmental precautions, andany additional precautions pertaining to the handling activity to be performed.    (2) The handler employer shall assure that the handler has access to theproduct labeling information during handling activities.    (b) Knowledge of site-specific information. Whenever a handler who isemployed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment will beperforming pesticide handling tasks on an agricultural establishment, thehandler employer shall assure that the handler is aware of the followinginformation concerning any areas on the agricultural establishment that thehandler may be in (or may walk within 1/4 mile of) and that may be treatedwith a pesticide or that may be under a restricted-entry interval while thehandler will be on the agricultural establishment:    (1) Specific location and description of any such areas; and    (2) Restrictions on entering those areas. � 170.234 Safe operation of equipment.    (a) The handler employer shall assure that before the handler uses anyequipment for mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides, the handleris instructed in the safe operation of such equipment, including, when relevant,chemigation safety requirements and drift avoidance.    (b) The handler employer shall assure that, before each day of use,equipment used for mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides isinspected for leaks, clogging, and worn or damaged parts, and any damagedequipment is repaired or is replaced.    (c) Before allowing any person to repair, clean, or adjust equipment thathas been used to mix, load, transfer, or apply pesticides, the handler employershall assure that pesticide residues have been removed from the equipment,unless the person doing the cleaning, repairing, or adjusting is a handleremployed by the agricultural or commercial pesticide handling establishment.If pesticide residue removal is not feasible, the handler employer shall assurethat the person who repairs, cleans, or adjusts such equipment is informed:    (1) That such equipment may be contaminated with pesticides.    (2) Of the potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides.    (3) Of the correct way to handle such equipment.� 170.235 Posted pesticide safety information.    (a) Requirement. When handlers (except those employed by a commercialpesticide handling establishment) are on an agricultural establishment and,within the last 30 days, a pesticide covered by this subpart has been appliedon the establishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, thehandler employer shall display, in accordance with this section, pesticidesafety information.     (b) Pesticide safety poster. A safety poster must be displayed that conveys,at a minimum, the following basic pesticide safety concepts:    (1) Help keep pesticides from entering your body. At a minimum, thefollowing points shall be conveyed:    (i) Avoid getting on your skin or into your body any pesticides that may beon plants and soil, in irrigation water, or drifting from nearby applications.    (ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or usingthe toilet.    (iii) Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues(long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf).    (iv) Wash/shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on cleanclothes after work.    (v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing themagain.    (vi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled orsprayed on the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo, and change intoclean clothes.    (vii) Follow directions about keeping out of treated or restricted areas.    (2) There are Federal rules to protect workers and handlers including arequirement for safety training.    (c) Emergency medical care information. (1) The name, address, andtelephone number of the nearest emergency medical care facility shall be onthe safety poster or displayed close to the safety poster.    (2) The handler employer shall inform handlers promptly of any change tothe information on emergency medical care facilities.    (d) Location. (1) The information shall be displayed in a central location onthe farm or in the nursery or greenhouse where it can be readily seen andread by handlers.    (2) The information shall be displayed in a location in or near the forest in aplace where it can be readily seen and read by handlers and where handlersare likely to congregate or pass by, such as at a decontamination site or anequipment storage site.    (e) Accessibility. Handlers shall be informed of the location of theinformation and shall be allowed access to it.    (f) Legibility. The information shall remain legible during the time it is posted.� 170.240 Personal protective equipment.    (a) Requirement. Any person who performs tasks as a pesticide handler shalluse the clothing and personal protective equipment specified on the labelingfor use of the product.    (b) Definition. (1) Personal protective equipment (PPE) means devices andapparel that are worn to protect the body from contact with pesticides orpesticide residues, including, but not limited to, coveralls, chemical-resistantsuits, chemical-resistant gloves, chemical-resistant footwear, respiratoryprotection devices, chemical-resistant aprons, chemical-resistant headgear,and protective eyewear.    (2) Long-sleeved shirts, short-sleeved shirts, long pants, short pants, shoes,socks, and other items of work clothing are not considered personal protectiveequipment for the purposes of this section and are not subject to therequirements of this section, although pesticide labeling may require that suchwork clothing be worn during some activities.    (c) Provision. When personal protective equipment is specified by thelabeling of any pesticide for any handling activity, the handler employer shallprovide the appropriate personal protective equipment in clean andoperating condition to the handler.    (1) When ``chemical-resistant'' personal protective equipment is specifiedby the product labeling, it shall be made of material that allows nomeasurable movement of the pesticide being used through the materialduring use.    (2) When ``waterproof'' personal protective equipment is specified by theproduct labeling, it shall be made of material that allows no measurablemovement of water or aqueous solutions through the material during use.    (3) When a ``chemical-resistant suit'' is specified by the product labeling, itshall be a loose-fitting, one- or two-piece chemical-resistant garment thatcovers, at a minimum, the entire body except head, hands, and feet.    (4) When ``coveralls'' are specified by the product labeling, they shall be aloose-fitting, one- or two-piece garment, such as a cotton or cotton andpolyester coverall, that covers, at a minimum, the entire body except head,hands, and feet. The pesticide product labeling may specify that the coverallsbe worn over another layer of clothing.    (5) Gloves shall be of the type specified by the product labeling. Gloves orglove linings made of leather, cotton, or other absorbent material shall not beworn for handling activities unless such materials are listed on the productlabeling as acceptable for such use.    (6) When ``chemical-resistant footwear'' is specified by the productlabeling, one of the following types of footwear must be worn:    (i) Chemical-resistant shoes.    (ii) Chemical-resistant boots.    (iii) Chemical-resistant shoe coverings worn over shoes or boots.    (7) When ``protective eyewear'' is specified by the product labeling, one ofthe following types of eyewear must be worn:    (i) Goggles.    (ii) Face shield.    (iii) Safety glasses with front, brow, and temple protection.    (iv) Full-face respirator.    (8) When a ``chemical-resistant apron'' is specified by the product labeling,an apron that covers the front of the body from mid-chest to the knees shallbe worn.    (9) When a respirator is specified by the product labeling, it shall beappropriate for the pesticide product used and for the activity to beperformed. The handler employer shall assure that the respirator fits correctly.    (10) When ``chemical-resistant headgear'' is specified by the productlabeling, it shall be either a chemical resistant hood or a chemical-resistanthat with a wide brim.    (d) Exceptions to personal protective equipment specified on productlabeling--(1) Body protection. (i) A chemical-resistant suit may be substitutedfor ``coveralls,'' and any requirement for an additional layer of clothingbeneath is waived.    (ii) A chemical-resistant suit may be substituted for ``coveralls'' and achemical-resistant apron.    (2) Boots. If chemical-resistant footwear with sufficient durability and a treadappropriate for wear in rough terrain is not obtainable, then leather boots maybe worn in such terrain.    (3) Gloves. If chemical-resistant gloves with sufficient durability andsuppleness are not obtainable, then during handling activities with roses orother plants with sharp thorns, leather gloves may be worn overchemical-resistant glove liners. However, once leather gloves are worn for thisuse, thereafter they shall be worn only with chemical-resistant liners and theyshall not be worn for any other use.    (4) Closed systems. If handling tasks are performed using properlyfunctioning systems that enclose the pesticide to prevent it from contactinghandlers or other persons, and if such systems are used and are maintained inaccordance with that manufacturer's written operating instructions, exceptionsto labeling-specified personal protective equipment for the handling activityare permitted as provided in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.    (i) Persons using a closed system to mix or load pesticides with a signal wordof DANGER or WARNING may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes,socks, chemical-resistant apron, and any protective gloves specified on thelabeling for handlers for the labeling-specified personal protective equipment.    (ii) Persons using a closed system to mix or load pesticides other than thosein paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section or to perform other handling tasks maysubstitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for thelabeling-specified personal protective equipment.    (iii) Persons using a closed system that operates under pressure shall wearprotective eyewear.    (iv) Persons using a closed system shall have all labeling-specified personalprotective equipment immediately available for use in an emergency.    (5) Enclosed cabs. If handling tasks are performed from inside a cab thathas a nonporous barrier which totally surrounds the occupants of the cab andprevents contact with pesticides outside of the cab, exceptions to personalprotective equipment specified on the product labeling for that handlingactivity are permitted as provided in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iv) of thissection.    (i) Persons occupying an enclosed cab may substitute a long-sleeved shirt,long pants, shoes, and socks for the labeling-specified personal protectiveequipment. If a respiratory protection device is specified on the pesticideproduct labeling for the handling activity, it must be worn.    (ii) Persons occupying an enclosed cab that has a properly functioningventilation system which is used and maintained in accordance with themanufacturer's written operating instructions and which is declared in writingby the manufacturer or by a governmental agency to provide respiratoryprotection equivalent to or greater than a dust/mist filtering respirator maysubstitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for thelabeling-specified personal protective equipment. If a respiratory protectiondevice other than a dust/mist-filtering respirator is specified on the pesticideproduct labeling, it must be worn.    (iii) Persons occupying an enclosed cab that has a properly functioningventilation system which is used and maintained in accordance with themanufacturer's written operating instructions and which is declared in writingby the manufacturer or by a governmental agency to provide respiratoryprotection equivalent to or greater than the vapor- or gas-removing respiratorspecified on pesticide product labeling may substitute a long-sleeved shirt,long pants, shoes, and socks for the labeling-specified personal protectiveequipment. If an air-supplying respirator or a self-contained breathingapparatus (SCBA) is specified on the pesticide product labeling, it must beworn.    (iv) Persons occupying an enclosed cab shall have all labeling-specifiedpersonal protective equipment immediately available and stored in achemical-resistant container, such as a plastic bag. They shall wear suchpersonal protective equipment if it is necessary to exit the cab and contactpesticide-treated surfaces in the treated area. Once personal protectiveequipment is worn in the treated area, it must be removed before reenteringthe cab.    (6) Aerial applications--(i) Use of gloves. Chemical-resistant gloves shall beworn when entering or leaving an aircraft contaminated by pesticide residues.In the cockpit, the gloves shall be kept in an enclosed container to preventcontamination of the inside of the cockpit.    (ii) Open cockpit. Persons occupying an open cockpit shall use the personalprotective equipment specified in the product labeling for use duringapplication, except that chemical-resistant footwear need not be worn. Ahelmet may be substituted for chemical-resistant headgear. A visor may besubstituted for protective eyewear.    (iii) Enclosed cockpit. Persons occupying an enclosed cockpit may substitutea long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for labeling-specifiedpersonal protective equipment.    (7) Crop advisors. Crop advisors entering treated areas while arestricted-entry interval is in effect may wear the personal protectiveequipment specified on the pesticide labeling for early-entry activities insteadof the personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide labeling forhandling activities, provided:    (i) Application has been completed for at least 4 hours.    (ii) Any inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has been reached orany ventilation criteria established by  � 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling havebeen met.    (e) Use of personal protective equipment. (1) The handler employer shallassure that personal protective equipment is used correctly for its intendedpurpose and is used according to the manufacturer's instructions.    (2) The handler employer shall assure that, before each day of use, allpersonal protective equipment is inspected for leaks, holes, tears, or wornplaces, and any damaged equipment is repaired or discarded.    (f) Cleaning and maintenance. (1) The handler employer shall assure that allpersonal protective equipment is cleaned according to the manufacturer'sinstructions or pesticide product labeling instructions before each day of reuse.In the absence of any such instructions, it shall be washed thoroughly indetergent and hot water.    (2) If any personal protective equipment cannot be cleaned properly, thehandler employer shall dispose of the personal protective equipment inaccordance with any applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.Coveralls or other absorbent materials that have been drenched or heavilycontaminated with an undiluted pesticide that has the signal word DANGER orWARNING on the label shall be not be reused.    (3) The handler employer shall assure that contaminated personal protectiveequipment is kept separately and washed separately from any other clothingor laundry.    (4) The handler employer shall assure that all clean personal protectiveequipment shall be either dried thoroughly before being stored or shall be putin a well ventilated place to dry.    (5) The handler employer shall assure that all personal protective equipmentis stored separately from personal clothing and apart frompesticide-contaminated areas.    (6) The handler employer shall assure that when dust/mist filtering respiratorsare used, the filters shall be replaced:    (i) When breathing resistance becomes excessive.    (ii) When the filter element has physical damage or tears.    (iii) According to manufacturer's recommendations or pesticide productlabeling, whichever is more frequent.    (iv) In the absence of any other instructions or indications of service life, atthe end of each day's work period.    (7) The handler employer shall assure that when gas- or vapor-removingrespirators are used, the gas- or vapor-removing canisters or cartridges shallbe replaced:    (i) At the first indication of odor, taste, or irritation.    (ii) According to manufacturer's recommendations or pesticide productlabeling, whichever is more frequent.    (iii) In the absence of any other instructions or indications of service life, atthe end of each day's work period.    (8) The handler employer shall inform any person who cleans or launderspersonal protective equipment:    (i) That such equipment may be contaminated with pesticides.    (ii) Of the potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides.    (iii) Of the correct way(s) to clean personal protective equipment and toprotect themselves when handling such equipment.    (9) The handler employer shall assure that handlers have a clean place(s)away from pesticide storage and pesticide use areas where they may:    (i) Store personal clothing not in use.    (ii) Put on personal protective equipment at the start of any exposureperiod.    (iii) Remove personal protective equipment at the end of any exposureperiod.    (10) The handler employer shall not allow or direct any handler to wearhome or to take home personal protective equipment contaminated withpesticides.    (g) Heat-related illness. When the use of personal protective equipment isspecified by the labeling of any pesticide for the handling activity, the handleremployer shall assure that no handler is allowed or directed to perform thehandling activity unless appropriate measures are taken, if necessary, toprevent heat-related illness. � 170.250 Decontamination.    (a) Requirement. During any handling activity, the handler employer shallprovide for handlers, in accordance with this section, a decontamination sitefor washing off pesticides and pesticide residues.     (b) General conditions. (1) The handler employer shall provide handlers withenough water for routine washing, for emergency eyeflushing, and for washingthe entire body in case of an emergency. At all times when the water isavailable to handlers, the handler employer shall assure that it is of a qualityand temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin oreyes or if it is swallowed.    (2) When water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing pesticides, it shallnot be used for decontamination or eye flushing, unless the tank is equippedwith properly functioning valves or other mechanisms that prevent movementof pesticides into the tank.    (3) The handler employer shall provide soap and single-use towels at eachdecontamination site in quantities sufficient to meet handlers' needs.    (4) The handler employer shall provide one clean change of clothing, suchas coveralls, at each decontamination site for use in an emergency.    (c) Location. The decontamination site shall be reasonably accessible toand not more than 1/4 mile from each handler during the handling activity.    (1) Exception for mixing sites. For mixing activities, the decontamination siteshall be at the mixing site.    (2) Exception for pilots. The decontamination site for a pilot who is applyingpesticides aerially shall be in the airplane or at the aircraft's loading site.     (3) Exception for handling pesticides in remote areas. When handlingactivities are performed more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place ofvehicular access:    (i) The soap, single-use towels, clean change of clothing, and water maybe at the nearest place of vehicular access.    (ii) The handler employer may permit handlers to use clean water fromsprings, streams, lakes, or other sources for decontamination at the remotework site, if such water is more accessible than the water at thedecontamination site located at the nearest place of vehicular access.    (4) Decontamination site in treated areas. The decontamination site shallnot be in an area being treated with pesticides or in an area under arestricted-entry interval, unless:    (i) The decontamination site is in the area where the handler is performinghandling activities;     (ii) The soap, single-use towels, and clean change of clothing are inenclosed containers; and    (iii) The water is running tap water or is enclosed in a container.    (d) Emergency eyeflushing. To provide for emergency eyeflushing, thehandler employer shall assure that at least 1 pint of water is immediatelyavailable to each handler who is performing tasks for which the pesticidelabeling requires protective eyewear. The eyeflush water shall be carried bythe handler, or shall be on the vehicle or aircraft the handler is using, or shallbe otherwise immediately accessible.    (e) Decontamination after handling activities. At the end of any exposureperiod, the handler employer shall provide at the site where handlers removepersonal protective equipment, soap, clean towels, and a sufficient amount ofwater so that the handlers may wash thoroughly.� 170.260 Emergency assistance.    If there is reason to believe that a person who is or has been employed byan agricultural establishment or commercial pesticide handling establishmentto perform pesticide handling tasks has been poisoned or injured by exposureto pesticides as a result of that employment, including, but not limited to,exposures from handling tasks or from application, splash, spill, drift, or pesticideresidues, the handler employer shall:    (a) Make available to that person prompt transportation from the place ofemployment or the handling site to an appropriate emergency medicalfacility.    (b) Provide to that person or to treating medical personnel, promptly uponrequest, any obtainable information on:    (1) Product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredients of anyproduct to which that person might have been exposed.    (2) Antidote, first aid, and other medical information from the productlabeling.    (3) The circumstances of handling of the pesticide.    (4) The circumstances of exposure of that person to the pesticide.[FR Doc. 92-20005 Filed 8-19-92; 10:31 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-FFederal Register/Vol. 57, No. 163/Friday, August 21, 1992/Proposed RulesENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY40 CFR Part 170[OPP-300164C; FRL-3793-1]Rin 2070-AA49Worker Protection Standard; Hazard Information AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴SUMMARY: This proposed rule is a companion to a final rule, publishedelsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, which revises regulationsgoverning worker protection from agricultural pesticides and their residues. Asa result of comments received during this rulemaking, EPA is proposing anadditional modification to its Worker Protection Standard to provideinformation to covered workers that is substantially equivalent to that requiredunder the Hazard Communication Standard promulgated by theOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This proposal wouldadd a requirement that specific hazard information be made available toagricultural workers and pesticide handlers concerning the pesticides to whichthey are exposed. This information would be in the form of fact sheets orMaterial Safety Data Sheets. EPA believes this modification would provideinformation to agricultural workers equivalent to that provided to other workersand would do much to avoid confusion among pesticide users as to theirobligation for communicating pesticide hazard information to workers. DATES:  Written comments, data, and other evidence concerning the proposalshould be submitted on or before October 20, 1992. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in triplicate and addressed to theDocument Control Officer (H7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Allcomments should bear the document control number, OPP-300164C, and willbe available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday throughFriday excluding legal holidays, at the OPP Document Control Office, Rm.1132, CM 1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail:  James J. Boland, Acting Chief,Occupational Safety Branch (H7506C), Office of Prevention, Pesticides, andToxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,Washington, DC 20460. Office location and phone number: Rm. 1114, CM 1B2,1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703)-305-7666.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1974, EPA promulgated the regulationsfound at 40 CFR part 170, which dealt with pesticide-related occupationalsafety and health of workers performing hand labor operations in fields duringor after application of pesticides. As the result of changing conditions and anawareness of the shortcomings of part 170, EPA proposed to revise its workerprotection regulations in 1988 (53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988) (``the NPRM''). Asubstantial number of comments were received as the result of this proposal,and the Agency is issuing the final rule elsewhere in this issue of the FederalRegister. These revisions expand the scope of part 170 beyond coverage ofworkers performing hand labor operations in fields treated with pesticides toinclude a wider range of occupational exposures to agricultural pesticides. Theregulations cover workers in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, aswell as workers who handle (mix, load, and apply) pesticides at theselocations. The revisions expand requirements for safety and health warningsabout applications, use of personal protective equipment, and observation ofentry restrictions, and add new provisions for training, decontamination, andemergency medical assistance.    As a result of the rulemaking revising part 170, EPA received manycomments expressing concern about possible overlap or conflict between part170 requirements and any requirements that might also be placed upon theregulated community by OSHA. Some comments expressed the opinion thatpart 170 should provide agricultural employees information about thechemicals to which they are exposed equivalent to the requirements of theOSHA Hazard Communication Standard. The Agency has reviewed the recordunderlying this rulemaking and believes that the revised part 170 providesprotection at least the equivalent of the Hazard Communication Standard,with one exception. OSHA requires that hazard-specific information be madeavailable to workers in the form of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). Basedon the comments in the record, EPA agrees with the need for providing hazardspecific information to workers exposed to those hazards. EPA proposes torequire that employees be given access to pesticide-specific information inthe form of fact sheets approved by EPA or State agencies concerningspecific pesticides; alternatively, this requirement would be met if employeeswere given access to MSDSs for the pesticides to which they are exposed. I. Relationship Between EPA's Worker Protection Standard and OSHA's HazardCommunication Standard    OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) requiresemployers to train employees in the nature, detection, and avoidance ofchemical hazards in the workplace; maintain MSDSs for all hazardouschemicals and provide them on request; and label chemical containers. TheHCS was promulgated in 1983 to cover manufacturing workers; in 1987, it wasextended to cover all workers, including agricultural workers (52 FR 31852;August 24, 1987) (29 CFR 1928.21).    Although the NPRM for EPA's Worker Protection Standard (WPS) discussedthe relationship between the proposed decontamination requirements andOSHA's Field Sanitation Standard (29 CFR 1928.110), it did not address therelationship between part 170 and the HCS. Nevertheless, the Agency receiveda considerable number of public comments on this issue in response to theNPRM. Comments came primarily from grower groups, the CooperativeExtension Service, worker representatives, and State lead agencies. Commentsnoted that the HCS recently had become applicable to agricultural employersand contained requirements, such as training and notification, that appearedto be similar to measures in EPA's proposal. Comments claimed either that thetwo regulations were duplicative or they were inconsistent. One commentpointed to inconsistencies between some MSDSs and the correspondingpesticide labels in the hazard information they provide. Many growers believedthat there could be confusion in dealing with more than one ``oversightagency,'' unnecessary compliance costs, and extra paperwork burdens.  Onecomment stated that, by including agriculture in its HCS, OSHA was``interfering'' with EPA's pesticide program.    The comments proposed varying solutions to the perceived inconsistencies.The majority stated that EPA and OSHA should hold discussions to clarify the``regulatory boundaries'' between the two agencies, noting that confusionamong the public, enforcement difficulties, and litigation are likely if therelationship is not clarified. One comment suggested a Memorandum ofUnderstanding between EPA and OSHA. Two comments requested that EPAdelay implementation of part 170 until an agreement with OSHA was reached.Many comments stated that OSHA should ``stay out,'' and that only EPA shouldregulate hazard communication in agriculture. In support of this view,comments stated that the Cooperative Extension Service ``traditionally workswell'' with EPA; that EPA has a history of putting resources and priority in itspesticide program; that the revised part 170 would include adequate hazardcommunication for agricultural workers; that the HCS is primarily a standard formanufacturing while part 170 is ``specifically designed'' for the agriculturalsetting; that OSHA enforcement is limited to larger farms because of a currentappropriations rider; that Congress intended FIFRA to regulatepesticide-hazardous materials; that OSHA has no Indian reservationenforcement policy; and that labels are a ``better source of information'' thanthe MSDS. One comment stated that only one agency should regulate,without stating which one. Another suggested that OSHA adopt EPA'sproposed regulations as hazard communication requirements for theagricultural sector. One comment stated that EPA should ``yield'' to the HCSand ``fill in elsewhere'' as necessary, while another felt that OSHA should coverall aspects of worker safety. Several comments proposed a specific division ofregulatory authority between the agencies, under which the EPA would coverworkers at agricultural pesticide use sites, including both handlers and workerswho are exposed to residues, while OSHA would cover ``downstream''nonagricultural workers, those exposures to residues other than at agriculturaluse sites.    While pesticide users anticipated confusion over which rules they shouldfollow, some State agencies were concerned about the division ofresponsibility for programs and enforcement at the State government level. Thesituation would be complicated because a given State could be participatingin an EPA State Plan, an OSHA State Plan, both, or neither. One State agencyasked for either a formal jurisdictional division at the Federal level which eachState would be required to implement, or an alternative ``flexible approach''allowing cooperation among pesticide lead agencies and occupationalsafety and health agencies in each State. One comment stated thatregardless of which agency issued regulations, enforcement would be``complaint-driven'' rather than based on inspections, and was concernedthat EPA did not have an OSHA-type complainant protection system.    Comments from the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), the leadagency in that State for pesticides, identified the difficulty that a givensituation may present. In 1988, the State passed an Agricultural Worker HazardCommunication Act pursuant to which TDA developed training programs andpromulgated implementing regulations, actions consistent with theFederal-State relationship set forth by FIFRA section 24. Because Texas doesnot have an approved OSHA State Plan, under the OSHAct the Federal HCS isapplicable in that State, and any similar State regulations are preempted.Because of the similarity between the new Texas law and the Federal HCS,some persons in that State have suggested that the Texas law and regulationsmay be preempted by the HCS. TDA has urged both OSHA and EPA to clarifytheir jurisdictional relationship in a manner that would permit TDA to implementits programs and enforce its regulations without the present ambiguity.    During the public comment period on EPA's NPRM for the Worker ProtectionStandard, OSHA held a public hearing and requested public comment onseveral issues associated with the HCS (53 FR 29822; August 8, 1988), includingthe question of possible preemption of the HCS by EPA's pesticide regulations.EPA has reviewed the relevant comments in OSHA's HCS rulemaking docketand was represented at the hearing. Substantially the same concerns wereraised in comments on the two rulemakings, and similar solutions wereproposed. A number of organizations submitted written comments to bothagencies.    EPA submitted its written comments to the OSHA Hazard CommunicationStandard docket. The Agency acknowledged that both agencies hadattempted to regulate occupational pesticide exposure under their respectivestatutes, and pointed out that significant public concern existed over therecent actions of both agencies in this area. EPA identified problems with theview of jurisdictional issues expressed by OSHA in its Federal Register notice, asrelated to some aspects of EPA's pesticide program, the implications of theproposed revisions to part 170, the question of preemption, and possiblealternative approaches. EPA concluded that ``[g]iven the shared regulatorypurpose, the similarity of the proposed requirements, and the justifiable publicconcern over regulatory duplication, EPA believes that the time is ripe for thetwo agencies to address, in as concrete a fashion as possible, the issues raisedby their mutual jurisdiction'' (OPP Docket 300164-C373).    In late 1988, the two agencies formed a working group to address theseissues. The United States Department of Agriculture requested and was grantedpermission to participate because of its close involvement in matters related tothe use of agricultural pesticides. The working group met several times. Afterreviewing drafts of the final Worker Protection Standard and this NPRM, OSHA'sview is that EPA's final rule, when promulgated and enforced, will addressessentially the same information transmittal issues covered by the HCS. OSHAalso concluded that when this NPRM is promulgated, EPA will haveapproximately the same requirements as the HCS. In view of this similarity,OSHA will defer to EPA and will not enforce the HCS with regard to employeesexposed to pesticides who are covered by the Worker Protection Standard.However, OSHA will continue to enforce the HCS for other hazardouschemicals to which employees are exposed in agriculture.    EPA fully supports OSHA's efforts to assure that persons exposed to chemicalhazards are provided with information about those hazards; EPA pursues similargoals in its pesticide program. At the same time, EPA acknowledges thevarious public concerns expressed by growers, workers, States and othersregarding the relationship between the revised part 170 and OSHA's HCS. EPAdoes not intend to require actions on the part of the regulated public thateither duplicate or conflict with another agency's requirements intended toaccomplish essentially the same purpose. FIFRA encourages cooperationbetween EPA and other Federal agencies and flexibility between Federal andState levels in the implementation of pesticide programs, as long as the overallgoal of protection is met. EPA also supports such flexibility and cooperationamong various agencies in a given State. In light of the differences amongState pesticide and occupational health and safety programs, a singleapproach at the Federal level may not fit particular cases at the State level.    EPA has elected to proceed with the final Worker Protection Standardpublished elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, believing it isunreasonable to delay issuance of all part 170 protective measures, includingthose unrelated to hazard communication. The Agency is proposing in thisdocument to amend part 170, as soon as practicable following public noticeand comment, to provide pesticide hazard communication for agriculturalworkers and pesticide handlers on agricultural sites that is at least theequivalent of OSHA's hazard communication provisions. EPA believes that itsnewly revised Worker Protection Standard, with modifications, would providean appropriate vehicle for ensuring the communication of pesticide hazardinformation in the agricultural workplace, for a number of reasons.    First, EPA's final rule already includes a number of provisions that appear toaccomplish a similar purpose as some of OSHA's hazard communicationrequirements. These include pesticide safety training for handlers and workers(�� 170.130 and 170.230); display of a pesticide safety poster (� 170.135);notification of the presence of pesticides in the workplace, including posted ororal warnings and the pesticide name and location of treated areas displayedat a central location (�� 170.120, 170.122, 170.222); and access to andknowledge of pesticide labeling information by handlers (� 170.232). Theprincipal difference between OSHA's hazard communication program andEPA's current worker protection program is the right to written informationabout the specific hazards of pesticides present in the workplace, in the formof MSDSs.    Second, EPA's hazard communication requirements would be tailored to fitthe context of agricultural-pesticide use, rather than being generic standardsfor all occupational sectors as is the case with OSHA's Hazard CommunicationStandard.    Third, incorporation of a full agricultural hazard communication program intopart 170 would do much to alleviate confusion and concern in the regulatedcommunity over possible conflicts and duplication between the agencies.    Fourth, direct EPA involvement in agricultural pesticide hazardcommunication could assist States such as Texas that desire to implement theirown State-specific hazard communication program in agriculture. Under FIFRA,more stringent State regulations are permissible. Under the OSHAct, however,more stringent State regulations may be permitted, but in States withoutapproved OSHA State plans, State regulations are preempted.    EPA does not propose to incorporate OSHA's hazard communicationprogram word for word, primarily because the Agency believes that its part170 requirements are more suited to the agricultural workplace.    Therefore, EPA proposes to modify part 170 in only one respect to meet theobjectives of OSHA's HCS. Specifically, EPA proposes to include a requirementto make available written pesticide-specific hazard information on request topesticide handlers and to workers potentially exposed to pesticide residues.The Agency proposes to add new �� 170.133 and 170.233, entitled ``HazardInformation,'' to subpart B, Standard for Agricultural Workers, and subpart C,Standard for Pesticide Handlers, respectively. The proposed pesticide-specifichazard information requirement has been adapted from OSHA's MSDSrequirement (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)) and specifies the type and form of writteninformation (MSDS or fact sheet) and the obligation to obtain, to maintain, andto make available the information to handlers and workers.    Some commenters stated that the typical MSDS is not written with theagricultural workplace in mind and contains information that is either difficult tounderstand or irrelevant to agricultural workers. In response, the Agency hasproposed that an alternative form of hazard information also be acceptable,i.e., a fact sheet that contains specific types of relevant information. These factsheets would be either prepared by or approved by a Federal or Stateagency. One advantage of fact sheets is that they might be designed tocommunicate product-specific risk and hazard-reduction information toagricultural workers and pesticide handlers through the use of nontechnicaland often comparative terms. The proposed fact sheets allow thedevelopment of one fact sheet for a pesticide, i.e., malathion or 2,4-D. TheAgency welcomes comments as to whether the fact sheets should benarrower in focus, such as requiring different fact sheets for differentformulations of the same active ingredient.     The Agency is considering a range of options concerning the format andcontent of the fact sheets. One option is to require all the information currentlyrequired in an MSDS. Another option is to require that the fact sheet containonly the MSDS information that would be most useful to agricultural workersand pesticide handlers, allowing them to obtain other information from anMSDS, which also would be made accessible. Still another option is to referusers to the pesticide product labeling for certain information, such as personalprotective equipment requirements and restricted-entry intervals and torequire that both the labeling and the fact sheet be made accessible toagricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The Agency seeks comment as tothe appropriate format and content of the fact sheets.     The content being proposed for the fact sheets would encourage the use ofnontechnical language and eliminate the requirement for some highlytechnical data that might be of little use to agricultural workers and pesticidehandlers. The Agency is inclined to minimize the technical specificity of theinformation in favor of language more easily interpreted by agricultural workersand pesticide handlers. Specifically, the Agency is considering requiring thattechnical information be expressed through the use of comparative terms. TheAgency seeks information and assistance from interested parties as to how thismight best be accomplished and seeks specific comments as to what rangeof numeric values for each quantitative property of the pesticide would beappropriate for each comparative term. In the case of vapor pressure, forexample, what ranges of vapor pressure values should be characterized ashighly volatile, moderately volatile, slightly volatile, or relatively nonvolatile?     Other physical characteristics that might be best expressed in comparativeterms include flammability, explosivity, solubility, stability (or shelf life), and, insome instances, compatibility. However, this latter characteristic could bespecifically described either by listing products the pesticide is known to becompatible with or by listing products the pesticide is known to beincompatible with.     At least two possible chart-style presentations might be appropriate for factsheets. One is the National Fire Protection Association Hazard Rating chart,which could be used to describe the fire hazards. These ratings are keyed to anumeric scale from 0 to 4 as follows: 0 = least, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 =high, and 4 = severe hazard. Health hazard, fire hazard, and reactivity hazardare rated. Another chart that might be appropriate for adaptation is the SARATitle III Hazard Classification chart, which uses a ``yes/no'' key to indicatewhether the chemical presents an immediate (acute) health, delayed(chronic) health, fire, sudden release of pressure, or reactivity hazard. TheAgency solicits comment on chart-style presentations in general and on theutility of these two specific examples.     The Agency is inclined to require simple, standardized phrases to describethe toxicological characteristics of the chemicals. The usual technicalterminology, for example: ``Toxicology: Acute Exposure: Skin - Rabbit, 2.0mg/kg'' may not communicate interpretable information to most people,including most agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The Agencybelieves that standard descriptive phrases should be limited to three or fourper adverse effect, such as: (1) Skin or eye irritants could be classified as:severe irritant, moderate irritant, slight irritant, or relatively non-irritating; (2)Systemic toxicity through swallowing, through inhaling, or through absorptionthrough the skin could be classified as: highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightlytoxic, or relatively nontoxic; (3) Sensitization potential could be classified as:severe sensitizer, moderate sensitizer, slight sensitizer, or relatively nonsensitizing.These simple terms could be easily learned by agricultural workers andpesticide handlers who are occupationally exposed to pesticides. The Agencyis also considering whether to associate a ``signal word,'' i.e., danger, warning,caution, with each of these routes of entry in addition to the comparativephrase. For example: ``Warning--moderately toxic if swallowed;Caution--slightly irritating to the eyes,'' etc. The LD50 or LC50 or otherquantitative values could also appear on the fact sheet, but standarddescriptive terms would be mandatory.     The Agency is also inclined to require that fact sheets expressdelayed-onset toxicity concerns in a comparative manner and to require thatthe fact sheet simply state whether any government agency or recognizedmedical organization has listed the pesticide or any of its ingredients as apotential carcinogen, rather than list each agency or organization separately.In any case, EPA is inclined to require that fact sheets incorporate simplifiedlanguage for these effects, such as: tumor-causing in lieu of oncogenic;birth-defect-causing in lieu of teratogenic; injury to fetus in lieu of embryotoxicor fetotoxic; injury to pregnant females in lieu of maternally toxic; injury togenes or chromosomes in lieu of genotoxic or mutagenic; injury to brain andnervous system in lieu of neurotoxic; immune system injury in lieu ofimmunosuppression; and heart/lung injury in lieu of cardiopulmonaryimpairment.     Information on the fact sheet that is directed specifically to medicalpersonnel, such as antidotes or appropriate medical amelioration procedures,could retain the precise medical terminology. However, for the sections onsymptoms of overexposure, medical conditions aggravated by exposure, andemergency and first aid procedures for each applicable route of exposure, theAgency is inclined to require the use of simplified language. For example, thefollowing terms might be substituted for the more precise medical terminology:tears in lieu of lacrimation; rash or reddening in lieu of erythema; cracking inlieu of fissuring; peeling or scaling in lieu of desquamation; unconsciousness orstupor in lieu of narcosis; swelling in lieu of edema; tissue damage in lieu ofnecrosis; giddiness, headache, dizziness, and blurred vision in lieu of centralnervous system depression; slow heart rate in lieu of bradycardia; rapid heartrate in lieu of tachycardia; high blood pressure in lieu of hypertension; lowblood pressure in lieu of hypotension; low body temperature in lieu ofhypothermia; cramps, diarrhea, nausea or vomiting in lieu of gastrointestinalirritation; loss of appetite in lieu of anorexia; muscle pains in lieu of myalgia;bluish skin color in lieu of cyanosis; yellowish skin color in lieu of jaundice; lackof coordination in lieu of ataxia; shortness of breath or difficulty breathing inlieu of dyspnea; rapid breathing in lieu of tachypnea; muscle spasms in lieu oftetany or myotonia; pinpoint pupil in lieu of miosis; runny nose in lieu ofrhinorrhea; blood in feces in lieu of melena; blood in urine in lieu of hematuria;irritated stomach in lieu of gastritis; drooling or excess saliva in lieu of salivation;abnormality or irregularity in lieu of anomaly; poisoning in lieu of toxification;and plenty or large in lieu of copious. The Agency solicits comments on thisapproach and suggestions as to possible changes in these proposedsubstitutes as well as suggestions as to similar terms that might be simplified.     The Agency is considering allowing the fact sheets to indicate whichexposure-reduction measures have been established for the product, withoutspecifying the details of those measures. The fact sheet would then indicatehow the pesticide handlers or agricultural workers should assess whether thoseexposure-reduction measures have been met. For example, the fact sheetwould indicate that a restricted-entry interval has been set for the productand that workers should not enter the area immediately after application anduntil the supervisor indicates that the restricted-entry period has expired. Ifanother type of exposure limitation has been established for the product, suchas an OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), the fact sheet might state that astandard had been established for exposures to the product through inhalationand direct that enclosed treatment areas should be tested before workersreenter those areas. If ventilation criteria or other criteria have beenestablished for such enclosed treatment areas, these should be listed in thefact sheet. For example, the fact sheet might state: ``Stay out of enclosedtreatment areas until they have been mechanically ventilated for at least 2hours or until a test indicates that the levels of pesticide product in the air areno longer hazardous.''     The Agency is also inclined to require that any environmental effects listedon the fact sheets be expressed in simple, standardized comparative phrases.The existing terminology on some MSDSs, for example: ``48-hr EC50 DaphniaMagna: 22 mg/l,'' may not communicate interpretable information to theaudience targeted by the fact sheet. As an alternative, EPA suggests the useof the same language as for systemic toxicity to humans, i.e., highly toxic,moderately toxic, slightly toxic, or relatively nontoxic. The environmentalcategories could include, as appropriate, an indication of the relative toxicityof the pesticide to fish, other aquatic organisms, birds, mammals, bees, reptilesand amphibians, and invertebrate organisms.     If personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and other specialworkplace practices are actually listed on the fact sheet rather thanreferenced by the fact sheet to the labeling or MSDS, the Agency is inclined torequire standardization of terminology in describing such requirements andpractices. This requirement would be designed to reduce confusion that maybe caused by fact sheets that appear to be inconsistent with the requirementson pesticide labeling. For example, the following terms might be required: (1)Personal protective equipment in lieu of protective clothing or protectiveclothing and equipment; (2) coverall in lieu of full body suit or protectiveclothing; (3) chemical-resistant in lieu of chemical-impervious or impermeable;(4) specifying one or more protective types of chemical-resistant materials,such as neoprene, natural rubber, butyl rubber, PVC, nitrile, plastic laminate,etc; (5) specifying ``waterproof'' only when any plastic or rubber is resistant tothe chemical; (6) protective eyewear, such as goggles, face shield or safetyglasses in lieu of other eyewear terms; (6) protective footwear, such as boots,shoe covers or shoes in lieu of other footwear terms; (8) dust/mist respirator inlieu of dust respirator or mask; and (9) specifying a type of respirator--eitherdust/mist, vapor-removing, or supplied air--in lieu of respirator, organic-vaporrespirator, air-purifying respirator, or pesticide respirator.    In addition, the Agency is inclined to require a standardized format for thepresentation of such requirements and practices, such as: (1) Body: [specify:``coverall'' or ``chemical-resistant protective suit'' or ``long-sleeved shirt andlong pants'' and/or ``chemical-resistant apron'' as applicable]; (2) Hands:[specify type of glove material or use ``waterproof'' to indicate any plastic orrubber will suffice]; (3) Feet: [specify type of footwear material or use``waterproof'' to indicate that any plastic or rubber material will suffice]; (4)Eyes: [specify ``protective eyewear'' or a particular type of eyewear, such asgoggles]; (5) Lungs: [specify ``dust/mist respirator'' or ``vapor-removingrespirator approved for pesticides or organic vapors'' or ``air-suppliedrespirator''].      The Agency seeks comment as to appropriate standardized language fordescribing various engineering controls, such as closed systems, enclosed cabs,and enclosed cockpits and for describing various workplace practicerecommendations or requirements, such as cleaning and maintenance ofpersonal protective equipment, washing hands and face frequently, etc.     The Agency solicits comment as to the appropriate means of conveyinginformation about spill cleanup procedures and about disposal methods forexcess pesticide and for pesticide containers. Such technical, product-specificinformation might be more appropriate for pesticide labeling or MSDSs than forfact sheets. On the other hand, unless pesticide labeling or MSDSs were alsoaccessible to pesticide handlers and agricultural workers, at least some of thisinformation would seem appropriate for fact sheets to avoid unacceptable riskof exposure in an emergency.     The Agency also solicits comment as to whether providing the pesticideproduct labeling should be an acceptable alternative or supplement toproviding an MSDS or fact sheet. The Agency has several concerns about suchan option. The pesticide product labeling may be unavailable to mostagricultural workers. The labeling is often affixed to the product container andthus located in a pesticide storage area. The labeling may be contaminatedor rendered partially unreadable during use of the container under normalfield conditions. Furthermore, the Agency is concerned about information thatis routinely included in MSDSs but that is not on the pesticide product labeling,such as information about delayed-onset adverse health effects and spill orleak cleanup procedures. However, the pesticide product labeling is a logicalsource of hazard information about the product and could be producedseparately from the container, which would make it more accessible. Anotheroption is to require that both the labeling or MSDS and a fact sheet be madeavailable. The Agency seeks comment as to whether pesticide labeling shouldbe an acceptable alternative to MSDSs or fact sheets in the agriculturalworkplace or whether a fact sheet plus the pesticide labeling or MSDS shouldbe required.    The Agency is also considering requiring or allowing the use of pictogramsymbols on fact sheets to graphically convey crucial health and safetyinformation to workers occupationally exposed to pesticides. The use ofpictograms is a widely accepted and efficient means of conveyinginformation to people. Workers/handlers exposed occupationally to agriculturalpesticides have a wide range of language skills. Many workers/handlers speakand read a language other than English; others speak English, but cannot readit; still others speak and read English, but are unable to interpret the technicaldata being presented to them in the fact sheets. While some workers/handlersmay have little difficulty deciphering highly technical terms, the Agencybelieves they constitute a small fraction of the workforce currentlyencompassed by the Worker Protection Standard.    Considerable study has been given to the use of easily understoodinternational symbols for traffic control. While less study has been undertakento develop such symbols for hazard communication such an approach couldprove beneficial. For example, a pictogram could depict a drop of chemicalon the skin of a hand or forearm with the words (or an additional symbol) inthe upper corner of the pictogram indicating whether the chemical is slightlytoxic, moderately toxic, or highly toxic by the dermal route. Some of thesepictograms have already been developed or proposed; others would have tobe created. The Agency solicits comments on the option of requiring orallowing pictograms on fact sheets and solicits examples of pictograms thatmight be appropriate.    The Agency is concerned that State or Federal agencies choosing toproduce or to approve fact sheets should develop and employ specificstandards for content and completeness under the general criteria in the rule.The Agency invites comment on the option of requiring that authority toapprove fact sheets be contingent upon EPA approval and periodicreapproval of a plan by the organization proposing to operate such a process.Such a plan would describe the criteria for approval, including topics to becovered, method of presentation, acceptable sources of information, andrequirements for updating of fact sheets as new information becomesavailable.    The Agency believes that the economic impact of this proposal onagricultural entities will be negligible. Agricultural employers already aresubject to OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and must provide MSDSson request. The fact sheet alternative may reduce this existing burden bycreating a regulatory option that may be easier for employers to meet andthat may benefit handlers and workers by providing hazard information in amore understandable form. Agricultural employers also will derive benefits fromthe consolidation of certain Federal hazard communication requirementsunder one agency, which will facilitate understanding and compliance.    The Agency believes that its proposal, when implemented, would addressthe public's concern about the relationship between OSHA's HazardCommunication Standard and EPA's Worker Protection Standard in a way thatcould be anticipated to reduce confusion among agricultural employers andensure adequate communication of pesticide hazards to agricultural handlersand workers. EPA solicits comment on any aspect of the matters discussed inthis proposal.II. Statutory Review A.  U.S. Department of Agriculture    As required by FIFRA section 25(a), a copy of this Notice of ProposedRulemaking and the final rule (40 CFR Part 170) were provided to the Secretaryof Agriculture on June 7, 1991. On March 27, 1992, the Secretary providedwritten comments. The Secretary had comments concerning hazardcommunication in connection with provisions in the Worker ProtectionStandard; however, none of those comments applied specifically to this NPRM.B. Congressional Committees     As required by FIFRA section 25(a), a copy of the final rule was provided tothe committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate and theCommittee on Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives. Commentswere provided by Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Charlie Rose.Following is a summary of each comment by Senator Leahy andRepresentative Rose, together with the Agency's response.     Comment 1B1: Farmworkers, like all other workers, should have access toMSDSs as well as the product label.     Response: EPA agrees that workers should have access to MSDSs or factsheets containing similar information about the hazards of specific pesticides.The Agency also notes that the Worker Protection Standard requires employersto provide information from pesticide labels to workers assigned to performearly entry activities and to persons assigned to handle pesticides. In addition,label-specific information must be provided to workers and handlers in theevent of an occupationally caused pesticide-related illness or injury.     Comment 1B2: EPA should also require growers to provide their workers withcrop sheets.     Response: The Agency agrees that workers should have access toinformation about the hazards of the specific pesticides they may be exposedto during their work activities.  The purpose of this Notice of ProposedRulemaking is to establish a mechanism for effectively and efficientlyconveying information about pesticide hazards to workers and handlers. TheAgency anticipates diverse suggestions and views during the comment periodas to the best means of conveying product-specific information to agriculturalemployees. C. Scientific Advisory Panel    Pursuant to FIFRA section 25(d), a copy of this proposed rule was providedto the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). A waiver of review was requested;the waiver was granted. III. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. Executive Order 12291    Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is required to judge whether a rule shouldbe classified as major or non-major for purposes of review by the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB). According to E.O. 12291, major rules arerules that are likely to result in:    (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or    (2) A major increase in the costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,Federal, State or local governmental agencies, or geographic regions; or,    (3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,productivity, innovation, or in the ability of U.S. based enterprises to competewith foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.    This proposed rule would not be a major rule because it does not meet anyof the above criteria. This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for review as required by E.O. 12291. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act    This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) for its impact on smallbusinesses.    The Agency has determined that the burden on small agricultural businessesdoes not outweigh the risk to handlers and workers employed in thosebusinesses, and an exemption from the requirements in this rule amendmentfor small businesses would not be warranted. The burden to employers is thatof holding for 30 days and making available to their employees upon requestinformational documents that are available to the employers at no charge. C. Paperwork Reduction Act    The Agency 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 of this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170     Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Intergovernmental relations,Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.    Dated:  August 13, 1992.William K. Reilly,Administrator.    Therefore, it is proposed that part 170 as revised elsewhere in this issue of theFederal Register, be amended as follows:Part 170--[AMENDED]    l. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:   Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136w.    2. By amending � 170.3 by adding and alphabetically inserting the followingdefinition to read as follows: � 170.3 Definitions.     * * * * *    Material Safety Data Sheet means an information document as defined by29 CFR 1910.1200(g).     * * * * *    3. By adding new � 170.133 to subpart B, to read as follows: � 170.133 Hazard information.    (a) Requirement. The agricultural employer shall make available hazardinformation concerning a pesticide, in accordance with this section, to anyworker who enters a pesticide treated area on an agricultural establishmentwhere, within the last 30 days a pesticide has been applied or arestricted-entry interval has been in effect, or to any worker who may beexposed to the pesticide during its normal conditions of use or in a foreseeableemergency.    (b) Format of information.  Hazard information shall be in one of thefollowing forms:    (1) A Material Safety Data Sheet for the product, or for each active andinert ingredient listed on the label of the product.    (2) A fact sheet that has been prepared or approved by a State or Federalagency for the pesticide. If the chemical ingredients of two or more pesticidesare substantially similar, but the specific composition varies and the productspresent similar hazards, one fact sheet may suffice for these similar products.    (c) Content of fact sheets. Each fact sheet shall contain information,expressed in nontechnical terms, except for items specifically targeted towardsmedical personnel, such as antidotes or emergency treatment. The informationshall include:    (1) Typical brand name(s) of the pesticide, and the chemical name andcommon name of the pesticide.    (2) Information on the physical characteristics of the pesticide, such as:    (i) Color, state (solid, liquid, or gas), odor, and comparative volatility.    (ii) Comparative flammability and explosivity.    (iii) Comparative shelf-life stability, comparative or actual compatibility orincompatibility to possible tank-mix products, and comparative likelihood ofdecomposing into hazardous components.    (3) Information on the comparative toxicity of the pesticide:    (i) The comparative acute toxicity for the pesticide when swallowed,inhaled, or absorbed through the skin, expressed in terms of the relativecategory (highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightly toxic or relatively nontoxic)and corresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on thecriteria of � 156.10(h) of this chapter.    (ii) The comparative skin irritation potential and eye irritation potential for thepesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (severely, moderately, orslightly irritating or relatively nonirritating to skin and/or eyes) andcorresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on the criteria of � 156.10(h) of this chapter.    (iii) The comparative sensitization category for the pesticide expressed interms of the relative category (highly, moderately, or slightly likely or relativelyunlikely to cause allergic or sensitivity reactions in some individuals).    (iv) Symptoms of overexposure.    (v) Any chronic or delayed health effects, including tumors, malignancy orcancer, changes in the genes or chromosomes, birth defects, illness or death(miscarriage or stillbirth) to a fetus, infertility or sterility in men or women, blooddisorders, nerve or brain disorders, skin disorders, liver and kidney disorders,and/or lung and respiratory disorders.    (vi) Whether the pesticide has been found to be a potentialcancer-causing agent by a government agency or recognized medicalorganization. The sources that must be considered include the latest editions ofthe National Toxicology Program Annual Report on Carcinogens (NTP), theInternational Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs (IARC), theOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and EPA.    (vii) Medical conditions that may be aggravated by exposure to theproduct.    (viii) Emergency and first aid procedures for each applicable route ofexposure, i.e., oral, dermal, inhalation, and eye.    (ix) Information for physicians on the antidote, if any, and other applicableinformation for medical treatment.    (x) The types of exposure limits that have been established for the pesticide.The exposure limits that must be investigated include the OSHA PermissibleExposure Limit (PEL) and the EPA restricted-entry interval (REI). Any other knownand applicable exposure limit used or recommended by the manufacturer,formulator, importer or a governmental agency must also be noted. All listedlimits must be accompanied by a reference source to permit more detailedinformation to be obtained.    (4) Information on any special protection needed in handling the productsuch as use of personal protective equipment, engineering controls, andworkplace practices for the pesticide:    (i) Situations where personal protective equipment or engineering controlsshould be used.    (ii) Body protection, including the type of clothing to be worn duringexposures, such as mixing/loading, cleaning of equipment, and other handlingsituations.    (iii) Hand and foot protection needed, including specific material, if known,that is chemical-resistant to the pesticide or typical carrier solvent.    (iv) Eye protection.    (v) Respiratory protection, including, if known, the specific respirator type(dust/mist filtering, vapor/gas-removing, or air-supplied) and the Mine Safetyand Health Administration/National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth (MSHA/NIOSH) approval number prefix assigned to equipment that isprotective for the pesticide for exposures outdoors and in enclosed areas.    (vi) Recommendations for ventilating enclosed areas, if appropriate.    (vii) Any other personal protective equipment that would be appropriate forspecific exposure situations.    (viii) Recommended engineering controls, such as closed systems, enclosedcockpits, or enclosed cabs.    (ix) Other special protection information or special workplace practices.    (5) Information on spill or leak cleanup procedures and disposal methods forexcess chemical and for containers.    (6) The date the fact sheet was prepared or revised to its present form.    (7) The telephone number of the National Pesticide TelecommunicationsNetwork and the name, address, and telephone number of the manufacturer,formulator, importer, or responsible party, if known, who could provideadditional information about the formulated product or the active/inertingredient and about appropriate emergency procedures.    (8) If relevant information for any given category on the fact sheet is notobtainable, the category shall be marked to so indicate.    (d) Accuracy of information on the fact sheet and updates. (1) The entitypreparing the fact sheet shall ensure that the information recorded accuratelyreflects the scientific evidence used in making the hazard determination orshall ensure that the information recorded accurately reflects the informationpublished on the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet or the pesticideregistrant's product labeling.    (2) If the entity preparing the fact sheet becomes aware of any significantinformation regarding its hazards or those of its formulations or the inertingredients, one of the following actions is required:    (i) The new information shall be added to the fact sheet within 3 months.    (ii) If the pesticide is not being produced or imported currently, theinformation shall be added to the fact sheet before the formulated product isintroduced or reintroduced into the workplace.    (e) Obtaining information. If a fact sheet or Material Safety Data Sheet forthe formulated product or for each label-listed active and inert ingredient inthe formulated product is not available at the time the product is purchased,the agricultural employer shall take appropriate and timely steps to obtain theMaterial Safety Data Sheet or fact sheet from the distributor, the manufacturer,a State or Federal agency, or another distribution source.    (f) Maintaining information. The agricultural employer shall maintain theinformation specified in paragraph (a) of this section at an appropriate centrallocation, accessible to workers during working hours and readily obtainable inan emergency.    (g) Providing information. The agricultural employer shall provide a writtencopy of the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section, within areasonable amount of time, on the request of the worker, a representative ofthe worker, or medical personnel treating the worker.    4. By adding new � 170.233 to subpart C, to read as follows: � 170.233 Hazard information.    (a) Requirement. The handler employer shall provide hazard informationconcerning a pesticide, in accordance with this section, to any handler of apesticide that is being handled or that has been handled within the past 30days or to any handler who may be exposed to the pesticide during its normalconditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency.    (b) Format of information. Hazard information shall be in either one of thefollowing forms:    (1) A Material Safety Data Sheet for the product, or for each active andinert ingredient listed on the label of the product.    (2) A fact sheet that has been prepared or approved by a State or Federalagency for the pesticide. If the chemical ingredients of two or more pesticidesare substantially similar, but the specific composition varies and the productspresent similar hazards, one fact sheet may suffice for these similar products.    (c) Content of fact sheets.  Each fact sheet shall contain information,expressed in nontechnical terms, except for items specifically targeted towardsmedical personnel, such as antidotes or emergency treatment. The informationshall include:    (1) Typical brand name(s) of the pesticide, and the chemical name andcommon name of the pesticide.    (2) Information on the physical characteristics of the pesticide, such as:    (i) Color, state (solid, liquid, or gas), odor, and comparative volatility.    (ii) Comparative flammability and explosivity.    (iii) Comparative shelf-life stability, comparative or actual compatibility orincompatibility to possible tank-mix products, and comparative likelihood ofdecomposing into hazardous components.    (3) Information on the comparative toxicity of the pesticide:    (i) The comparative acute toxicity for the pesticide when swallowed,inhaled, or absorbed through the skin, expressed in terms of the relativecategory (highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightly toxic, or relatively nontoxic)and corresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on thecriteria of � 156.10(h) of this chapter.    (ii) The comparative skin irritation potential and eye irritation potential for thepesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (severely, moderately, orslightly irritating or relatively nonirritating to skin and/or eyes) andcorresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on the criteriaof � 156.10(h) of this chapter.    (iii) The comparative sensitization category for the pesticide expressed interms of the relative category (highly, moderately, or slightly likely or relativelyunlikely to cause allergic or sensitivity reactions in some individuals).    (iv) Symptoms of overexposure.    (v) Any chronic or delayed health effects, including tumors, malignancy, orcancer, changes in the genes or chromosomes, birth defects, illness or death(miscarriage or stillbirth) to a fetus, infertility or sterility in men or women, blooddisorders, nerve or brain disorders, skin disorders, liver and kidney disorders,and/or lung and respiratory disorders.    (vi) Whether the pesticide has been found to be a potential cancer causingagent by a government agency or recognized medical organization. Thesources that must be considered include the latest editions of the NationalToxicology Program Annual Report on Carcinogens (NTP), the InternationalAgency for Research on Cancer Monographs (IARC), the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration (OSHA), and EPA.    (vii) Medical conditions that may be aggravated by exposure to theproduct.    (viii) Emergency and first aid procedures for each applicable route ofexposure, i.e., oral, dermal, inhalation, and eye.    (ix) Information for physicians on the antidote, if any, and other applicableinformation for medical treatment.    (x) The types of exposure limits that have been established for the pesticide.The exposure limits that must be investigated include the OSHA PermissibleExposure Limit (PEL) and the EPA restricted-entry interval (REI). Any other knownand applicable exposure limit used or recommended by the manufacturer,formulator, importer or a governmental agency must also be noted. All listedlimits must be accompanied by a reference source to permit more detailedinformation to be obtained.    (4) Information on any special protection needed in handling the productsuch as use of personal protective equipment, engineering controls, andworkplace practices for the pesticide:    (i) Situations where personal protective equipment or engineering controlsshould be used.    (ii) Body protection, including the type of clothing to be worn duringexposures, such as mixing/loading, cleaning of equipment, and other handlingsituations.    (iii) Hand and foot protection needed, including specific material, if known,that is chemical-resistant to the pesticide or typical carrier solvent.    (iv) Eye protection.    (v) Respiratory protection, including, if known, the specific respirator type(dust/mist filtering, vapor/gas-removing, or air-supplied) and the Mine Safetyand Health Administration/National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth (MSHA/NIOSH) approval number prefix assigned to equipment that isprotective for the pesticide for exposures outdoors and in enclosed areas.    (vi) Recommendations for ventilating enclosed areas, if appropriate.    (vii) Any other personal protective equipment that would be appropriate forspecific exposure situations.    (viii) Recommended engineering controls, such as closed systems, enclosedcockpits, or enclosed cabs.    (ix) Other special protection information or special workplace practices.    (5) Information on spill or leak cleanup procedures and disposal methods forexcess chemical and for containers.    (6) The date the fact sheet was prepared or revised to its present form.    (7) The telephone number of the National Pesticide TelecommunicationsNetwork and the name, address, and telephone number of the manufacturer,formulator, importer, or responsible party, if known, who could provideadditional information about the formulated product or the active/inertingredient and about appropriate emergency procedures.    (8) If relevant information for any given category on the fact sheet is notobtainable, the category shall be marked to so indicate.    (d) Accuracy of information on the fact sheet and updates. (1) The entitypreparing the fact sheet shall ensure that the information recorded accuratelyreflects the scientific evidence used in making the hazard determination orshall ensure that the information recorded accurately reflects the informationpublished on the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet or the pesticideregistrant's product labeling.    (2) If the entity preparing the fact sheet becomes aware of any significantinformation regarding its hazards or those of its formulations or the inertingredients, one of the following actions is required:    (i) The new information shall be added to the fact sheet within 3 months.    (ii) If the pesticide is not being produced or imported currently, theinformation shall be added to the fact sheet before the formulated product isintroduced or reintroduced into the workplace.    (e) Obtaining information. If a fact sheet or Material Safety Data Sheet forthe formulated product or for each label-listed active and inert ingredient inthe formulated product is not available at the time the product is purchased,the handler employer shall take appropriate and timely steps to obtain theMaterial Safety Data Sheet or fact sheet from the distributor, the manufacturer,a State or Federal agency, or another distribution source.    (f) Maintaining information.  The handler employer shall maintain theinformation specified in paragraph (a) of this section at an appropriate centrallocation, accessible to handlers during working hours and readily obtainable inan emergency.    (g) Providing information. The handler employer shall provide a written copyof the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section, within areasonable amount of time, on the request of the handler, a representative ofthe handler, or medical personnel treating the handler.[FR Doc. 92-20006 Filed 8-19-92; 10:31 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-FFederal Register/Vol. 57, No. 163/Friday, August 21, 1992/Proposed RulesENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY40 CFR Part 170[OPP-300164E; FRL-4160-7] Exception to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry Prohibition for Hand LaborTasks Performed on Cut Flowers and Cut Ferns AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed exception to rule; request for comment.컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴�컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴SUMMARY:  EPA is considering an exception to the Worker Protection Standard,published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, that would allow,under specified conditions, early entry to perform routine hand labor tasks oncut flowers and cut ferns. DATES: Comments, data, or evidence should be submitted on or beforeSeptember 21, 1992. ADDRESSES:   Comments should be submitted in triplicate and addressed tothe Document Control Officer (H7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.     All comments should bear the document control number OPP-300164E andwill be available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, at the OPP Document Control Office, Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall1B2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:   James J. Boland, Acting Chief,Occupational Safety Branch (H7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 305-7666. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I.  Background     Section 170.112(e)(2) of the Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR part 170),which is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, provides amechanism for considering exceptions to the provision in the Standardprohibiting early entry to perform routine hand labor tasks. Information that theAgency received from the cut flower and cut fern industry during thecomment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 40 CFR parts 156and 170, the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural pesticides, haspersuaded EPA that there could be substantial economic repercussions ifroutine hand labor tasks were prohibited during the restricted-entry interval.The Agency has reviewed the information received on the subject and isinclined to grant an exception to such a prohibition for this industry, because,in light of the economic benefits and new conditions of entry that would beimposed, the Agency believes it is likely that early entry would not poseunreasonable risks to workers in this industry. II.  Evidence     Rose growers (and other cut flower growers) opposed the proposedrestricted-entry intervals because of the economic burden that would result totheir industry. Several comments emphasized the need to cut the roses twice aday, 365 days a year. The comments stated that roses are sprayed on aweekly or biweekly basis and that not cutting flowers 26 to 50 days a yearwould be economically disastrous. One grower estimated that a 1 to 2-dayrestricted-entry interval would cause at least a 10- to 15-percent crop loss. Roses, Inc., estimated the crop loss would represent 14 percent of annual salesor, on average, a loss of more than $35,000 per year per acre.    Several comments suggested that reentry for tending floral crops beallowed after sprays dry, in normal work attire, for not more than 3 hours perworker per day. Others requested that entry to treated areas be allowed fornot more than 1 hour in 24 hours per worker so that flowers could be tended. III.  Agency's Preliminary Findings    The Agency believes that the cut flower and cut fern industry must havefrequent access to harvest and tend to this time-sensitive crop. However, theAgency has no basis for reducing or eliminating restricted-entry intervals onthese crops. EPA is not aware of any substitute practice that could be used toavoid the economic burden to the industry. The Agency believes that theprojected economic costs due to a prohibition of early entry to perform handlabor tasks are higher than the costs of sending workers in during therestricted-entry interval and providing them with the required early entryprotections, including decontamination facilities, specific information, heat-stress avoidance, and providing, cleaning, and maintaining the personalprotective equipment.     To avoid excessive economic burden to the cut flower industry, the Agencyis inclined to allow early entry, under certain conditions, to perform hand labortasks on cut flowers or cut ferns, such as harvesting, pruning, disbudding, andwatering. The Agency believes that, in this situation, the use of personalprotective equipment, accompanied by a limitation on worker-exposure time,accessible decontamination facilities, label-specific and general pesticidesafety instruction, and, often, shade and mechanical cooling devices, willreduce the risk of excessive pesticide exposure for these workers. The Agencyexpects this exception would have no geographic or time limitations, becausethese crops are throughout the country and EPA has no basis to believe a timelimitation is appropriate. The following additional factors also influenced theAgency's tentative conclusion: (1) Personal protective equipment would beworn for only limited periods of time because the tasks to be performed are ofshort duration; (2) the tasks to be performed could be accomplished in areasonably efficient manner while wearing personal protective equipment,including coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves (possibly underneath leathergloves), chemical-resistant footwear and headgear, and safety glasses; (3) theaccessibility, usual in this industry, of running water for decontamination andheat stress alleviation; and (4) the availability, also usual in this industry, ofshade, fans, or other mechanical ventilation to provide some cooling. TheAgency is therefore persuaded that early entry with personal protectiveequipment is feasible and likely to provide adequate reduction of risks to theworkers in the cut flower and cut fern industry. IV.  Proposed Terms of Exception     Under the exception to � 170.112(a)(1) of the Worker Protection Standardthat the Agency is considering, workers could carry out hand labor tasksassociated with the cultivation and harvesting of cut flowers and cut ferns ifthe requirements of � 170.112(c)(3) through (c)(9) are met, i.e., (1) No entrytakes place for the first 4 hours after the application and, thereafter, until anyexposure level listed on the labeling has been reached or any ventilationcriteria established by the Worker Protection Standard or in the labeling hasbeen met; (2) the personal protective equipment required for early entry isprovided, cleaned, and maintained for the worker; (3) the requireddecontamination and change areas are provided; (4) the required basictraining and label-specific information have been furnished; and (5) measuresto prevent heat-related illness are implemented, when appropriate. Inaddition, for this specific exception for cut flowers and cut ferns the time intreated areas for each worker could not exceed 3 hours in any 24-hourperiod. V.  Comments Solicited    The Agency is interested in a full range of comments and information on thisproposed exception and grants 30 days for interested parties to comment. TheAgency particularly welcomes comments supported by information, such asevidence demonstrating whether the risks to workers would be acceptable,whether the use of personal protective equipment in these circumstanceswould be feasible, and whether there are feasible alternative practices thatwould make routine early entry unnecessary. The Agency also would welcomeany additional information concerning the likely economic impact on thisindustry of a prohibition of routine hand labor tasks during the restricted-entryintervals.   Dated:  August 13, 1992.William K. Reilly,Administrator.[FR Doc. 92-20007 Filed 8-19-92; 10:31 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-F