*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

RIN2070-AJ22_EO12866_AgWPS_FRM_FRdocument_2015-08-05.docx

Draft document as submitted for review under EO 12866

15P-0213

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 170

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184; FRL-9931-81]

RIN 2070-AJ22

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

1 SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing updates and revisions to the existing worker protection 

2 regulation for pesticides. This final rule will enhance the protections provided to agricultural 

3 workers, pesticide handlers, and other persons under the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) by 

4 strengthening elements of the existing regulation, such as training, notification, pesticide safety 

5 and hazard communication information, use of personal protective equipment, and the providing 

6 of supplies for routine washing and emergency decontamination. EPA expects this final rule to 

7 prevent unreasonable adverse effects from exposure to pesticides among agricultural workers 

8 and pesticide handlers, vulnerable groups (such as minority and low-income populations, child 

9 farmworkers, and farmworker families) and other persons who may be on or near agricultural 

10 establishments, and to mitigate exposures that do occur. In order to reduce compliance burdens

11 for family farms, EPA has included an expanded immediate family exemption in this final rule.

12 In addition, in order to display the OMB control number for the information collection 

13 requirements contained in this final rule, EPA is amending the table of OMB approval numbers 

14 for EPA regulations that appears in 40 CFR part 9.

15 DATES: This final rule is effective [insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 2 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

16 Register]. Agricultural employers and handler employers will be required to comply with most 

17 of the new requirements on [insert date one year and 60 days after date of publication in the 

18 Federal Register], as provided in 40 CFR 170.2. Agricultural employers and handler employers 

19 will be required to comply with certain new requirements on [insert date two years and 60 days 

20 after date of publication in the Federal Register] or later, as provided in 40 CFR 170.311(a)(3), 

21 170.401(c)(3), 170.501(c)(3) and 170.505(b).

22 ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA23 HQ-OPP-2011-0184, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide 

24 Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency 

25 Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution 

26 Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

27 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 

28 Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 

29 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket 

30 available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

31 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Davis, Field and External Affairs 

32 Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

33 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308-7002; 

34 email address: davis.kathy@epa.gov.

35 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

36 I. Executive Summary

37 A. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

38 This action is issued under the authority of sections 2 through 35 of the Federal 

39 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y, and particularly 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 3 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

40 section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a).

41 B. What is the purpose of the regulatory action?

42 EPA is revising the existing Worker Protection Standard (WPS), 40 CFR part 170, to 

43 reduce occupational pesticide exposure and incidents of related illness among agricultural 

44 workers (workers) and pesticide handlers (handlers) covered by the rule, and to protect 

45 bystanders and others from exposure to agricultural pesticide use. This regulation, in 

46 combination with other components of EPA’s pesticide regulatory program, is intended to 

47 prevent unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides among workers, handlers and other persons 

48 who may be on or near agricultural establishments, including vulnerable groups, such as 

49 minority and low-income populations. 

50 C. What are the major changes from the proposal to the final rule?

51 This final rule revises the existing WPS. Some significant changes are described in this 

52 Unit. Units V. through XIX. discuss in more detail the proposed rule, public comments 

53 submitted, EPA’s responses to the public comments, and final regulatory requirements.

54 In regard to training, the final rule retains the proposed content expansions (including 

55 how to protect family members and reduce take-home exposure) and the requirement for 

56 employers to ensure that workers and handlers receive pesticide safety training every year. 

57 Employers are required to retain records of the training provided to workers and handlers for two 

58 years from the date of training. The final rule eliminates the training “grace period,” which 

59 allowed employers to delay providing full pesticide safety training to workers (for up 5 days 

60 under the existing rule and for up to two days under the proposal) from the time worker activities 

61 began, if the workers received an abbreviated training prior to entering any treated area.

62 In regard to notification, the final rule retains the proposed requirements for employers to 

63 post warning signs around treated areas in outdoor production when the product used has a
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 4 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

64 restricted-entry interval (REI) greater than 48 hours and to provide to workers performing early65 entry tasks, i.e., entering a treated area when an REI is in effect, information about the pesticide 

66 used in the area where they will work, the specific task(s) to be performed, the personal 

67 protective equipment (PPE) required by the labeling and the amount of time the worker may 

68 remain in the treated area. The final rule does not include the proposed requirement for 

69 employers to keep a record of the information provided to workers performing early-entry tasks.

70 The final rule retains the existing requirements concerning the sign that must be used when 

71 posted notification of treated areas is required.

72 In regard to hazard communication, the final rule requires employers to post pesticide 

73 application information and a safety data sheet (SDS) for each pesticide used on the 

74 establishment (known together as pesticide application and hazard information) at a central 

75 location on the establishment (the “central display”), a departure from the proposal to eliminate 

76 the existing requirement for a central display of pesticide application-specific information. The 

77 final rule also requires the employer to maintain and make available to workers and handlers, 

78 their designated representatives, and treating medical personnel upon request, the pesticide 

79 application-specific information and the SDSs for pesticides used on the establishment for two 

80 years. The final rule does not include the proposed requirement for the employer to maintain 

81 copies of the labeling for each product used on the establishment for two years.

82 In regard to protections during pesticide applications, the final rule designates the area 

83 immediately surrounding the application equipment as the area from which workers and other 

84 persons must be excluded. This “application exclusion zone” differs from the proposed “entry85 restricted areas,” which would have extended a specified distance around the entire treated area 

86 during application based on the application equipment used. The final rule requires handlers to 

87 suspend application, rather than cease application, if they are aware of any person in the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 5 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

88 application exclusion zone other than a properly trained and equipped handler involved in the 

89 application.

90 In regard to establishing a minimum age for handlers and workers performing early-entry 

91 tasks, the final rule requires that handlers and workers performing early-entry tasks be at least 18

92 years old, rather than the proposed minimum age of 16 years old. This minimum age does not 

93 apply to an adolescent working on an establishment owned by an immediate family member. The 

94 final rule does not require the employer to record workers’ or handlers’ birthdates as part of the 

95 training record, but does require the employer to verify they meet the minimum age 

96 requirements.

97 In regard to PPE, the final rule cross-references certain Occupational Safety and Health 

98 Administration’s (OSHA) requirements for respirator use that employers will be required to 

99 comply with, i.e., fit test, medical evaluation, and training for handlers using pesticides that 

100 require respirator use. The final rule expands the respirators subject to fit testing beyond the 

101 proposal to include filtering facepiece respirators. The final rule maintains the existing exception 

102 from the handler PPE requirements when using a closed system to transfer or load pesticides, and 

103 adopts a general performance standard for closed systems, which differs from the specific design 

104 standards based on California’s existing standard for closed systems discussed in the proposal.

105 D. What are the incremental impacts of the final rule?

106 EPA has prepared an economic analysis (EA) of the potential impacts associated with 

107 this rulemaking (Ref. 1). This analysis, which is available in the docket, is summarized in greater 

108 detail in Unit II.C., and the following chart provides a brief outline of the costs and impacts 

109
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 6 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

110

Category Description Source

Monetized Benefits 

Avoided acute pesticide 

incidents

$0.6 – 2.6 million/year after adjustment for 

underreporting of pesticide incidents EA Chapter 4.5

Qualitative Benefits

 Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of 

pesticide exposure beyond cost of treatment and

loss of productivity.

 Reduced latent effects of avoided acute 

pesticide exposure.

 Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic 

pesticide exposure to workers, handlers, and 

farmworker families, including a range of 

illnesses such as Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, 

prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung 

cancer, chronic bronchitis, and asthma.

EA Chapter 4

Monetized Costs $60.2 – 66.9 million/year EA Chapter 3.3

Small Business Impacts

No significant impact on a substantial number 

of small entities.

 The rule will affect over 295,000 small farms, 

nurseries, and greenhouses, and commercial 

entities that are contracted to apply pesticides.

 Impact less than 0.1% of the annual value of 

sales or revenues for the average small entity.

EA Chapter 3.5

Impact on Jobs

The rule will have a negligible effect on jobs 

and employment.

 The marginal cost of a typical farmworker is 

expected to increase $5/year.

 The marginal cost for a more skilled pesticide 

handler is expected to increase by $50 per year, 

but this is less than 0.2% of the cost of a parttime employee.

EA Chapter 3.4

111

112 II. General Information

113 A. Does this action apply to me?

114 You may be potentially affected by this action if you work in or employ persons working 

115 in crop production agriculture where pesticides are applied. The following list of North 

116 American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

117 rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 7 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

118 Potentially affected entities may include:

119 • Agricultural Establishments (NAICS code 111000), e.g., establishments or persons, 

120 such as farms, orchards, groves, greenhouses, and nurseries, primarily engaged in growing crops, 

121 plants, vines, or trees and their seeds.

122 • Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421), e.g., establishments or persons 

123 primarily engaged in (1) growing nursery products, nursery stock, shrubbery, bulbs, fruit stock, 

124 sod, and so forth, under cover or in open fields and/or (2) growing short rotation woody trees 

125 with a growth and harvest cycle of 10 years or less for pulp or tree stock.

126 • Timber Tract Operations (NAICS code 113110), e.g., establishments or persons 

127 primarily engaged in the operation of timber tracts for the purpose of selling standing timber.

128 • Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products (NAICS code 113210), e.g., 

129 establishments or persons primarily engaged in (1) growing trees for reforestation and/or (2) 

130 gathering forest products, such as gums, barks, balsam needles, rhizomes, fibers, Spanish moss, 

131 ginseng, and truffles.

132 • Farm Workers (NAICS codes 11511, 115112, and 115114), e.g., establishments or 

133 persons primarily engaged in providing support activities for growing crops; establishments or 

134 persons primarily engaged in performing a soil preparation activity or crop production service, 

135 such as plowing, fertilizing, seed bed preparation, planting, cultivating, and crop protecting 

136 services; and establishments or persons primarily engaged in performing services on crops, 

137 subsequent to their harvest, with the intent of preparing them for market or further processing.

138 • Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS code 115112), e.g., establishments or persons 

139 primarily engaged in performing a soil preparation activity or crop production service, such as 

140 seed bed preparation, planting, cultivating, and crop protecting services.

141 • Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders (NAICS code 115115), e.g., establishments 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 8 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

142 or persons primarily engaged in supplying labor for agricultural production or harvesting.

143 • Pesticide Handling in Forestry (NAICS code 115310), e.g., establishments or persons 

144 primarily providing support activities for forestry, such as forest pest control.

145 • Pesticide Manufacturers (NAICS code 325320), e.g., establishments primarily engaged 

146 in the formulation and preparation of agricultural and household pest control chemicals (except 

147 fertilizers).

148 • Farm Worker Support Organizations (NAICS codes 813311, 813312, and 813319), e.g., 

149 establishments or persons primarily engaged in promoting causes associated with human rights 

150 either for a broad or specific constituency; establishments or persons primarily engaged in 

151 promoting the preservation and protection of the environment and wildlife; and establishments 

152 primarily engaged in social advocacy.

153 • Farm Worker Labor Organizations (NAICS code 813930), e.g., establishments or 

154 persons primarily engaged in promoting the interests of organized labor and union employees.

155 • Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712) e.g., establishments or persons 

156 who primarily provide advice and assistance to businesses and other organizations on scientific 

157 and technical issues related to pesticide use and pest pressure.

158 B. What action is the Agency taking?

159 EPA is finalizing changes to the WPS. The WPS is a regulation primarily intended to 

160 reduce the risks of injury or illness resulting from agricultural workers’ and handlers’ use and 

161 contact with pesticides on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The rule primarily seeks to 

162 protect workers (those who perform hand-labor tasks in pesticide-treated crops, such as 

163 harvesting, thinning, pruning) and handlers (those who mix, load and apply pesticides). The rule 

164 does not cover persons working with livestock. The existing regulation has provisions requiring 

165 employers to provide workers and handlers with pesticide safety training, posting and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 9 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

166 notification of treated areas, and information on entry restrictions, as well as PPE for workers 

167 who enter treated areas after pesticide application to perform crop-related tasks and handlers who 

168 mix, load, and apply pesticides. 

169 The final rule takes into consideration comments received from the public in response to 

170 the proposed rule (Ref. 2), as well as additional information such as reported incidents of 

171 pesticide-related illness or injury.

172 EPA believes that the changes to the WPS offer targeted improvements that will reduce 

173 risk through protective requirements and improve operational efficiencies. Among other things, 

174 EPA expects the changes to:

175 • Improve effectiveness of worker and handler training.

176 • Improve protections to workers during REIs.

177 • Improve protections for workers during and after pesticide applications.

178 • Expand the information provided to workers, thus improving hazard communication 

179 protections.

180 • Expand the content of pesticide safety information displayed to improve the display’s 

181 effectiveness.

182 • Improve the protections for crop advisor employees.

183 • Increase the amounts of decontamination water available, thus improving the 

184 effectiveness of the decontamination process.

185 • Improve the emergency response when workers or handlers experience pesticide 

186 exposures.

187 • Improve the organization of the WPS, thus making it easier for employers to understand 

188 and comply with the rule.

189 • Clarify that workers and handlers are covered by the rule only if they are employed, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 10 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

190 directly or indirectly, by the establishment (i.e., receiving a salary or wage).

191 • Protect adolescents by establishing a minimum age for handlers and for workers who 

192 enter a treated area during an REI, but adding an exemption to the minimum age requirement for 

193 adolescents who work on an establishment owned by an immediate family member.

194 • Improve flexibility for small farmers and members of their immediate family by 

195 expanding the definition of immediate family members to be more inclusive and retaining the 

196 exemptions from almost all WPS requirements for owners and their immediate family members.

197 C. What are the costs and benefits of the rule?

198 EPA estimates the incremental cost of the revisions to the WPS to be between $60.2 and 

199 $66.9 million per year, given a three percent discount rate. Using a seven percent discount rate, 

200 the rule is estimated to cost between $56.2 and $66.9 million per year. The majority of the costs, 

201 $53.0 to $62.2 million per year, are borne by farms, nurseries, and greenhouses that hire labor 

202 and use pesticides, which account for about 20 percent of all farms producing crops in the United 

203 States. The approximately 2,000 commercial pesticide handling establishments, which are 

204 contracted to apply pesticides on farms, may collectively see an incremental cost of about $1.9 

205 million per year. Family farms, i.e., not hiring labor, that use pesticides may collectively bear 

206 costs of about $1.4 million per year. Total costs amount to an average expenditure of about $30 

207 per year per farm worker. Benefits, in terms of reduced illness from exposure to pesticides, are 

208 likely to exceed $64 million per year in terms of avoided costs associated with occupational 

209 pesticide incidents and with reductions in chronic diseases associated with occupational pesticide 

210 exposure, although the amount EPA can quantify is much less.

211 The changes to the current WPS requirements are expected to lead to an overall reduction 

212 in incidents of unsafe pesticide exposure and to improve the occupational health of the nation’s 

213 agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. This section provides an overview of the qualitative 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 11 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

214 benefits of the proposal and the estimated benefits that would accrue from avoiding acute 

215 pesticide exposure in the population protected by the WPS. It also provides an estimate of the 

216 number of chronic illnesses with a plausible association with pesticide exposure that would have 

217 to be prevented by the rule changes in order for the total estimated benefits to meet the estimated 

218 cost of the proposal.

219 A sizeable portion of the agricultural workforce may be exposed occupationally to 

220 pesticides and pesticide residues. These exposures can pose significant long- and short-term 

221 health risks. It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that 

222 would result from this rule, because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide 

223 range of pesticides with varying toxicities and risks. However, there is strong evidence that 

224 workers and handlers may be exposed to pesticides at levels that can cause adverse effects and 

225 that both the exposures and the risks can be substantially reduced. EPA believes the provisions in 

226 the final rule will reduce pesticide exposures and the associated risks. 

227 The estimated quantified benefits from reducing acute worker and handler exposure to 

228 pesticides total between $0.6 million and $2.6 million annually (Ref. 1). This conservative 

229 estimate includes only the avoided costs in medical care and lost productivity to workers and 

230 handlers and assumes that just 10% of acute pesticide incidents are reported. It does not include 

231 quantification of the reduction in chronic effects of pesticide exposure to workers and handlers, 

232 reduced effects of exposure, including developmental impacts, to children and pregnant workers 

233 and handlers or willingness to pay to avoid symptoms of pesticide exposure. Because the chronic 

234 effects of pesticide exposures are seldom attributable to a specific cause, and thus are unlikely to 

235 be recorded in pesticide poisoning databases, EPA is not able to quantify the benefits expected to 

236 accrue from the final WPS changes that are expected to reduce chronic exposure to pesticides. 

237 However, associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and non-cancer chronic 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 12 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

238 health effects are well documented in the peer-reviewed literature, and reducing these chronic 

239 health effects is an important FIFRA goal. 

240 Even if the lack of quantitative data impairs the reliability of estimates of the total number 

241 of chronic illnesses avoided, it is reasonable to expect that the proposed changes to the WPS will 

242 reduce pesticide exposure, and thereby reduce the incidence of chronic disease resulting from 

243 pesticide exposure. Therefore, EPA conducted a “break even” analysis to consider the 

244 plausibility of the changes to the WPS reducing the incidence of chronic disease enough to cause 

245 the net benefits of the proposed rule to exceed its anticipated costs. Under this analysis, EPA 

246 looked at the costs associated with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s 

247 disease, lung cancer, bronchitis, and asthma and their frequency among agricultural workers, and 

248 found that reducing the incidence of lung cancer by 0.078% and the incidence of the other 

249 chronic diseases by 0.78% per year (about 44 total cases per year among the population of 

250 workers and handlers protected under the WPS) would produce quantified benefits sufficient to 

251 bridge the gap between the quantified benefits from reducing acute incidents and the final rule’s 

252 estimated high-end cost of $66.9 million. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the 

253 requirements will result in long-term health benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide 

254 handlers in excess of the less than 1% reduction in just six diseases that corresponds with the 

255 break-even point for the final rule, not only by reducing their daily risk of pesticide exposures, 

256 but also by improving quality of life throughout their lives, resulting in a lower cost of health 

257 care and a healthier society. 

258 The changes to the current WPS requirements, specifically improved training on reducing 

259 pesticide residues brought from the treated area to the home on workers’ and handlers’ clothing 

260 and bodies and establishing a minimum age for handlers and early entry workers, other than 

261 those covered by the immediate family exemption, mitigate the potential for children to be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 13 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

262 exposed to pesticides directly and indirectly. The unquantified benefit to adolescent workers and 

263 handlers, as well as children of workers and handlers is great; reducing exposure to pesticides 

264 could translate into fewer sick days, fewer days missed of school, improved capacity to learn, 

265 and better long-term health. Parents and caregivers reap benefits by having healthier families, 

266 fewer missed workdays, and better quality of life.

267 By finalizing several interrelated exposure-reduction measures, the rule is expected to 

268 avoid or mitigate approximately 44 to 73% of annual reported acute WPS-related pesticide 

269 incidents. EPA believes the final rule will substantially reduce for these workers and handlers the 

270 potential for adverse health effects (acute and chronic) from occupational exposures to such 

271 pesticides and their residues. These measures include requirements intended to reduce exposure 

272 by: 

273 • Ensuring that workers and handlers are informed about the hazards of pesticides – the 

274 final rule changes the content and frequency of required pesticide safety training, as well as 

275 making changes to ensure that the pesticide safety training is more effective. 

276 • Reducing exposure to pesticides – among other things, the final rule changes and 

277 clarifies the requirements for personal protective equipment. It also makes changes to the timing 

278 of applications when people are nearby. These and other provisions should directly reduce 

279 exposure in the agricultural workforce.

280 • Mitigating the effects from exposures that occur – some accidental exposures are 

281 inevitable. EPA expects the final rule will mitigate the severity of health impacts by updating and 

282 clarifying what is required to respond to exposures.

283 Further detail on the benefits of this proposal is provided in the document titled 

284 “Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions” which is 

285 available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 1). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 14 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

286 III. Introduction and Procedural History

287 The existing WPS was published in 1992 and implemented fully in 1995. Since 

288 implementation, EPA has sought to ensure that the rule provides the intended protections 

289 effectively and to identify necessary improvements. To accomplish this, EPA engaged diverse 

290 stakeholders, individually and collectively through organized outreach efforts, to discuss the rule 

291 and get feedback from affected and interested parties. Groups with which EPA engaged 

292 included, but were not limited to, farmworker organizations, health care providers, state 

293 regulators, educators and trainers, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, organizations representing 

294 agricultural commodity producers and crop advisors. EPA engaged these groups formally 

295 through the National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program 

296 (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workshops.htm), public meetings (e.g., National Dialogue 

297 on the Worker Protection Standard), federal advisory committee meetings (e.g., Pesticide 

298 Program Dialogue Committee, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/) and a Small Business 

299 Advocacy Review Panel (Ref. 3). EPA also engaged stakeholders informally, as individual 

300 organizations and in small groups.

301 Using feedback from stakeholders, along with other information, EPA developed 

302 proposed changes to the WPS and published them for public comment (Ref. 2). EPA received 

303 substantial feedback on the proposal, including about 2,400 written comments with over 393,000 

304 signatures. Commenters included farmworker advocacy organizations, state pesticide regulatory 

305 agencies (states) and organizations, public health organizations, public health agencies, growers 

306 and grower organizations, agricultural producer organizations, applicators and applicator 

307 organizations, pesticide manufacturers and organizations, PPE manufacturers, farm bureaus, crop 

308 consultants and organizations, and others. The comments received covered a wide range of 

309 issues and took diverse positions. Overall, the comments were thoughtful and demonstrated a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 15 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

310 high level of interest in ensuring the protection of workers and handlers, while minimizing 

311 burden on employers and regulatory agencies. This document discusses some of the significant

312 comments received and EPA’s responses. A full summary of comments received and EPA’s 

313 responses are available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 4).

314 While considering stakeholder feedback and suggestions in developing the final rule, 

315 EPA also gathered additional information, such as updated demographic information for 

316 farmworkers, new data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural 

317 Statistics Service, information on other federal rules (e.g., respirator standards, anti-retaliatory 

318 provisions), and more recent data on incidents related to occupational pesticide exposure in 

319 agriculture. EPA reviewed the methodology used to estimate the number of acute pesticide320 related incidents in agriculture and used the updated information to revise the estimated number 

321 of incidents that could be avoided under the final rule. EPA also revised the Economic Analysis 

322 for the final rule to include more recent information from the National Agricultural Statistics 

323 Service and with input from public comments.

324 IV. Context and Goals of This Rulemaking

325 A. Context for this Rulemaking

326 1. Statutory authority. Enacted in 1947, FIFRA established a framework for the pre327 market registration and regulation of pesticide products; since 1972, FIFRA has prohibited the 

328 registration of pesticide products that cause unreasonable adverse effects. FIFRA makes it 

329 unlawful to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with the labeling and gives EPA’s 

330 Administrator authority to develop regulations to carry out the Act. FIFRA’s legislative history 

331 indicates that Congress specifically intended for FIFRA to protect workers and other persons 

332 from occupational exposure directly to pesticides or to their residues (Ref. 5).

333 Under FIFRA’s authority, EPA has implemented measures to protect workers, handlers, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 16 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

334 other persons, and the environment from pesticide exposure in two primary ways. First, EPA 

335 includes specific use instructions and restrictions on individual pesticide product labeling. These 

336 instructions and restrictions are the result of EPA’s stringent registration and reevaluation 

337 processes and are based on the risks of the particular product. Since users must comply with 

338 directions for use and restrictions on a product’s labeling, EPA uses the labeling to convey 

339 mandatory requirements for how the pesticide must be used to protect people and the 

340 environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticide exposure. Second, EPA enacted the 

341 WPS to expand protections against the risks of agricultural pesticides without making individual 

342 product labeling longer and much more complex. The WPS is a uniform set of requirements for 

343 workers, handlers and their employers that are generally applicable to all agricultural pesticides 

344 and are incorporated onto agricultural pesticide labels by reference. Its requirements complement 

345 the product-specific labeling restrictions and are intended to minimize occupational exposures 

346 generally.

347 2. EPA’s regulation of pesticides. EPA uses a science-based approach to register and re348 evaluate pesticides, in order to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable 

349 adverse effects that might be caused by pesticides. The registration process begins when a 

350 manufacturer submits an application to register a pesticide. The application must contain 

351 required test data, including information on the pesticide’s chemistry, environmental fate, 

352 toxicity to humans and wildlife, and potential for human exposure. EPA also requires a copy of 

353 the proposed labeling, including directions for use and appropriate warnings.

354 Once an application for a new pesticide product is received, EPA conducts an evaluation, 

355 which includes a detailed review of scientific data to determine the potential impact on human 

356 health and the environment. EPA considers the risk assessments and results of any peer review, 

357 and evaluates potential risk management measures that could mitigate risks that exceed EPA’s 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 17 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

358 level of concern. In the registration process, EPA evaluates the proposed use(s) of the pesticide 

359 to determine whether it would cause adverse effects on human health, non-target species, and the 

360 environment. In evaluating the impact of a pesticide on occupational health and safety, EPA 

361 considers the risks associated with use of the pesticide (occupational, environmental) and the 

362 benefits associated with use of the pesticide (economic, public health, environmental). However, 

363 FIFRA does not require EPA to balance the risks and benefits for each audience. For example, a 

364 product may pose risks to workers, but risk may nevertheless be reasonable in comparison to the 

365 economic benefit of continued use of the product to society at large.

366 If the application for registration does not contain evidence sufficient for EPA to 

367 determine that the pesticide meets the FIFRA registration criteria, EPA communicates to the 

368 applicant the need for more or better refined data, labeling modifications, or additional use 

369 restrictions. Once the applicant has demonstrated that a proposed product meets the FIFRA 

370 registration criteria and any applicable requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

371 Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 321 et seq., EPA approves the registration subject to any risk 

372 mitigation measures necessary to meet the FIFRA registration criteria. EPA devotes significant 

373 resources to the regulation of pesticides to ensure that each pesticide product meets the FIFRA 

374 requirement that pesticides not cause unreasonable adverse effects to the public and the 

375 environment.

376 When EPA approves a pesticide, the labeling generally reflects all risk mitigation 

377 measures required by EPA. The risk mitigation measures may include requiring certain 

378 engineering controls, such as the use of closed systems for mixing pesticides and loading them 

379 into application equipment to reduce potential exposure to those who handle pesticides; 

380 establishing conditions on the use of the pesticide by specifying certain use sites, maximum 

381 application rate or maximum number of applications; or establishing REIs during which entry 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 18 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

382 into an area treated with the pesticide is generally prohibited until residue levels have declined to 

383 levels unlikely to cause unreasonable adverse effects. Because users must comply with the 

384 directions for use and use restrictions on a product’s labeling, EPA uses the labeling to establish 

385 and convey mandatory requirements for how the pesticide must be used to protect the applicator, 

386 the public, and the environment from pesticide exposure.

387 Under FIFRA, EPA is required to review periodically the registration of pesticides 

388 currently registered in the United States. The 1988 FIFRA amendments required EPA to 

389 establish a pesticide reregistration program. Reregistration was a one-time comprehensive review 

390 of the human health and environmental effects of pesticides first registered before November 1, 

391 1984 to make decisions about these pesticides' future use. The 1996 amendments to FIFRA

392 require that EPA establish, through rule making, an ongoing “registration review” process of all 

393 pesticides at least every 15 years. The final rule establishing the registration review program was 

394 signed in August 2006 (Ref. 16). The purpose of both re-evaluation programs is to review all 

395 pesticides registered in the United States to ensure that they continue to meet current safety 

396 standards based on up-to-date scientific approaches and relevant data. 

397 Pesticides reviewed under the reregistration program that met current scientific and safety 

398 standards were declared “eligible” for reregistration. The results of EPA’s reviews are 

399 summarized in Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents. The last RED was 

400 completed in 2008. Often before a pesticide could be determined “eligible,” additional risk 

401 reduction measures had to be put in place. For a number of pesticides, measures intended to 

402 reduce exposure to handlers and workers were needed and are reflected on pesticide labeling. To 

403 address occupational risk concerns, REDs include mitigation measures such as: Voluntary 

404 cancellation of the product or specific use(s); limiting the amount, frequency or timing of 

405 applications; imposing other application restrictions; classifying a product or specific use(s) for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 19 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

406 restricted use only by certified applicators; requiring the use of specific PPE; establishing 

407 specific REIs; and improving use directions.

408 EPA’s registration review program is a recurring assessment of products against current 

409 standards. EPA will review each registered pesticide at least every 15 years to determine whether 

410 it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. Pesticides registered before 1984 were 

411 reevaluated initially under the reregistration program. These and pesticides initially registered in 

412 1984 or later are all subject to registration review. 

413 In summary, EPA’s pesticide reregistration and registration reviews assess the specific 

414 risks associated with particular chemicals and ensure that the public and environment do not 

415 suffer unreasonable adverse effects from those risks. EPA implements the risk reduction and 

416 mitigation measures identified in the pesticide reregistration and registration review programs 

417 through amendments to individual pesticide product labeling.

418 3. WPS. The WPS regulation is incorporated by reference on certain pesticide product 

419 labeling through a statement in the agricultural use box. The WPS provides a comprehensive 

420 collection of pesticide management practices generally applicable to all agricultural pesticide use 

421 scenarios in crop production, complementing the product-specific requirements that appear on 

422 individual pesticide product labels.

423 The risk reduction measures of the WPS may be characterized as being one of three 

424 types: Information, protection and mitigation. To ensure that employees will be informed about 

425 exposure to pesticides, the WPS requires that workers and handlers receive training on general 

426 pesticide safety, and that employers provide access to information about the pesticides with 

427 which workers and handlers may have contact. To protect workers and handlers from pesticide 

428 exposure, the WPS prohibits the application of pesticides in a manner that exposes workers or 

429 other persons, generally prohibits workers and other persons from being in areas being treated 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 20 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

430 with pesticides, and generally prohibits workers from entering a treated area while an REI is in 

431 effect (with limited exceptions that require additional protections). In addition, the rule protects 

432 workers by requiring employers to notify them about areas on the establishment treated with 

433 pesticides, through posted and/or oral warnings. The rule protects handlers by ensuring that they 

434 understand proper use of and have access to required PPE. Finally, the WPS has provisions to 

435 mitigate exposures if they do occur by requiring the employer to provide to workers and handlers

436 with an ample supply of water, soap and towels for routine washing and emergency 

437 decontamination. The employer must also make transportation available to a medical care 

438 facility if a worker or handler may have been poisoned or injured by a pesticide and provide 

439 information about the pesticide(s) to which the person may have been exposed.

440 EPA manages the risks and benefits of each pesticide product primarily through the 

441 labeling requirements specific to each pesticide product. If pesticide products are used according 

442 to the labeling, EPA does not expect use to cause unreasonable adverse effects. However, data on 

443 incidents of adverse effects to human health and the environment from the use of agricultural 

444 pesticides show that users do not always comply with labeling requirements. Rigorous ongoing 

445 training, compliance assistance and enforcement are needed to ensure that risk mitigation 

446 measures are appropriately implemented in the field. The framework provided by the WPS is 

447 critical for ensuring that the improvements brought about by reregistration and registration 

448 review are realized in the field. For example, the requirement for handlers to receive instruction 

449 on how to use the pesticide and the application equipment for each application is one way to 

450 educate handlers about updated requirements on product labeling to ensure they use pesticides in 

451 a manner that will not harm themselves, workers, the public or the environment. In addition, the 

452 REIs are established through individual product labeling, but action needs to be taken at the use 

453 site to ensure that workers are aware of areas on the establishment where REIs are in effect and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 21 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

454 given directions to be kept out of the treated area while the REI is in effect. The changes to the 

455 WPS are designed to enhance the effectiveness of the existing structure of protections and to 

456 better realize labeling-based risk mitigation measures at the field level.

457 B. Goals of This Rulemaking

458 Discussions with stakeholders over many years, together with EPA’s review of incident 

459 data, led EPA to identify several shortcomings in the current regulation that will be addressed by 

460 this final rule. As discussed in Unit IV.A., EPA uses both product-specific labeling and the WPS 

461 to effectuate occupational protections for workers and handlers. EPA engages in ongoing 

462 reviews and reassessments of pesticide products to ensure they continue to meet the standard of 

463 not causing unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment. The WPS must 

464 be updated to ensure that the rule continues to complement the labeling-based protections and to 

465 address issues identified through experience with the WPS, and review of incident data and 

466 stakeholder engagement.

467 1. Purpose of the WPS. The WPS is intended to reduce the risks associated with 

468 occupational pesticide exposure to workers, handlers and their families, and to protect others and 

469 the environment from risks of pesticide use in agricultural production. The rule makes employers 

470 of workers and handlers responsible for providing protections to workers and handlers on their 

471 establishments. By imposing this obligation, EPA seeks to ensure those who make pesticide use 

472 decisions (employers) internalize the effects of their decisionmaking rather than passing on the 

473 costs associated with these decisions (risks of pesticide exposure) to others (workers and 

474 handlers).

475 As noted in Unit IV.B., the components of the WPS generally can be grouped into three 

476 categories: Information, protection, and mitigation. Employers must provide workers and 

477 handlers with information needed to protect themselves, others, and the environment from 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 22 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

478 pesticides and pesticide residues through pesticide safety training, pesticide application and 

479 hazard information, and access to labeling. Employers must provide protections to workers and 

480 handlers during and after applications in order to minimize potential for exposure. Finally, 

481 employers must be prepared to mitigate exposures that do occur by providing supplies for 

482 washing and emergency decontamination, and emergency transportation to a medical facility if 

483 necessary. These elements are necessary to implement product-specific labeling requirements

484 effectively. For example, pesticide safety training informs workers that areas treated with 

485 pesticides are off limits for entry for a certain period after the application, i.e., a product-specific 

486 REI, and that their employers will inform them of where and when REIs are in effect and entry 

487 into the treated areas is prohibited. In some instances, employers must provide further protection 

488 by posting warning signs at treated areas while REIs are in effect to remind workers to keep out 

489 of the treated areas. For handlers, training informs them about basic pesticide safety and handling 

490 precautions and reducing the potential to expose themselves or others. In addition, the employer 

491 must provide information for each application, informing the handler about the product-specific 

492 labeling restrictions and requirements.

493 In summary, the WPS works in conjunction with product labeling to protect workers and 

494 handlers from occupational pesticide exposure. The rule imposes on the employer the 

495 responsibility for providing protections to workers and handlers and to ensure they have access 

496 to information necessary to protect themselves and others during and after pesticide application. 

497 2. Surveillance data. When EPA promulgated the existing rule, it used existing data on 

498 occupational pesticide-related incidents to estimate that that approximately 10,000 to 20,000 

499 incidents of physician-diagnosed (not hospitalized) pesticide poisonings occurred in the 

500 WPS-covered workforce annually. For this rulemaking, EPA estimates that about 1,810 to 2,950

501 acute pesticide exposure incidents occur annually that potentially could be prevented by the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 23 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

502 WPS. This substantial drop in the estimated number of incidents shows that the existing rule and 

503 efforts by employers, workers and handlers have made great accomplishments in reducing 

504 pesticide exposure for workers and handlers. Pesticide use in agriculture is safer than it was 20 

505 years ago. 

506 Current occupational health incident surveillance data show, however, that avoidable 

507 incidents continue to occur. For example, some of the occupational pesticide illnesses reported to 

508 state health agencies have occurred when workers entered a treated area before the REI expired. 

509 Although employers are obligated to warn workers to keep out of treated areas and to ensure that 

510 workers receive training on and information about treated areas, incidents continue to occur.

511 Another example of potentially avoidable exposure is spray drift. Labeling instructs handlers to 

512 apply pesticides in a manner that does not contact other persons, but pesticide drift continues to 

513 cause exposure incidents. In addition to surveillance data, studies also show that pesticide 

514 residues are brought home by workers and handlers on their bodies and clothing (known as 

515 “take-home exposure”), creating an exposure pathway for family members.

516 This rulemaking is intended to reduce avoidable incidents by improving information, 

517 protections, and mitigations for workers and handlers without imposing unreasonable burdens on 

518 employers. Although EPA cannot quantify the specific reduction in incidents from any single 

519 change to the regulation, taken together, EPA estimates that the final rule will result in an annual 

520 reduction of between 540 and 1,620 acute, health-related incidents. In addition, EPA expects that 

521 the final rule will reduce chronic health problems among workers and handlers by reducing daily 

522 pesticide exposures, and thereby improving quality of life throughout their lives, resulting in a 

523 lower cost of health care and a healthier society. (See Unit II.C.) Units V. through XIX. describe 

524 the final regulatory requirements and their potential to reduce avoidable incidents. The Economic 

525 Analysis for this rulemaking provides an estimate of the costs of the requirements and a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 24 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

526 quantitative and qualitative discussion of the potential benefits, including avoiding acute 

527 pesticide-related illnesses in workers and handlers (Ref. 1).

528 3. Demographics of workers and handlers. In addition to the complexity of the science 

529 issues involving pesticide use, variability of pesticide use patterns and incomplete information 

530 about occupational pesticide-related illnesses and injuries, the diversity of the labor population at 

531 risk and the tasks they perform makes it challenging to ensure that workers and handlers are 

532 adequately protected.

533 According to the most recent public data set available from the Department of Labor’s 

534 (DOL) National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) for 2011-2012, 64% of agricultural 

535 workers in the United States were born in Mexico and 6% in Central and South America (Ref. 

536 6). A majority (69%) of all survey respondents speak Spanish as their primary language (Ref. 6).

537 Approximately 65% of this population speaks a little or no English; 38% cannot read English at 

538 all and another 30% can only read English “a little” (Ref. 6). Many have received only some

539 formal education; on average, the highest grade completed by foreign-born workers was seventh 

540 grade (Ref. 6).

541 Approximately 17% of the survey respondents were classified as migrant, having traveled 

542 at least 75 miles in the previous year to find a job in agriculture (Ref. 6). Only 17% of 

543 respondents lived in housing provided by their employer and 55% rented housing from someone 

544 other than their employer (Ref. 6). In general, agricultural workers surveyed by NAWS do not 

545 have access to employer-provided health insurance – in 2011-2012, only 21% of farmworkers 

546 reported having the option for employer-provided health insurance (Ref. 6). USDA research, 

547 based on NAWS data, also reports that workers have difficulty entering the health care system to 

548 receive treatment (Ref. 7). Cost was a significant barrier for two-thirds of farmworkers, while 

549 about a third listed language barriers as an impediment to receiving care. Most workers fear that 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 25 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

550 seeking treatment will result in losing their job because someone will replace them while they 

551 are getting treatment or the employer will label them as troublemakers and dismiss them. The 

552 problem is more severe among undocumented workers because they fear seeking treatment will 

553 lead to deportation or other adverse legal action (Ref. 7). A USDA report indicates that the 

554 factors mentioned previously contribute to the disadvantaged status of hired workers in 

555 agriculture (Ref. 7).

556 The NAWS found that 19% of workers and handlers surveyed earned less than $10,000 

557 annually from agricultural work, and another 39% earn between $10,000 and $20,000 annually.

558 Over 55% of respondents reported a total family income below $22,500 (Ref. 6).

559 Both the existing WPS and the changes included in the final rule seek to eliminate some 

560 of the potential barriers to achieving effective protection of these persons by requiring training in 

561 a manner that workers and handlers can understand, requiring the employer to ensure that 

562 handlers understand relevant portions of the labeling before handling a pesticide, and expanding 

563 training to provide information on seeking medical care in the event of a pesticide exposure and 

564 highlighting the anti-retaliation provisions of the WPS.

565 4. Summary of the final rule. The final rule amends the WPS by:

566 • Requiring pesticide safety training at one-year intervals and amending the existing 

567 pesticide safety training content.

568 • Requiring recordkeeping for pesticide safety training.

569 • Eliminating the “grace period” that allowed workers to enter a treated area to perform 

570 WPS tasks before receiving full pesticide safety training.

571 • Establishing a minimum age of 18 for handlers and for workers who enter an area under 

572 an REI.

573 • Establishing requirements for specific training and notification for workers who enter 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 26 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

574 an area under an REI.

575 • Restricting persons’ entry into certain areas surrounding application equipment during 

576 an application.

577 • Clarifying requirements for supplies for routine washing and emergency 

578 decontamination.

579 • Requiring employers to post warning signs around treated areas when the product 

580 applied has an REI greater than 48 hours and allowing the employer to choose to post the treated 

581 area or give oral notification when the product applied has an REI of 48 hours or less (unless the 

582 labeling requires both types of notification).

583 • Requiring employers to maintain and make available copies of the SDSs for products 

584 used on the establishment.

585 • Requiring employers to provide application information and SDSs to designated 

586 representatives making the request on behalf of workers or handlers.

587 • Adding elements to the requirement to maintain application-specific information.

588 • Adopting by cross reference certain OSHA requirements for employers to provide 

589 training, fit testing and medical evaluations to handlers using products that require use of 

590 respirators.

591 • Requiring employers to provide supplies for emergency eye flush at all pesticide mixing 

592 and loading sites when handlers use products that require eye protection.

593 • Maintaining the immediate family exemption and ensuring it includes an exemption 

594 from the new minimum age requirements for handlers and early-entry workers.

595 • Expanding the definition of “immediate family” to allow more family-owned operations 

596 to qualify for the exemptions to the WPS requirements.

597 • Revising definitions to improve clarity and to refine terms.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 27 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

598 • Restructuring the regulation to make it easier to read and understand.

599 Units V. through XVIII. discuss the final rule requirements and elements considered in 

600 the proposal but not included in the final rule. Unit XIX. discusses implementation of the final 

601 regulatory requirements. Each of these Units generally describes the existing rule, proposal and 

602 final regulatory requirements (where appropriate), and summarizes the major comments received 

603 and EPA’s responses. A separate document summarizing the comments received that were 

604 relevant to the proposal and EPA’s responses has also been prepared and is available in the 

605 docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 4).

606 EPA has grouped the discussion of the final rule and elements considered in the proposal 

607 but not included in the final rule as follows:

608 • Unit V: Pesticide Safety Training for Workers and Handlers.

609 • Unit VI: Notification.

610 • Unit VII: Hazard Communication.

611 • Unit VIII: Information Exchange Between Handler and Agricultural Employers.

612 • Unit IX: Drift-Related Requirements.

613 • Unit X: Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides and Working in a Treated 

614 Area while an REI is in Effect.

615 • Unit XI: Restrictions on Worker Entry into Treated Areas.

616 • Unit XII: Display of Pesticide Safety Information.

617 • Unit XIII: Decontamination. 

618 • Unit XIV: Emergency Assistance.

619 • Unit XV: Personal Protective Equipment.

620 • Unit XVI: Decision not to Require Monitoring of Handler Exposure to Cholinesterase621 Inhibiting Pesticides.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 28 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

622 • Unit XVII: Exemptions and Exceptions.

623 • Unit XVIII: General Revisions.

624 • Unit XIX: Implementation.

625 V. Pesticide Safety Training for Workers and Handlers

626 A. Shorten Retraining Interval for Workers and Handlers

627 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires employers to ensure that 

628 workers and handlers are trained once every five years. EPA proposed to establish an annual 

629 retraining interval for workers and handlers in order to improve the ability of workers and 

630 handlers to protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure.

631 2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has adopted the proposed requirement for workers 

632 and handlers to receive full pesticide safety training annually. The final regulatory text for these 

633 requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.401(a) and 170.501(a). 

634 3. Comments and responses.

635 Comments. Several farmworker advocacy groups and public health organizations

636 supported full, annual training, stating that the more frequent training would improve workers’ 

637 and handlers’ ability to protect themselves and their families, and that annual training would be 

638 simple to track administratively. Agricultural producer organizations and pesticide producers 

639 recommended an initial in-depth training for new workers followed annually by a shortened 

640 “refresher” training. A similar suggestion was to require initial in-depth training for workers and 

641 handlers, followed by four years of refresher training, with an in-depth training every fifth year. 

642 Some states suggested training every two or three years, or allowing each state to set its own 

643 training interval, to parallel the state’s pesticide applicator recertification interval. A few states 

644 recommended a system where the training timeframe is based on the calendar year, to allow 

645 flexibility for employers. For example, under this proposal, an employee trained in March 2014 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 29 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

646 could be retrained as late as December 2015. This suggestion would extend the permitted 

647 interval between worker and handler trainings to as long as two years. Comments from pesticide 

648 industry organizations suggested that the frequency of worker safety training be commensurate 

649 with an individual workers’ tasks, previous training, and experience.

650 EPA Response. EPA considered the alternatives described for training frequency, and 

651 agrees with the comments that annual training, in some form, is the appropriate interval to ensure 

652 that workers and handlers receive more frequent reinforcement of the safety principles. EPA 

653 rejected the suggestion for a limited refresher training based on the difficulty both employers and 

654 regulators would face in tracking multiple levels of training among a mobile workforce, the 

655 burdens of maintaining multiple forms of training materials and providing different trainings 

656 where employees are on differing cycles for full and refresher training, and the fact that very 

657 little of the substantive content of the required training appears to be material that would not 

658 need to be brought to employees’ attention annually. 

659 The suggestions for biennial or triennial training and allowing the states to base the 

660 frequency of training for workers and handlers on their pesticide applicator recertification 

661 requirements would present similar administrative problems with tracking trainings and 

662 introduce the possibility that workers or handlers would miss information needed to protect 

663 themselves. Finally, the alternative to establish the frequency of training based on the calendar

664 year presents similar issues with tracking training and needed frequency of repetition.

665 The recommendation for training to be tailored to the individual workers’ tasks, 

666 experience, and prior training was rejected based on the difficulty in tracking the specific 

667 training needs with a mobile workforce, the need for multiple forms of training materials, and the 

668 potential burden on employers to determine specific needs for each employee. In addition, the 

669 training gives practical information that is useful to everyone who works with or around 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 30 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

670 agricultural pesticides.

671 B. Establish Recordkeeping Requirements to Verify Training for Workers and Handlers 

672 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS does not specify how an employer must 

673 verify that a worker or handler has received pesticide safety training. EPA proposed to eliminate 

674 the existing voluntary training verification card system and to require employers to maintain 

675 records of WPS worker and handler training for two years. EPA proposed that the training record 

676 include, among other things, the employee’s birthdate to verify minimum age for early-entry 

677 worker or handler activities. EPA proposed to require the employer to provide a copy of the 

678 record to each worker or handler upon completion of the training.

679 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirement for employers to maintain 

680 records of worker and handler training for two years. Required information for the record of 

681 worker and handler training includes the trained worker’s or handler’s name and signature, the 

682 date of training, the trainer’s name, evidence of the trainer’s qualification to train, the employer’s 

683 name, and which EPA-approved training materials were used. EPA has not included in the final 

684 rule the proposed requirement for the employer to record or retain birthdate of the employee. The 

685 final rule does not require employers to automatically provide a copy of the training record to 

686 each worker and handler; instead, the final rule only requires the employer to provide a copy of 

687 the training record to the trained employee upon the employee’s request. The final regulatory 

688 text for the worker and handler training recordkeeping requirements appears at 40 CFR 

689 170.401(d) and 170.501(d), respectively.

690 3. Comments and responses.

691 Comments – compliance monitoring. Comments in support of a requirement for 

692 recordkeeping stated that it would ensure employees received the training and that it would 

693 improve enforcement and compliance.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 31 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

694 EPA Response. EPA agrees with these commenters that recordkeeping is necessary for 

695 the purpose of compliance monitoring.

696 Comments – burden. Commenters stated that the proposed requirement to distribute the 

697 record to every trained worker or handler would be burdensome and that most workers or 

698 handlers would not take or keep the records. 

699 EPA Response. EPA agrees with these commenters and has modified the requirement. 

700 The final rule requires employers to provide training records to the trained employee only on the 

701 employee’s request. This will reduce the burden on employers while ensuring that interested 

702 employees will be able to demonstrate to future employers that they were appropriately trained. 

703 Comments – birthdate. There were a number of comments, particularly from states, 

704 related to the proposed requirement that employers include the trained employee’s birthdate 

705 among the information to be recorded to document training. EPA proposed including the trained 

706 employee’s birthdate in the recordkeeping in order to facilitate its use to verify that workers or 

707 handlers met the proposed minimum age requirement for handling pesticides or entering treated 

708 areas while under an REI as allowed under the early entry exceptions. States noted that a 

709 person’s birthdate can be considered confidential and personal information, the distribution of 

710 which can lead to identity theft.

711 EPA Response. EPA has decided the advantages of requiring the employer to record the 

712 birthdate of the trained worker or handler are outweighed in this instance by the concerns for 

713 protecting confidential and personal information. Under the final rule, the employer is

714 responsible for determining that each employee has met the minimum age requirement. The final 

715 rule does not include the proposed requirement for the employer to collect or retain specific 

716 documentation of the employee’s birthdate or age.

717 C. Establish Trainer Qualifications for Workers and Handlers
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 32 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

718 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS allows workers and handlers to be 

719 trained by a variety of persons, including pesticide applicators certified to use restricted use 

720 pesticides (RUPs) under 40 CFR part 171, persons identified by the agency with jurisdiction for 

721 pesticide enforcement as a trainer of certified applicators, or persons having completed an 

722 approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer course. In addition, persons trained as handlers under 

723 the WPS are also eligible to train workers.

724 EPA proposed to limit eligible trainers of workers to those who complete an EPA725 approved train-the-trainer program or are designated by EPA or an appropriate state or tribal 

726 agency as trainers of certified applicators; being a certified applicator or trained as a handler

727 under the WPS would not automatically qualify a person to train workers under the proposal. 

728 EPA did not propose to change the qualifications for trainers of handlers. 

729 2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has expanded the class of persons qualified to train 

730 workers relative to the proposed rule. Under the final rule, qualified trainers of workers include 

731 persons who: Have completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program approved by EPA, are 

732 designated as a trainer of certified applicators, handlers or workers by EPA or a state or tribal 

733 agency responsible for pesticide enforcement, or are certified pesticide applicators under 40 CFR 

734 part 171. Unlike the proposal, certified applicators are considered qualified to train workers 

735 under the final rule. However, consistent with the proposal, the persons trained as handlers 

736 under the WPS are not considered qualified to train workers under the final rule.

737 The final rule does not make any changes from the existing rule and proposal related to 

738 who is qualified to provide training to handlers.

739 The final regulatory text for worker and handler trainer qualifications is available at 40 

740 CFR 170.401(c)(4) and 170.501(c)(4), respectively.

741 3. Comments and responses.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 33 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

742 Comments. Many of the comments advised EPA to retain certified applicators as trainers 

743 of workers in the final rule. Several commenters stated that without certified applicators 

744 providing worker training, resources such as cooperative extension trainers would be severely 

745 strained and there might not be adequate resources to provide annual training for workers.

746 Several states and others noted that certified applicators possess the necessary competence to 

747 provide training to workers; in some states, they must receive training specifically for the 

748 purpose of training workers in order to meet their certification requirements. Commenters also 

749 questioned how a certified applicator could be considered qualified to train handlers, but not 

750 workers, as many handlers have the same demographic profile as workers.

751 There were few comments in support of retaining handlers as trainers for workers. One 

752 comment suggested that handlers could be required to take an approved train-the-trainer course 

753 to ensure they can adequately train workers.

754 EPA Response. EPA is persuaded by the comments that it is reasonable to expect that 

755 certified applicators can competently train workers, as well as handlers. Commenters note that 

756 certified applicators possess knowledge of pesticide safety from their certification training and 

757 pesticide handling experience. The commenters stated that the additional burden from the 

758 proposed requirement for annual training in combination with the elimination of certified 

759 applicators as trainers would severely strain trainer resources and potentially result in fewer

760 workers receiving annual training. This concern persuaded EPA to include certified applicators 

761 as qualified to train workers in the final rule.

762 EPA agrees with the comment that handlers who have gone through a train-the-trainer 

763 course should be eligible to train workers. Under the final regulation, any person, including a 

764 handler, is qualified to train workers after successfully completing an approved train-the-trainer 

765 course.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 34 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

766 D. Expand the Content of Worker and Handler Pesticide Safety Training

767 1. Current and proposed rule. The existing WPS requires employers to provide pesticide 

768 safety training covering specific content to workers and handlers. Under the existing rule, worker 

769 safety training content must include the following 11 points: 

770 • Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work activities.

771 • Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, including acute and chronic

772 effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.

773 • Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.

774 • Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. 

775 • Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.

776 • How to obtain emergency medical care. 

777 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye flushing 

778 techniques.

779 • Hazards from chemigation and drift. 

780 • Hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.

781 • Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home.

782 • Requirements of the WPS designed to reduce the risks of illness or injury resulting from 

783 workers' occupational exposure to pesticides, including application and entry restrictions, the 

784 design of the warning sign, posting of warning signs, oral warnings, the availability of specific 

785 information about applications, and the protection against retaliatory acts.

786 Under the existing rule, pesticide handler safety training must include the following 13 

787 basic safety training points:

788 • Format and meaning of information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling, 

789 including safety information such as precautionary statements about human health hazards.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 35 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

790 • Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, including acute and chronic 

791 effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

792 • Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.

793 • Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning.

794 • Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.

795 • How to get emergency medical care.

796 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures.

797 • Need for and appropriate use of PPE.

798 • Prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of heat-related illness.

799 • Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides.

800 • Environmental concerns.

801 • Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home.

802 • Training on the requirements of the regulation related to handling.

803 EPA proposed additional content in worker pesticide safety training including, among 

804 other things, information on the requirements for early-entry notification and emergency 

805 assistance, how to reduce pesticide take-home exposure, the availability of hazard 

806 communication materials for workers, the minimum age requirements for handling and early 

807 entry, and the obligations of agricultural employers to provide protections to workers. 

808 EPA proposed additional content in handler pesticide safety training, including the 

809 requirement for handlers to cease application if they observe a person, other than another trained 

810 and properly equipped handler, in the area being treated or the entry-restricted area, and 

811 information about the requirement for OSHA-equivalent training on respirator use, fit-testing of 

812 respirators, and medical evaluation in the event a handler must wear a respirator. 

813 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed additions to and expansions of the worker 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 36 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

814 and handler pesticide safety training. The final regulatory text for the content of worker and 

815 handler pesticide training is available at 40 CFR 170.401(c)(2)-(3) and 170.501(c)(2)-(3).

816 The final rule requires employers to ensure that workers are trained on the following 

817 topics after EPA has announced the availability of training materials (see Unit XIX. for 

818 information on the timing of implementation):

819 • The responsibility of agricultural employers to provide workers and handlers with 

820 information and protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. 

821 This includes ensuring workers and handlers have been trained on pesticide safety, providing 

822 pesticide safety and application information, decontamination supplies and emergency medical 

823 assistance, and notifying workers of restrictions during applications and on entering pesticide 

824 treated areas. A worker or handler may designate in writing a representative to request access to 

825 pesticide application and hazard information. 

826 • How to recognize and understand the meaning of the warning sign used for notifying 

827 workers of restrictions on entering pesticide-treated areas on the establishment. 

828 • How to follow directions and/or signs about keeping out of pesticide-treated areas

829 subject to an REI and application exclusion zones.

830 • Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work activities and 

831 potential sources of pesticide exposure on the agricultural establishment. This includes exposure 

832 to pesticide residues that may be on or in plants, soil, tractors, application and chemigation 

833 equipment, or used PPE, and that may drift through the air from nearby applications or be in 

834 irrigation water. 

835 • Potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides present to workers and their 

836 families, including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.

837 • Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 37 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

838 • Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.

839 • Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 

840 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye flushing 

841 techniques, and if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body, to use decontamination supplies 

842 to wash immediately or rinse off in the nearest clean water, including springs, streams, lakes, or 

843 other sources, if more readily available than decontamination supplies, and as soon as possible, 

844 wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes.

845 • How and when to obtain emergency medical care.

846 • When working in pesticide-treated areas, wear work clothing that protects the body 

847 from pesticide residues and wash hands before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, 

848 or using the toilet.

849 • Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes as 

850 soon as possible after working in pesticide-treated areas.

851 • Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.

852 • Wash work clothes before wearing them again and wash them separately from other 

853 clothes. 

854 • Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at work to your home.

855 • Safety data sheets provide hazard, emergency medical treatment and other information 

856 about the pesticides used on the establishment they may come in contact with. 

857 The responsibility of agricultural employers to do all of the following: Display safety data sheets 

858 for all pesticides used on the establishment, provide workers and handlers information about the 

859 location of the safety data sheets on the establishment, and provide workers and handlers 

860 unimpeded access to safety data sheets during normal work hours.

861 • The rule prohibits agricultural employers from allowing or directing any worker to mix, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 38 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

862 load or apply pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been 

863 trained as a handler.

864 • The responsibility of agricultural employers to provide specific information to workers 

865 before directing them to perform early-entry activities. Workers must be 18 years old to perform 

866 early-entry activities.

867 • Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure.

868 • Keep children and nonworking family members away from pesticide-treated areas.

869 • After working in pesticide-treated areas, remove work boots or shoes before entering 

870 your home, and remove work clothes and wash or shower before physical contact with children 

871 or family members. 

872 • How to report suspected pesticide use violations to the state or tribal agency responsible 

873 for pesticide enforcement. 

874 • The rule prohibits agricultural employers from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

875 discriminating against any worker or handler for complying with or attempting to comply with 

876 the requirements of this rule, or because the worker or handler has provided, caused to be 

877 provided, or is about to provide information to the employer or to the EPA or its agents regarding 

878 conduct that the employee reasonably believes violates this part, and/or has made a complaint, 

879 testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing 

880 concerning compliance with this rule. 

881 The final rule requires employers to ensure that handlers are trained on the following 

882 topics after EPA has announced the availability of training materials (see Unit XIX. for 

883 information on the timing of implementation):

884 • All content for worker training.

885 • Information on proper application and use of pesticides.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 39 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

886 • Handlers must follow the portions of the labeling applicable to the safe use of the 

887 pesticide. 

888 • Format and meaning of information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling

889 applicable to the safe use of the pesticide. 

890 • Need for and appropriate use and removal of all PPE. 

891 • How to recognize, prevent, and provide first aid treatment for heat-related illness. 

892 • Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, 

893 including general procedures for spill cleanup. 

894 • Environmental concerns, such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

895 • Handlers must not apply pesticides in a manner that results in contact with workers or 

896 other persons.

897 • The responsibility of handler employers to provide handlers with information and 

898 protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes 

899 providing, cleaning, maintaining, storing, and ensuring proper use of all required personal 

900 protective equipment; providing decontamination supplies; and providing specific information 

901 about pesticide use and labeling information.

902 • Handlers must suspend a pesticide application if workers or other persons are in the 

903 application exclusion zone.

904 • Handlers must be at least 18 years old.

905 • The responsibility of handler employers to ensure handlers have received respirator fit906 testing, training and medical evaluation if they are required to wear a respirator by the product 

907 labeling.

908 • The responsibility of agricultural employers to post treated areas as required by this 

909 rule.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 40 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

910 EPA intends to develop the training materials that meet the final training requirements

911 and to publish in the Federal Register a notice of their availability. To allow time for the 

912 completion and distribution of revised training materials and to allow time for trainers to become 

913 familiar with them and begin training workers and handlers, the rule extends the implementation 

914 period for training on the new requirements for two years, or until six months after EPA has 

915 made the revised training materials available, whichever is longer. The final requirements for the 

916 content of worker and handler pesticide safety training are available at 40 CFR 170.401(c)(2)-(3) 

917 and 170.501(c)(2)-(3), respectively.

918 3. Comments and responses.

919 Comments. Farmworker advocacy organizations, many states, and public health 

920 organizations provided support for the expanded training topics, in particular information about 

921 preventing take home exposure and medical evaluation, fit testing and training on respirator use 

922 for handlers who need to wear respirators. Some farmworker advocacy organizations commented 

923 on the importance of information about worker rights. 

924 Agricultural producer organizations expressed concern for the additional burden of the 

925 lengthier training. Some states asserted that several of the handler training points are beyond the 

926 scope of the WPS and should be addressed in applicator certification only. Specifically, they 

927 requested that EPA eliminate training on environmental concerns from pesticide use; proper 

928 application and use of pesticides; and requirements for handlers to understand the format and 

929 meaning of all information contained on pesticide labels and labeling, and to follow all pesticide 

930 label directions. These commenters stated that these training points are appropriate for persons 

931 who work under the supervision of certified applicators, but they do not relate directly to worker 

932 or handler safety. Two states recommended a revision to language in the handler training topics 

933 requiring that “all” information on the pesticide label would be required to be covered, stating 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 41 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

934 that all labeling information may not be relevant to a given application. 

935 EPA Response. EPA does not agree with comments from states that the handler training 

936 topics related to environmental concerns from pesticide use, proper application and use, 

937 requirements for handlers to understand the format and meaning of information on labels and to 

938 follow label directions are beyond the scope of the WPS and may expand the liability of 

939 handlers. First, the “Worker Protection Standard” title is descriptive, and not jurisdictional. The 

940 WPS is, in essence, a codification of material that EPA would otherwise have to require to 

941 appear on the labels of agricultural pesticides. Thus its potential scope is as broad as EPA’s 

942 labeling authority. While there may be some point at which a prospective provision might be so 

943 tangentially related to the rest of the WPS that its inclusion in the WPS would cause excessive 

944 confusion, that is not the case with the provisions included in today’s final rule. 

945 In addition, this is not the first time that requirements included in the WPS have served 

946 purposes beyond the protection of agricultural workers and handlers. Section 170.210(a) of the 

947 existing rule requires that “The handler employer and the handler shall assure that no pesticide is 

948 applied so as to contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than 

949 an appropriately trained and equipped handler” (emphasis added). Section 170.234(c) of the 

950 existing rule requires that, among other things, when application equipment is sent to non951 handlers for repair, the handler employer must assure that pesticide residues have been removed, 

952 or else warn the person who would perform the repair. The handler training point on 

953 environmental concerns from pesticide use already appears in the existing rule at 40 CFR

954 170.230(c)(4)(xi). In response to a similar comment on the proposal that resulted in the existing

955 regulation, EPA stated: 

956 One comment questioned the relevancy of environmental information in worker 

957 protection training. The Agency believes such training is relevant to worker 

958 protection. Many environmental concerns are applicable not only to the organisms 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 42 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

959 in the environment, but also to workers and other persons who may be in that 

960 environment. Ground and surface water warnings, for example, are designed not to 

961 protect only aquatic organisms, but to protect workers and other persons who may 

962 be using the water for drinking, cooking, bathing, etc. The Agency notes that 

963 FIFRA defines “environment” as including “water, air, land, and all plants and man 

964 and other animals living therein, and the interrelationships which exist among these 

965 (Ref. 8).

966

967 The final rule retains the requirement for handler training on environmental concerns 

968 related to pesticide use from the current WPS.

969 EPA does not agree that the training topic requiring handlers to receive instruction on 

970 proper application and use of pesticides is only appropriate for noncertified applicators making 

971 application under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. First, handlers routinely apply 

972 pesticides, and misapplication of pesticides can result in injury to persons covered by the WPS, 

973 including workers and handlers. Training on proper use can help prevent such misapplication and 

974 consequent exposure to people. Second, relying solely on the training of noncertified applicators 

975 under direct supervision would cover only applicators using Restricted Use Products (RUPs), 

976 and many agricultural use products covered by the WPS are not RUPs. To ensure that handlers 

977 under the WPS have the training to apply pesticides properly, it is necessary for them to be 

978 trained on proper use. The final rule includes the handler training topic requiring information on 

979 proper application and use of pesticides.

980 EPA does not agree with the commenters that requirements for handlers to understand the 

981 format and meaning of information on labels and to follow labeling directions are only 

982 appropriate for noncertified applicators applying under the supervision of certified applicators.

983 To properly handle agricultural pesticides covered by the WPS rule, handlers need to understand 

984 the information on the labeling related to safe use of the pesticide and follow the use instructions.

985 Use of a product in a manner inconsistent with the labeling may cause injury or illness to the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 43 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

986 handler and to others. For a more detailed discussion of the comments and EPA’s responses on 

987 issues related to labeling, see Unit XVIII.A.

988 E. Exception to Full Pesticide Safety Training for Workers Prior to Entry into Treated Areas

989 (Grace Period).

990 1. Current rule and proposal. Except in regard to workers entering treated areas during 

991 an REI, the existing WPS permits the agricultural employer to delay providing full pesticide 

992 safety training until the end of the fifth day after the worker’s entry into a treated area, often 

993 called the “grace period,” provided that the worker receives training in a basic set of two safety 

994 points before entering the treated area (i.e., an area that has been treated or where an REI has 

995 been in effect within the last 30 days). Under this exception, the worker must receive the full 

996 safety training on the content outlined in the rule prior to the sixth day of entry into a treated 

997 area. EPA proposed to shorten the “grace period” to two days, require that full training take place 

998 before the third day of entry into a treated area, and expand the basic set of safety information to

999 be provided prior to the worker’s first entry into a treated area under the “grace period.”

1000 2. Final rule. EPA has eliminated the “grace period” entirely. The final rule requires 

1001 employers to ensure that workers receive full pesticide safety training before entering a treated 

1002 area (i.e., an area that has been treated or where an REI has been in effect within the last 30 

1003 days).

1004 3. Comments and responses.

1005 Comments. Few commenters supported the proposed two day grace period coupled with 

1006 the expanded basic safety points prior to first entry. Many agricultural producer organizations

1007 requested that EPA retain the five day grace period in the existing rule, stating it is needed for 

1008 flexibility in scheduling training sessions as workers arrive at various times on the establishment.

1009 Several farmworker advocacy organizations and two states recommended elimination of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 44 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1010 grace period entirely. One state recommended, as an alternative, adoption of the two day grace 

1011 period with reduced material relative to the proposal required prior to first entry. Farmworker 

1012 advocacy organizations that supported the elimination of the grace period cited the importance of 

1013 workers having full safety information prior to entering an area with pesticide residues. One state 

1014 that supported the elimination of the grace period expressed concern that this change would 

1015 heighten concerns about the number of qualified trainers in the event that EPA would follow 

1016 through on its proposal to make certified applicators ineligible to train workers. 

1017 EPA Response. While EPA recognizes the flexibility that the grace period offers 

1018 agricultural employers in scheduling training sessions for workers, and the economic importance 

1019 of that flexibility, EPA remains convinced that the elimination of the grace period is reasonable.

1020 The full pesticide safety training provides information that workers need to have before their 

1021 exposure to pesticide treated areas so they can protect themselves. Under OSHA, training must 

1022 take place at the time of the employee’s initial assignment. EPA has decided that the cost of 

1023 eliminating the grace period is reasonable when compared to the benefit from workers receiving 

1024 the complete pesticide safety training before their first exposure to pesticides. 

1025 EPA acknowledges concerns raised by agricultural producer organizations and states that 

1026 eliminating the “grace period” combined with the proposal to limit who is qualified to conduct 

1027 worker training could result in an inadequate number of people available to provide worker 

1028 training. The final rule continues to allow certified applicators to be trainers of workers (see Unit 

1029 V.D.). As a result, EPA expects that there will be an adequate number of trainers to provide full 

1030 pesticide safety training for workers prior to their entry into treated areas. 

1031 F. Training Program Administration Requirements 

1032 1. Current rule and proposal. Under the existing WPS, pesticide safety training must be 

1033 presented either orally from written materials or in audiovisual format. The information must be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 45 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1034 presented in a manner that the worker or handler can understand, and the trainer must respond to 

1035 questions, but the existing rule does not require the trainer to be present for the entire training 

1036 period. EPA proposed to retain the requirement to provide training in an oral and audiovisual 

1037 format, to require that the trainer remain present throughout the training session, and to require 

1038 that the training be presented in a place that is conducive to learning and reasonably free of 

1039 distractions. 

1040 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirements for the presentation of 

1041 training. Trainers of workers and handlers must remain present during training sessions to 

1042 respond to questions. The training environment must be conducive to training and be reasonably 

1043 free of distractions, to help ensure training quality. The final rule retains the existing requirement 

1044 for pesticide safety training to be delivered either orally from written materials or by audiovisual 

1045 means.

1046 The final regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.401(c)(1) and 

1047 170.501(c)(1).

1048 3. Comments and responses.

1049 Comments on use of videos. Some farmworker advocacy organizations endorsed the use 

1050 of videos, stating that when used they enhance understanding of the material, especially when 

1051 combined with hands-on activities or other kinds of learning approaches. Other farmworker 

1052 advocacy organizations stated that there is a lack of interaction between the trainer and the 

1053 employees trained using a video, resulting in reduced information transfer. Agricultural producer 

1054 organizations and states also supported the use of the video, citing ease of use, and effectiveness.

1055 Many commenters from each category urged EPA to update the videos; a few suggested EPA 

1056 evaluate different media presentations.

1057 EPA Response. EPA agrees with the commenters who consider videos to be effective and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 46 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1058 useful training material. EPA recognizes that a video is a passive form of training, and has added 

1059 the requirement for the trainer to be present to answer questions during the entire session to 

1060 mitigate this problem. EPA also expects the requirement for the training to be in a location 

1061 reasonably free of distractions to improve the ability of workers and handlers to absorb and 

1062 retain information. 

1063 Comments on the requirement for trainers to remain present during entire training 

1064 session. Farmworker advocate organizations and another commenter supported the proposal for 

1065 trainers to remain present during the entire training, citing the need for them to be interactive 

1066 with workers to enhance the training and facilitate discussion. One commenter, experienced in 

1067 providing pesticide safety training, noted that the interaction with trainees, through hands-on 

1068 training and sharing of experiences, was effective. Agricultural producer organizations opposed 

1069 the requirement, stating that it would be distracting for the video to be interrupted for questions, 

1070 and there would be lost time for the trainer. One commenter suggested it would lead to larger 

1071 training conferences that would discourage post-video interaction. Some states opposed the 

1072 requirement for the trainer to be present throughout the training; one state recommended that the 

1073 trainer only needs to be available before and after the training if a video is used.

1074 EPA Response. EPA agrees that having trainers present during the entire training 

1075 program could facilitate discussion and promote interaction. EPA disagrees that the questions for

1076 the trainer would be disruptive to the training. A 2006 study (Burke) cited interactive training 

1077 activities as a best practice for supporting training transfer. EPA is convinced that the trainer’s 

1078 presence during the video enhances the training by enabling questions and discussion during the 

1079 presentation (Ref. 9).

1080 Comments on the requirement for the training environment to relatively free of 

1081 distractions and conducive to learning. The commenters were mostly in agreement that the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 47 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1082 learning environment needs to have minimal distractions and be conducive to learning. 

1083 Farmworker advocacy organizations and public health organizations supported the proposed

1084 requirement as a way to improve the learning environment. Two farm bureaus suggested 

1085 allowing the trainer to be absent during the video, and to have a supervisor present to ensure the 

1086 quality of the training environment. One state supported the proposed requirement for the 

1087 training to be conducted in an environment free of distractions. Finally, one agricultural 

1088 organization described the environment where their workers receive training as taking place 

1089 either on or outside their transportation bus or in the field, and noted that the low number of 

1090 incidents is evidence that the training is effective.

1091 EPA Response. EPA agrees that the requirement for the training environment to be 

1092 reasonably free from distractions and conducive to training would make it easier for workers and 

1093 handlers to learn. As discussed in the previous response, EPA disagrees with comments 

1094 requesting that EPA eliminate the requirement for the trainer to be present throughout the 

1095 training. The proposal and final rule establish requirements for the training location; the ultimate 

1096 responsibility for ensuring the requirements are met rests with the employer. EPA recognizes that 

1097 there are challenges in locating environments in agriculture that are quiet and present few 

1098 distractions; classrooms are rarely convenient. However, EPA is requiring employers to provide 

1099 a training environment that is reasonably free from distractions and conducive to training. EPA 

1100 notes that the final rule does not prohibit providing training in any specific location, such as 

1101 outdoors or on a bus, as long as the environment is reasonably free from distraction and 

1102 conducive to training.

1103 G. Require Employers to Provide Establishment-Specific Information to Workers and Handlers

1104 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS does not clearly require employers to 

1105 provide to workers and handlers establishment-specific information on the location of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 48 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1106 decontamination supplies or hazard information as part of their pesticide safety training. EPA 

1107 proposed that in addition to required pesticide safety training, employers must provide workers 

1108 and handlers with establishment-specific information about the location of decontamination 

1109 supplies and pesticide safety and hazard information, as well as how to obtain medical 

1110 assistance. EPA proposed that agricultural and handler employers would be required to provide 

1111 this establishment-specific information to all workers and handlers, including those previously 

1112 trained on other establishments. 

1113 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirement for employers to provide 

1114 establishment-specific information to workers and handlers. The final rule requires employers to 

1115 provide establishment-specific information for workers and handlers when they enter the 

1116 establishment and before beginning WPS tasks in areas where within the last 30 days a product 

1117 requiring compliance with the WPS has been applied or an REI has been in effect. Content for 

1118 the establishment-specific information includes the location of the pesticide safety information, 

1119 the location of pesticide application and hazard information, and the location of decontamination 

1120 supplies. Employers are required to provide this information in a manner that the worker or 

1121 handler can understand, such as through a translator, and prior to the worker or handler 

1122 performing activities covered by the WPS. Lastly, this information is required even if the 

1123 employer can verify that the worker or handler has already received the general pesticide safety 

1124 training on another establishment, because the information required is specific to each 

1125 establishment. The final regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.403 

1126 and 170.503(b).

1127 3. Comments and responses.

1128 Comments. Commenters largely supported the addition of the establishment-specific 

1129 training, with some noting that it is currently being provided voluntarily. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 49 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1130 EPA Response. EPA agrees with the commenters that the establishment-specific training 

1131 is necessary for workers and handlers to know where to find information on the establishment to 

1132 protect themselves from pesticides and their potential effects. EPA notes that some of this 

1133 information is required under the existing rule. However, EPA is convinced that consolidating 

1134 the requirements for establishment-specific training will make them easier for employers to find 

1135 and comply with, resulting in a higher likelihood that workers and handlers will receive the 

1136 necessary information.

1137 H. Costs and Benefits of Revisions to Pesticide Safety Training

1138 1. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of changes to pesticide safety training for workers and 

1139 handlers, including increased frequency, expanded content, recordkeeping, eliminating the 

1140 “grace period,” changing who is qualified to conduct training, and amending training program 

1141 administration requirements would be $29.9 million annually and range from approximately $62 

1142 to $80 per agricultural establishment per year. For a complete discussion of the costs see the 

1143 “Economic Analysis of Final Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard” (Ref. 1).

1144 2. Benefits. While EPA can estimate the costs of the changes to pesticide safety training 

1145 for workers and handlers, quantifying the benefits is more difficult. Nonetheless, as explained in 

1146 the NPRM, it is reasonable to expect that more frequent training would lead to better retention of 

1147 information by workers and handlers, ultimately resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide 

1148 exposure and illness in workers and handlers, improved decontamination procedures, reduced 

1149 take-home exposure, and better protection of children. Similarly, providing workers with training 

1150 before they enter a treated area will give them tools they need to protect themselves before they 

1151 encounter pesticides as part of their occupation. Improving the quality of worker training by 

1152 limiting trainers to persons who have completed a train-the-trainer course, are certified 

1153 applicators under Part 171, or have been designated by the regulatory agency responsible for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 50 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1154 pesticide enforcement as a trainer of workers, handlers or certified applicators is expected to 

1155 advance worker comprehension of the safety principles and result in better self-protection.

1156 Finally, enhancing the quality of the training environment and ensuring that there is a 

1157 knowledgeable person available throughout the training session to respond to questions will 

1158 improve the ability of the trainee to retain the information.

1159 The expansion of information provided in the training will enable workers and handlers 

1160 to better protect themselves and their families, by increasing their knowledge of how to reduce 

1161 take-home residues from treated areas. The training gives practical information that is useful to 

1162 everyone who works with or around agricultural pesticides.

1163 The requirement for recordkeeping is an important element of the training requirement.

1164 Although in itself not a protective factor, it will support the determination of compliance when 

1165 partnered with worker and employer interviews and therefore promote adherence to the 

1166 requirements. In the final rule the employer must provide the record to the worker or handler 

1167 upon request. The burden of providing copies of training records will be offset by the reduction 

1168 in the number of trainings that would otherwise have to be provided to workers and handlers who 

1169 have already been trained at another establishment.

1170 VI. Notification

1171 A. Posted Notification Timing and Oral Notification

1172 1. Current rule and proposal. The current WPS requires agricultural employers to notify 

1173 workers about pesticide applications and areas on the agricultural establishment subject to an 

1174 REI. Notification is required when workers are on the establishment during application or the 

1175 REI and will pass within one-quarter mile of the treated area. On farms, and in forests and non1176 enclosed nurseries (referred to as “outdoor production” in the proposal) the agricultural employer 

1177 may choose either to post warning signs at the usual points of entry around the treated area or to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 51 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1178 notify workers orally about applications that will take place on the establishment. In greenhouses 

1179 and some other enclosed spaces (referred to as “enclosed space production” in the proposal), the 

1180 agricultural employer must post warning signs for all applications, regardless of the product’s 

1181 REI. In cases where the product labeling requires both written and oral notification of workers, 

1182 the WPS also requires this “double notification.”

1183 For outdoor production, EPA proposed requiring agricultural employers to post warning 

1184 signs where the pesticide to be applied has an REI greater than 48 hours, and to allow the option 

1185 of oral warning or posted notification for products with an REI of 48 hours or less. For enclosed 

1186 space production, EPA proposed requiring posting of warning signs only when the product 

1187 applied has an REI greater than four hours, and to allow the option of oral warning or posted 

1188 notification for products with an REI of four hours or less.

1189 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirements to post warning signs for all 

1190 “outdoor production” when a product with an REI longer than 48 hours is used, and to allow 

1191 either oral or posted warnings for “enclosed space production” when a product with an REI of 4 

1192 hours or less is used. The final regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 

1193 170.409(a)(1)(ii)-(v). The final rule eliminates the existing requirement for employers to take 

1194 down posted warning signs within three days of the expiration of the REI, but prohibits worker 

1195 entry into the area until the posted warning signs have been removed (except for early entry 

1196 pursuant to 40 CFR 170.603). The final regulatory text for this prohibition is available at 40 

1197 CFR 170.409(b).

1198 3. Comments and Responses.

1199 Comments. Many states and some farmworker advocacy organizations and public health 

1200 organizations supported the “field posting” and notification requirements as proposed. They 

1201 noted the potential benefit to workers and employees of crop advisors of mandatory posting for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 52 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1202 the most toxic pesticides. They agreed with EPA’s assessment that additional posting would 

1203 provide added protection for workers while placing a minimal burden on employers.

1204 Several grower associations and farm bureaus supported the proposed change in 

1205 notification requirements for indoor production but opposed the proposal for additional posting 

1206 for outdoor production. They noted that signs can be destroyed, removed, or relocated and that 

1207 agricultural producers may not return to some fields more than once per week. One grower 

1208 association specifically requested that EPA clarify how enforcement would address these 

1209 challenges without inappropriately penalizing agricultural employers. This group stated that 

1210 workers are fully capable of understanding oral notification and suggest focusing instead on 

1211 reinforcing the existing oral notification. Several grower organizations also did not agree that 

1212 EPA justified the cost of the proposal with the benefits.

1213 Farmworker advocacy organizations suggested a number of alternatives, including 

1214 requiring both posting signs and providing oral warnings for all pesticide applications, or at a 

1215 minimum for those pesticides with an REI of 12 hours or more. Some farmworker advocacy 

1216 organizations suggested mandatory posting of any treated area subject to an REI greater than 24 

1217 hours, and others requested that EPA require mandatory posting of any treated area subject to an 

1218 REI. They reiterated EPA’s rationale that oral notification of pesticide application information is 

1219 difficult to recall over multiple days, that oral notification may not be clearly communicated due 

1220 to multiple language barriers and that it is difficult to verify whether oral notification was in fact 

1221 given.

1222 EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and agrees that increasing 

1223 workers' awareness of treated areas will lead to an overall reduction in occupational pesticide1224 related illnesses at reasonable cost. 

1225 EPA disagrees with comments that suggest oral notification alone would provide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 53 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1226 sufficient notification to workers and agrees with comments that support increased posting 

1227 requirements. As noted in the proposal for this rule, research has shown that oral instruction 

1228 alone may not be an effective method of safety instruction. EPA is aware that compliance with 

1229 the posting requirement for outdoor production could require some establishments to change 

1230 their business practices or monitor posted fields more often.

1231 EPA considered additional posting requirements presented by farmworker advocacy 

1232 organizations and was not convinced that the increased cost to employers to post all treated 

1233 areas, or to post areas treated with products with REIs of 12 hours or greater, or 24 hours or 

1234 greater would result in significantly more increased protections than the requirement to post 

1235 areas treated with products with an REI of 48 hours or greater. EPA concluded that it is 

1236 reasonable to expect workers to remember oral warnings regarding REIs for two work days, or 

1237 about 48 hours total, and reasonable to require visual reminders for longer periods.

1238 4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the annual cost of posting treated areas under an 

1239 REI of more than 48 hours and allowing oral notification for indoor production applications of 

1240 products with an REI of 4 hours or less to be $10.4 million annually, with the per establishment 

1241 cost of $33, and finds this cost to be reasonable in comparison to the benefit to workers to avoid 

1242 pesticide illness by remaining out of treated areas under an REI. 

1243 B. Revise Content of Warning Sign

1244 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires agricultural employers to post 

1245 warning signs with the words “DANGER,” “PELIGRO,” “PESTICIDES” and “PESTICIDAS,” 

1246 at the top of the sign, and the words “KEEP OUT” and “NO ENTRE” at the bottom of the sign.

1247 A circle containing an upraised hand on the left and a stern face on the right must be near the 

1248 center of the sign. EPA proposed replacing “KEEP OUT” and “NO ENTRE” with “Entry 

1249 Restricted” and “Entrada Restringida,” and changing the shape containing the face and hand to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 54 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1250 an octagon (similar to a stop sign).

1251 2. Final rule. EPA has decided not to change the text or graphic of the existing warning 

1252 sign. The final regulatory text for the warning sign content is available at 40 CFR 170.409(b)(2).

1253 3. Comments and responses.

1254 Comments. Two states and several grower organizations supported the proposed changes 

1255 on the grounds that "Entry Restricted" would be less confusing to workers than “KEEP OUT,” 

1256 since entry is allowed under certain circumstances. Many more state, farmworker advocacy 

1257 organizations, and public health organizations opposed changing the existing warning sign.

1258 Those commenters asserted that “KEEP OUT” sends a much clearer message than “Entry 

1259 Restricted,” particularly to people with lower levels of literacy. They noted that the term 

1260 “Entrada Restringida” is not common in Spanish, which is the first language of the majority of 

1261 farmworkers in the U.S., whereas “KEEP OUT” is simple and well understood even by people 

1262 who do not speak or read English. Commenters pointed to standard readability test results

1263 confirming that “KEEP OUT” is easily understood by most six-year-olds, while “Entry 

1264 Restricted” is placed at the grade 12-13 reading level and would be beyond the reading and 

1265 comprehension level of the majority of farmworkers in the U.S.

1266 A number of states commented that the existing sign is sufficient. They noted that 

1267 although “Entry Restricted” is more accurate, it would be a costly change for growers that may 

1268 lead to confusion and not be more protective than the language on the existing warning sign.

1269 States also commented that 20 years of training and experience with the current sign is what 

1270 makes it effective for keeping workers out of fields under an REI. The states and farmworker 

1271 advocacy organizations agreed that for the predominantly low-literacy population of 

1272 farmworkers, a simpler message, along with training on the message, is more protective than the 

1273 proposed wording for the warning sign.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 55 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1274 EPA Response. EPA was persuaded that the proposed changes to the warning sign would 

1275 be costly for employers and not increase protections for workers as much as expected. A 

1276 significant factor in EPA’s decision was the additional information presented in public comments 

1277 regarding the potential lack of understanding of the term “Entrada Restringida.” EPA was 

1278 convinced that eliminating the existing language, “KEEP OUT,” in favor of a technically more 

1279 accurate sign would be less protective for the majority of workers. The goal of the warning sign 

1280 is to keep workers out of areas that are treated with certain pesticides. Entry into these areas is 

1281 prohibited while the REI is in effect with a few narrow exceptions. Workers that are directed to 

1282 enter treated areas under an REI and/or areas where the warning sign is posted must have 

1283 received pesticide safety training, be provided additional protections, and be informed that their 

1284 entry is subject to the limitations established for early entry exceptions in the regulation. Because 

1285 EPA expects that the majority of workers would never enter treated areas during an REI, because

1286 20 years of training and experience have familiarized workers with the message and intent of the 

1287 sign, and because EPA has added additional training and protection for workers entering treated 

1288 areas while an REI is in effect, EPA agrees with commenters that the easily understood message 

1289 of “KEEP OUT” is most appropriate.

1290 4. Costs and benefits. Since the final rule does not change the requirement in the existing

1291 rule, there are no costs associated with this decision.

1292 C. Warning Sign Location Revisions

1293 1. Current rule and proposal. Under the existing rule, when signs are required for 

1294 applications in outdoor production, they “shall be visible from all usual points of worker entry to 

1295 the treated area, including at least each access road, each border with any labor camp adjacent to 

1296 the treated area, and each footpath and other walking route that enters the treated area.” EPA 

1297 proposed maintaining the existing posting requirement for outdoor production and clarifying the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 56 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1298 language to require posting be visible from “each border with any worker housing area within 

1299 100 feet of the treated area,” rather than “labor camps adjacent to the treated area.” 

1300 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed changes to the warning sign location 

1301 requirements for outdoor production. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 

1302 40 CFR 170.409(b)(3)(ii).

1303 3. Comments and responses.

1304 Comments. Several states, grower organizations, and farmworker advocacy organizations 

1305 supported the proposal and agreed that it would support EPA’s goal of increasing clarity of the 

1306 rule and enhance the ability of employers to understand their responsibilities under the 

1307 regulation. Commenters in support of the change noted that “adjacent” is a vague term that may 

1308 be interpreted differently by different people and that “labor camp” is too limited and does not 

1309 technically include worker housing. They noted that clearer posting requirements could lead to 

1310 better compliance and thus be a better system for keeping people living in close proximity to 

1311 treated fields safe.

1312 Some pesticide manufacturers opposed the proposal on the grounds that it is an overly 

1313 prescriptive, costly, and unnecessary provision which would not provide additional protection 

1314 above that already provided by the label and existing WPS.

1315 A public health organization proposed adding pesticide application information and REIs 

1316 to the posting requirement near worker housing areas. One state suggested revising the language 

1317 by stating “Each border with any worker housing area provided by this establishment/employer 

1318 within 100 feet of the treated area.”

1319 EPA Response. EPA was not persuaded by the comments that the requirement would be 

1320 a significant additional burden on employers. The requirement only clarifies where employers 

1321 need to post warning signs but does not increase posting requirements beyond what was intended 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 57 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1322 in the existing regulation. EPA agrees with commenters who noted that increased clarity on 

1323 posting requirements will lead to better compliance and increase awareness of treated fields by 

1324 workers who live near treated areas.

1325 4. Costs and benefits. Because this change only clarifies an existing requirement, the cost, 

1326 if any, would be negligible.

1327 VII. Hazard Communication

1328 A. Hazard Information – Location and Accessibility

1329 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires employers to display certain 

1330 information about pesticide applications at a central location on the establishment when workers 

1331 or handlers are present and an application of a pesticide requiring compliance with the WPS has 

1332 been made or an REI has been in effect within the past 30 days (referred to as the “central 

1333 display” requirement). 

1334 EPA proposed to replace the existing requirement for the application information to be 

1335 located at the central display with a requirement for employers to make the application

1336 information and additional hazard information accessible upon request by workers, handlers or 

1337 their authorized representatives.

1338 2. Final rule. EPA has decided not to finalize the proposal. The final rule generally 

1339 retains the existing requirement related to the location of, and accessibility for workers and 

1340 handlers to, the pesticide application information, makes some changes to the content of the 

1341 required information, requires display of hazard information, and includes the accessibility 

1342 requirements proposed for workers, handlers, and their designated representatives (“authorized 

1343 representatives” in the proposal). The employer must display the information at a place on the 

1344 establishment where workers or handlers are likely to pass by (the “central display”). The

1345 information must be displayed when workers or handlers are on the establishment and an 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 58 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1346 application of a WPS-covered pesticide has been made or an REI has been in effect within the 

1347 past 30 days. After this time, the information must be kept on the establishment for two years

1348 and made available to workers, handlers, or their designated representatives or any treating 

1349 medical personnel. The final rule contains more specificity than the proposal, particularly in 

1350 reference to the designated representative, where details are drawn from OSHA’s rule at 29 CFR 

1351 1910 (Ref. 17).

1352 The designated representative must provide written evidence of such designation, 

1353 including the name of the worker or handler being represented, a description of the specific 

1354 information being requested, including dates of employment of the employee, the dates for 

1355 which the records are requested, the type of work conducted by the worker or handler during that 

1356 period, a statement indicating that the representative is designated by the worker or handler, the 

1357 specific application and/or hazard information requested, a statement designating the 

1358 representative to request the information on the worker’s or handler’s behalf, the date of the 

1359 designation, and the printed name and contact information for the designated representative. If 

1360 the information is to be sent to the requester, direction for where that information must be sent is 

1361 to be included. When the employer is presented a request that contains all of the necessary 

1362 information specified in the regulations, the employer must provide a copy of, or access to, all of 

1363 the requested information that is applicable within 15 working days from the receipt of the 

1364 request. Failure to respond to the request would be a violation of the rule. The final regulatory 

1365 text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.311(b)(9).

1366 Workers and handlers who worked on the establishment may request, orally or in writing,

1367 the pesticide-specific information retained by the employer. The information must have been 

1368 displayed while the worker or handler worked on the establishment. The employer must provide 

1369 access to, or a copy of, the information within 15 days of the request. The regulatory text for this 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 59 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1370 requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.311(b)(7). 

1371 Medical personnel or persons acting under their supervision may also request the 

1372 pesticide-specific information required to be retained in 170.311(b)(8) to inform diagnosis or 

1373 treatment of workers or handlers who were employed on the establishment during the time the 

1374 information was required to be displayed. The request may be provided orally or in writing to the 

1375 agricultural employer, and the employer must respond promptly to the request. 

1376 Lastly, the final rule makes some changes to the content of the required pesticide 

1377 application information and when it must be posted, as explained in Units VII.C. and VII.D.

1378 3. Comments and responses.

1379 Comments. The overwhelming majority of commenters requested EPA to keep the 

1380 existing central display requirement. Many comments from farmworker advocacy organizations, 

1381 public health organizations, states, and some members of Congress noted that they thought it was 

1382 unreasonable and unrealistic to think a vulnerable population such as workers and handlers 

1383 would request hazard information from their employers. These commenters cited many reasons

1384 for this position, including barriers (e.g., language differences, concern about compromising their 

1385 immigration status, and fear of retribution, retaliation or job loss) and the power and social 

1386 dynamics between employer and employee. These commenters were adamant that workers and 

1387 handlers needed ready, anonymous, unhampered access to hazard information as currently 

1388 provided through the central display requirement. 

1389 Most of these commenters supported the inclusion of a designated representative who 

1390 could request the hazard information on behalf of a worker or handler, including farmworker 

1391 advocacy organizations citing OSHA’s requirements at 29 CFR 1910.1020(e)(1) that establish 

1392 access to exposure records for workers in other industries. Comments in support of including 

1393 access to hazard information by workers’ or handlers’ designated representatives note that 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 60 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1394 workers and handlers may be reluctant to request the information for themselves due to their 

1395 inability to communicate effectively with, or fear of, their employer, or because they may not be 

1396 able to understand the information without help. One comment described a situation where a 

1397 farmworker advocacy organization requested such information from an employer on behalf of 

1398 two ill workers, but their request was denied because the workers themselves did not make the 

1399 request.

1400 In contrast, there was significant opposition from the agricultural industry to the proposal 

1401 for the authorized representative, including growers, pesticide manufacturers, and their 

1402 organizations, and some states. Comments from these groups centered on the additional burden 

1403 on employers to provide the records. Commenters also expressed concerns that allowing access 

1404 to pesticide application information by designated representatives could be abused by anti1405 pesticide organizations, who could send people onto the establishment requesting information 

1406 purportedly on behalf of a worker or handler. In addition, some farm bureau comments stated 

1407 that the requirement for providing the information to a representative is a violation of farmer’s 

1408 legal and privacy rights, stating that the representative could demand all information related to 

1409 pesticides on that establishment. 

1410 Some commenters provided recommendations to improve the proposed requirement for a 

1411 designated representative. Suggested improvements included limiting the designated 

1412 representative requirement to current workers and handlers or to employees who worked on the 

1413 establishment within two years of the request, limiting access to medical personnel only, or 

1414 limiting the request to a specific incident. Many commenters recommended that the request be 

1415 in written form, and include designation of the representative by the worker or handler. One 

1416 state recommended defining a time frame for provision of the information to the requester. 

1417 Another state suggested that the request clearly identify the information required to be provided 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 61 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1418 to the authorized representative, and the purpose of the request or intended use of the 

1419 information.

1420 Many of the commenters in favor of keeping the existing central display requirement 

1421 explained that a central display requirement that provides information about general pesticide 

1422 safety, including symptoms of pesticide illness, and the specific pesticides used on the 

1423 establishment, is necessary to protect the health of workers and handlers. First, having 

1424 information available in non-emergency situations could help workers and handlers be aware of 

1425 symptoms before they occur, help them avoid exposure, and possibly enhance the reporting of 

1426 illnesses. Secondly, they stated that emergency medical personnel would not have to lose critical 

1427 time tracking down information instead of treating the ill or injured person if they could rely on 

1428 accessing the information quickly from the central display.

1429 EPA also received comments from one pesticide manufacturer organization, a couple of

1430 states and some farm bureaus in favor of the proposal to eliminate the existing requirement for a 

1431 central display of pesticide application information. These commenters agreed with EPA’s 

1432 observations in the preamble to the proposal that this requirement imposes a paperwork burden 

1433 and that states often cite employers for technical violations of the display requirement. The 

1434 commenters stated it is difficult to keep the displayed information current when application plans 

1435 change, especially on large establishments. They also noted the difficulty keeping information 

1436 legible when it is displayed at a central location subject to weather conditions. These 

1437 commenters encouraged EPA to eliminate the existing central display requirement, not to 

1438 finalize the proposed requirement to provide hazard communication information to workers, 

1439 handlers, or their designated representative, and to require employers to only keep records of 

1440 pesticide applications on their establishment.

1441 EPA Response. EPA agrees with those commenters who argued that workers and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 62 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1442 handlers must have relatively unhindered access to pesticide-specific information, and has 

1443 decided to retain the central display requirement. Although the extent and type of barriers and 

1444 employer-employee dynamics are unique to each situation, EPA recognizes that a significant 

1445 number of workers and handlers face disadvantages that can reasonably be expected to make 

1446 them hesitant to ask their employers for information relating to their pesticide exposure.

1447 Consequently, EPA believes that it is not reasonable to make an employee’s task of obtaining 

1448 this information more difficult, particularly given the potential usefulness of the information if an 

1449 employee may have been harmed by a pesticide. Therefore, EPA has decided to retain the 

1450 requirement for the pesticide application information to be displayed at a place on the 

1451 establishment where workers and handlers are likely to pass by or congregate and has added the 

1452 requirement that the SDS must also be displayed at that location. In addition, in the final rule, 

1453 workers and handlers and their designated representative may request either a copy of or access 

1454 to the pesticide-specific information that was required to be displayed while the worker or 

1455 handler was employed on the establishment. The records of application and SDSs must be 

1456 retained for two years after the application. Access to the SDSs after the display period will 

1457 afford workers and handlers information about the pesticides they may have been exposed to, 

1458 and the hazards they may present.

1459 EPA recognizes, however, that there can be difficulties in complying with the central 

1460 display requirement. In response to comments about the difficulty of keeping accurate 

1461 information posted, EPA has attempted to simplify the central display requirement by changing 

1462 the required time frame for posting the application-specific information (see Unit VII.D.). EPA 

1463 expects this modification to the requirement for the timing to post the application information 

1464 will reduce the burden on employers, while providing employees with ready access to accurate 

1465 information. In response to the comments about the difficulty of maintaining a legible central 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 63 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1466 display when it is subject to weather conditions, EPA notes that the central display requirement 

1467 does not mandate that employers post the information outdoors. The information must be 

1468 displayed “where workers and handlers are likely to pass by and congregate and where it can be 

1469 readily seen and read” and workers and handlers must be able to access the information at all 

1470 times during work hours. This does not preclude the central display from being maintained in a 

1471 location sheltered from weather conditions, such as a bathroom, break area, or changing area, as 

1472 long as the requirements of this section are met. 

1473 EPA has been convinced by comments in support to retain the option for a designated 

1474 representative to access hazard information (application information and SDS) on behalf of a 

1475 worker or handler. EPA agrees that including in the rule a requirement, based on OSHA’s rule at 

1476 29 CFR 1910.1020, for employers to provide the information to a representative who has been 

1477 designated to act on the behalf of the worker or handler would give workers and handlers more 

1478 access to information related to pesticides used in their workplace. Also, EPA is aware that 

1479 California and Texas regulations include requirements for employee representatives’ to be given 

1480 access to hazard information for farmworkers, and comments from the Texas Department of

1481 Agriculture encouraged EPA to require the designation in writing and to limit access to records 

1482 to the retention timeframe of two years. EPA is unaware of issues related to worker 

1483 representatives in those states. 

1484 In response to the many comments opposing the establishment of the authorized or 

1485 designated representative based on concerns for the potential for anti-chemical activists 

1486 fraudulently acquiring records, the final rule includes a requirement for the representative to 

1487 provide to the employer documentation (written authorization) signed by the worker or handler 

1488 that clearly designates that person to act as his or her designated representative. The information 

1489 that can be obtained is limited to the application and hazard information that is required by § 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 64 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1490 170.311(b) of the final rule that was required to be displayed while the worker or handler was on 

1491 the establishment, and for the dates applicable to the worker’s or handler’s dates of employment 

1492 on the establishment. The employer must provide the information regardless of the worker’s or 

1493 handler’s employment status on that establishment at the time of the request.

1494 EPA was convinced by comments about the need for the pesticide specific information 

1495 by medical personnel treating workers or handlers who may have been exposed to pesticides on 

1496 the establishment, and has added a requirement that employers promptly provide the information 

1497 to the requesting medical personnel or persons they supervise. The information would help 

1498 ensure that the medical considerations would include the possibility that a pesticide exposure 

1499 was involved in the worker’s or handler’s illness.

1500 B. Pesticide-Specific Hazard Communication Materials – General

1501 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires employers to provide workers 

1502 and handlers with specific pesticide application information, but not pesticide-specific hazard 

1503 information on the pesticides they may be exposed to in the workplace. 

1504 EPA proposed to require employers to provide workers and handlers with access to the 

1505 SDSs and pesticide labeling for products that have been applied on the establishment and to 

1506 which workers and handlers may be exposed, in addition to the pesticide application information 

1507 already required to be made available.

1508 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the requirement for agricultural employers to display at a 

1509 central location pesticide application information and SDSs for pesticide products used on the 

1510 establishment (referred to as “pesticide application and hazard information” in the final rule). 

1511 EPA has not finalized the proposal to require employers to provide access to pesticide labeling. 

1512 The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.311(b).

1513 3. Comments and responses.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 65 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1514 Comments on providing safety data sheets and pesticide labeling. EPA received many 

1515 comments in favor of the proposed requirement. Although many farmworker advocacy 

1516 organizations expressed support for a requirement that employers maintain both labeling and 

1517 SDS and make them available to workers and handlers, few discussed the merits or drawbacks. 

1518 Many farmworker advocacy organizations, public health organizations and academics, a grower 

1519 organization and others supported a requirement to maintain and provide SDSs. Some of these 

1520 commenters indicated that the information on a SDS would be helpful for the correct diagnosis 

1521 and treatment of pesticide-related illnesses. Farmworker advocacy organizations explained that 

1522 workers want more information on what pesticides are used and what they are exposed to, along 

1523 with possible side effects. On the other hand, a few grower organizations, a farm bureau, a 

1524 pesticide manufacturer organization and a couple of states were against a requirement to provide 

1525 SDSs. These commenters argued that EPA had not made a case strong enough to justify why 

1526 workers need SDSs. They also opposed display of SDSs on the grounds that while the pesticide 

1527 product label poses legally enforceable requirements on users, SDSs do not. 

1528 Some farmworker advocacy organizations, public health organizations, a grower 

1529 organization, a farm bureau and others thought it would not be much of a burden on agricultural 

1530 employers to acquire the SDSs of pesticide products because they are easily available online or 

1531 can be requested from the pesticide manufacturer or distributor. One farmworker advocacy 

1532 organization gave the Washington State Employer Hazard Communication rule (EHC rule) as an 

1533 example of a requirement for employers to make SDSs available to employees that is feasible.

1534 http://www.lni.wa.gov/IPUB/413-012-000.pdf. The Washington State EHC rule applies to 

1535 employers with one or more employees who either handle or are potentially exposed to 

1536 hazardous chemicals, including pesticides, in their workplace. It requires employers to make 

1537 SDSs for each chemical that employees may encounter readily accessible and easily obtained 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 66 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1538 without delay during each work shift, and to ensure that employees traveling between 

1539 workplaces during a work shift can immediately obtain the SDS in an emergency. In contrast, a 

1540 couple of grower associations stated that it is overly burdensome for agricultural employers to 

1541 get SDSs. One state thought it would be difficult for employers to locate the correct SDS for 

1542 pesticide products. They also noted that small businesses and private applicators will have the 

1543 most difficulty since they are not already accustomed to keeping SDSs.

1544 EPA received some comments both for and against providing pesticide product labeling. 

1545 Many farmworker advocacy groups supported a requirement for the employer to provide the 

1546 labeling. These commenters maintained that workers and handlers want more information on 

1547 chemicals to which they may be exposed. On the other hand, farm bureaus, growers and grower 

1548 organizations and states opposed a requirement to provide the labeling. These commenters 

1549 expressed concern that EPA is expanding its mandate by requiring agricultural employers to 

1550 provide the product “labeling” when it should be limited only to the WPS portions of the “label.” 

1551 These commenters argued that an agricultural employer could easily violate this requirement by 

1552 not having the most current or correct version of the labeling, such as a specimen or technical 

1553 label. 

1554 EPA Response. After consideration of the comments, EPA remains convinced that access 

1555 to SDSs offers significant health and safety benefits to workers and handlers. SDSs contain 

1556 information that is not generally included in pesticide labeling regarding chronic, developmental, 

1557 and reproductive toxicity that can be valuable to exposed and potentially exposed workers, and 

1558 to medical personnel and others who provide treatment to an ill or injured person. Moreover, 

1559 given the ubiquity of chemicals subject to the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard that 

1560 mandates the development and distribution of SDSs, it is likely that many health care 

1561 professionals are more familiar with SDSs than pesticide labeling. Requiring the SDS as part of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 67 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1562 the central display facilitates a quicker identification of the pesticide product used in case of an 

1563 incident and may assist in diagnosis. The SDS contains information about symptoms expected in 

1564 a person exposed to the chemical (immediate, delayed and chronic effects) as well as 

1565 recommended treatment, whereas the label may not include detailed information on symptoms or 

1566 treatment. EPA recognizes that state pesticide regulatory agencies do not review, approve, or 

1567 take enforcement action based on the information in SDSs. However, comments from worker 

1568 advocates indicate that workers and handlers want to have more information on health effects, 

1569 which is available on SDSs and generally not available on the pesticide labeling. OSHA is 

1570 requiring that all SDSs be in a standard format, making it easier to locate health information

1571 (Ref. 17). Accordingly, EPA concludes that a requirement to post SDSs is an effective way to 

1572 communicate pesticide hazard information important to workers and handlers. EPA notes that 

1573 under the final rule workers and handlers will learn during pesticide safety training about SDSs, 

1574 the information they contain, and their availability at central display locations. This addition to 

1575 the training will further reinforce workers’ and handlers’ awareness and potential use of SDSs.

1576 EPA is persuaded that access to SDSs is not a significant obstacle to requiring 

1577 agricultural employers to keep and display SDSs for pesticide products used on the 

1578 establishment. Agricultural employers can obtain SDSs from the distributor of the pesticide, 

1579 online, or upon request from the product manufacturer. For example, employers in industries 

1580 other than agriculture – including retailers and wholesalers of agricultural chemicals - are 

1581 required by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard to make available SDSs to their 

1582 employees. 

1583 Upon consideration of the comments, EPA has decided not to require agricultural 

1584 employers include the pesticide product label or labeling as part of the central display 

1585 requirement. EPA recognizes the burden on employers to provide both the SDS and label or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 68 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1586 labeling in addition to the pesticide application information. As noted previously, the SDS 

1587 contains the health-related information requested in comments by worker advocates, and that 

1588 would be most useful to persons providing treatment to those who may have been exposed to 

1589 pesticides. EPA agrees that if necessary, the labeling for a product used for a specific application 

1590 can be located using the application-specific information that employers are also required to post.

1591 See Unit XVIII.A. for a complete discussion of comments related to labels and labeling. 

1592 Comments on the extent of the requirement. EPA received comments both to narrow and 

1593 to expand the scope of the proposal requiring employers to maintain SDSs and make them 

1594 available to employees. Among the suggestions to narrow the scope of the proposal, one state 

1595 suggested EPA keep a central repository of SDSs for agricultural employers to access and 

1596 require employers to keep the SDS only while the associated pesticide product remains on the 

1597 establishment. Farmworker advocacy organizations and public health organizations 

1598 recommended expanding the proposed requirement to a full Hazard Communication Standard as 

1599 required by the Washington State ECHC for all hazardous chemicals, which requires employers 

1600 to develop a written Hazard Communication program, maintain availability and access to SDSs,

1601 provide information and training on hazards in the workplace, translate certain documents upon 

1602 request, and keep and provide access to exposure records for at least 30 years.

1603 Many farmworker advocacy organizations suggested that EPA require SDSs to be 

1604 available in multiple languages and provided two examples of similar requirements. First, one 

1605 farmworker advocacy organization cited the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act, 

1606 administered by the DOL, which requires written information on the terms of employment to be 

1607 provided in English, Spanish or other language common to workers. Second, one farmworker 

1608 advocacy organization claimed that in Washington State, agricultural employers are required to 

1609 provide translated documents if requested. Farmworker advocacy organizations asserted that it 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 69 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1610 would be easy to translate SDSs because of the standard format required by OSHA’s adoption of 

1611 the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. One pesticide 

1612 manufacturer organization was opposed to translating the SDS because of the many indigenous 

1613 languages present among workers. 

1614 EPA Response. After reviewing the comments, EPA has decided on an approach that will 

1615 provide workers and handlers with more information about the potential health effects associated 

1616 with the pesticides to which they may be exposed without overly burdening agricultural 

1617 employers. Obtaining the SDSs for products used on the establishment should not be overly 

1618 burdensome to employers; SDSs are available from pesticide dealers and the internet. An EPA1619 managed repository of the SDSs of all WPS pesticides would not significantly improve access 

1620 and would be a significant burden for EPA because of the number of pesticides included.

1621 Stakeholders such as grower organizations are free to voluntarily develop SDS repositories with 

1622 assistance from members. Voluntary programs of this sort would involve limited subsets of all 

1623 WPS-scope pesticide products and could possibly be accomplished within a short period in 

1624 comparison to a national, full-scale repository program.

1625 EPA has decided not to reduce the amount of time the SDS must be available. The cost of 

1626 retaining the SDS, once obtained, is negligible. Employees and medical personnel could benefit 

1627 from access to the health effects information in the SDS in case of symptoms that develop 

1628 sometime after the application has been completed.

1629 EPA disagrees with commenters’ request to adopt a full hazard communication proposal 

1630 as required by the Washington State ECHC for all hazardous chemicals. The full set of the WPS 

1631 requirements in the final rule provide protections similar to those provided to workers in other 

1632 industries under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard program, while recognizing 

1633 differences between agriculture and other industries. As discussed in the Agency’s 1992 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 70 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1634 proposed rule on the Worker Protection Standard; Hazard Information (Ref. 18), in response to 

1635 numerous concerns about potential overlap or conflict between EPA’s July 1988 proposed WPS

1636 (Ref. 18) and OSHA’s August 1988 proposed Hazard Communications Standard (Ref. 19), EPA 

1637 committed to work with OSHA to minimize confusion and avoid duplication between the two 

1638 agencies’ requirements. Rather than require agricultural establishments that may not routinely 

1639 use the same pesticides to develop and maintain a written Hazard Communication Standard plan

1640 listing all chemicals that will be used in the workplace, EPA’s approach, in both the 1992 

1641 proposed rule on Hazard Information (Ref, 20) and this final rule, has been to identify specific 

1642 requirements, tailored to fit the context of pesticide use in agricultural production that serve a 

1643 purpose similar to the Hazard Communication Standard requirements in other industries. These 

1644 requirements include pesticide safety training, display of basic pesticide safety information, 

1645 notification or posting of treated areas, and access to information about pesticides used in the 

1646 workplace at a central location. EPA notes that the WPS does not exempt employers with 10 or 

1647 fewer employees, unlike OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. EPA also notes that the cost 

1648 of a developing and implementing a full hazard communication program specific to each 

1649 establishment could be burdensome to small agricultural establishments. 

1650 Lastly, although EPA is not requiring that SDSs be translated at this time, EPA is open to 

1651 conferring with stakeholders on the need for translation, identifying content to be translated, and 

1652 implementing a translation program, if necessary. EPA notes that some pesticide manufacturers 

1653 already make pesticide product SDSs available in Spanish.

1654 Comments on other forms of hazard communications materials. Many farmworker 

1655 advocacy organizations suggested EPA develop and provide crop sheets, booklets, or other types 

1656 of materials that describe the health effects of pesticides, either in lieu of or in addition to the 

1657 SDS. These commenters identified a need for a pictorial booklet designed for low-literacy 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 71 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1658 audiences on the health effects from exposure to pesticides, based on the information in SDSs. 

1659 One state suggested that a small booklet with basic pesticide exposure symptoms by classes of 

1660 chemicals or modes of action, described in layman’s terms would be more helpful to workers 

1661 than SDSs. One pesticide manufacturer organization opposed the development of crop sheets. 

1662 EPA Response. EPA agrees with the basic concept of providing workers and handlers 

1663 with information on the health effects of pesticides for workers and handlers in a manner they 

1664 can understand. Pesticide safety training and the pesticide information display provide workers 

1665 and handlers with information on the symptoms that may be associated with exposure to 

1666 different pesticides. If workers or handlers need information about the specific effects of a 

1667 pesticide with which they have worked, they can consult the SDS. However, EPA does not agree 

1668 with the commenters’ request to require crop sheets or similar materials because, in EPA’s 

1669 judgment, the benefits of such a requirement would not justify the substantial costs associated 

1670 with creating, updating, translating and distributing materials for every crop, growing region, and 

1671 WPS-scope pesticide product. As noted in the proposal for this rule, crop sheets and other types 

1672 of material have been developed in the past, with very limited success. For example, one state’s 

1673 crop sheet program proved to be expensive and labor intensive, and the crop sheets were left as 

1674 litter in the fields, unused. SDSs already contain information about the potential health effects 

1675 (acute, delayed, and chronic) associated with use of pesticide products and will be readily

1676 available in a uniform format, including provide hazard information in words and in pictograms. 

1677 Comments on inconsistencies in information between labels and SDSs. A pesticide 

1678 manufacturer organization opposed any requirement by EPA to provide SDSs to worker and 

1679 handlers upon request. This commenter expressed concern about the confusion that may be 

1680 caused by inconsistencies between pesticide labels and SDSs. OSHA requires manufacturers to 

1681 use GHS terms and chemical classification criteria on SDSs whereas EPA does not require their 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 72 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1682 use on pesticide product labels. As a result, SDSs and pesticide product labels could have 

1683 different hazard statements, pictograms and signal words. 

1684 EPA Response. EPA has not finalized the proposed requirement for the employer to 

1685 make available pesticide product labeling upon request. Instead, the final rule requires the 

1686 employer to display only pesticide application information and SDSs for pesticide products used 

1687 on the establishment. The SDS provides succinct information about the known health hazards of 

1688 the product that typically is not presented as part of the product label or labeling. Such 

1689 information can be invaluable to medical professionals for the diagnosis and treatment of certain 

1690 pesticide-related illnesses and injuries. Because EPA is not requiring the employer to display the

1691 labeling, EPA does not expect issues with a perception of conflict between labeling and SDSs. 

1692 The persons who wear PPE and have access to the label are pesticide handlers who receive more 

1693 thorough training than workers. If pesticide handlers encounter conflicting information on 

1694 labeling and SDSs, such as the PPE identified, they should know they must follow the 

1695 instructions on the pesticide labeling, as they are trained to do. For information on OSHA’s 

1696 adoption of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals for 

1697 SDSs and the pesticide product labeling, see EPA’s Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2012-1, 

1698 Material Safety Data Sheets as Pesticide Labeling

1699 (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-04/documents/pr2012-1.pdf).

1700 C. Pesticide Application Information – Content of Pesticide Application Information

1701 1. Current rule and proposal. In the existing WPS, the agricultural employer must record 

1702 and display the following information about each pesticide application: The location and 

1703 description of the area to be treated, the product name, EPA registration number and active 

1704 ingredient(s) of the pesticide product, time and date the pesticide is to be applied, and REI for the 

1705 pesticide.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 73 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1706 EPA proposed to require the agricultural employer to record and make available, in 

1707 addition to the information required in the existing regulation: The specific crop or site treated, 

1708 the start and end dates and times of the application, and the end date and duration of the REI.

1709 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirements for the contents of pesticide 

1710 application information, with one change. The final rule requires agricultural employers to record 

1711 and display the following pesticide application information: Product name, EPA registration 

1712 number, and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product applied; the crop or site treated and the 

1713 location and description of the treated area; the date(s) and times the application started and 

1714 ended; and the duration of the REI. The final rule does not require the employer to record the end 

1715 date of the REI. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR

1716 170.311(b)(1)(ii)-(v).

1717 The agricultural employer must record and display the information about the crop or site 

1718 treated and the location of the treated area. EPA encourages employers to display the 

1719 information in such a way that workers and handlers can understand and distinguish each treated 

1720 area from all other areas on the establishment; in some cases, a map or diagram may be 

1721 appropriate. 

1722 EPA encourages and supports the provision and display of the application information so 

1723 it is most useful to workers and handlers on the establishment. One such option is to separate the 

1724 information about treated areas, so those areas where an REI is in effect are distinct from those 

1725 where the REI has expired, allowing the viewer to more quickly identify areas where entry is 

1726 restricted. Similarly, maps highlighting areas where an REI is in effect and those where the REI 

1727 has expired could also present the information in a user friendly, pictorial manner. EPA also sees 

1728 an opportunity for employers to provide information of this nature through texting and other 

1729 electronic means to their employees, and encourages such communication, in addition to the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 74 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1730 requirement for maintaining this information as part of the central display.

1731 3. Comments and responses.

1732 Comments. Many farmworker advocacy organizations, a few pesticide regulatory 

1733 agencies, a grower organization and others supported the proposed expansion of the content 

1734 requirement for pesticide application information records. According to these commenters, it 

1735 would be a small burden to require additional application information, such as crops treated, that 

1736 could help workers proactively avoid exposure to pesticides. One state asked EPA to parallel the 

1737 information required by USDA to avoid confusion, while another suggested that more 

1738 information be required in addition to the information proposed to assist state pesticide 

1739 regulatory personnel in determining compliance.

1740 Several farm bureaus, one grower organization and several states opposed any changes. 

1741 These commenters asserted that the content required by the existing regulation is already too 

1742 burdensome. Several farm bureaus opposed EPA’s proposed expansion of the content of records 

1743 stating that EPA had not justified it with quantifiable benefits. A few states, two farmworker 

1744 advocacy organizations and other commenters suggested various combinations of records limited 

1745 to three or fewer pieces of information. One grower organization argued that only a record of the 

1746 active ingredient is needed for medical treatment, while another questioned how a record of the 

1747 REI benefits the health and safety of workers. Lastly, these commenters maintained that 

1748 recordkeeping of general use pesticide applications is not required by law, the proposed 

1749 requirement is duplicative of state and federal requirements, and commercial applicators already 

1750 keep records.

1751 EPA Response. EPA agrees with the comments that adding more information to 

1752 application records is a small burden compared to the benefits of determining compliance and 

1753 giving workers and handlers information to verify the location of treated areas. The crop or site 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 75 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1754 treated, start and end times and date(s) of the application, and duration of the REI are important 

1755 for protecting worker and handlers and useful for determining compliance. Agricultural 

1756 employers, compliance officers, workers, handlers and others will be able to calculate the end 

1757 date and time of the REI by having the end date and time of the application and the duration of

1758 the REI included in the pesticide application information. The combined information will also 

1759 help workers and handlers identify the areas where an REI is in effect. EPA did not propose 

1760 requiring more information because the proposed content of application records fits the needs of 

1761 stakeholders to determine compliance and to give workers and handlers the ability to discern 

1762 which area had been treated. An arbitrary limit of only three or fewer pieces of information may 

1763 not achieve the same benefits. 

1764 The WPS requires agricultural employers to maintain records because those records 

1765 provide information that is important for the protection of their employees. While a significant 

1766 number of agricultural employers may also be certified as private pesticide applicators, their 

1767 status as private applicators does not exempt them from the WPS recordkeeping required of 

1768 agricultural employers. The WPS does not require private applicators to maintain records on 

1769 account of their status as private applicators. 

1770 The risks of concern under the WPS include both RUPs and non-RUPs, while 

1771 certification requirements at the federal level, including recordkeeping, only apply to those using 

1772 RUPs. Neither the USDA application record requirements for private applicators of RUPs, nor

1773 state application record requirements for commercial applicators fully cover the information 

1774 needed under the WPS for the protection of workers and handlers. The USDA required 

1775 information does not include the active ingredients, duration of the REI or the start and end dates 

1776 and times of applications, nor does it apply to applications of non-RUP pesticides. Commercial 

1777 applicators would have to record the information required by the state pesticide regulatory 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 76 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1778 agency, which must at a minimum include the kinds, amounts, uses, dates and places of RUP 

1779 applications. 40 CFR 171.7(b)(1)(iii)(E). Also, state pesticide regulatory agencies may or may 

1780 not require records of non-RUP applications. Therefore, it is unlikely that all states’ commercial 

1781 applicator RUP application records will match exactly the record requirements of the WPS.

1782 Because the records required to be maintained by USDA and the states do not include all of the 

1783 information needed for protection of workers and handlers, it is appropriate to require such 

1784 recordkeeping through the WPS. 

1785 D. Pesticide Application and Hazard Information –When Information Must Be Made Available

1786 1. Current rule and proposal. In the existing rule, the agricultural employer must record 

1787 and display the pesticide application information before the application takes place, if workers or 

1788 handlers are present on the establishment before the application begins. Otherwise, the 

1789 information must be recorded and displayed at the beginning of any worker’s or handler’s first 

1790 work period. If the employer posts warning signs for a treated area, the pesticide application 

1791 information must be displayed at the same time as, or earlier than, the warning signs. The 

1792 information must remain on display when workers are on the establishment and from the time of 

1793 the application until 30 days after the REI expires or until 30 days after the application end date 

1794 if the REI is 0 hours (or in the rare instance where a label might not have an REI).

1795 EPA proposed to require the agricultural employer to provide the pesticide application 

1796 information, the SDS and labeling upon request during normal work hours, no later than the end 

1797 of the day. 

1798 2. Final rule. The final rule requires the agricultural employer to display the pesticide 

1799 application information and the SDS (pesticide application and hazard information) at the central 

1800 display no later than 24 hours after the application is complete. Also, the employer must display 

1801 the pesticide application and hazard information for each treated area before any worker is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 77 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1802 permitted to enter the treated area, even if the applicable REI has expired. If workers will be in 

1803 the area, they must be notified of the application before it starts, by posted signs or orally, and 

1804 warned not to enter the area. The application information and SDS must remain posted for 30 

1805 days from the expiration date of the REI or from the application end date if the REI is 0 hours (or 

1806 in the rare instance where a label might not have an REI). EPA did not finalize the proposed 

1807 requirement for the agricultural employer to make available the pesticide application information 

1808 and the SDS no later than the end of the day of the application. The final rule eliminates the 

1809 existing requirement to display the application information before or at the same time a warning 

1810 sign is posted at a treated area. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 

1811 CFR 170.311(b)(5) and 40 CFR 170.309(l).

1812 3. Comments and responses.

1813 Comments. Several farmworker advocacy organizations and one public health 

1814 organization requested that EPA keep the existing requirement to make information available 

1815 before the application so workers and handlers would be able to connect symptoms to an 

1816 application if the exposure occurred during the application. While many farmworker advocacy 

1817 groups supported the display of information before an application, some expressed concern about 

1818 the accuracy of the pesticide application information displayed when information about the 

1819 application changed from what was planned and the displayed information was not updated. One 

1820 farm bureau and one pesticide manufacturer organization requested that EPA require employers 

1821 to make the information available after the application. 

1822 EPA Response. EPA agrees with the commenters that it is important to provide workers 

1823 and handlers with accurate information about pesticide applications. Displaying the information 

1824 after the application is complete benefits workers and handlers because they can be confident the 

1825 information is correct, and the employer no longer has to change the information when 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 78 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1826 application plans change. Under the final rule, EPA expects all displays of pesticide application 

1827 information will contain accurate information. The final rule retains the requirement for workers 

1828 to receive oral notification, or to see posted warning signs, or both before an application begins, 

1829 informing them to stay out of an area before an application begins.

1830 E. Pesticide Application and Hazard Information – Retention of Records

1831 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires employers to maintain pesticide 

1832 application information at the central display from the time of application until 30 days after the 

1833 REI expires. There is no requirement for the employer to retain the pesticide application 

1834 information in any form after that time. 

1835 EPA proposed to require employers to retain, for each application of a WPS-covered 

1836 pesticide, the pesticide application information, labeling and SDS, for two years from the date of 

1837 the end of the REI for each product applied.

1838 2. Final rule. The final rule requires agricultural employers to retain the pesticide 

1839 application information and the SDS for the product used (pesticide application and hazard 

1840 information) for two years from the date of expiration of the REI applicable to the application 

1841 conducted. EPA has not included the proposed requirement for the employer to retain the 

1842 pesticide labeling in the final rule. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 

1843 CFR 170.311(b)(6). 

1844 3. Comments and responses.

1845 Comments. EPA received comments supporting a two year recordkeeping requirement 

1846 from several states and one grower organization. One state commented that it did not have a need 

1847 for the information after one year, but that two years was not much more of a burden. Many 

1848 farmworker advocacy and public health organizations requested EPA to require recordkeeping 

1849 ranging from more than two years to as many as 30 years to help with the diagnosis of chronic 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 79 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1850 health effects that could be related to pesticide exposure. 

1851 Commenters from some farm bureaus and grower associations opposed a two-year 

1852 recordkeeping requirement, in part because they asserted that EPA could not show quantifiable 

1853 benefits. These commenters argued it would be a paperwork exercise without health and safety 

1854 benefits driven based on the needs of enforcement, and instead should be replaced with a 

1855 minimal, non-intrusive requirement. One commenter suggested requiring employers to keep 

1856 records only during the harvest season.

1857 EPA Response. EPA has concluded that a two-year record keeping requirement would be 

1858 helpful for health diagnoses and investigation purposes. EPA considered requiring the retention 

1859 of records for five years and asked state pesticide regulatory agencies about their needs for 

1860 access to pesticide application records. These enforcement agencies informed EPA that they 

1861 rarely need to rely on records beyond the two-year timeframe. 

1862 EPA notes that this recordkeeping requirement does not necessarily impose a duplicative 

1863 burden on agricultural employers to obtain pesticide application information and SDSs twice –

1864 once to satisfy the central display requirement and once to satisfy the recordkeeping requirement.

1865 Agricultural employers may satisfy this recordkeeping requirement by the removal of the

1866 pesticide application information and SDS from the central display 31 days from the expiration 

1867 of the REI (or from the end of the pesticide application if there is no REI) and retaining those 

1868 records for two years from the date of application. EPA recognizes that some employers may 

1869 choose to maintain electronic copies of pesticide application records and the product SDS. The 

1870 WPS does not specify that records must be kept on paper, so an employer can maintain records 

1871 electronically as long as the employer satisfies all related requirements of the WPS, such as 

1872 being able to quickly access and provide the required materials in the event of a pesticide 

1873 emergency.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 80 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1874 F. Costs and Benefits.

1875 1. Costs. EPA estimates the cost for these final hazard communication requirements, 

1876 implemented together, to be $9.3 million annually, or $25 annually per establishment (Ref. 1). 

1877 The cost of the hazard communication requirements differs from the proposed requirements 

1878 because EPA is maintaining and revising the existing central display requirement, allowing the 

1879 agricultural employer to display information after the application negating the need to update 

1880 information later, and requiring the agricultural employer to display and keep records of the 

1881 pesticide application information and SDS but not the labeling. 

1882 2. Benefits. Although EPA cannot quantify benefits specific to any of these requirements, 

1883 the qualitative benefits from workers’ and handlers’ ready access to accurate information about 

1884 areas under an REI, pesticides in use, and potential health impacts from those pesticides 

1885 convinced EPA to adopt these requirements Ref. 1). The final rule retains the central posting 

1886 requirement, and allows the employer some flexibility in posting the information so accurate 

1887 information is displayed. 

1888 VIII. Information Exchange Between Handler and Agricultural Employers

1889 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires handler and agricultural 

1890 employers to exchange information about pesticide applications. When handlers are employed by 

1891 an employer other than the agricultural employer, the existing WPS requires the agricultural 

1892 employer to provide the handler employer with information about treated areas on the 

1893 agricultural establishment the handler may be in (or may walk within one-quarter mile of), 

1894 including specific location and description of any such areas and restrictions on entering those 

1895 areas. The existing WPS requires handler employers to provide agricultural employers with the 

1896 following information prior to making a pesticide application on the agricultural establishment:

1897 • Location and description of the area to be treated.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 81 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1898 • Time and date of application.

1899 • Product name, active ingredient(s), and EPA registration number for the product.

1900 • REI for pesticide(s) applied.

1901 • Whether posted notification, oral notification, or both are required.

1902 • Any other product-specific requirements on the product labeling concerning protection 

1903 of workers or other persons during or after application.

1904 The agricultural employer must display this information for workers and handlers

1905 employed by the establishment at the central location. The current WPS requires handler 

1906 employers to inform agricultural employers before the application takes place when there will be 

1907 changes to scheduled pesticide applications, such as changes to scheduled pesticide application 

1908 times, locations, and subsequent REIs.

1909 In addition to maintaining the current requirements, EPA proposed to require the 

1910 agricultural employer to also provide to the handler employer information about the location of 

1911 “entry-restricted areas” on the establishment. EPA also proposed to require the handler employer 

1912 to communicate to the agricultural employer the start and end times of pesticide applications and 

1913 the end date of the REI. EPA also proposed to relax existing WPS requirements by requiring

1914 handler employers to provide information about any changes to pesticide application plans to the 

1915 agricultural employer within two hours of the end of the application rather than before the 

1916 application. Changes to the estimated application end time of less than one hour would not 

1917 require notification.

1918 Finally, in the proposal, EPA unintentionally omitted the provision in the existing WPS 

1919 that the agricultural employer need not provide information to the handler employer about 

1920 treated areas if the handler will not be in or walk within one-quarter mile of those treated areas.

1921 2. Final Rule. Information exchange from agricultural employer to handler employer. The 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 82 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1922 final rule requires the agricultural employer to notify the handler employer of any treated areas 

1923 where an REI is in effect and any restrictions on entering those areas. EPA has not included in 

1924 the final rule a requirement for the agricultural employer to communicate to the handler 

1925 employer information about the location of “entry-restricted areas” on the establishment because 

1926 of the changes to the requirement concerning entry-restricted areas, as discussed in Unit IX.B.

1927 EPA has also revised the final rule to correct the unintentional omission of the existing rule’s 

1928 exception that the agricultural employer need not provide information to the commercial handler 

1929 employer about treated areas if the handler will not be in, or walk within one-quarter mile of 

1930 those areas. The final regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.309(k). 

1931 Information exchange from handler employer to agricultural employer. EPA has finalized

1932 the proposal to expand and clarify the information the pesticide handler employer must provide 

1933 to the agricultural employer with minor modifications. The final rule does not require the handler 

1934 employer to convey the end date of the REI to the agricultural employer. The final regulatory 

1935 text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.313(i).

1936 Timing of exchange of information from handler employer to agricultural employer. EPA 

1937 has modified the final rule to specify those situations where the handler employer must notify the 

1938 agricultural employer of changes to the application information before the application takes 

1939 place. EPA has also modified the rule to specify the timing for notifying agricultural employers 

1940 if the notification is not required before the application. The final regulatory text for these 

1941 requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.313(j).

1942 3. Comments and responses.

1943 Comments. Many states and a few farmworker advocacy organizations expressed general 

1944 support for the proposal to expand the information to be exchanged. These commenters agreed 

1945 the additional information would help agricultural employers protect workers, reduce pesticide-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 83 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1946 related illnesses and exposure from drift during applications. Many farm bureaus, states, 

1947 applicators and applicator associations and an agricultural organization generally disagreed with 

1948 the proposed expansion. Some of these commenters argued that the proposed requirements are 

1949 unrealistic and impractical given the dynamics and unpredictable factors involved in a farming 

1950 operation, such as pest infestations and weather changes. In addition, they argued that the 

1951 proposal would require multiple parties to exchange information, resulting in the potential for 

1952 miscommunication. Some commenters also opposed the proposed expansion of information 

1953 exchange because EPA did not provide documented justification. Crop consultants, an applicator 

1954 association and a farm bureau indicated the proposal is unnecessary because close coordination 

1955 of information already exists between applicators, handlers, crop consultants, and growers.

1956 Furthermore, they stated that not only are handlers already required to keep workers out of areas 

1957 during applications, applications are often scheduled to take place when workers are absent. A 

1958 few states, farm bureaus and a crop consultant opposed EPA’s proposal to add to the information 

1959 the agricultural employer is required to give the handler employer. One crop consultant indicated 

1960 the information is already on purchase orders or sales agreements between growers and 

1961 commercial handlers or their employers. One state requested that EPA omit the application start 

1962 time because it is not used to calculate the REI.

1963 EPA’s proposal on the timing to provide notice of a change in application plans elicited 

1964 many comments. EPA proposed that this notice be provided within 2 hours of the end of the 

1965 application, unless the only change was a difference of less than 1 hour between scheduled and 

1966 actual application times. One state and several farmworker advocacy organizations endorsed the 

1967 requirement because of the ease of providing the information in the timeframe by relying on 

1968 existing electronic capabilities. One farmworker advocacy organization urged EPA to require 

1969 that changes be communicated before the start of the application in order to enable employers to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 84 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1970 be able to keep workers out of the treated area.

1971 To prevent confusion about scheduled and actual start and end times and to avoid 

1972 miscommunication, one state suggested that EPA require the handler employer to inform the 

1973 agricultural employer of changes at any time on the application day. Two aerial applicators 

1974 explained that a two-hour window for notification of change sounds reasonable on paper, but not 

1975 in practice. During long workdays of the busy season, applicators would have to make phone 

1976 calls in the middle of the night and send text messages, usually from the airplane during or in 

1977 between applications. Also, it can take more than one day to complete an application because of 

1978 factors such as the weather, a change in wind direction, or verifying the presence of bystanders.

1979 These situations could require the handler to give several updates to multiple parties, resulting in 

1980 a greater chance for errors and noncompliance. 

1981 One commenter requested that EPA require notification of a change within 24 hours from 

1982 the end of the actual application, while another advised EPA to require notification if the actual 

1983 application completion time is two or more hours later than the scheduled application time. 

1984 Several farm bureaus, a pesticide applicator and a crop consultant organization advised EPA to 

1985 require that changes in application plans be communicated: Before the scheduled date and times, 

1986 if the application is going to be made earlier than expected, or before the end of the REI as 

1987 scheduled, if the application is made later than expected. One aerial applicator stated that if an 

1988 REI is greater than 24 hours, EPA should require an information update before the scheduled 

1989 REI expires or within 24 hours of the scheduled application time. Another aerial applicator 

1990 recommended the handler employer and handler give the agricultural employer a window of 

1991 estimated start and completion date(s) and time(s). In this situation, the handler would not make 

1992 the application outside of that window without the approval of the agricultural employer, who in 

1993 turn must keep workers out of the area during that time, unless notified of a change in the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 85 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

1994 application start and completion date(s) and time(s). 

1995 Many commenters noted the absence of the existing provision that the agricultural 

1996 employer need not provide information to the commercial handler employer if the handler will 

1997 not be in or walk within one-quarter mile of an area that may be treated with a pesticide or under 

1998 an REI, and noted this could result in the need to provide excessive, unnecessary information.

1999 EPA Response. The information exchange requirements ensure that agricultural 

2000 employers and handler employers have the information they need to comply with the 

2001 requirements for notifying workers and handlers of risks associated with pesticide applications 

2002 and treated areas (i.e., agricultural employers are required to notify workers of treated areas and 

2003 display pesticide application and hazard information at the central location on the establishment 

2004 for workers and handlers to see, and handler employers must inform their handler employees of 

2005 treated areas on the agricultural establishment near where they work).

2006 EPA has been convinced not to adopt the proposed change to expand the information 

2007 required to be communicated by the agricultural employer to the handler employer to include 

2008 information about the location of “entry-restricted areas” on the establishment. Requiring 

2009 employers to exchange this information would not be practical given other changes in the rule 

2010 related to the “entry-restricted areas” (replaced by “application exclusion zones” in the final rule) 

2011 that make the tracking of such areas infeasible. EPA also agrees that it is not necessary for the 

2012 handler employer to calculate the end time of the REI for each application and include it in the 

2013 information conveyed to the agricultural employer. The requirement to provide this piece of 

2014 information has been deleted from the final rule.

2015 Most of the other information required to be exchanged by the final rule is already 

2016 required to be exchanged by the existing rule, and therefore EPA does not agree that this 

2017 requirement presents a substantially increased or unreasonable burden. Agricultural and handler 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 86 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2018 employers are currently required to exchange information so agricultural employers may provide 

2019 notification of application and treated areas under an REI to workers and handlers. Without this 

2020 information transfer, accurate and timely notification would be difficult to achieve, exposing 

2021 workers and handlers to potential exposure to pesticides. It is critical that the agricultural 

2022 employer know the start times of applications in order to be able to notify workers and handlers

2023 (when they are on the establishment) so they may avoid treated areas. EPA recognizes that

2024 exchange of the expanded information may already occur on some establishments and expects 

2025 those entities to experience less burden than in situations where such coordination has not 

2026 already developed. 

2027 EPA recognizes that much of the information required may be available on sales 

2028 agreements and purchase orders between commercial pesticide handlers and agricultural 

2029 employers, which will reduce the burden for employers to gather it; however, without inclusion 

2030 of the information exchange requirements in the WPS there is no assurance of timely exchange 

2031 of all of the necessary information.

2032 EPA considered the range of options suggested for the timing of the information 

2033 exchange. Several of the recommendations for notification of application changes from the 

2034 commercial pesticide handler employer to the agricultural employer can be accommodated under 

2035 the final rule. For example, the applicator and agricultural employer can agree on a window of 

2036 the estimated start and end times, with the understanding that the application would be made 

2037 during that period, unless the two communicate and agree to a different timeframe. This would 

2038 allow the agricultural employer to notify workers of the treatment, keep them from the area, and 

2039 create and post the application information, satisfying the requirement. 

2040 EPA did not identify any suggestions from commenters, apart from those that would be 

2041 covered by the final rule that would meet the needs for agricultural employers to provide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 87 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2042 employees notification of the application and inform them of treated areas under an REI, and to 

2043 record and display the pesticide application information. Agricultural employers must have 

2044 information about the start time of the application before it begins to ensure they have the ability 

2045 to notify workers of the application before it commences. Agricultural employers must have the 

2046 end time of the application to notify workers that although the application has ended, entry to the 

2047 treated area remains prohibited because an REI is in effect. Without these details being provided 

2048 prior to the application, agricultural employers are not able to fulfill their responsibilities to 

2049 protect workers. 

2050 EPA notes that the method for notification of changes to application information should 

2051 be agreed upon between the handler employer and the agricultural employer to ensure receipt, 

2052 and can be accomplished through electronic media, telephone, or other means. The agricultural 

2053 employer must receive the information in sufficient time to record and display the information 

2054 for workers and handlers. 

2055 4. Costs and benefits. EPA has estimated the cost of the information exchange 

2056 requirements to be negligible because the existing rule already requires handler employers and 

2057 agricultural employers to collect and exchange information. The changes in the final rule are 

2058 minor and offer flexibility for employers. The information the agricultural employer must give 

2059 the handler employer has been clarified. EPA has made minor changes to the information the 

2060 handler employer must give the agricultural employer. The timing to notify the agricultural 

2061 employer of most changes to the information has remained the same as the existing regulation, 

2062 i.e., before the application begins. In the final rule, two changes provide the handler employer 

2063 flexibility. If the product changes or the application is made later than originally scheduled, the 

2064 handler employer must notify the agricultural employer within two hours of the end of the 

2065 application. If the only change was a difference of less than one hour between the scheduled and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 88 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2066 actual application times, notification is not required.

2067 EPA expects these changes will ensure that the agricultural employer provides workers 

2068 and handlers with accurate application information, which was problematic under the existing 

2069 rule, and maintains accurate application records. The information exchanged and the timing of 

2070 notification of changes of actual applications from scheduled applications remains essentially 

2071 unchanged. Although notification can be given after the fact if a different pesticide product is 

2072 applied or the application is completed after it was scheduled, this change does not make the 

2073 WPS any less protective of workers, handlers and others. The agricultural employer will still 

2074 have the essential information needed to know when and where to keep workers, handlers and 

2075 others out of areas to be treated during and after treatment, and the revised information will be 

2076 available in time for proper medical treatment if needed. The cost of including additional details 

2077 is reasonable compared to the improved ability of workers and handlers to identify areas where 

2078 pesticides are being applied or have recently been applied. 

2079 IX. Drift-Related Requirements

2080 The requirements discussed in this section are intended to decrease the number of 

2081 incidents in which workers and other persons are exposed to pesticides through unintentional 

2082 contact during application. Drift is the off-site movement through the air of pesticide droplets or 

2083 particles originating from pesticides applied as liquids or dry materials. Workers errantly in the 

2084 area being treated may be directly exposed to pesticides during application. In addition, 

2085 bystanders (both workers and non-workers) located outside a treated area may be exposed when 

2086 pesticide droplets or particles move outside the area being treated through the air during and/or 

2087 immediately after the pesticide application. As used here, the term “drift” includes both of these 

2088 modes of exposure, but does not include off-site movement of pesticide-imbedded soil-borne 

2089 particles by wind or vapor drift through volatilization of applied pesticide, although these are 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 89 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2090 often categorized as “drift” in other contexts. EPA has developed methodologies for assessing 

2091 the risks to bystanders from exposure to pesticides from drift and also from volatilization, and 

2092 addresses risks of concern and other issues via the registration review process. The purpose of 

2093 the requirements discussed in this section is to prevent workers and other persons from being 

2094 exposed to pesticides by unintentional contact during application. The term “drift” is used as 

2095 shorthand in this section to refer to unintentional exposure from both direct exposures to workers 

2096 in the area being treated and drift exposures to workers and bystanders.

2097 A. Overarching Performance Standard

2098 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS includes two related requirements that 

2099 prohibit a pesticide from being applied in a way that contacts workers or other persons.

2100 Agricultural products subject to the WPS must have this statement on the label: “Do not apply 

2101 this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift.

2102 Only protected handlers may be in the area during application.” 40 CFR 156.206(a). Also, the

2103 existing WPS requires the handler employer and the handler to assure that no pesticide is applied 

2104 so as to contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an 

2105 appropriately trained and equipped handler. These requirements prohibit application in a way 

2106 that contacts workers or other persons both on and off the agricultural establishment where the 

2107 pesticide is being applied.

2108 EPA did not propose any changes to the label statement. EPA proposed several minor 

2109 wording changes to the WPS requirement for the handler employer and the handler, but the 

2110 impact of the proposed requirement would be the same as under the existing WPS.

2111 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed changes to the requirement for the handler 

2112 employer and handler with a minor change. The final rule changes the language from the 

2113 proposed “handler located on the establishment” to “handler involved in the application.” As 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 90 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2114 with the existing rule, the final rule prohibits contact to workers and other persons regardless of 

2115 whether or not they are on the agricultural establishment. The final regulatory text for this 

2116 requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.505(a). There are no changes to the label statement at 40 

2117 CFR 156.206(a).

2118 3. Comments and responses.

2119 Comments. Many commenters, including states and their organizations, grower 

2120 associations, farm bureaus and pesticide manufacturer associations, stated that the existing two 

2121 requirements adequately protect workers and bystanders from exposure during applications.

2122 These commenters opposed the other drift-related requirements that EPA proposed (entry2123 restricted areas for farms and forests and the requirement to suspend applications under certain 

2124 conditions) as unnecessary, asserting the proposed requirements do not provide any additional 

2125 protection.

2126 Many respondents from states and their organizations, grower associations, farm bureaus 

2127 and pesticide manufacturer associations commented that EPA’s risk assessments and pesticide 

2128 labels include conservative protections for applicators, handlers, workers and bystanders. Some 

2129 of these commenters argued that the existing restrictions on the labels, including REIs and 

2130 pesticide-specific buffers, provide sufficient protection to workers and bystanders.

2131 Many respondents from all commenter types commented on incidents where workers or 

2132 bystanders reported being contacted by pesticides that were being applied. Some of these 

2133 incidents involve workers in the areas where pesticides were applied and other incidents involve 

2134 workers or bystanders being exposed to pesticides that drifted off the target site. Many of the 

2135 commenters cited three broad studies that looked at data from SENSOR-Pesticides and 

2136 California’s Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (Refs. 10, 11 and 12). Other commenters 

2137 cited specific incidents of exposure from drift or workers in the area being treated being sprayed 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 91 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2138 directly. Some applicator and pesticide manufacturer associations cited state data showing that 

2139 there has been a decrease in drift complaints over time, dropping from an average of 333 

2140 complaints per year nationwide (from 1996 through 1998) to an average of 247 complaints per 

2141 year (from 2002 through 2004).

2142 EPA response. EPA disagrees with the assertion that the “do not contact” requirements,

2143 along with the other protections on pesticide labels, are by themselves sufficient to protect 

2144 workers and bystanders from being directly contacted by pesticides that are applied. First, many 

2145 commenters cited incidents where people were directly exposed to pesticide applications, even if 

2146 there was disagreement about how regularly these types of incidents happen. Second, EPA’s risk 

2147 assessments and registration decisions are based on the premise that the WPS protections 

2148 effectively prevent people (workers and bystanders) from being sprayed directly (Ref. 13). In 

2149 other words, incidents where workers or bystanders are sprayed directly result in people being 

2150 exposed to pesticides in a way that is not considered in EPA’s risk assessments or registration 

2151 decisions. These types of incidents are misuse violations but they continue to occur, as described 

2152 in the following sections. Therefore, there is a need to supplement the existing WPS protections 

2153 to reduce exposures to workers and other persons from being directly sprayed with pesticides.

2154 There is no one solution that can prevent all drift incidents and it will take a 

2155 comprehensive approach, including additional regulatory requirements, education, outreach, and 

2156 some common-sense voluntary measures to further reduce the number of people who are directly 

2157 exposed to pesticide spray/applications. The additional regulatory requirements include revised 

2158 requirements for entry restrictions during pesticide applications and for handlers to suspend 

2159 applications in certain circumstances. Common-sense voluntary measures include a grower 

2160 talking to his/her neighbors to let them know when pesticides are being applied so the neighbors 

2161 can keep workers and others away from the boundary of adjacent establishments during that 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 92 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2162 time, and participating in voluntary communication programs such as Spray Safe 

2163 (http://www.spraysafe.org/) and Drift Watch (https://driftwatch.org/). EPA intends to include 

2164 information about good management practices as well as the regulatory requirements during 

2165 outreach for implementation of the final rule. It is also worth noting that EPA is working to 

2166 assess and mitigate any product-specific risks from exposure to pesticides from drift and from 

2167 volatilization within the registration review process.

2168 B. Entry Restrictions to Protect Workers and Other Persons During Application

2169 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS establishes entry-restricted areas 

2170 adjacent to treated areas that apply during pesticide application for nurseries and greenhouses 

2171 only. The existing rule requires that the agricultural employer must not allow or direct any 

2172 person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, to enter or remain in the entry2173 restricted area during a pesticide application in a nursery or greenhouse. The size of the entry2174 restricted area depends on the type of product applied and the application method. The entry 

2175 restrictions for greenhouses also include ventilation requirements. The existing entry restriction 

2176 requirement applies only within the boundaries of the agricultural establishment. The existing 

2177 provisions at 40 CFR 170.110 regarding entering entry-restricted areas during application are 

2178 different than the existing provisions at 40 CFR 170.112 regarding entry into treated areas after

2179 the application of a pesticide and before the REI specified on the pesticide labeling has expired.

2180 EPA proposed to establish entry-restricted areas during pesticide applications on farms 

2181 and in forests, while slightly modifying the requirement for entry-restricted areas for nurseries 

2182 and greenhouses. EPA proposed two types of entry restrictions: One for enclosed space 

2183 production, which would apply to greenhouses and other types of indoor production operations 

2184 (e.g., mushroom houses, hoop houses, polyhouses), and one for outdoor production, which 

2185 would apply to farms, forests and nurseries. In addition, EPA proposed to define the entry-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 93 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2186 restricted area as the area from which workers or other persons must be excluded during and 

2187 after the pesticide application.

2188 2. Final rule. In regard to enclosed space production (i.e., greenhouses, mushroom 

2189 houses, hoop houses), EPA has finalized the requirements for entry restrictions during pesticide 

2190 applications with several minor changes. For the most part, the final rule incorporates the 

2191 existing entry restriction and ventilation requirements for greenhouses as the requirements for 

2192 enclosed space production. The final rule deletes the term “entry-restricted area” and adjusts the 

2193 descriptions of the application types to be consistent with the changes to the description of 

2194 application exclusion zones for outdoor production. In addition, EPA changed the definition of 

2195 “enclosed space production” to clarify that it applies only to areas with non-porous covering, so 

2196 structures with a covering made of fencing or fabric to provide shade on plants (no walls) such as 

2197 shade houses, are not considered enclosed spaces under the final rule. See the discussion of 

2198 definitions in Unit XVIII.C. of this document for more information about the changes to this 

2199 definition.

2200 In regard to outdoor production (e.g., farms, forests, nurseries, shade houses), the final 

2201 rule differs substantially from EPA’s proposed requirements. The final rule makes the following 

2202 changes from the proposal:

2203 • Replacing the phrase “entry-restricted area” with “application exclusion zone” to make 

2204 it more distinct from the requirements regarding REIs. The final regulatory text for this 

2205 requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.405(a).

2206 • Revising the corresponding definition to clarify that the application exclusion zone 

2207 exists only during (not after) a pesticide application. The final regulatory text for this definition 

2208 is available at 40 CFR 170.305.

2209 • Revising the corresponding definition and regulatory description of an application 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 94 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2210 exclusion zone so it is a specified distance from the application equipment rather than from the 

2211 edge of the treated area, and clarifying that the application exclusion zone moves with the 

2212 application equipment. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR 

2213 170.405(a)(1).

2214 • Revising some of the application methods in the description of the application exclusion 

2215 zone to reflect current application methods and to differentiate the distances based on the spray 

2216 droplet size rather than pressure. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 

2217 CFR 170.405(a)(1).

2218 • Adding a provision to the regulatory text to clarify that any labeling restrictions 

2219 supersede the requirements of the WPS, including those related to application exclusion zones. 

2220 This was discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule (Ref. 2 at 15490) but was inadvertently 

2221 left out of the proposed regulatory text. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available 

2222 at 40 CFR 170.303(c) and 170.317(a).

2223 3. Comments and responses.

2224 Comments – supporting the proposal or more stringent measures. Many commenters, 

2225 including farmworker advocacy organizations, public health organizations, and a state, generally 

2226 supported the proposed requirement for entry-restricted areas. The commenters stated that the 

2227 proposed change should provide modest improvements in protecting workers from pesticide drift 

2228 during application if there is enough training and education of applicators. One farmworker 

2229 advocacy organization described an incident where workers were in a field topping tobacco at 

2230 the same time a plant growth regulator with a 24-hour REI was being applied to the adjacent 

2231 row. The workers were close enough to have to move out of the path of the tractor. However, 

2232 because the treated area was defined to be only the rows being treated, this was permissible 

2233 under the existing WPS. Many commenters provided other examples of incidents where workers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 95 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2234 were unintentionally exposed directly to the pesticide spray. A few farmworker advocacy 

2235 organizations commented that many workers say that they have felt the spray of pesticides from 

2236 fields close to where they work. A farmworker advocacy organization commented that in 2012, 

2237 about 20% of farmworkers in New Mexico reported to the organization that pesticides were 

2238 applied to the fields at the same time that they were working. Another farmworker advocacy 

2239 organization stated that about half of the child tobacco workers interviewed by the organization 

2240 in 2013 reported that they saw tractors spraying pesticides in the fields in or adjacent to the ones 

2241 where they were working. 

2242 Many farmworker advocacy organizations and several public health organizations argued 

2243 that EPA should revise the approach for entry restrictions to protect workers on neighboring 

2244 property and to increase the length of the entry-restricted area. The recommended distances 

2245 ranged from 60 to 200 feet for ground application and 300 feet to a mile or more for aerial 

2246 application. EPA responded to some of these suggestions in its response to “Pesticides in the Air 

2247 – Kids at Risk: Petition to Protect Children from Pesticide Drift (2009)” (Ref. 13).

2248 Comments – opposing the proposal. Many states and their organizations, grower 

2249 organizations, farm bureaus, applicator organizations, agricultural producer organizations and 

2250 pesticide manufacturer organizations opposed the proposed requirement to apply the entry2251 restricted areas to farms and forests. Most of these commenters argued that the approach is too 

2252 complicated because it establishes another area to be controlled that varies by application type, 

2253 may include persons other than those employed by the agricultural establishment and may be 

2254 different than label restrictions. (Note: Some of the comments appear to reflect a 

2255 misunderstanding of the proposal, i.e., that the entry-restricted areas would be “buffer zones” 

2256 that would remain in effect after the application was complete.) Some states and their 

2257 organizations commented that the requirement to keep individuals out of varying widths of areas 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 96 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2258 surrounding treated areas would be difficult for an agricultural employer to implement and even 

2259 more difficult for a state to enforce.

2260 Most of these commenters asserted that the proposed requirement to apply entry2261 restricted areas to farms and forests would present some logistical issues that could effectively 

2262 shut down parts of the establishment. For example, many ground and aerial pesticide 

2263 applications occur along rural roads or near access points to the agricultural establishment. These 

2264 roads and access points would be within the proposed entry-restricted areas. On larger fields, 

2265 pesticide applications could take several hours to complete. Commenters claimed that prohibiting 

2266 workers from using these roads or gaining access to farm buildings for long periods of time 

2267 would be impractical and could have an adverse economic impact. Many of the commenters 

2268 stated that EPA did not account for the cost of stopping business during some pesticide 

2269 applications. As an example, one grower organization opposed the “worker buffers” because 

2270 they could take a lot of area out of cultivation on smaller farms, farms with widely varied crop 

2271 maturities and farms that are not laid out in large blocks. Instead of arbitrary buffers, this 

2272 commenter argued to keep the standard as it is - do not apply where workers are present and do 

2273 not allow spray (or drift) to contact workers.

2274 Comments on application types and distances. Some commenters addressed the specific 

2275 application methods and the distances of 100 feet and 25 feet in the proposed entry-restricted 

2276 areas. Some states, grower organizations, agricultural organizations and pesticide manufacturer 

2277 organizations commented that the distances of 25 to 100 feet are not supported by drift reduction 

2278 technologies, applicator standard operating procedures or incident data. A state commented that 

2279 the table of application methods and distances is flawed because it does not account for all 

2280 application scenarios and does not logically apply distances.

2281 EPA Response. Based on the comments, EPA has made some changes in the final rule 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 97 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2282 from the proposed requirement to extend entry-restricted areas to farms and forests. However, 

2283 experiences such as those of workers having to move to get out of the way of the tractor that was 

2284 applying pesticide (described previously) and workers being directly sprayed confirm EPA’s 

2285 position that additional protections are necessary during pesticide applications on farms and in 

2286 forests. The existing WPS prohibits a farm or forest agricultural employer from allowing or 

2287 directing any worker to enter or remain in a treated area, which is defined to include areas being 

2288 treated. The existing regulations require oral notifications before pesticide applications to include 

2289 the location and description of the treated area, the time during which entry is restricted and 

2290 instructions not to enter the treated area until the REI has expired. The existing regulations 

2291 require handler employers to ensure that pesticides are applied in a manner that will not contact a 

2292 worker either directly or through drift. Inasmuch as these requirements – clearly intended to 

2293 prevent direct exposure of workers during pesticide applications – have proven insufficient for 

2294 that purpose, additional measures are needed. 

2295 EPA has changed the final rule in several ways to address some of the concerns 

2296 expressed in the comments about the logistical problems with the proposal. First, in the final rule 

2297 EPA replaced the term “entry-restricted area” with “application exclusion zone,” which more 

2298 clearly associates this restriction with the period during the pesticide application. This new term 

2299 is also less likely to be confused with the term “restricted-entry interval.” Second, EPA revised

2300 the requirements for the application exclusion zone so that it is not based on the “treated area,”

2301 but instead a specified distance from the application equipment. The application exclusion zone 

2302 is essentially a horizontal circle surrounding the application equipment that moves with the 

2303 application equipment. For example, if a pesticide is applied aerially, the border of the 

2304 application exclusion zone is a horizontal circle that extends 100 feet from the place on the 

2305 ground directly below the aircraft, and moves with the aircraft as the application proceeds.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 98 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2306 Because the application exclusion zone is based on the location of the application 

2307 equipment, rather than the location of the treated area, the application exclusion zone could 

2308 extend beyond the boundary of the agricultural establishment. However, in 40 CFR 

2309 170.405(a)(2), the final rule limits the requirement for the agricultural employer to keep workers 

2310 and other persons out of the treated area or the application exclusion zone during application to 

2311 areas that are within the boundaries of the agricultural establishment, as proposed. The existing 

2312 entry-restricted area requirement for nurseries is also limited to areas that are within the 

2313 boundaries of the agricultural establishment. EPA retained the existing and proposed limitation

2314 because this requirement applies to the agricultural employer. The agricultural employer can 

2315 control what happens on the agricultural establishment but could have difficulty limiting access 

2316 to roads or fields that are beyond his property.

2317 The comments reflected a general lack of understanding that the proposed entry-restricted 

2318 areas would exist only during application, and many comments anticipated conflicts between no2319 spray buffers on some pesticide labels and the proposed entry-restricted area. However, these are 

2320 two different types of requirements. If a label specifies a “no-spray” buffer, pesticide cannot be 

2321 applied in that area at any time. Under the final rule, a pesticide can be applied in an application 

2322 exclusion zone, and the requirement for agricultural employers is to keep workers and other 

2323 people out of this zone during the pesticide application. These two types of requirements are 

2324 distinct, and as a result should not be problematic to implement.

2325 EPA reassessed the application methods and distances in the proposed requirements for 

2326 entry-restricted areas for outdoor production and made some changes in the description of 

2327 application exclusion zones in the final rule in § 170.405(a)(1). The final rule maintains the 

2328 proposed distances of 100 feet and 25 feet but revises the application methods associated with 

2329 each distance.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 99 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2330 The application methods that have an application exclusion zone of 100 feet are the ones 

2331 where pesticide is expected to move a longer distance from where they are applied. The changes 

2332 include:

2333 • Adding air blast applications, to more accurately and more broadly describe current 

2334 application methods.

2335 • Deleting pesticides applied as an aerosol because it is unnecessary.

2336 • Including pesticides applied as a spray using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of 

2337 smaller than medium (volume median diameter less than 294 microns). The volume median 

2338 diameter refers to the midpoint droplet size or mean, where half of the volume of spray is in 

2339 droplets smaller, and half of the volume is in droplets larger than the mean. EPA chose to 

2340 establish this criteria based on the spray quality rather than just the pressure because the drop 

2341 size depends on a number of variables, including the pressure, the nozzle type, liquid properties, 

2342 and the spray angle. Focusing on the spray quality, rather than pressure, is also consistent with 

2343 EPA’s voluntary Drift Reduction Technology program and current models of drift used in EPA’s 

2344 risk assessments.

2345 The application methods that have an application exclusion zone of 25 feet are the ones 

2346 where pesticide is expected to move a shorter distance from where they are applied. The 

2347 changes include: 

2348 • Replacing several of the proposed criteria with pesticides applied as a spray using a 

2349 spray quality (droplet spectrum) of medium or larger (volume median diameter of 294 microns 

2350 or larger).

2351 • Eliminating the criterion based on the product label requiring a respirator because it is 

2352 intended to apply to enclosed spaces like greenhouses and was accidentally included in the 

2353 proposed criteria for outdoor production.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 100 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2354 The corresponding changes to application methods were made to the Table – Entry 

2355 Restrictions During Enclosed Space Production Pesticide Applications at 40 CFR 170.405(b)(4)

2356 for consistency.

2357 EPA acknowledges that some pesticide labels will have restrictions that apply during 

2358 applications that are different than the application exclusion zones. For example, the restrictions 

2359 on soil fumigant labels are more restrictive than the application exclusion zone of 100 feet 

2360 specified in § 170.405(a)(1)(i)(D). In situations like this, pesticide users must follow the 

2361 product-specific instructions on the labeling. As stated in §§ 170.303(c) and 170.317(a), when 40 

2362 CFR Part 170 is referenced on a pesticide label, pesticide users must comply with all of the 

2363 requirements in 40 CFR Part 170, except those that are inconsistent with product-specific 

2364 instructions on the pesticide product labeling.

2365 C. Suspend Application

2366 1. Current rule and proposal. As discussed in Unit IX.A., the existing WPS requires 

2367 handler employers and handlers to assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either 

2368 directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and 

2369 equipped handler. However, the existing WPS does not include an explicit requirement for 

2370 handlers to stop or suspend application. EPA proposed to add a provision to require a handler 

2371 performing a pesticide application to immediately stop or suspend the pesticide application if any 

2372 worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, is in the treated 

2373 area or the entry-restricted area. Based on the description of entry-restricted areas in the 

2374 proposed rule, the requirement for handlers to stop or suspend application in certain 

2375 circumstances would apply only within the boundaries of the agricultural establishment.

2376 2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has made several changes to the proposed 

2377 requirement to suspend applications. First, EPA revised the language to require a handler to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 101 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2378 “immediately suspend a pesticide application” rather than to “immediately stop or suspend a 

2379 pesticide application” to clarify that the application must be suspended but can be restarted once 

2380 workers or other persons are out of the zone. Second, EPA changed the area that is covered by 

2381 the requirement to suspend application in two ways. EPA replaced “entry-restricted area” with 

2382 “application exclusion zone,” decreasing the size of the area that is covered by the requirement. 

2383 See Unit IX.B. Also, EPA removed the treated area from the requirement. For outdoor 

2384 production, the area covered by the requirement is much smaller than the area that would have 

2385 been covered by the proposed rule, which would have been the treated area plus up to 100 feet 

2386 beyond the edge of the treated area. Third, the application exclusion zone can extend beyond the 

2387 boundaries of the agricultural establishment for the purposes of this requirement, i.e., the handler 

2388 must suspend application if any person other than another handler involved in the application is 

2389 in the application exclusion zone, regardless of whether the application exclusion zone extends 

2390 off of the employer’s property. 

2391 The final rule requires the handler performing the application to suspend application if 

2392 people who should not be present are in the application exclusion zone (which ranges up to 100 

2393 feet from the application equipment for outdoor production) or in the area identified for 

2394 exclusion for enclosed space production (which ranges from 25 feet to the entire enclosed space 

2395 plus any adjacent structure that cannot be sealed off.) The final regulatory text for this 

2396 requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.505(b).

2397 3. Comments and responses.

2398 Comments. Some commenters, including farmworker advocacy organizations, public 

2399 health organizations, academics, and a state generally supported the proposed requirement for 

2400 applicators to stop or suspend pesticide applications under certain conditions. A farmworker 

2401 advocacy organization supported the proposed requirement, stating that current rules do not 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 102 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2402 provide meaningful guidance on how applicators can prevent human exposure during 

2403 applications. Some other commenters from farmworker advocacy organizations, public health 

2404 organizations and public health agencies supported the proposed requirement but urged EPA to 

2405 extend the protections to workers at neighboring establishments. Many of these commenters 

2406 provided information suggesting that workers may be more likely to be affected by drift from a 

2407 different establishment. For example, commenters cited a Washington Department of Health

2408 report that documented 43 workers in Washington being affected by drift from another farm 

2409 while only 13 workers reported being affected by drift from the farm where they were working in 

2410 2010-2011. In comments arguing against the need for entry-restricted areas, some applicator 

2411 organizations provided examples supporting the requirement to suspend applications, stating that 

2412 it is standard operating procedure for aerial applicators to temporarily avoid making passes 

2413 adjacent to roads or other areas if workers happen to be passing by in vehicles or on foot.

2414 Many states and their organizations, grower organizations, farm bureaus, applicator 

2415 organizations, agricultural producer organizations and pesticide manufacturer organizations 

2416 opposed the proposed requirement for handlers to stop or suspend pesticide applications in 

2417 certain circumstances. Most of these commenters argued that the provision is unnecessary 

2418 because it would not offer any protections or prevent contact from pesticide applications beyond 

2419 the existing “do not contact” requirement. Some commenters raised logistical concerns: 

2420 Applicators may not be aware that a person has entered a treated area or entry-restricted area in 

2421 many situations, such as in a forest or an orchard in full leaf, in a very large field, or if there are 

2422 restricted sight lines or rolling hills; the proposed requirement would impose unwarranted 

2423 expectations for pilots, who would have to be fully aware of boundaries 100 feet on all sides of 

2424 the target area while traveling at 150 mph; as proposed, an applicator would have to stop if a 

2425 person is in an entry-restricted area even if it is not possible for that person to encounter 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 103 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2426 pesticides because of wind conditions.

2427 A few grower organizations and farm bureaus commented that there is a difference 

2428 between stopping and suspending an application and asked whether this would require 

2429 applicators to cease application altogether or suspend the application until a person is no longer 

2430 in the area.

2431 EPA Response. As stated in the proposal, EPA has identified a need to supplement the 

2432 “do not contact” performance standard because exposure to drift or direct spray events still 

2433 happen despite the “do not contact” requirement, and EPA’s risk assessments and registration 

2434 decisions presume that no workers or other persons are being sprayed directly. Therefore, the 

2435 final rule includes an explicit requirement for handlers to suspend pesticide applications under 

2436 certain conditions, which mandates applicators to take specified actions to prevent exposing 

2437 people to pesticide during applications.

2438 However, EPA revised the final rule in response to several points made by commenters.

2439 First, the final rule requires a handler to “immediately suspend a pesticide application” rather 

2440 than to “immediately stop or suspend a pesticide application.” This change was made to clarify 

2441 that the application must be suspended immediately if workers or persons other than handlers are 

2442 in the specified areas but can be restarted once workers or other persons are out of the specified 

2443 area.

2444 EPA was persuaded by the commenters who raised logistical concerns about the 

2445 proposed requirement, which were related to the handler not being able to see the person or a 

2446 person entering an edge of a large area that is not near the application equipment. EPA revised 

2447 the requirement in the final rule to decrease the size of the area that the handler must monitor for 

2448 workers or persons other than handlers by removing the treated area from the area covered by 

2449 this requirement and by changing the “application exclusion zone” so it is measured from the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 104 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2450 application equipment rather than from the edge of the treated area. In the final rule, the handler 

2451 performing the application must suspend application if any of the identified people are in the 

2452 application exclusion zone (which ranges up to 100 feet from the application equipment) rather 

2453 than if any of the people are in the entire treated area plus that distance (up to 100 feet) from the 

2454 edge of the treated area.

2455 EPA was also persuaded by the comments and incident information about workers at 

2456 neighboring establishments being directly contacted by drift. The incidents cited by commenters 

2457 show that workers are directly exposed to pesticide applications from neighboring establishments 

2458 as well as from the establishment where they are working. To reduce the number of incidents 

2459 where workers are exposed to drift from neighboring establishments, the final rule extends the 

2460 application exclusion zone beyond the boundaries of the agricultural establishment for this 

2461 requirement, thus requiring applicators to immediately suspend applications if people other than 

2462 a properly trained and equipped handler are in the application exclusion zone.

2463 EPA has decided to extend the application exclusion zone beyond the boundaries of the 

2464 agricultural establishment for the requirement to suspend applications for several reasons. First, 

2465 this addresses more of the worker drift cases, where workers are within 100 feet of the 

2466 agricultural establishment to protect more workers. Out of 17 incidents identified in the 

2467 comments, only one would have been prevented if the application exclusion zone was limited to 

2468 the boundaries of the agricultural establishment as provided in the proposed rule. The 

2469 requirement in the final rule would have prevented at least four of the incidents reported in the 

2470 comments, and possibly as many as 12, depending on the actual distances between the workers 

2471 and application equipment, which were not specified in the comments. Second, the existing 

2472 requirement that the handler must assure the pesticide is applied in a way that does not contact 

2473 workers or other persons already extends beyond the boundary of the agricultural establishment.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 105 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2474 The new, explicit requirement to suspend application if people other than handlers are in the 

2475 application exclusion zone is intended to supplement the existing “do not contact” requirement 

2476 by giving the applicator specific criteria for suspending application. These specific criteria 

2477 should be equally useful to applicators attempting to comply with the existing “do not contact” 

2478 requirement beyond the boundaries of the agricultural establishment. Third, the application 

2479 exclusion zone would extend a maximum of 100 feet beyond the boundary of an agricultural 

2480 establishment only for the length of time it takes for the equipment applying the pesticide to pass 

2481 by, so this should not shut down roads or access points to the establishment for long periods of 

2482 time. To reiterate a point made in Unit IX.B., the final rule does not hold agricultural employers 

2483 responsible for keeping workers and other persons out of portions of the application exclusion 

2484 zone that extend beyond the boundaries of the agricultural establishment. On the other hand, this 

2485 provision in § 170.505(b) of the final rule imposes a requirement on the handler applying the 

2486 pesticide to immediately suspend the application if workers or persons other than handlers 

2487 involved in the application are in the application exclusion zone, whether on the establishment or

2488 beyond the boundaries of the establishment.

2489 D. Costs and benefits

2490 1. Costs. In the proposal, EPA estimated the cost for restricting entry to areas adjacent to 

2491 an area being treated would be negligible. EPA assumed that employers could generally reassign 

2492 workers to other tasks for the duration of the pesticide application in instances where worker 

2493 tasks in the adjacent areas had to be stopped until the application was complete. In the proposal, 

2494 EPA estimated the cost of the requirement to suspend application would be negligible because it 

2495 essentially clarifies an existing requirement. In the final rule, EPA estimates the costs of both 

2496 requirements remains negligible.

2497 2. Benefits. EPA believes both of the drift-related requirements discussed in this section 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 106 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2498 of the preamble will help reduce the number of exposures of workers and other non-handlers to 

2499 unintentional contact to pesticide applications. Therefore, the benefits of these requirements 

2500 outweigh the negligible costs.

2501 X. Establish Minimum Age for Handling Pesticides and Working in a Treated Area while 

2502 an REI is in Effect 

2503 A. Current Rule and Proposal. 

2504 The existing regulation does not establish any age restriction for handlers or early-entry 

2505 work. EPA proposed to prohibit persons younger than 16 years of age from handling pesticides, 

2506 with an exception for handlers working on an establishment owned by an immediate family 

2507 member. EPA requested comment on an alternative option of prohibiting any person under 18 

2508 years old from handling pesticides.

2509 The existing WPS establishes conditions for when a worker may enter into a treated area 

2510 under an REI. The conditions are related to the type of work performed (often referred to as 

2511 “early-entry” tasks) and the length of time the worker may be in the treated area. However, the 

2512 existing WPS establishes no minimum age for workers entering a treated area under an REI to 

2513 perform early-entry tasks. EPA proposed to prohibit any worker under 16 years old from 

2514 entering a treated area under an REI to perform early entry tasks, with an exemption from this 

2515 prohibition for persons covered by the immediate family exemption. EPA requested comment on 

2516 an alternative option of prohibiting any person under 18 years old from entering treated areas 

2517 during the REI to perform early entry tasks.

2518 B. Final Rule. 

2519 The final rule prohibits persons younger than 18 years old from handling pesticides. EPA 

2520 has retained the proposed exemption for handlers working on an establishment owned by an 

2521 immediate family member. The final regulatory text for the prohibition is available at 40 CFR 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 107 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2522 170.309(c) and 170.313(c). The final regulatory text for the exemption is available at 40 CFR 

2523 170.601(a)(1)(i).

2524 The final rule prohibits persons younger than 18 years old from entering treated areas 

2525 during the REI to perform early entry tasks, and retains the proposed exemption for persons 

2526 working on an establishment owned by an immediate family member. The final regulatory text 

2527 for this prohibition is available at 40 CFR 170.309(c) and 170.605(a). The final regulatory text 

2528 for the exemption is available at 40 CFR 170.601(a)(1)(xii).

2529 C. Comments and Responses.

2530 Comments. Many commenters requested that EPA establish a minimum age of 18 for 

2531 handlers and early-entry workers. Commenters cited several reasons for their request. First, 

2532 many commenters noted that adolescents’ bodies are still developing and they may be more 

2533 susceptible to the effects of pesticide exposure. Second, commenters noted that adolescents are 

2534 less mature and their judgment is not as well developed as that of adults. This immaturity may 

2535 mean that adolescents may be less consistently aware of risks associated with handling pesticides

2536 or entering a treated area while an REI is in effect, that they may not adequately protect 

2537 themselves or other workers from known risks, and that spills, splashes, and improper handling 

2538 practices may be more likely. A few commenters submitted studies related to development of 

2539 maturity and decision-making skills in adolescents in support of this assertion. Third, 

2540 commenters asserted that restricting handling activities to persons at least 18 years old could 

2541 result in higher potential economic benefit from avoiding exposure and any potentially related 

2542 chronic effects to children, because they have a longer potential life span. Fourth, because 

2543 information on the potential chronic effects of pesticide exposure on developing systems is not 

2544 known, commenters recommended that EPA prohibit adolescents from handling pesticides and 

2545 entering treated areas while an REI is in effect as a precaution until it can be shown that they 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 108 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2546 would not suffer adverse chronic effects from potential exposure. Finally, a few commenters 

2547 noted that persons under 18 years old are protected in other industries by OSHA and should 

2548 receive similar protections under the WPS, and that some states have already prohibited handling 

2549 of pesticides in agriculture by anyone under 18 years old.

2550 Some commenters expressed support for a minimum age of 16. States primarily 

2551 supported EPA’s proposal to establish a minimum age of 16, noting that establishing a minimum 

2552 age of 18 would require them to change their state laws. Other commenters supporting the 

2553 proposed minimum age of 16 noted that this requirement would align with DOL’s restriction on 

2554 handling pesticides in toxicity categories I and II in agriculture. 

2555 A few commenters opposed establishing any minimum age. These commenters asserted 

2556 that EPA should not take any action because the DOL’s hazardous orders under the Fair Labor 

2557 Standards Act (FLSA) already prohibit adolescents under 16 years old from handling pesticides 

2558 in toxicity categories I and II in agriculture with limited exceptions. Some commenters also 

2559 assert that establishing any minimum age for pesticide handlers is a matter that should be 

2560 handled by the states, not EPA. 

2561 Some commenters requested that EPA eliminate the exception from any minimum age 

2562 requirement for members of the owner’s immediate family. Commenters assert that adolescents’ 

2563 developmental status does not differ if they are an employee on a farm owned by an immediate 

2564 family member or by someone unrelated to them. Other commenters supported EPA’s proposal 

2565 or requested that EPA establish a higher minimum age only if EPA also retains the exception for 

2566 members of the owner’s immediate family.

2567 EPA Response. Based on the comments received and an evaluation of existing literature 

2568 related to adolescents’ development of maturity and judgment, EPA has decided that the benefits 

2569 of further reductions in adolescent pesticide exposures justify their cost; the final rule generally 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 109 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2570 prohibits persons under 18 years old from handling pesticides or entering a treated area while an 

2571 REI is in effect. EPA recognizes that adolescents’ bodies and judgment are still developing.

2572 While studies have not demonstrated a clear cut off point at which adolescents are fully 

2573 developed, literature indicates that their development may continue until they reach their early to 

2574 mid-20s. EPA also agrees that research has shown that adolescents may take more risks, be less 

2575 aware of the potential consequences of their actions on themselves and others, and be less likely 

2576 to protect themselves from known risks. All of this information supports establishing a higher 

2577 minimum age than proposed in order to allow those handling pesticides to develop more fully 

2578 before putting themselves, others, and the environment at risk, and to allow those performing 

2579 early-entry activities to develop more fully in order to adequately protect themselves from the 

2580 risks of entering a treated area while an REI is in effect. The final rule will reduce the potential 

2581 for misuse by adolescent handlers who may less consistently exercise good judgment when 

2582 handling agricultural pesticides.

2583 EPA notes commenters’ assertions that avoiding pesticide exposure in adolescents could 

2584 result in higher potential economic benefit because of adolescents’ longer potential lifespans.

2585 EPA agrees that it is appropriate to take reasonable precautions to protect adolescents from 

2586 pesticide exposures, both because of the potential impact of pesticides on further development 

2587 and because adolescents may not properly appreciate (and take appropriate steps to avoid) the 

2588 risks of potential pesticide exposure. While statistical associations have been observed in studies 

2589 that estimate the relation between pesticide exposure and chronic health outcomes such as 

2590 cancer, the causal nature of these associations has not yet been determined; thus quantifying the 

2591 magnitude of the chronic health risk reduction expected as a result of pesticide exposure 

2592 reduction is not possible. However, based on what is known about the potential for biologically 

2593 active chemicals generally to disrupt developmental processes, it is reasonable to have 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 110 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2594 heightened concern for adolescents under the age of 18 in situations where they face particularly 

2595 high pesticide exposures. Prohibiting adolescents under the age of 18 from handling agricultural 

2596 pesticides will protect them from any potential risks of pesticide use through handling activities, 

2597 ensuring that adolescents do not suffer unreasonable adverse effects from handling agricultural 

2598 pesticides. Prohibiting adolescents under 18 years old from entering a treated area while an REI 

2599 is in effect will protect them by delaying their entry into treated areas until residues are at a level 

2600 that should not cause unreasonable adverse effects.

2601 EPA recognizes that OSHA prohibits persons under 18 years old from engaging in 

2602 hazardous tasks in other industries, and that some states have taken action to prohibit certain 

2603 adolescents from handling pesticides in agriculture (state minimum ages for pesticide handlers, 

2604 where established, range from 16 years old to 18 years old). These examples of protections for 

2605 adolescents in other industries or by states indicate a recognition that different standards for 

2606 certain adolescents and adults are appropriate.

2607 EPA disagrees with commenters’ assertions that EPA should defer to the states or the 

2608 FLSA and not establish any age-related restrictions on pesticide handling or early-entry 

2609 activities. EPA has the responsibility under FIFRA to regulate the use of pesticides to avoid 

2610 unreasonable adverse effects, apart from any requirements established by other federal or state 

2611 laws. The DOL’s actions under the FLSA limiting the use of certain pesticides to persons at least 

2612 16 years old do not preclude EPA from taking actions to ensure that human health and the 

2613 environment are protected from unreasonable adverse effects. While DOL’s hazardous order 

2614 prohibiting those under 16 years old from handling certain pesticides satisfies the purposes of the 

2615 FLSA, those purposes are distinct from those of FIFRA. EPA has concluded that because, as 

2616 discussedpreviously, adolescents’ bodies, maturity, and judgment are still developing, the 

2617 handling of agricultural pesticides and entry into a treated area while an REI is in effect by 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 111 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2618 persons under 18 years old presents an unreasonable likelihood of adverse effects. Therefore, the 

2619 final rule generally limits pesticide handling and early-entry activities to persons who are at least 

2620 18 years old. 

2621 EPA agrees that adolescents’ developmental status does not differ if they are employees

2622 on a farm owned by an immediate family or by someone unrelated to them. However, EPA 

2623 recognizes that imposing a minimum age for handling agricultural pesticides or performing 

2624 early-entry tasks could significantly disrupt some family farms. Given the high social cost of 

2625 imposing a minimum age requirement on family farms, EPA has finalized the proposed 

2626 exception to this requirement. 

2627 4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring handlers and early-entry 

2628 workers to be at least 18 years old would be $3.1 million annually. EPA estimates that, on 

2629 average, the cost would be about $8 per agricultural establishment per year. The cost per 

2630 commercial pesticide handling establishment per year is estimated to be over $360. The 

2631 estimated cost of the final requirement is likely to be overstated, particularly for commercial 

2632 pesticide handling establishments, because EPA made some very conservative assumptions

2633 regarding the amount of time an adolescent works.

2634 EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this specific proposal. However, this 

2635 requirement would improve the health of adolescent handlers, as well as other workers and 

2636 handlers on the establishment and the environment. It would also improve the health of 

2637 adolescent workers by reducing their potential for exposure to pesticides in a treated area when 

2638 an REI is in effect. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, adolescents' judgment is 

2639 not fully developed. Restricting adolescents' ability to handle pesticides will lead to less 

2640 exposure potential for the handlers themselves, and less potential for misapplication that could 

2641 cause negative impacts on other handlers or workers on the establishment, as well as the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 112 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2642 environment.

2643 XI. Restrictions on Worker Entry into Treated Areas

2644 A. Requirements for Entry During an REI

2645 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS establishes specific exceptions to the 

2646 general prohibition against sending workers into a treated area while an REI is in effect. Workers 

2647 who enter pesticide-treated areas during an REI (known as “early-entry workers”) without 

2648 adequate protection may face an elevated risk from pesticide exposure. Under the existing rule, 

2649 the employer must: Ensure that the worker has read or been informed of the human health 

2650 hazards on the product labeling; provide instruction on how to put on, use, and remove PPE;

2651 stress the importance of washing after removing the PPE; and instruct the worker on how to

2652 prevent, recognize, and treat heat-related illness. The employer must also implement measures to 

2653 prevent heat related illness when workers must wear PPE. 

2654 In addition to these existing requirements, EPA proposed to require employers to inform 

2655 workers sent into a treated area while the REI is in effect of the specific exception under which 

2656 they would enter, to describe the tasks permitted and any limitations required under that 

2657 exception, and to identify the PPE required by the labeling. EPA also proposed to require the 

2658 employer to create a record of the oral notification provided to early-entry workers, to obtain the 

2659 signature of each early-entry worker acknowledging the oral notification prior to the early entry, 

2660 and to maintain the record for 2 years.

2661 2. Final Rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirements for the employer to inform 

2662 the worker of the type of exception which permits the entry into the area under an REI, to 

2663 describe the tasks that the worker may perform and other limitations under the exception, and to 

2664 identify the PPE that must be worn. However, EPA has decided not to require employers to 

2665 create or maintain records of the oral notification. The final regulatory text for this requirement is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 113 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2666 available at 40 CFR 170.605.

2667 3. Comments and responses.

2668 Comments on oral notification. Comments on the proposal to inform workers of the early 

2669 entry exception and to explain the PPE were largely supportive, recognizing the reasonable 

2670 nature of the proposed information. Commenters in support of the proposal included a pesticide 

2671 manufacturer organization and farmworker advocacy organizations. One public health 

2672 organization supported the proposal, but recommended that the requirement be modeled after 

2673 OSHA’s confined space regulations, to include: Specific training for early entry, a requirement 

2674 for workers to be provided respirators and other necessary PPE, written emergency rescue 

2675 procedures and resources in case of an overexposure or other mishap, on-site monitoring of the 

2676 worker from outside the entry zone, and recordkeeping of each entry.

2677 Several agricultural producer organizations and pesticide manufacturer organizations 

2678 supported the proposal, but expressed concern for the requirement for employers to manage heat 

2679 stress.

2680 EPA Response. EPA has decided not to amend the final rule based on OSHA’s confined 

2681 space regulations. OSHA’s definition of a confined space is one in which there is limited or 

2682 restricted means for entry or exit. These characteristics exacerbate any hazard to the employee, in 

2683 that the employee could be overcome by a toxic atmosphere or by physical engulfment, such as 

2684 in a grain storage bin, and be unable to quickly exit. EPA recognizes a similar potential for 

2685 pesticide handlers making fumigant applications in greenhouses to be overcome by the fumigant.

2686 The WPS provides protections for such scenarios by requiring PPE, including respirators where 

2687 required by the label, and continuous monitoring by a handler outside of the treatment area. The 

2688 handler entering the greenhouse would have specific instructions on the labeled hazards. The 

2689 monitoring handler must have access to the PPE required by the product labeling in case they 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 114 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2690 would need to enter the greenhouse for rescue of the applicator. However, except for the use of 

2691 fumigants, which have specific label requirements because of their increased potential for 

2692 inhalation risk, the more common scenario of a worker entering a treated area on a farm, forest, 

2693 or in a nursery during the REI would not pose such risks from a toxic atmosphere. It is unlikely 

2694 that there would be an environment that could concentrate the pesticide and produce a potentially 

2695 life-threatening environment. The predominant component of exposure during work in a treated 

2696 area where an REI is in effect is dermal, with rare exceptions. Specific information about the 

2697 entry must include the human health hazards on the pesticide labeling, explanation of the 

2698 required PPE and the proper way to wear and remove PPE, description of the tasks that may be 

2699 performed and any limitations on the time permitted in the area. Workers directed to enter a 

2700 treated area during the REI must have had the pesticide safety training so they may protect 

2701 themselves. Employers must provide the PPE required by the product label for early entry to 

2702 minimize exposure. Employers must provide early entry workers with the decontamination 

2703 supplies appropriate for pesticide handlers.

2704 EPA agrees with commenters that heat stress can be a problem for workers in warm, 

2705 humid climes and when employees must wear PPE. EPA notes that requirements related to heat 

2706 stress for early entry workers are already included in the existing rule at 40 CFR170.112(c)(6)(x) 

2707 and 170.112(c)(7). 

2708 Comments in opposition to the early-entry exceptions. A number of farmworker 

2709 advocacy organizations voiced opposition, in general, to most or all of the early entry exceptions 

2710 in the existing rule, suggesting that workers should not be required to enter treated areas under an 

2711 REI, due to risk of exposure. 

2712 EPA Response. In deciding whether to allow workers to enter treated areas prior to the 

2713 expiration of the REI, EPA considered the risk to the workers and the benefits from the early-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 115 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2714 entry activities. In each case, EPA determined that the potential risks to properly trained and 

2715 equipped early-entry workers are reasonable in comparison to the significant economic impacts 

2716 from delaying necessary activities, provided that the required limitations to each exception are 

2717 observed.

2718 Comments on recordkeeping of oral notification. One farmworker advocacy organization 

2719 supported the recordkeeping requirement, stating that the “proposed changes will ensure early 

2720 entry workers are adequately informed about the risks of the work they are asked to do.” In 

2721 contrast, several states and their organizations expressed concern for the recordkeeping 

2722 requirement, stating that it is not practical and would result in technical violations, such as 

2723 failures to obtain the necessary signatures, without enhancing worker protection. 

2724 EPA Response. EPA was convinced by the rationale provided by the states that the 

2725 requirement for records of notification to early-entry workers was too burdensome for 

2726 agriculture, while adding little or no protections for the workers. There is typically some urgency 

2727 to the need for entry into a treated area while the REI is in effect; the added burden to create 

2728 records during this time could be unreasonable as it would not necessarily increase protection of 

2729 early-entry workers. EPA retained the requirement for employers to provide protective

2730 information to early-entry workers, but did not include the proposed recordkeeping requirement 

2731 because it is unclear that such records would improve the transmission of information. 

2732 B. Clarify Conditions of the “No Contact” Exception

2733 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS allows workers to enter areas while an 

2734 REI is in effect for activities that do not result in contact with any treated surfaces. In the 

2735 proposal, EPA sought to clarify the “no contact” requirement of the exception by explaining that 

2736 performing tasks while wearing PPE does not qualify as “no contact.” The proposal offered three 

2737 examples of acceptable “no contact” activities. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 116 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2738 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed clarification. The final rule adds to the 

2739 exception the following language: “This exception does not allow workers to perform any 

2740 activities that involve contact with treated surfaces even if workers are wearing personal 

2741 protective equipment.” The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR 

2742 170.603(a)(1).

2743 3. Comments and responses.

2744 Comments. One farm bureau stated that workers are prevented from having contact with 

2745 pesticides and their residues through the medium of PPE.

2746 EPA Response. Although PPE – when properly fitted, worn, removed, cleaned and 

2747 maintained – can provide significant protection against pesticide exposures, it does not eliminate 

2748 exposure. The variation in exposure reduction offered by various types of PPE can be seen in 

2749 EPA’s “Exposure Surrogate Reference Table” (http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/handler2750 exposure-table.pdf). Use of PPE for activities involving contact with pesticide-treated surfaces 

2751 does not reduce risks to the same level as no-contact activities. EPA has finalized the “no 

2752 contact” exception as proposed because the PPE appropriate for early entry into treated areas 

2753 under this exception is appropriate only for activities that do not involve contact with treated 

2754 surfaces. 

2755 C. Limit “Agricultural Emergency” Exception

2756 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS permits entry into a treated area during 

2757 an REI when a state, tribal, or federal agency having jurisdiction declares the existence of 

2758 conditions that could cause an agricultural emergency. EPA proposed that only agricultural 

2759 emergency determinations by EPA, state and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies, and state 

2760 departments of agriculture, could authorize early entry under the agricultural emergency 

2761 exception. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 117 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2762 In addition, EPA proposed to limit the time a worker may be in the treated area under the 

2763 agricultural emergency exception when the label of the product used to treat the area requires 

2764 both oral and written notification (“double notification”). Under the existing rule, there is no time 

2765 limit; EPA proposed to establish allowing workers to be in a treated area under this exception for

2766 a maximum of 4 hours in any 24 hour period. 

2767 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposal, with one change. The final rule does not 

2768 include EPA as an agency with authorization to declare the existence of conditions that could 

2769 cause an agricultural emergency because EPA decided that States and Tribes are best situated to 

2770 decide what conditions in their respective jurisdictions could constitute an agricultural 

2771 emergency. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.603(c).

2772 3. Comments and responses.

2773 Comments on restricting the declaration of an agricultural emergency. One state 

2774 supported the proposal, but recommended broadening it to include the state governor. Another 

2775 state found the proposal satisfactory. One grower organization opposed the proposal, stating that 

2776 pre-approval to enter the treated area would be cumbersome and unnecessary if the criteria are 

2777 clearly defined and documented. Another grower organization and a farm bureau from the same 

2778 state expressed concern that this change would seriously impact growers’ ability to enter a 

2779 treated area to manage fires, fix broken irrigation and chemigation pipes, and address other 

2780 problems that could pose risks to adjacent public areas and cause crop loss. These commenters

2781 recommended that EPA develop guidance to instruct relevant municipal agencies such as local 

2782 fire departments to declare agricultural emergencies. 

2783 Commenters also suggested that there is a need for entities other than EPA, state 

2784 departments of agriculture and the state pesticide regulatory agencies to declare agricultural 

2785 emergencies. In the examples provided by commenters, fires and broken irrigation or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 118 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2786 chemigation pipes could pose risks to the public and the crop.

2787 EPA Response. As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA noted that 

2788 entities other than the state pesticide regulatory agencies, state departments of agriculture, and 

2789 EPA might not have the background and technical expertise to assess the benefits and risks to 

2790 workers from the entry while the REI is in effect, and might not understand the statutory 

2791 requirement to consider both risks and benefits when establishing conditions for early-entry 

2792 workers. EPA decided not to include state governors as an entity authorized to declare an 

2793 agricultural emergency because it is not necessary; a state governor could direct the state 

2794 department of agriculture or pesticide regulatory agency to determine whether conditions that 

2795 could result in an agricultural emergency exist.

2796 The need for pre-approval for conditions that may result in an agricultural emergency is a 

2797 requirement in the existing rule. EPA has responded to the concern of the grower organization 

2798 through its Interpretive Guidance Workgroup on the existing WPS, which clarified that state 

2799 pesticide regulatory agencies may establish guidance or regulations describing the circumstances 

2800 that could constitute an agricultural emergency and for which entry into areas under an REI is 

2801 permitted. If a grower determines that such conditions exist at a site, then workers may enter the 

2802 area while the REI is in effect under the agricultural emergency exception, consistent with 

2803 applicable restrictions.

2804 EPA has decided not to expand the declaring agencies to include municipal agencies such 

2805 as local fire departments, but will work with state pesticide regulatory agencies and departments 

2806 of agriculture to support identification of circumstances that could constitute an agricultural 

2807 emergency in their jurisdictions. EPA recommends that these entities identify, in their states, 

2808 local conditions that could constitute such emergencies. Through state regulation or by policy, 

2809 these agencies may pre-approve entry when such conditions occur. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 119 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2810 D. Codify “Limited Contact” and “Irrigation” Exceptions

2811 1. Current rule and proposal. EPA established “limited contact” and “irrigation” 

2812 exceptions as administrative exceptions in 1995. Although these exceptions are noted in the 

2813 existing rule at 40 CFR 170.112(e)(7), the terms and conditions of these exceptions are not 

2814 included in the existing rule. These exceptions permit entry into a treated area during the REI for 

2815 certain non-hand labor activities, including irrigation. The existing exception for irrigation 

2816 requires that the need for the early entry be unforeseen. 

2817 EPA proposed to incorporate the terms and conditions for these exceptions into the final 

2818 rule, and to eliminate the requirement for the need for irrigation to be unforeseen.

2819 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the rule as proposed. The final regulatory text for this 

2820 requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.603(d).

2821 3. Comments. Two farm bureaus specifically supported the codification of the limited 

2822 contact and irrigation exceptions. 

2823 E. Eliminate the Option for an Exception Requiring Agency Approval

2824 1. Current rule and proposal. Under the existing rule, an applicant may request approval 

2825 from EPA for an exception to the prohibition on worker entry into a treated area during the REI 

2826 for a specific need. EPA proposed to eliminate the process for requesting an exception from the 

2827 rule. 

2828 2. Final rule. EPA is finalizing the proposal to eliminate the provision for exceptions 

2829 requiring Agency approval. 

2830 3. Comments and responses.

2831 Comment. One grower opposed the elimination of the provision, citing the evolution of 

2832 farming practices and the potential for conflict between new practices and the rule. The 

2833 commenter stated that there is no administrative burden to the EPA, except to evaluate requests if 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 120 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2834 they are submitted.

2835 EPA Response. EPA included the administrative exception process into the WPS in 1992 

2836 in recognition that the general prohibition on routine early entry might significantly affect 

2837 various agricultural entities or practices in ways that might only become apparent as the 1992 

2838 WPS was put into effect. EPA created a small number of exceptions during the 1990s, but none 

2839 since 1997. The effects of reentry intervals on agricultural entities and practices are now 

2840 sufficiently well understood that the administrative exception process is no longer needed in the 

2841 WPS. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA finds the pesticide re-evaluation 

2842 process a more appropriate venue than the WPS for considering the economic impacts of REIs

2843 on particular agricultural entities and practices. Under EPA’s registration review process, 

2844 applicants may request alternative REIs for specific needs for their crop. This process takes into 

2845 account the potential increased risk to workers and the benefits to the production of the crop. In 

2846 cases where EPA finds that the revision of an REI is warranted, the product label will be 

2847 amended to specify the REI for that particular use.

2848 F. Cost and Benefits

2849 1. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of implementing the requirement for oral notification 

2850 prior to workers’ entry into a treated area under an REI to be about $706,000 per year, or about 

2851 $2 per establishment annually. EPA estimates that the revisions to the exceptions allowing entry 

2852 into a treated area before the REI expires would have negligible cost, if any.

2853 2. Benefits. EPA concludes that the benefit of providing detailed information about the 

2854 tasks they are to undertake and the limitations on their exposure to the worker prior to entry into 

2855 an area under an REI is reasonable compared with the cost.

2856 XII. Display of Pesticide Safety Information

2857 A. Pesticide Safety Information Content
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 121 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2858 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing rule requires employers to display a pesticide 

2859 safety poster containing the following information:

2860 • Avoid getting on your skin or into your body any pesticides that may be on plants and 

2861 soil, in irrigation water, or drifting from nearby applications.

2862 • Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet.

2863 • Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues (long-sleeved shirts, 

2864 long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf).

2865 • Wash/shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean clothes after work.

2866 • Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again.

2867 • Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the 

2868 body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo, and change into clean clothes.

2869 • Follow directions about keeping out of treated or restricted areas.

2870 • There are federal rules to protect workers and handlers, including a requirement for 

2871 safety training.

2872 The existing rule also requires the employer to provide contact information for the 

2873 nearest emergency medical care facility and to promptly update the safety information poster 

2874 when any of the required contact information changes. 

2875 EPA proposed changing the term for what employers must display from “pesticide safety 

2876 poster” to “pesticide safety information.” EPA proposed retaining the existing content 

2877 requirements of the existing rule, with one exception. EPA proposed removing the item 

2878 regarding federal rules to allow the other information to be more prominent. EPA proposed 

2879 retaining the requirement to display the contact information for the medical facility and 

2880 amending the language from “nearest emergency medical care facility” to “a nearby operating 

2881 medical facility.” Finally, EPA proposed requiring the employer to provide on the display the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 122 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2882 name, address, and telephone number of the state or tribal pesticide regulatory agency.

2883 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed requirements for content, and has added a

2884 point to the proposed display requirements that advises workers and handlers to seek medical 

2885 attention as soon as possible if they believe they have been made ill from pesticides. EPA has 

2886 also amended one of the existing required points to clarify that if pesticides are spilled or sprayed 

2887 on the body, workers and handlers should rinse immediately in the nearest clean water if more 

2888 readily available than the decontamination supplies, and should wash with soap and water as 

2889 soon as possible. The final rule refers to the requirement as “pesticide safety information” and 

2890 allows display of the information in any format that meets the requirements of the rule, rather 

2891 than only as a pesticide safety poster. EPA has included a requirement in the final rule for the 

2892 employer to update the pesticide information display within 24 hours of notice of any changes to 

2893 the medical facility or pesticide regulatory agency contact information. Finally, EPA has 

2894 provided an option in the regulatory text that allows employers to comply by following the 

2895 requirements at 40 CFR 170.311(a)(1)-(4) before they are fully implemented. The final 

2896 regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.311(a)(1)-(4). 

2897 The final rule delays implementation of the changes to the required pesticide safety 

2898 information until two years after the rule is made final, in order to allow time for model pesticide 

2899 safety information display materials to be developed and distributed. 

2900 3. Comments and responses.

2901 Comments. Farmworker advocacy groups and public health organizations supported the 

2902 emergency medical care change and inclusion of the state or tribal agency responsible for 

2903 enforcement. However, they urged implementation sooner than the proposed two years from the 

2904 effective date of the final rule. One commenter reported that a recent survey they conducted 

2905 indicated that 25% of respondents did not complain about pesticide-related health problems or
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 123 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2906 pesticide applications to the fields while they were working because they did not know to whom

2907 to complain and 62% feared losing their jobs if they were to complain.

2908 In general, agricultural producer organizations did not object to the proposed changes for 

2909 providing emergency medical information but two commenters were concerned about spurious 

2910 reporting of alleged violations resulting from inclusion of the state or tribal regulatory agency in 

2911 the pesticide safety information. Two commenters interpreted the proposal as requiring injured 

2912 workers to contact state or tribal agencies responsible for enforcement for emergency medical 

2913 attention. A grower organization pointed out that the nearest operating medical facility might 

2914 change depending on the time of day and wondered if they needed to list hours of operation and 

2915 addresses of all emergency medical care facilities in the area where the employer operates.

2916 One commenter suggested the safety poster should always be in a standardized format 

2917 and requested that EPA not allow the information to be displayed in several different formats.

2918 EPA Response. EPA has concluded that there was general support for the proposed 

2919 requirement regarding the content of the safety information display. EPA has delayed 

2920 implementation of the final requirements for two years after publication of the final rule to allow 

2921 time for display material to be updated, printed and distributed. However, EPA encourages 

2922 employers to implement the new requirements prior to that date by allowing employers the 

2923 option to use the new safety information content.

2924 In response to concerns about the placement of the medical facility information and the 

2925 inclusion of regulatory agency information in the display, EPA has revised the regulatory text to 

2926 clarify that the contact information about the medical facility must be clearly identified as the 

2927 emergency medical contact information on the display. Displaying the regulatory agency 

2928 information is important for the ability of workers and handlers to report possible violations, and 

2929 in those states where it is already required, it does not appear to have generated spurious 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 124 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2930 reporting of alleged violations. EPA appreciates that some states may already require employers 

2931 to make such medical and regulatory information available and where state requirements meet or 

2932 exceed the federal requirement, they do not need to be duplicated. However, EPA has added this 

2933 requirement to the WPS to ensure the information is available to workers and handlers in all 

2934 states. 

2935 EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement to identify a nearby operating emergency 

2936 medical care facility to simplify the requirement in situations where the nearest operating 

2937 emergency medical facility varies with the location of workers and handlers.

2938 EPA disagrees with the comment requesting that the information be displayed in a 

2939 standardized format. As long as the information is provided in a way that workers and handlers 

2940 can understand, EPA sees no need to mandate a specific format.

2941 B. Location of Pesticide Safety Information Display

2942 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing rule requires agricultural and handler 

2943 employers to display the pesticide safety poster at a central location on the establishment. EPA 

2944 proposed to require that agricultural employers display the pesticide safety information at 

2945 locations where decontamination supplies must be provided, in addition to the existing 

2946 requirement to display it at a central location.

2947 2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has amended the proposal to require that in addition 

2948 to displaying pesticide safety information at a central location, employers must also display it at 

2949 permanent decontamination supply locations and where decontamination supplies are provided 

2950 in quantities to meet the needs of 11 or more workers or handlers. The final regulatory text for 

2951 this requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.311(a)(5).

2952 3. Comments and responses.

2953 Comments. Farmworker advocacy organizations and public health organizations 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 125 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2954 supported requiring display of pesticide safety information where decontamination supplies are 

2955 provided for easy access to safety information for farm workers and families at strategic 

2956 locations. They asserted that this would improve the ability of farmworkers and their families to 

2957 stay healthy. They maintained that due to language barriers, immigration status, and fear of 

2958 retaliation, farmworkers are often reluctant to ask their employers for information. Three 

2959 individual farmworkers also commented on the proposed rule and echoed concerns expressed by 

2960 farmworker advocacy groups and public health organizations. The commenters requested clear 

2961 information in Spanish and English at a central location with easy access that includes telephone 

2962 numbers, places to go for help, and hospitals in the area. They stated that it was important that 

2963 employers give farmworkers the necessary information about the pesticide application without 

2964 workers having to ask for information. About half of the grower organizations commenting had 

2965 no objection to the additional mandate on employers and agreed that the additional reminders at 

2966 decontamination sites have potential benefits.

2967 The remaining grower organizations believed that the proposed requirement would pose a 

2968 significant burden. One commenter stated that duplicating the pesticide safety information at 

2969 multiple sites throughout an agricultural organization did not equate to a better training program 

2970 and believed this requirement would likely result in additional fines for noncompliance without 

2971 raising safety awareness. Some pointed out that workers are bused in for a day in the field and 

2972 irrigators are sent to different areas by phone; none of these congregate at a central location. 

2973 Many states opposed displaying the pesticide safety information at decontamination sites. 

2974 Because of the mobile nature of many decontamination sites, such as the back of a pickup truck, 

2975 some noted the proposed requirement would be burdensome. One indicated that it would be 

2976 difficult for a grower owning fields across multiple counties to keep the pesticide safety 

2977 information accurate. They generally supported displaying the pesticide safety information at 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 126 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

2978 permanent decontamination sites and base of operation mix/load sites. Several states asked for 

2979 clarification about what types of decontamination sites would be required to display the pesticide 

2980 safety information and suggested that portable toilet facilities and plumbed wash sites would be 

2981 more appropriate locations. 

2982 Others mentioned the lack of protection from the weather of the pesticide safety 

2983 information at OSHA-required restroom facilities and the lack of access to this information when 

2984 the vehicles carrying decontamination supplies are locked up at night. Two states recommended 

2985 different sizes for the pesticides safety information. One state suggested that pesticide safety 

2986 information displays be no larger than 11 x 17 inches and laminated to withstand at least one 

2987 year’s worth of weather conditions for use at decontamination sites; this state also recommended 

2988 resizing the existing pesticide safety information to 8.5 x 11 inches or less and made of durable 

2989 card stock or plastic for the agricultural workers to take home. 

2990 EPA Response. EPA agrees with the commenters who supported requiring safety 

2991 information displays at a central location and anywhere decontamination supplies must be 

2992 provided because the information is a useful reminder of the hygienic safety principles from their 

2993 training. However, EPA was persuaded by arguments that the burden to display the information 

2994 at mobile decontamination sites could be substantial, based on concerns for their ability to 

2995 display the information so that it could be easily seen by workers, such as by posting it on a 

2996 vertical surface. The final rule requires employers to display the information at the central 

2997 display and all permanent sites, including a lavatory or bathroom, where decontamination 

2998 supplies are provided to meet the requirements of the rule. However, for other locations where 

2999 decontamination supplies must be provided, the pesticide information display is required only 

3000 when the supplies are provided for 11 or more workers or handlers. This aligns with OSHA’s 

3001 field sanitation standard that requires toilet facilities for 11 or more workers. EPA notes that 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 127 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3002 employers may use these portable toilet facilities or permanent wash sites to display the 

3003 information, as recommended by some states.

3004 EPA does not agree with the contention that requiring the pesticide safety information 

3005 display at multiple locations would result in fines for noncompliance, without greatly benefiting 

3006 the employee. The pesticide safety information display reinforces the hygienic training principles 

3007 from the safety training, and when coupled with access to decontamination supplies, offers a 

3008 hands-on opportunity for workers and handlers to adopt these practices. Additionally, 

3009 information about medical facilities available to workers where they may be exposed to 

3010 pesticides may help them take steps to respond to an emergency. 

3011 EPA appreciates the comments regarding display size and options for lamination. The

3012 final rule does not establish a specific size for the information or require it to be laminated. 

3013 However, the final rule requires the information to be legible at all times while it is displayed, 

3014 and EPA expects that employers will opt for the optimal size and protection from the elements 

3015 for their specific needs. Because the final rule limits the type of decontamination sites covered by 

3016 this requirement and includes flexibility for identifying the regulatory agency and a nearby 

3017 operating emergency medical care facility, it is possible but unlikely that some growers with 

3018 larger establishments may need to provide different specific contact information about the 

3019 regulatory agency and/or the medical facility, depending on the area where workers or handlers 

3020 are working.

3021 Commenters suggested the information be available in English and Spanish. EPA notes 

3022 that the requirement is for the information to be provided in a manner that the workers and 

3023 handlers can understand, which may include making it available in English and Spanish, or in 

3024 other languages as appropriate.

3025 EPA plans to develop and make available to agricultural and handler employers posters 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 128 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3026 bearing the pesticide safety information, in a bilingual and pictorial format and with space for

3027 employers to add the required regulatory agency and medical facility information. As discussed 

3028 in the proposed rule, the information does not have to be displayed as a poster as long as the 

3029 display includes the required information and meets the requirements of the section.

3030 C. Costs and Benefits.

3031 1. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of requiring additional pesticide safety information 

3032 displays at permanent sites with decontamination supplies and at other locations where there are 

3033 11 or more workers or handlers and of requiring contact information on the display to be updated

3034 to be $390,000 annually, or about $1 annually per establishment per year. 

3035 2. Benefits. Workers and handlers will benefit from having access to information about 

3036 basic pesticide safety at locations they are likely to visit. In addition, workers and handlers will 

3037 benefit from having accurate information about nearby medical facilities and how to contact the 

3038 state regulatory agency if necessary. EPA finds the costs from this requirement are reasonable 

3039 when compared to the benefits of reminding employees about basic pesticide safety and hygienic 

3040 practices at the sites where they routinely wash.

3041 XIII. Decontamination

3042 A. Clarify the Quantity of Water Required for Decontamination

3043 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing rule requires employers to provide “enough 

3044 water for routine washing and emergency eye flush” when workers are performing activities in 

3045 areas where a pesticide was applied and the REI has expired. For early-entry workers, the 

3046 existing WPS requires employers to provide “a sufficient amount of water” for decontamination. 

3047 The existing WPS requires employers to provide handlers with “enough water for routine 

3048 washing, for emergency eye flushing and for washing the entire body in case of an emergency.” 

3049 EPA proposed to require specific quantities of water for workers, early-entry workers and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 129 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3050 handlers based on its 1993 guidance, “How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for 

3051 Agricultural Pesticides; What Employers Need to Know.” In the guidance, EPA recommended 

3052 one gallon of water per worker for routine decontamination, three gallons of water for early3053 entry workers for decontamination and three gallons of water per handler for routine 

3054 handwashing and potential emergency decontamination. 

3055 EPA requested comment on the proposed quantities of water and the use of waterless 

3056 cleansing agents in place of soap, water, and single-use towels. EPA also requested information 

3057 on the efficacy of waterless cleansing agents for removing pesticide residues.

3058 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the proposed decontamination water requirements. EPA 

3059 has also clarified that employers must make the required quantities of water and other 

3060 decontamination supplies available at the beginning of the work period. The final rule does not 

3061 allow waterless cleansing agents to be used in place of water, soap, and single-use towels. The 

3062 final regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.411(b), 170.509(b) and 

3063 170.605(h). 

3064 3. Comments and responses.

3065 Comments. A majority of commenters supported the proposal to require one gallon of 

3066 water per worker for routine decontamination, three gallons of water for early-entry workers for 

3067 decontamination and three gallons of water per handler for routine washing and emergency 

3068 decontamination but many requested clarification of the time frame associated with the supply; 

3069 they wondered if the prescribed amounts were the maximum quantity per site or per number of 

3070 workers, the minimum amount at the beginning of the day or at all times during the work period. 

3071 Six commenters were in favor of replacing soap and water with a waterless cleansing agent. One 

3072 commenter noted such a substitution would be effective for workers but not handlers; another 

3073 suggested that these agents might be less bulky than the existing required supplies. One 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 130 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3074 commenter provided information on a specific waterless cleansing agent.

3075 EPA Response. EPA notes that the proposed quantities of water for decontamination are 

3076 intended for agricultural settings that are not subject to the field standards of OSHA and the 

3077 American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Based on comments, EPA has clarified the final 

3078 rule to require that the specified amount of supplies be available at the beginning of the work 

3079 period and that they are to be calculated per worker and per handler. The final rule does not 

3080 require the replenishment of used supplies until the beginning of the next work period. The 

3081 information supplied by commenters was insufficient to convince EPA to replace water, soap, 

3082 and single-use towels with a waterless cleansing agent. The one waterless cleansing agent 

3083 discussed in the comments had limited use since the information indicated it could be used to 

3084 remove only one family of pesticides; workers and handlers are likely to encounter residues from 

3085 various families of pesticides.

3086 B. Eliminate the Substitution of Natural Waters for Decontamination Supplies

3087 1. Current rule and proposal. For sites where worker or handler activities are farther than 

3088 one-quarter mile from the nearest vehicular access, the existing rule permits employers to allow 

3089 workers and handlers to use clean water from springs, streams, lakes or other sources (“natural 

3090 waters” for the purposes of this section) for decontamination, if such water is more accessible 

3091 than the employer-provided water. The employer must ensure any water used for 

3092 decontamination, including natural waters, is of a quality and temperature that will not cause 

3093 illness or injury. EPA proposed to eliminate the provision that allows employers to permit 

3094 workers and handlers to substitute natural waters for the required decontamination supplies at 

3095 remote sites. For remote sites, the proposal would have maintained the existing requirement for

3096 employers to provide all decontamination supplies (soap, single-use towels, clean change of 

3097 clothing and water) at the nearest point of vehicular access. However, the existing regulation 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 131 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3098 does not permit substitution of waters from natural sources for the decontamination water at the 

3099 point of nearest vehicular access, and EPA’s proposed change mischaracterized the existing 

3100 requirements.

3101 2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has removed from the regulatory text the provision 

3102 that allows employers to permit workers and handlers to use clean water from springs, streams, 

3103 lakes or other sources if that water is more accessible in remote locations where the 

3104 decontamination supplies are farther than one-quarter mile from where workers and handlers are 

3105 working. EPA is taking this approach to remove confusion about the employer’s responsibilities.

3106 The employer must always provide the decontamination supplies in quantities outlined in the 

3107 regulation. When workers or handlers are performing tasks at remote sites more than one-quarter 

3108 mile from the nearest point of vehicular access, employers must provide all required 

3109 decontamination supplies (soap, single-use towels, and water, plus clean change of clothing if 

3110 required) at the nearest point of vehicular access. Under the final rule, employers are required to 

3111 make the decontamination supplies available as close as possible to the remote site (as 

3112 determined by how close a vehicle can get) and employers do not have to check or confirm that 

3113 water from springs, streams, lakes or other sources at remote sites meets the standard of being of 

3114 a quality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury. EPA has amended the training 

3115 requirements to cover the proper use of natural waters at remote sites by workers and handlers.

3116 EPA believes that workers and handlers in these remote areas should primarily rely on the 

3117 decontamination water that is provided by the employer for routine washing and emergency 

3118 decontamination because the quality of the natural waters at the remote site is unknown. In case 

3119 of an overexposure, such as a spill, contact from drift, or direct spray, workers and handlers 

3120 should always use the emergency decontamination supplies if they are more readily available. 

3121 However, training will emphasize that workers or handlers should rinse immediately using the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 132 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3122 nearest source of clean water to mitigate the exposure, and to use the nearest source of clean 

3123 water, including springs, streams, lakes or other sources, if more readily available than the 

3124 decontamination supplies. Workers and handlers will be advised through training that as soon as 

3125 possible they should decontaminate thoroughly with the soap, water and towels provided by the 

3126 employer and, if available, change into clean clothes. EPA plans to modify training materials to 

3127 incorporate this information. The final regulatory text for worker and handler decontamination is 

3128 available at 40 CFR 170.411(b)(1), 170.509(b)(1), and 170.605(h)-(j). 

3129 3. Comments and responses.

3130 Comments. Many commenters supported not using natural waters to replace the required 

3131 decontamination supplies. Two states, a farmworker advocacy organization, and a grower 

3132 organization supported the need for employees to access the nearest clean water in case of an 

3133 exposure. Some farmworker advocacy organizations expressed concern that the quality of the 

3134 natural waters might be questionable and not the best choice for decontamination. 

3135 Finally, one farm bureau commenter stated that large scale planting activities can place 

3136 workers more than one-quarter mile from vehicular access, and retaining the existing 

3137 requirement is more reasonable than expecting workers to carry washing water with them.

3138 EPA Response. EPA maintains its position that the employer-provided decontamination 

3139 supplies, provided within one-quarter mile of the workers and handlers – or in remote areas, at 

3140 the nearest point of vehicular access to worker and handler work sites – are the appropriate 

3141 supplies for routine washing and emergency decontamination. The employer must ensure this 

3142 water meets the minimum criteria for quality. However, EPA agrees with commenters that 

3143 prompt washing in clean water is an important step in reducing overexposure, for example, from 

3144 a spill, contact from drift, or direct spray. EPA has identified acute incidents that would have 

3145 been mitigated if the exposed worker or handler had decontaminated promptly. EPA is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 133 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3146 concerned that the existing requirements for employers to ensure the quality of natural waters 

3147 prior to its use and for them to permit its use will prevent workers and handlers from using these 

3148 waters to decontaminate in case of an emergency. Ensuring the quality of all natural waters on 

3149 their establishment could be burdensome for employers, and as a result they might not evaluate 

3150 the quality or permit the use of natural waters.

3151 To ensure that workers and handlers needing emergency decontamination can use water 

3152 that is more accessible than the decontamination water provided by the employer, the employer 

3153 no longer must predetermine that the quality of the water meets the criteria or permit their 

3154 employees access. The rule permits the use of natural waters for emergency decontamination, but 

3155 does not require it. Workers and handlers seeking to mitigate an emergency exposure will be 

3156 informed in their training to use the nearest clean water to immediately rinse off if such water is 

3157 more readily available than the employer-provided decontamination supplies, and then go to 

3158 where the employer-provided supplies are to fully decontaminate. EPA believes the benefits of 

3159 using natural clean waters to decontaminate immediately in an emergency pesticide exposure 

3160 situation outweighs the potential risks of making workers or handlers wait until they can use 

3161 supplied decontamination water that has been evaluated for quality but may be less available to 

3162 immediately address the exposure. EPA thinks that washing in natural waters in any agricultural 

3163 area is unlikely to pose risks comparable to a significant direct pesticide exposure. 

3164 C. Requirements for Ocular Decontamination in Case of Exposed Pesticide Handlers

3165 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing rule requires employers to provide “enough” 

3166 water to handlers for routine and emergency washing and emergency eye flushing. For handlers 

3167 who use products that require eye protection, employers must provide each handler with at least 

3168 one pint of water that they can carry for use in the event of an ocular pesticide exposure. EPA 

3169 proposed to require employers to provide clean, running water at permanent (i.e., plumbed and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 134 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3170 not portable) mixing and loading sites for handlers to use in the event of an ocular pesticide 

3171 exposure when using a pesticide with labeling that requires eye protection.

3172 2. Final rule. Under the final rule, employers must provide water for ocular 

3173 decontamination either through a system capable of delivering 0.4 gallons/minute for at least 15 

3174 minutes or from six gallons of water able to flow gently for about 15 minutes. This water must 

3175 be available at all mixing and loading sites where handlers are mixing or loading a product that 

3176 requires eye protection or when closed systems, operating under pressure, are in use. The final 

3177 rule amends the existing requirement for employers to provide at least one pint of water per 

3178 handler in portable containers that are immediately available to handlers applying the pesticide, 

3179 rather than to all handlers mixing, loading and applying pesticides, if the pesticide labeling 

3180 requires protective eyewear. The final regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 

3181 CFR 170.509(d).

3182 The term “potable” in the preamble and regulatory text for the proposed rule was a 

3183 typographical error and has been corrected to “portable” in the final rule. 

3184 3. Comments and responses.

3185 Comments. There was general support for this proposal. Many commenters urged EPA to 

3186 adopt or coordinate with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z358.1-2009 

3187 and/or the OSHA requirements, 29 CFR 1928.110, as several states have done. Many requested a 

3188 definition of “permanent mixing and loading site” and “a system capable.” Some qualified their 

3189 support based on the inclusion of “nurse rigs,” “nurse tanks” and “gravity-fed tanks” in the final 

3190 rule. Commenters also explained that much of the mixing and loading is done in the field rather 

3191 than at a site with running water. Other commenters wondered if the water for decontamination 

3192 needed to be potable.

3193 EPA Response. The OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1910.151(c) specifies that “... where the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 135 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3194 eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for 

3195 quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body shall be provided ...”. The ANSI standard 

3196 provides specifications for two types of eyewash stations, plumbed and gravity-fed. The 

3197 specifications describe a system with a precise rate of flow (0.4 gallons/minute for 15 minutes), 

3198 that can activate in 1 second or less and does not require the user to control the flow of water. 

3199 While the OSHA and ANSI standards are very protective, EPA believes that the final rule 

3200 requirements provide handlers with mitigation appropriate to pesticide exposure in agricultural 

3201 settings at significantly lower costs than the ANSI standards. Based on the comments, EPA 

3202 realized that there might have been some confusion regarding the nature of permanent mixing 

3203 and loading sites, the plumbing associated with non-permanent mixing and loading sites, and the 

3204 quality of the water required. In the final rule, EPA decided to apply the requirements to all 

3205 mixing and loading sites where pesticides whose labeling requires protective eyewear are 

3206 handled because the risk to handlers who mix and load these products is the same, regardless of 

3207 where they perform the tasks. Rather than specify what types of water tanks or eye wash systems

3208 would comply with the requirement, EPA opted for flexibility. The final rule allows employers 

3209 to provide either at least 6 gallons of water in containers suitable for providing a gentle eye flush 

3210 for about 15 minutes, or a system capable of delivering gently running water at a rate of 0.4 

3211 gallons per minute for at least 15 minutes to satisfy the requirement. One emergency eyewash 

3212 system is required at a mixing/loading site when a handler is mixing or loading a product whose 

3213 labeling requires protective eyewear for handlers, regardless of how many handlers are mixing or 

3214 loading at that site. The final retains the existing requirement for water to be of “a quality and 

3215 temperature that will not cause illness or injury.” 

3216 D. Showers for Handler Decontamination

3217 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing rule establishes specific requirements for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 136 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3218 routine and emergency handler decontamination supplies, but these requirements do not include 

3219 shower facilities. EPA considered but did not propose a requirement for handler employers to 

3220 provide shower facilities.

3221 2. Final rule. EPA has not included in the final rule a requirement for employers to 

3222 provide shower facilities for handlers.

3223 3. Comments and responses.

3224 Comments. Many commenters supported the proposal for not providing shower facilities 

3225 for handlers while others requested that EPA require employers to provide shower facilities for 

3226 handlers. Those against adding the shower requirement noted the provision would not 

3227 necessarily guarantee use in order to reduce take-home or handler exposure. Those supporting a 

3228 requirement for shower facilities indicated that handlers would use them if they were provided. 

3229 Both groups, however, agreed that better training and adequate information on reducing take3230 home exposure, as suggested by EPA, would be a better approach.

3231 EPA Response. EPA agrees that additional training for handlers and clarified 

3232 decontamination provisions such as the provision of at least 3 gallons of water per handler for 

3233 routine and emergency washing, available at the beginning of the day, would help reduce take3234 home exposure without requiring shower facilities. The estimate of the cost of installing showers 

3235 as provided in the proposal, combined with the lack of confidence that most handlers would 

3236 routinely use showers if provided, led to the conclusion that a shower requirement would be 

3237 unlikely to reduce risks to an extent commensurate with the costs.

3238 E. Costs and Benefits.

3239 1. Costs. EPA estimates the total cost of the revisions to the decontamination 

3240 requirements to be approximately $412,000 annually, or about $1 per establishment per year, 

3241 CPHEs $21 per establishment per year.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 137 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3242 EPA does not believe there will be any cost associated with deleting the provision 

3243 allowing employers to direct workers and handlers to use natural waters in addition to the 

3244 decontamination supplies required by the rule. The final rule still allows workers and handlers to 

3245 use clean, natural waters, but removes employers’ obligation to ensure that the water is of a 

3246 temperature and quality that will not cause harm. 

3247 Because EPA is not imposing a requirement for employers to provide shower facilities 

3248 for handlers, there is no estimated cost. Refer to the Economic Analysis of the proposed rule for 

3249 details regarding the estimated cost of requiring showers for handlers (Ref. 14).

3250 2. Benefits. EPA expects that workers and handlers will benefit from having access to 

3251 sufficient supplies for routine washing and decontamination. In addition, handlers will benefit 

3252 by having sufficient water available to rinse their eyes in the event of an accident while mixing 

3253 or loading certain pesticides. Employers will benefit from certainty about the amount of water 

3254 that they must supply and when that water must be available.

3255 XIV. Emergency Assistance

3256 A. Current rule and proposal. 

3257 The existing WPS requires employers of workers or handlers, including those handlers 

3258 employed by the agricultural establishment or those working for a pesticide handling 

3259 establishment, to provide prompt transportation to an emergency medical facility to employees

3260 who have been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides used on the establishment.

3261 Emergency medical assistance under the existing rule consists of the prompt provision of 

3262 transportation to an emergency medical facility for the worker or handler and the provision of 

3263 obtainable information about the exposure, including information about the product(s) that may 

3264 have been used, to emergency medical personnel or the exposed employee. 

3265 EPA proposed to require agricultural and handler employers to provide emergency 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 138 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3266 medical assistance within 30 minutes after learning that an employee may have been poisoned or 

3267 injured by exposure to pesticides as a result of his or her employment, replacing the current 

3268 standard of “prompt.” The proposed change was intended to ensure that the potentially injured 

3269 party would be on route to a medical facility within 30 minutes.

3270 EPA also proposed that the employer provide a copy of the pesticide label, or specific 

3271 information from the label, along with the SDS and circumstances of the pesticide use and 

3272 potential exposure, to employees potentially injured by exposure to pesticides and to treating 

3273 medical personnel.

3274 B. Final rule.

3275 EPA has retained the existing requirement for providing transportation and information 

3276 promptly. The final rule clarifies that these requirements apply only to current or recently 

3277 employed workers, and that emergency assistance must be provided if there is reason to believe 

3278 that a worker or handler has been potentially exposed to pesticides or shows symptoms of 

3279 pesticide exposure. 

3280 EPA has amended the requirement for the information that the employer must provide 

3281 related to emergency assistance. The final rule requires the employer to provide to treating 

3282 medical personnel a copy of the SDS, product name, EPA registration number and active 

3283 ingredient for each pesticide product to which the person may have been exposed, as well as the 

3284 circumstances of application or use of the pesticide on the agricultural establishment and the 

3285 circumstances that could have resulted in exposure to the pesticide. This is a slight change to the 

3286 existing rule which makes the information available to the worker or handler. In this final rule, 

3287 the worker or handler has access to the information through the hazard communications 

3288 requirement. This provision deals specifically with meeting the needs for medical assistance, and 

3289 requires that the information be provided to the medical personnel.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 139 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3290 EPA has clarified in the final rule that the provision of the emergency assistance 

3291 requirement for transportation and information applies only to currently employed workers 

3292 seeking emergency medical assistance or recently employed workers within 72 hours after their 

3293 employment for acute exposures occurring on the agricultural establishment.

3294 The final regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.309(f) and 

3295 170.313(k). 

3296 C. Comments and responses.

3297 Comments. Many private citizens and farmworker advocacy organizations, some 

3298 pesticide state regulatory agencies and several public health organizations supported the proposal 

3299 to require agricultural employers and handler employers to provide emergency medical 

3300 assistance within 30 minutes after learning that an employee may have been poisoned or injured 

3301 by exposure to pesticides as a result of his or her employment, replacing the current standard of 

3302 “prompt.” They stated that the clarification of time for the provision of transportation and 

3303 information would improve the safety of farmworkers.

3304 The Progressive Congressional Caucus, many farmworker advocacy organizations and 

3305 public health organizations expressed concern that the proposed emergency response time of 30 

3306 minutes is too long and recommended that it should be further reduced. Commenters reasoned 

3307 that pesticide poisoning can be fatal or result in long-term effects if not quickly treated. 

3308 On the other hand, many commenters, mostly growers and farm bureaus, and some states

3309 and agricultural producer organizations expressed opposition to the proposal and favored

3310 retaining “prompt “ to allow more flexibility due to geographical constraints. The Small Business 

3311 Administration’s Office of Advocacy stated that small farms that are farther away from medical 

3312 facilities would not be able to obtain emergency transportation within the timeframe. Those with 

3313 few employees and limited transportation options would be overburdened in attempting to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 140 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3314 comply with a 30 minute timeframe. 

3315 Commenters representing many states, several agricultural industries, many growers and 

3316 farm bureaus, and the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy recommended that 

3317 emergency response requirements should apply only to current employees seeking emergency 

3318 medical assistance for acute incidents.

3319 Additional comments from states and their organizations recommended that the 

3320 agriculture emergency requirement address only acute exposures to current employees of the 

3321 establishment. They raised concerns for the potential for former employees or those with 

3322 exposures in the past to request emergency assistance. One commenter stated that allowing any 

3323 person who was ever employed by the establishment the ability to demand emergency assistance

3324 could cause problems with compliance and enforcement. Some of these organizations requested 

3325 clarification of the term “emergency medical facility.” 

3326 Commenters also recommended that the requirement allow, similar to OSHA, trained 

3327 first aid providers on the establishment to provide care, which could enable more timely 

3328 treatment. 

3329 Commenters noted that requiring the employer to provide the label to employees

3330 potentially injured by exposure to pesticides and to treating medical personnel could lead to 

3331 further exposure, if the employee takes an open container of pesticides bearing the label. 

3332 Further, commenters suggested that the information outlined in the proposal could be obtained 

3333 from sources other than the label.

3334 EPA Response. EPA was convinced by the concerns raised by members of the 

3335 agricultural community that geographical constraints, in some cases, would make the 30 minute 

3336 response timeframe for transportation difficult or impossible to meet. Agricultural establishments 

3337 can be very large and are often distant from population centers. Remote locations, including 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 141 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3338 those in forestry, are common; and the distance to an emergency medical facility or to an 

3339 ambulance service can be significant.

3340 The final rule requires employers to comply with the emergency assistance requirements 

3341 by promptly making transportation available to an emergency medical facility for potentially 

3342 injured employees and providing the SDS, specific product information, and information about 

3343 the exposure to the treating medical personnel. Because the information about the pesticide may 

3344 be critical to effectively manage the illness, EPA decided to focus the requirement to ensure that 

3345 treating medical personnel receive the information. The agricultural employer must provide that 

3346 information in a way that is reasonably expected to be accessible to the treating medical 

3347 personnel. The requirement does not preclude the employer providing the information to injured 

3348 employees and does not prevent injured employees from requesting this information. This 

3349 requirement will allow continued flexibility for employers and encourage timely medical 

3350 treatment for potentially injured employees. 

3351 In deciding to retain the requirement for prompt provision of transportation, EPA also 

3352 took into consideration OSHA’s standard for the provision of transportation to persons in 

3353 construction, which requires “Proper equipment for prompt transportation of the injured person 

3354 to a physician or hospital.” 29 CFR 1926.50(e).

3355 EPA agrees with the recommendation to clarify that the requirement applies only to 

3356 current or recently employed workers seeking emergency medical assistance for acute exposures 

3357 occurred at the agricultural establishment, and has revised the final rule accordingly. 

3358 EPA notes that for some cases of suspected pesticide injury, the attention of a trained first 

3359 aid provider can mitigate the injury. Such treatment would not negate the obligations of the 

3360 employer to provide transportation promptly to an injured employee, or to provide information 

3361 about the pesticide and exposure to medical personnel, but is encouraged. Allowing a competent 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 142 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3362 first aid provider to administer timely treatment to an injured employee could offset 

3363 complications from longer exposures. 

3364 EPA agrees with comments that a requirement to provide the label in the event of an 

3365 emergency could be burdensome and place employees at risk for additional exposure if the label 

3366 is attached to an open container of pesticides. EPA has not included the proposed requirement to 

3367 provide the label or information from the label; rather, the final rule requires the employer to 

3368 provide the necessary information, but does not specify the source of the information. EPA has 

3369 removed from the list of specific pieces of information the employer must provide information 

3370 about antidote, first aid, and recommended treatment because the SDS contains this information. 

3371 EPA notes that the information about the product and the SDS will be available as part of the 

3372 pesticide application and hazard information.

3373 In response to the requests for clarification of what qualifies as an emergency medical 

3374 facility, EPA notes that a hospital, clinic, or infirmary offering emergency health services 

3375 qualifies. 

3376 Finally, the employer must provide information about the pesticide and the exposure to 

3377 the treating medical personnel.

3378 D. Costs and benefits. 

3379 There are no incremental costs associated with the decision to retain the requirement of 

3380 prompt provision of transportation in the existing rule. The cost associated with the SDS were 

3381 included in the costs for the pesticide application and hazard information. There are significant 

3382 benefits to reducing damage from pesticide exposure by prompt medical attention.

3383 XV. Personal Protective Equipment

3384 A. Respirators: Fit Testing, Training and Medical Evaluation

3385 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing regulation requires handler employers to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 143 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3386 ensure that each handler’s respirator fits correctly. However, the existing rule does not provide 

3387 specific details on ensuring that a respirator fits properly, nor does it require employers to

3388 conduct medical evaluations of the handler’s fitness for respirator use, provide training on the 

3389 proper use of respirators, or retain fit test records.

3390 EPA proposed to require handler employers to comply with the respirator fit testing, 

3391 training, and medical evaluation requirements set by OSHA at 29 CFR 1910.134 whenever a 

3392 respirator other than a dust or mist filtering mask is required by the labeling. EPA did not 

3393 propose any new requirements for filtering facepiece respirators (OSHA’s term for dust or mist 

3394 filtering masks). The OSHA standard includes a specific standard for fitting a user for respirator 

3395 use, training on recognizing when the respirator seal may be broken, and what steps to take to 

3396 properly use and maintain respirators. OSHA also requires respirator users to be medically 

3397 evaluated to ensure the respirator use does not cause undue stress on their bodies. EPA proposed 

3398 to require that employers comply with the OSHA requirements for fit testing, training, and 

3399 medical evaluation by cross-referencing 29 CFR 1910.134, in order avoid creating a duplicative 

3400 regulation and to ensure that if technology advances lead OSHA to amend its standard, the 

3401 change would automatically apply to pesticide uses subject to the WPS as well. EPA also 

3402 proposed to require handler employers to maintain records of the fit test, training, and medical 

3403 evaluation for two years.

3404 2. Final rule. EPA has retained the proposed elements in the final rule, with some 

3405 changes and clarifications. Specifically, the final rule cross references and requires compliance 

3406 with the OSHA standards for fit testing, training, and medical evaluation when a respirator is 

3407 required by the labeling. The final rule expands from the proposal the types of respirators 

3408 covered by the requirement to include filtering facepiece respirators.

3409 In the final rule, EPA has retained the proposed requirement for handler employers to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 144 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3410 maintain records of the fit testing, medical evaluation, and training. The final rule clarifies that 

3411 the required training is limited to the care and use of respirators, 29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1)(i)-(vi), 

3412 and does not include the training on the general requirements (i.e., 29 CFR 1930.134(k)(1)(vii)).

3413 The final regulatory text for these requirements is available at 40 CFR 170.507(b)(10).

3414 3. Comments and responses.

3415 Comments. EPA received many comments in favor of requiring handler employers to 

3416 comply with the respirator fit testing, training, and medical evaluation requirements established 

3417 in the OSHA standard. Many farmworker advocacy organizations and some PPE manufacturers 

3418 asserted that EPA should also apply the proposed standards for fit testing, training, and medical 

3419 monitoring to users of filtering facepiece respirators in addition to the other respirator types (e.g., 

3420 tight fitting elastomeric facepieces). Commenters suggested that filtering facepiece respirators 

3421 are widely used and covered by OSHA’s respirator requirements, and that their exclusion would 

3422 result in inadequate protection for many pesticide handlers. OSHA defines a filtering facepiece 

3423 as “a negative pressure particulate respirator with a filter as an integral part of the facepiece or 

3424 with the entire facepiece composed of the filtering medium” in 29 CFR 1910.134(b). 

3425 Furthermore, many farmworker advocacy organizations stated that EPA should require 

3426 compliance with all elements of 29 CFR 1910.134, rather than the proposal to just include fit 

3427 testing, training, and medical evaluation. Specifically, they urged EPA to adopt OSHA’s 

3428 requirements for employers to develop a respiratory protection program (29 CFR 1910.134(c)) 

3429 and conduct a workplace hazard evaluation (29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii)).

3430 Nearly all commenters expressed support for a general requirement related to proper 

3431 respirator care and use, such as appears in the existing rule. However, many pesticide 

3432 manufacturers and their associations, state farm bureaus and agricultural producer organizations

3433 questioned the feasibility of the proposed requirement for medical evaluations because locating 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 145 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3434 qualified physicians practicing in rural areas would be difficult. Other farm bureaus noted that 

3435 the OSHA standard applies to general industries, shipyards, marine terminals, longshoring and 

3436 construction, and it would not likely be easily adopted in agricultural settings. Some commenters 

3437 also asserted that EPA’s cost estimates associated with the medical evaluations and fit testing 

3438 were too low. 

3439 Some commenters, including a state farm bureau, raised concerns that EPA’s reference to

3440 OSHA’s regulations could give OSHA legal grounds to pursue oversight of certain small 

3441 farming operations, contrary to provisions of existing law.

3442 EPA Response. In the final rule, EPA has required that employers comply with the 

3443 respirator fit testing, training, and medical evaluation requirements described in the proposed 

3444 rule when the use of respirators is required by the labeling. The final rule also expands its 

3445 coverage to include filtering facepiece respirators (referred to as dust/mist filtering respirators in 

3446 the proposal). EPA included filtering facepiece respirators in the final rule to ensure that handlers 

3447 required to use any type of respirator are adequately protected. Filtering facepiece respirators 

3448 need to be fit tested and used properly to provide the intended protection. In addition, this will 

3449 ensure that respirators used under the WPS provide the same level of protection as comparable 

3450 respirators used under OSHA’s respiratory protection requirements.

3451 EPA acknowledges that, if the final rule were to require handler employers to comply 

3452 with the OSHA requirement to adopt a worksite-specific respiratory protection program, such a 

3453 requirement would address in detail the selection, cleaning, storing, repair and replacement of 

3454 respirators, as well as worksite-specific procedures when respirator use is required. EPA has 

3455 decided not to expand the final rule to include the OSHA requirement to adopt a worksite3456 specific respiratory protection program because specific respirator requirements are described on 

3457 EPA-approved, product-specific pesticide labeling. These product-specific respirator 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 146 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3458 requirements are based on the acute inhalation toxicity of the end-use product or a 

3459 comprehensive risk assessment informed by incident data, or on extensive pesticide active 

3460 ingredient toxicology data, exposure science and epidemiology data (if available), or on both.

3461 Therefore, requiring a general worksite-specific respiratory protection program would duplicate 

3462 the analysis underlying product-specific respirator requirements included on pesticide labeling.

3463 EPA acknowledges that implementing respirator fit testing, training, and medical 

3464 evaluation in agriculture will place additional burden on agricultural employers. However, the 

3465 proper fit and use of respirators is essential in order to realize the protections respirators are 

3466 intended to provide. EPA’s pesticide risk assessment process relies on National Institute for 

3467 Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) protection factors (i.e., respirators used according to 

3468 OSHA’s standards) when deciding whether handler inhalation exposure can be mitigated by 

3469 respirator use. If the handler inhalation exposure can be mitigated by a particular type of 

3470 respirator, EPA may require the use of that respirator on the pesticide label, among other risk 

3471 mitigation measures. Without the protection provided by the respirators identified on the label, 

3472 use of those pesticides would cause unreasonable adverse effects on the pesticide user, i.e., the 

3473 handler.

3474 EPA is aware of several states, including California, Oregon and Washington, that have 

3475 successfully incorporated all aspects of the OSHA standard for respirators in agriculture, 

3476 demonstrating the feasibility of applying OSHA’s requirements in agriculture. North Carolina 

3477 has incorporated many innovative ways to facilitate the medical evaluation and fit testing 

3478 process, and helped farmers (including handler employers) locate reputable sources for online 

3479 services for fit testing and medical evaluation, and sources for NIOSH-approved respirators, 

3480 filters, and cartridges. EPA plans to work with stakeholders such as state regulatory agencies, 

3481 universities, and others to provide outreach assistance such as training programs and written 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 147 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3482 materials and to encourage the dissemination of information about fit testing and medical 

3483 evaluation resources. 

3484 EPA has reviewed and revised its cost estimates for fit testing, training and medical 

3485 evaluation. The cost estimate assumes that farms would designate one handler to be fit tested so 

3486 the incremental costs for the filtering facepiece respirators reflects the need to fit test and train on 

3487 multiple types of respirators. The increased costs also reflects the cost of the on-line medical 

3488 evaluation, which replaces the estimated time of a medical technician reviewing the evaluation, 

3489 and the cost of the employer’s time to arrange (if off-site) or oversee (if on-farm) the evaluation 

3490 and fit test, which was previously omitted. EPA has also updated wages, price of materials and 

3491 services such as the cost of the medical evaluation and the fit test materials. Details of the revised 

3492 estimate are available in the Economic Analysis for this final rule (Ref. 1).

3493 EPA recognizes that some handlers may not be able to use a tight-fitting respirator. EPA 

3494 notes that the purpose of the medical evaluation is to ensure handlers are able to tolerate the 

3495 physical burden caused by the use of respirators. Many medical conditions, such as 

3496 cardiovascular diseases and the reduced pulmonary function caused by smoking, could impede 

3497 the ability of the handler to wear a respirator without adverse health impacts. The medical 

3498 evaluation should identify these potential issues and disqualify the handler from using a tight3499 fitting respirator. Tight fitting respirators include filtering facepiece respirators, full and half face 

3500 elastomeric respirators and tight fitting powered air purifying respirators (PAPR). However, for 

3501 these handlers, loose-fitting PAPRs are an option for respiratory protection because they do not 

3502 require medical evaluations or fit testing. EPA notes that many handler employers may be able to 

3503 rely on online services where medical evaluations can be performed by relying on medical 

3504 questionnaires. The employee would complete the medical questionnaire, which would be 

3505 provided to the licensed medical professional for review. If the employee is cleared by the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 148 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3506 review, he or she is approved to wear a respirator. If the employee is not cleared through the 

3507 review of the questionnaire, the employer may send the employee for further medical review or 

3508 the employer may identify a different employee to handle the pesticide. 

3509 EPA does not believe that including in the WPS a requirement that employers must 

3510 perform respirator fit testing, training, and medical evaluation in accordance with OSHA’s 

3511 requirements by cross-reference to 29 CFR 1910.134 affects the scope of OSHA’s jurisdiction.

3512 Today’s final rule changes only the FIFRA WPS, which is implemented and enforced by EPA, 

3513 the States and Tribes, and not by OSHA.

3514 4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost to employers of complying with the WPS 

3515 respirator requirements that cross-reference the OSHA standard would be $10.6 million 

3516 annually, or about $43 per year, on average, for agricultural establishments with handlers and 

3517 about $8 for commercial pesticide handling establishments per year. On family farms, the 

3518 estimated annual cost of the respirator requirements is approximately $9 per establishment per 

3519 year. As explained previously, the estimated cost increased in the final rule because the cost 

3520 analysis was revised to account for handlers to be fit tested and trained to use multiple types of 

3521 respirators, the cost of an on-line medical evaluation, and the employer’s time to arrange for the 

3522 fit testing, evaluation and training. EPA assumes that about 30 percent of handlers working on 60 

3523 percent of farms that employ handlers will be fit tested in any year; the average cost per farm 

3524 reflects this assumption. The cost to commercial pesticide handling establishments only reflects 

3525 the cost of recordkeeping because EPA assumes that they already comply with OSHA's 

3526 respirator requirements because they engage in activities outside of the scope of the WPS that are 

3527 covered by OSHA. The cost estimates for agricultural establishments are very conservative 

3528 because of broad assumptions regarding the number of handlers and farms affected, and the fact 

3529 that some establishment owners are already required to comply with OSHA requirements related 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 149 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3530 to respirator use for other reasons. 

3531 EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this specific requirement. However, 

3532 ensuring that handlers can safely use respirators and that those respirators fit properly will 

3533 increase the protections offered by respirators to the levels presumed in EPA’s pesticide 

3534 registration decisions. This should lead to a reduction in occupational pesticide-related illnesses.

3535 In comparison to these expected benefits of proper respirator use and reduced illnesses, the costs 

3536 associated with the final rule requirements appear to be reasonable.

3537 B. Chemical-Resistant PPE

3538 1. Current rule and proposal. The definition for “chemical resistant” in the existing WPS 

3539 is a “material that allows no measurable movement of the pesticide being used through the 

3540 material during use.” Prior to the proposed rule, EPA received many comments from 

3541 stakeholders suggesting that there was no way for agricultural employers, handlers, early-entry 

3542 workers, pesticide educators and inspection personnel to ensure the PPE being used was 

3543 “chemical resistant.” EPA proposed requiring employers to provide PPE defined by its

3544 manufacturer as chemical resistant. 

3545 2. Final rule. EPA has rejected the proposed change. The final rule retains the existing 

3546 definition of chemical resistance. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at in 

3547 40 CFR 170.507(b)(1).

3548 3. Comments and responses.

3549 Comments. While several commenters representing states and academia supported the 

3550 idea of PPE manufacturers defining chemical resistant in principle, many also questioned the 

3551 feasibility of such an approach. Specifically, the commenters questioned whether manufacturers 

3552 can reliably label PPE as chemical resistant in a permanent manner that would be easy for 

3553 enforcement personnel to check during inspections. Several other commenters from pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 150 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3554 manufacturers and PPE manufacturers suggested such claims may not be able to be made for the 

3555 wide range of pesticide formulations and active ingredients. One PPE manufacturer asserted that 

3556 the existing definition was purposefully worded to ensure worker protection and that EPA’s 

3557 proposal over-simplifies a very complex and critical issue. Many other commenters reiterated 

3558 this latter comment regarding over-simplification of the process for developing chemical 

3559 resistant PPE.

3560 EPA Response. EPA recognizes the many comments highlighting the challenging issues 

3561 involved with having PPE being defined as chemical resistant by the equipment manufacturer, 

3562 who does not know the ingredients in every pesticide product. EPA agrees with commenters that 

3563 the proposed approach would create more problems than it would resolve. Therefore, EPA the 

3564 final rule retains the existing chemical resistant definition.

3565 4. Costs and benefits. Because EPA is retaining the current definition of chemical 

3566 resistant, there are no estimated costs.

3567 C. Contaminated PPE

3568 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS requires employers to ensure that PPE is 

3569 cleaned before each day of reuse. If the article cannot be properly cleaned, the employer must 

3570 dispose of it in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. EPA proposed to 

3571 add a requirement for employers to render unusable contaminated PPE that cannot be properly 

3572 cleaned before it is disposed.

3573 2. Final rule. In the final rule, the employer must ensure that contaminated PPE is made 

3574 unusable as apparel or disposed of in such a way that it is unavailable for further use. EPA has 

3575 also included in the final rule a requirement for the person who cleans, disposes, or otherwise 

3576 handles the contaminated PPE to wear the gloves required for mixing and loading the pesticide 

3577 that contaminated the PPE. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 151 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3578 170.507(d)(2).

3579 3. Comments and responses.

3580 Comments. Prior to the proposed rulemaking, state pesticide regulatory agencies 

3581 expressed concern that unless proper measures are taken, contaminated PPE might be reused 

3582 either as PPE or simply as a garment, placing the person wearing it at risk from pesticide 

3583 exposure. In support of the proposal, one public health organization commented that rendering 

3584 contaminated garments unusable would prevent adverse health effects. A state noted that the 

3585 proposal was an effective method to reduce the potential for access to contaminated PPE. One 

3586 grower organization noted that the potential for exposure exists when individuals cut or render 

3587 contaminated PPE unusable, and suggested a requirement to seal the contaminated PPE in a 

3588 disposal container and to dispose of the container in an appropriate manner.

3589 In contrast, some grower organizations stated that the current requirement is adequate and 

3590 EPA should not adopt the proposal. Some farm bureaus opposed the proposal and thought the 

3591 concern for individuals gaining access to contaminated PPE was well meaning yet hypothetical.

3592 Some of these commenters suggested it could lead to confusing violation scenarios, specifically 

3593 from the interpretation of “render unusable.”

3594 EPA Response. The final rule clarifies that the requirement is to make the PPE “unusable 

3595 as apparel.” EPA agrees that access to contaminated PPE might be prevented by sealing it in a 

3596 container and entrusting it to a waste disposal system that effectively prevents diversion of 

3597 waste, and that such an approach would reduce pesticide exposure to the person handling the 

3598 contaminated article relative to many methods of rendering the PPE unusable. EPA has included 

3599 in the final rule a provision allowing the PPE to be “made unavailable for further use” as an 

3600 alternative to the proposed requirement to render the contaminated PPE unusable. To reduce the 

3601 potential exposure to a person handling contaminated PPE, the final rule requires that a person 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 152 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3602 must wear gloves while handling PPE covered by 40 CFR 170.507(d)(2).

3603 EPA disagrees with comments from farm bureaus suggesting that there is little likelihood 

3604 of persons accessing contaminated PPE. As mentioned in the preamble to the proposed 

3605 rulemaking, state pesticide regulatory agencies have raised concerns for the potential reuse of 

3606 contaminated PPE to EPA. EPA relies on state pesticide regulatory agencies to raise issues with 

3607 implementation of the existing WPS that arise when they conduct inspections of WPS 

3608 establishments. EPA has chosen to amend the existing rule in response to the input provided by 

3609 the States.

3610 4. Costs and benefits. EPA has estimated that the cost of rendering the PPE unusable or 

3611 unavailable is negligible. Although the benefits cannot be quantified, contact with contaminated 

3612 PPE may result in significant exposure, especially if worn repeatedly. The negligible cost of this 

3613 requirement compared to the benefit from ensuring that contaminated PPE cannot continue to 

3614 cause exposure is reasonable. 

3615 XVI. Decision not to Require Monitoring of Handler Exposure to Cholinesterase-Inhibiting 

3616 Pesticides

3617 A. Current rule and proposal.

3618 The existing WPS does not have a requirement to monitor cholinesterase (ChE) levels in 

3619 workers or handlers. In the proposal, EPA invited comment on whether to require routine ChE 

3620 monitoring of handlers. However, because EPA’s initial judgement was that the benefits of 

3621 routine ChE monitoring would not justify the cost, EPA did not propose to add a requirement for 

3622 routine monitoring of ChE inhibition in handlers.

3623 B. Final rule.

3624 The final rule does not include a requirement for routine ChE monitoring for handlers. 

3625 C. Comments and responses.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 153 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3626 Comments. In response to the proposal, several grower organizations, state farm bureaus, 

3627 crop consultants and their organizations, and states and their organizations expressed support for 

3628 EPA’s decision not to require a mandatory routine ChE monitoring program as part of the WPS. 

3629 Several commenters stated that the most effective approach to prevent handler exposure to any 

3630 pesticide product is to address the potential for exposure in advance of use, rather than after 

3631 exposure has taken place. Many of these commenters agreed with EPA’s assessment in the 

3632 proposal that EPA’s worker risk assessments and mitigation measures are sufficient to provide 

3633 the necessary protection from pesticide exposure during handling. One commenter also 

3634 suggested that requiring ChE monitoring may add to confusion and provide a false sense of 

3635 safety to workers, health care providers, and regulators because it only measures exposure. These 

3636 commenters suggested that the best approach that can be taken to mitigate exposure would be to 

3637 address it through product-specific risk assessments supporting the registration of pesticide 

3638 products, robust handler training on specific pesticides, and effective enforcement of label 

3639 requirements.

3640 In addition, some of the commenters objected that ChE monitoring is an invasive process, 

3641 and that routine ChE monitoring would be extremely time-consuming and costly and would 

3642 provide information of questionable value. One commenter stated that a proper ChE monitoring 

3643 program would require that a baseline be established for employees, and that it would be highly 

3644 unlikely that a baseline could be obtained for many workers because of previous exposure to 

3645 organophosphate insecticides, while another commenter suggested that exposure to other 

3646 common materials can change the levels of ChE, especially in serum level measurements, 

3647 making it difficult to establish a baseline. Another commenter added that the timing of meals, 

3648 stress, physical activity, and changes in body mass can cause ChE levels to fluctuate within an 

3649 individual, and that the baseline value should be taken on the day of handling a ChE-inhibiting 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 154 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3650 pesticide prior to exposure due to this intra-individual variability. The commenter suggested that 

3651 baselines established every 1 to 2 years, as currently recommended by Washington State and 

3652 California, respectively, would not provide meaningful information concerning the degree of 

3653 exposure due to these daily fluctuations.

3654 Conversely, several commenters, including some members of Congress, the California 

3655 Department of Public Health, Washington State’s Department of Health and Department of 

3656 Labor and Industries, several public health organizations, academics, and farmworker advocacy 

3657 organizations supported the idea of adopting a routine ChE monitoring program as part of this 

3658 rulemaking, particularly for handlers who use ChE-inhibiting pesticides like organophosphates 

3659 and N-methyl-carbamate pesticides. Many of these commenters cited the existing ChE 

3660 monitoring programs in California and Washington State in their arguments for why ChE 

3661 monitoring should be expanded nationally.

3662 Some commenters stated that California and Washington have longstanding medical 

3663 monitoring programs with proven track records in reducing exposure to, and illnesses from, 

3664 highly neurotoxic chemicals. These commenters stated that the successful implementation of 

3665 these monitoring programs has helped health professionals understand the effects of these classes 

3666 of pesticides and prevent poisoning by identifying overexposure. Two commenters stated that 

3667 Washington’s program is effective and protects workers as reflected by worksite field 

3668 evaluations of action level ChE depressions, which have identified multiple pesticide WPS 

3669 violations that are believed to contribute to worker exposure. A couple of commenters stated that 

3670 the benefits realized by the state programs, which would expand nationally if monitoring were to 

3671 be required, include:

3672 • Greater certainty about the frequency of pesticide overexposure.

3673 • Avoidance of serious pesticide illness.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 155 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3674 • Improved compliance with the WPS.

3675 • Identification of any existing PPE, work practice, and engineering control requirements 

3676 that are not sufficient to protect pesticide handlers from exposure.

3677 • Greater awareness of chemical and exposure hazards.

3678 Some commenters cited Washington State’s data that shows that the percentage of 

3679 overexposed participating handlers who required remedial action fell from 20% when the 

3680 program started in 2004 to 6% in 2013, for a reduction of 70%. These commenters stated that 

3681 Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries found that ChE monitoring helped identify the 

3682 causes of overexposure, which allowed for those causes to be corrected by alerting employers 

3683 and handlers to unsafe work practices, conditions, or equipment. Additionally, a couple of 

3684 commenters stated that the percentages of handlers who actually reached the removal level from 

3685 handling ChE-inhibiting pesticides remained consistently low after the implementation of the 

3686 ChE monitoring program, with the percentages being 3.8% in 2004, 0% in 2010 and 2011, 2.3% 

3687 in 2012, and 4% in 2013. These commenters believed that the sharp decline in the number of 

3688 handlers needing remedial action, along with the consistently low percentage of handlers who 

3689 exceeded 20% below their baseline (i.e., those who reach the evaluation level in the state 

3690 programs), shows that the program has been effective in reducing exposure to OPs and 

3691 carbamates, and that monitoring should be implemented nationally so that all workers receive 

3692 similar benefits. 

3693 Some commenters in support of requiring ChE monitoring also discussed the costs 

3694 associated with ChE monitoring. They stated that the cost of implementation should not deter

3695 EPA from requiring medical monitoring on a national level. A few commenters stated that 

3696 EPA’s estimate that the cost of ChE monitoring would average $53 per year per agricultural 

3697 establishment was a small cost when contrasted with the 70% reduction in overexposure 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 156 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3698 according to Washington State’s data. A couple of commenters also stated that monitoring in 

3699 California and Washington has led to substantially fewer pesticide poisonings and reduced use of 

3700 these highly toxic pesticides, and can, in turn, reduce long-term medical costs to farmworkers 

3701 and the agricultural economy. Some commenters stated that EPA’s analysis did not include an 

3702 estimation of the medical expenses that were saved, the lost wages prevented, and the pesticide3703 related illnesses avoided as a result of early detection and intervention. As a result, the 

3704 commenters believed that the benefits of a national ChE monitoring program would more than 

3705 justify the costs given the severe effects of overexposure to ChE-inhibiting pesticides.

3706 Other commenters supporting ChE monitoring stated that employees who handle ChE3707 inhibiting chemicals in non-agricultural sectors routinely receive the protection of medical 

3708 monitoring. For example, some commenters stated that OSHA requires medical monitoring for 

3709 workers who handle a wide range of toxic substances. They also stated that USDA requires 

3710 monitoring of its employees who may be exposed to organophosphate or carbamate pesticides. 

3711 These commenters stated that these safeguards should be provided for all workers who handle 

3712 these pesticides, and therefore should be included in the final rule. 

3713 EPA Response. After reviewing the comments, EPA continues to believe that the 

3714 expected benefits of a routine ChE monitoring program for handlers are not sufficient to justify 

3715 the costs. As stated in the proposed rule, EPA believes that Washington State’s efforts have 

3716 identified the primary reasons for ChE inhibition among pesticide handlers. In many cases, ChE 

3717 depression was caused by handlers not following basic safety and hygiene procedures, e.g., not 

3718 wearing the label-required PPE and failing to wash before meals or bathroom breaks. 

3719 Additionally, several handlers who did wear respirators as required by labeling had beards, 

3720 which compromised the seal between the face and the respirator and reduced the protection 

3721 intended to be afforded by the PPE. EPA believes that requiring expanded and more frequent 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 157 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3722 handler training, in combination with requirements for fit testing and training on proper 

3723 respirator use for handlers, addresses the primary reasons for overexposure to ChE-inhibiting 

3724 pesticides.

3725 The revised labeling with increased protections and new mitigation measures resulting 

3726 from the reregistration of organophosphates and carbamates will also result in lowered handler 

3727 exposure. Reregistration has resulted in some uses of the most acutely toxic organophosphates

3728 being phased out. For the remaining uses, EPA has imposed additional PPE requirements, 

3729 requirements for closed-system mixing and loading, and reductions to rates of application and 

3730 number of annual applications permitted. As labels with updated PPE requirements for handlers 

3731 are seen and followed in the field, EPA expects to see reduced numbers of overexposures. 

3732 Additionally, the organophosphates and carbamates that are still registered are being used less 

3733 frequently and being replaced by pesticides with lower risks, also reducing the potential for 

3734 overexposure. 

3735 While EPA estimated the costs of a national, routine ChE monitoring program to be at 

3736 least $15.2 million annually, or about $53 per agricultural establishment per year and $120 per 

3737 commercial pesticide handling establishment per year, this estimate does not include the full 

3738 costs that would be expected of a national ChE monitoring program. As stated in the proposed 

3739 rule, a national, routine ChE monitoring program would likely include program components such 

3740 as training, recordkeeping, clinical testing, and field investigations, which were not included in 

3741 the estimated costs because the initial $15.2 million estimate appeared by itself to be 

3742 disproportionately high in comparison to the expected benefits. Additionally, the estimated costs 

3743 do not include the states’ costs to build infrastructure to support ChE monitoring or to cover 

3744 continued laboratory costs such as equipment maintenance and administrative support. If EPA 

3745 were to calculate these additional costs, the estimated costs would be much higher than $15.2 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 158 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3746 million annually. Therefore, EPA stands by its assessment in the proposed rule that the cost of 

3747 implementing a national, routine ChE monitoring program is not justified by its limited benefits. 

3748 EPA believes that the increased handler protections being finalized in this rulemaking, 

3749 combined with the product-specific risk mitigation measures, will appropriately address the 

3750 elevated potential for ChE inhibition in handlers. Moreover, the training and PPE elements of the 

3751 final rule will have the combined effect of providing important protective benefits to all pesticide 

3752 handlers through increased knowledge of exposure risks and prevention strategies. This approach 

3753 will lead to a reduction of pesticide exposures because it prevents handler exposure before it 

3754 occurs. 

3755 D, Costs and Benefits.

3756 Since EPA is not requiring routine ChE monitoring, there are no costs associated with 

3757 this decision.

3758 XVII. Exemptions and Exceptions

3759 A. Immediate Family

3760 1. Current rule and proposal. The WPS currently exempts the owners of agricultural 

3761 establishments from requirements to provide certain WPS protections to themselves and their 

3762 immediate family members. The definition of “immediate family” in the existing rule includes 

3763 only the owner’s spouse, children, stepchildren, foster children, parents, stepparents, foster 

3764 parents, brothers, and sisters. EPA proposed to expand the definition of “immediate family” to 

3765 add father-in-law, mother-in-law, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, grandparents, grandchildren, 

3766 brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law.

3767 Note, too, that the existing WPS definitions of workers and handlers depend upon them 

3768 being employed for compensation. Therefore, any person performing worker or handler tasks 

3769 who does not receive a wage, salary or other compensation is not a worker or handler protected 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 159 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3770 by the WPS, regardless of familial relationship to the owner.

3771 EPA requested comment on but did not propose changes narrowing the immediate family 

3772 exemption in two ways: (1) Limiting it only to immediate family members of an owner of an 

3773 agricultural establishment who are at least 16 years old, and (2) eliminating the exemption from 

3774 requirements regarding emergency assistance for workers and handlers and handler monitoring 

3775 during fumigant application.

3776 As part of the proposal to establish a minimum age for pesticide handlers and early-entry 

3777 workers, EPA proposed to add an exemption from the minimum age requirements to the 

3778 immediate family exemption.

3779 2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the definition of “immediate family” as limited to the 

3780 owner’s spouse, parents, stepparents, foster parents, father-in-law, mother-in-law, children, 

3781 stepchildren, foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, grandparents, grandchildren, 

3782 brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law. The final regulatory text for this definition is 

3783 available at 40 CFR 170.305.

3784 EPA has amended the immediate family exemption to include exemptions from the 

3785 minimum age requirements for handlers and early entry workers. The final regulatory text for 

3786 this exemption is available at 40 CFR 170.601(a)(1)(i) and 170.601(a)(1)(xii).

3787 EPA has not included in the final rule any of the other changes to the immediate family 

3788 exemption considered in the proposal.

3789 3. Comments and responses.

3790 Comments. Most of the commenters expressed general support for the proposed 

3791 expansion to the definition of immediate family and the inclusion of an exemption from the 

3792 minimum age requirement. Some commenters asserted that the definition provides greater clarity 

3793 about who qualifies under the immediate family exemption and will assist both the regulated 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 160 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3794 community and state regulatory agencies in ensuring compliance with the proposed rule.

3795 A few commenters requested that EPA expand the definition to include cousins. Several 

3796 commenters requested that EPA expand the definition further to include aunts, uncles, nieces, 

3797 nephews, and cousins. Commenters requesting further expansion of the definition noted that an 

3798 expansion of the family members considered immediate family under the WPS would better 

3799 reflect the reality of the family farm in America.

3800 A few commenters requested that EPA delete the definition of immediate family and 

3801 eliminate the exemption. These commenters noted that risks from pesticide exposure are the 

3802 same for family and non-family members, so all persons need the same level of protection 

3803 regardless of their familial relationship to the owner.

3804 EPA Response. EPA is expanding the definition of immediate family as proposed and 

3805 retaining the exemption in the WPS. EPA believes that the proposed definition of “immediate 

3806 family” represents an appropriate accommodation to the social costs of the WPS to family farms 

3807 relative to FIFRA’s requirement to prevent unreasonable adverse effects.

3808 EPA considered commenters’ requests to expand the definition of “immediate family.”

3809 Commenters suggested that a definition that includes cousins, or cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces 

3810 and nephews would better reflect the actual patterns of family farm ownership in the United 

3811 States, but did not provide any support for this position. EPA reviewed definitions of “immediate 

3812 family” in other rules related to agriculture and migrant workers. OSHA’s rule exempting 

3813 immediate family members from minimum wage and overtime pay requirements is limited to 

3814 parent, spouse, child, stepchildren, foster children, step-parents and foster parents. 29 CFR 

3815 780.308. DOL’s regulations related to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection 

3816 Act define immediate family as spouse, children, stepchildren, foster children, parents, 

3817 stepparents, foster parents, brothers and sisters. 29 CFR 500.20. Neither of these definitions 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 161 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3818 include cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, or nephews. For relative consistency between definitions 

3819 of immediate family, and because it is reasonable to expect that protective impulses generally 

3820 diminish as relationships become more remote, EPA has chosen not to amend the definition to 

3821 include family members beyond those included in the proposal. The relationships between the 

3822 owner and those considered immediate family members under the WPS are more clearly defined, 

3823 and easier to document and verify than other relationships, e.g., cousins.

3824 EPA agrees that the risks associated with pesticide exposure do not vary based on a 

3825 person’s relationship to the owner of the establishment. However, EPA recognizes that family 

3826 farms need flexibility and expects that those family members working on an establishment 

3827 covered by the immediate family exception would be adequately prepared and supervised by 

3828 family members. Although owners and their immediate family members are exempted from 

3829 certain provisions of the WPS (e.g., providing pesticide safety training and specific 

3830 decontamination supplies for immediate family members), they are obligated to follow the 

3831 pesticide labeling and other WPS provisions that are established to protect workers and handlers 

3832 from risks associated with specific pesticides. For these reasons, EPA has chosen not to eliminate 

3833 the definition of immediate family or the exemption from certain portions of the rule for the 

3834 establishment owner and members of his or her immediate family.

3835 Although owners of establishments and members of their immediate family are exempt 

3836 from some of the provisions of the rule, EPA expects that they will voluntarily follow the 

3837 provisions from which they are exempt, or achieve equivalent risk mitigations through other 

3838 means. EPA encourages owners and family members to carefully study the WPS requirements 

3839 and assure themselves that they are not placing each other at risk of unreasonable adverse effects.

3840 4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates changing the definition of immediate family and 

3841 adding an exemption from the minimum age requirements would not substantially change the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 162 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3842 cost of the final rule.

3843 B. Crop Advisors and Employees

3844 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing rule exempts employers from complying with 

3845 certain handler requirements when the employee performs crop advising tasks in a treated area 

3846 under an REI and is a certified or licensed crop advisor or directly supervised by a certified or 

3847 licensed crop advisor. A certified or licensed crop advisor is one who has fulfilled the 

3848 requirements of a program acknowledged as appropriate in writing by EPA or a state or tribal 

3849 agency responsible for pesticide enforcement. The existing rule allows a certified or licensed 

3850 crop advisor to make specific determinations regarding the appropriate PPE, decontamination 

3851 and safe method of conduct for those working under his or her direct supervision. A person 

3852 employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment performing crop advising tasks after 

3853 expiration of an REI is not subject to any provisions of the WPS. The rule also exempts 

3854 employers from complying with worker requirements such as providing decontamination 

3855 supplies and emergency assistance for certified or licensed crop advisors and for persons they 

3856 directly supervise.

3857 EPA proposed to eliminate the exemptions for employees directly supervised by certified 

3858 or licensed crop advisors. EPA also proposed to eliminate the exemption from the worker 

3859 decontamination and emergency assistance provisions for certified or licensed crop advisors 

3860 employed as workers on agricultural establishments.

3861 2. Final Rule. EPA has eliminated both exemptions as proposed. However, EPA has 

3862 included in the final rule added flexibility in the PPE requirements for crop advisors and their 

3863 employees. Specifically, EPA has added language to the final regulation that allows crop 

3864 advisors and their employees who perform crop advising tasks while an REI is in effect to 

3865 substitute the label-required handler PPE with either the label-required PPE for early-entry 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 163 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3866 activities or a standard set of crop advisor PPE. The standard set of PPE for crop advising tasks 

3867 included in the final rule consists of coveralls, shoes plus socks, chemical-resistant gloves made 

3868 of any waterproof material and eye protection if the labeling of the pesticide product applied 

3869 requires protective eyewear for handlers. The final regulatory text for this requirement is 

3870 available at 40 CFR 170.601(b) and 170.607(g).

3871 3. Comments and responses.

3872 Comments. In response to the proposal, crop consultant associations, several states and 

3873 other commenters objected to eliminating the exemption currently in place for employees 

3874 working under the direct supervision of a certified or licensed crop advisor. They asserted that 

3875 certified and licensed crop advisors often exceed the minimum safety training requirements when 

3876 educating their employees and those employees are aware of the risks associated with their work.

3877 Some crop consultant associations and other commenters noted that they are not aware of any 

3878 case of endangerment or harm that has occurred to any employee under the direct supervision of 

3879 a certified or licensed crop advisor. 

3880 The crop advisor associations also expressed concern that EPA underestimated the 

3881 economic impact to crop advisors, and in turn to farmers, of eliminating this exemption, citing 

3882 specifically the increased costs of additional PPE, the cost of work done by certified or licensed 

3883 crop advisors instead of by their employees, and the cost of increased management time. Crop 

3884 consultant associations and other commenters contended that these increased costs could 

3885 discourage investment in integrated pest management (IPM) and result in increased pesticide use 

3886 that might put workers at increased risk of pesticide exposure. Several states supported EPA’s 

3887 proposal to eliminate the crop advisor exemption.

3888 EPA Response. After consideration of the comments submitted, EPA has concluded that 

3889 the burdens associated with eliminating the exemption for employees of crop advisors are 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 164 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3890 justified by the additional protections provided to workers performing crop advising tasks who 

3891 are not certified or licensed crop advisors. EPA has retained the exemption to the WPS for 

3892 certified or licensed crop advisors because these individuals are highly trained about pesticide 

3893 risks and how to protect themselves. EPA eliminated the exemption for crop advisors’ employees 

3894 because pest scouting tasks may result in substantial contact with a pesticide on treated surfaces 

3895 in pesticide-treated areas. The amount of contact with pesticides during scouting depends on 

3896 variables such as the height and density of the crop, the nature of the activity, the surface that 

3897 contains the pesticide residue, and whether residues are dry or wet. While EPA recognizes that 

3898 the crop consulting industry has implemented a training program for employees, the program is 

3899 not required and can vary in content and quality from employer to employer. Additionally, crop 

3900 scouts and assistant crop advisors are generally entry-level employees who may not feel 

3901 empowered to ask an employer for PPE or other protections and may not understand the complex 

3902 factors influencing risk well enough to take appropriate protective measures for themselves.

3903 Incident monitoring programs do not capture illness data specifically associated with crop 

3904 advising tasks because cases are categorized under a general “field worker” label. However, 

3905 EPA’s risk assessments indicate that people doing crop advising tasks during an REI are at risk 

3906 of chronic, low-level pesticide exposure over time. PPE requirements and availability of 

3907 decontamination supplies during and after an REI are fundamental to mitigating risks of concern 

3908 for workers. Allowing workers who are supervised by certified or licensed crop advisors to 

3909 conduct crop advising tasks without the same basic protections provided for other workers would 

3910 establish a lesser standard of protection for similar types of work. EPA understands that IPM 

3911 programs require post-application entry and the timing is critical to efficacy. By retaining the 

3912 exemption for certified or licensed crop advisors to conduct crop advising tasks during an REI 

3913 and allowing flexibility for employers to substitute the label required PPE for handlers with 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 165 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3914 either PPE for early-entry workers or a standard set of PPE, the increased costs noted in 

3915 comments are reduced.

3916 4. Costs and Benefits. EPA estimates the cost of amending the exemption for crop 

3917 advisors would be negligible. EPA finds that the incremental cost of employers providing 

3918 decontamination supplies and PPE for crop advisor employees are reasonable compared to the 

3919 cost. EPA is allowing flexibility in the choice of PPE for crop advisor employees who must enter 

3920 treated areas under an REI to accommodate entry into multiple fields with the same attire.

3921 Benefits from reduced exposure to pesticides as a result of requiring the standard protections for 

3922 all workers, including those supervised by certified or licensed crop advisors, are reasonable 

3923 when compared to their cost.

3924 C. Closed Systems

3925 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label-specified 

3926 PPE when using a closed system for certain pesticide handling activities. The existing rule does 

3927 not adequately describe the specific characteristics of an acceptable closed system. EPA 

3928 proposed to establish specific design criteria and operating standards for closed systems based on 

3929 California's existing standards in the 1998 Closed Systems Director’s Memo 

3930 (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/cac/cacwhs98-01.pdf).

3931 2. Final Rule. EPA has modified the proposed approach regarding closed systems. 

3932 Specifically, in the final rule EPA has adopted a broad definition, a performance-based standard, 

3933 and basic operating standards. The operating standards require the handler employer to ensure 

3934 that written operating instructions for the closed system are available, that the handler receives 

3935 training on use of the closed system, and that the system is maintained according to the written 

3936 instructions. Specific design criteria and recordkeeping requirements that EPA proposed are not 

3937 included in the final rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 166 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3938 The final rule retains the existing requirements for PPE when a closed system is used: 

3939 Labeling-mandated PPE must be immediately available for use in an emergency and handlers 

3940 must use protective eyewear for closed systems that operate under pressure.

3941 The final regulatory text for the definition of closed systems is available at 40 CFR 

3942 170.305. The final regulatory text for the closed system exception is available at 40 CFR 

3943 170.607(d)(3).

3944 3. Comments and responses.

3945 Comments. Most comments that addressed closed systems supported the goal of 

3946 encouraging their use as an engineering control through a WPS exception; however, very few 

3947 individuals, states or organizations supported the proposal as written. Several farmworker 

3948 advocacy organizations and public health organizations suggested that EPA require closed 

3949 systems for all Toxicity Category I pesticide products rather than continuing the voluntary 

3950 system. Comments from states and grower and industry associations supported the existing 

3951 voluntary, performance-based system and objected to the proposed specific design criteria, 

3952 noting a number of weaknesses in the criteria. Specifically, they noted that the pressure 

3953 requirements were too prescriptive and would not allow effective mixing, that the proposal did 

3954 not address water soluble packaging or lock and load systems used for dry formulations, and that 

3955 the complicated requirements would be a deterrent to increased adoption of closed systems. A 

3956 number of commenters also noted that the design standards are too restrictive to accommodate 

3957 future innovation. States commented that assessing compliance with the design standard would 

3958 require extensive inspector training and could result in technical violations without providing 

3959 additional handler protection.

3960 EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and was convinced that the 

3961 prescriptive requirements in the proposal would be a disincentive to the voluntary adoption of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 167 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3962 closed systems. In response, EPA has finalized a closed system performance standard that will 

3963 permit flexibility for the system while meeting the protection goals. 

3964 In response to comments advocating that EPA require closed systems for all Toxicity 

3965 Category I pesticides under the rulemaking, EPA reminds the commenters that worker risk 

3966 assessments and the risk management processes establish the required protections that appear on 

3967 product labels. EPA identifies the basic protections, often PPE, to protect handlers from risks of 

3968 concern. If handler exposure during mixing and loading is above the established level of concern, 

3969 and if PPE does not reduce exposure to below the level of concern, the pesticide label may 

3970 require a closed system for mixing and loading. EPA has required the use of closed systems on 

3971 some product labeling.

3972 EPA recognizes that the reduction in handler PPE alone is not likely to be enough 

3973 incentive for an employer to use closed systems. However, EPA is convinced that on larger 

3974 establishments, the efficiency and comparative protection value of a closed system, combined 

3975 with the reduction in PPE that must be worn by the handler, may induce users to adopt closed 

3976 systems. Establishing requirements for such closed systems – whether required or used 

3977 voluntarily – is necessary to protect handlers, who could be exposed to concentrated pesticides if 

3978 they use poorly designed or constructed closed systems.

3979 EPA agrees with the comments that a broad definition of “closed system” will encourage 

3980 industry innovation better than the proposed prescriptive rule and will allow flexibility for 

3981 employers to design systems specific to their needs. A broad performance standard, along with 

3982 requirements concerning operating instructions, training and maintenance, will enable 

3983 employers, handlers and regulatory personnel to determine whether a closed system qualifies for 

3984 the exemption. The operating standards will ensure that the closed systems are used as intended 

3985 and are adequately maintained.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 168 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

3986 EPA notes that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) no longer 

3987 supports use of the prescriptive-based criteria upon which EPA modeled the proposal outlined in 

3988 the NRPM. In December 2014, CDPR published proposed regulations outlining a simplified, 

3989 performance-based criteria for closed system design. California is the only state with specific 

3990 closed system standards, and has required their use with certain chemicals since the 1970s. 

3991 CDPR developed their revised closed systems standard and discussed the proposal with 

3992 representatives from groups that will be directly affected including agricultural producer 

3993 organizations, manufacturers, applicators, and growers, as well as at CDPR’s Pesticide 

3994 Registration and Evaluation Committee and the Agricultural Pest Control Advisory Committee 

3995 and Pest Management Advisory Committee meetings. EPA considered CDPR’s proposed rule in 

3996 the development of the final closed systems standard. EPA’s final closed system requirements 

3997 were developed using CDPR’s proposal as a model and do not conflict with CDPR’s proposed 

3998 closed system requirements.

3999 Section 170.607(d)(2)(i) establishes a performance standard for closed systems. 

4000 Specifically, a closed system must remove the pesticide from its original container and transfer 

4001 the pesticide product through connecting hoses, pipes and couplings that are sufficiently tight to 

4002 prevent exposure of handlers to the pesticide product, except for the negligible escape associated 

4003 with normal operation of the system. This closed system performance standard is based on the 

4004 criteria for closed systems in section 6746(f)(1) of CDPR’s proposed regulations with a few 

4005 changes, partly to accommodate the different terminology in the two sets of regulations. Also, 

4006 EPA adjusted the requirement to apply to transferring any pesticide product rather than a 

4007 pesticide concentrate so the WPS criterion would apply to transferring liquid formulations and 

4008 dry formulations whereas California’s proposed requirements would only apply to liquid 

4009 formulations. Lastly, EPA added the phrase “except for the negligible escape associated with 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 169 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4010 normal operation of the system” to provide the flexibility intended in the proposed rule. The 

4011 existing WPS describes a closed system as preventing the pesticide from contacting handlers or 

4012 other persons, which is a very high standard because it does not allow any exposure. The phrase 

4013 “except for the negligible escape associated with normal operation of the system” is intended to 

4014 account for the expected or predictable small release of pesticides from existing closed systems 

4015 when hoses, pipes and couplings are disconnected. EPA recognizes that there will often be a 

4016 small amount of material in the hoses, pipes and couplings to which the handler possibly could 

4017 be exposed. EPA has not quantified the maximum amount of pesticide escape that is acceptable, 

4018 but notes that it should be consistent with the intent of a closed system, which is to prevent 

4019 contact to the handlers or other persons.

4020 EPA also adjusted the final regulatory text for closed systems to address the comments 

4021 about water soluble packaging. The regulatory text in the final rule was revised to state clearly 

4022 that the closed system exception from PPE applies when intact, sealed water soluble packaging is 

4023 loaded into a mixing tank or system. The regulation also clarifies that water soluble packaging is 

4024 no longer a closed system if the integrity of the packaging is compromised. This language in the 

4025 final rule incorporates EPA’s current position about water soluble packaging and closed systems, 

4026 as established in the Interpretive Guidance on the WPS:

4027 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workers/wpsinterpolicy.htm.

4028 While the final rule includes only a performance standard, EPA recognizes that it may be 

4029 helpful to have guidance on how to construct a system to meet that standard. As part of 

4030 California’s proposed rulemaking, CDPR and the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) 

4031 developed plans for building a closed system to release along with the proposal. The “Overview 

4032 of Closed Systems Components and User Designs” document includes lists of component parts 

4033 (and costs) for three levels of systems (basic, medium and high). The design plans developed by 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 170 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4034 CDPR and UC Davis will provide users with examples of representative closed systems 

4035 components so they can identify or develop acceptable closed systems.

4036 4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of the final closed system requirements will 

4037 be $2.1 million annually. EPA estimates that cost per agricultural establishment will range from 

4038 $5-$30 per year, and the cost per commercial pesticide handling establishment will be about $21 

4039 per year. EPA estimates that on family establishments, the cost would range from $1-$30 per 

4040 year. Many commenters from the pesticide industry and grower associations stated that EPA 

4041 underestimated the costs of closed systems in the proposed rule partly because existing closed 

4042 systems would need to be upgraded to meet the proposed standards. The changes to replace the 

4043 proposed specific design standards with a broad performance standard in the final rule address 

4044 these comments, because employers will be able to continue using most existing closed systems 

4045 with minimal adjustments. For details refer to the Economic Analysis accompanying this rule 

4046 (Ref. 1). In addition, EPA notes that the WPS does not require use of closed systems, so 

4047 commenters who assumed many pesticide users would have to purchase expensive closed 

4048 systems were incorrect.

4049 EPA adjusted the closed system cost estimates from the proposed rule in several ways to 

4050 reflect changes in the final rule. The cost estimate in the proposed rule assumed that some users 

4051 of closed systems would purchase new systems while others would revert to using PPE. In light 

4052 of the revised definition, the final cost estimate assumes that most users would simply purchase 

4053 an adapter to connect their existing closed system to the pesticide container, which is the part 

4054 that most likely needs to be added to convert existing mechanical transfer systems to be closed 

4055 systems that meet EPA’s criteria. These changes and costs are based on the CDPR and UC Davis 

4056 document “Overview of Closed Systems Components and User Designs,” which includes lists of 

4057 component parts and their costs for three levels of systems. In addition, the cost of developing 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 171 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4058 operating instructions was added, assuming that most closed systems are custom-made systems 

4059 that would require the employer to develop operating instructions, while the costs of keeping 

4060 records of maintenance was deleted. EPA reduced the estimated number of farms using closed 

4061 systems based on information from the Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force, which 

4062 showed that the limited number of pesticide users who use closed systems are primarily larger 

4063 establishments and commercial pesticide handling establishments. Therefore, the estimated costs 

4064 of the closed system criteria decreased from the proposed rule to the final rule.

4065 Using closed systems is preferred to wearing PPE as an approach for managing chemical 

4066 exposure in the “hierarchy of controls” established under standard industrial hygiene principles. 

4067 Enclosing the chemical and substantially reducing the potential for exposure at the source 

4068 reduces the potential for subsequent exposure to handlers, other people, and the environment. 

4069 D. Aerial Applications - Eyewear Protection for Open Cockpits

4070 1. Current rule and proposal. Under the existing WPS, where labeling requires eye 

4071 protection, the requirement may be satisfied by goggles, safety glasses with front, brow and 

4072 temple protection, or a full face respirator. The existing WPS allows aerial applicators applying 

4073 pesticides from open cockpit aircraft to substitute a visor for label-required eye protection. 

4074 Because the term “visor” can be used to refer to the brim of a cap that provides only shade and 

4075 offers little eye protection from pesticide sprays, EPA proposed to clarify the requirement by 

4076 removing the term. EPA proposed to allow aerial applicators to substitute for the label-required

4077 eyewear a helmet with the face shield lowered, because this more clearly indicates EPA’s 

4078 expectation of a clear visor that covers and adequately protects the eyes. 

4079 2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has removed the term “visor.” The final rule allows 

4080 the substitution of a helmet with face shield lowered for labeled protective eyewear for aerial 

4081 applicators in aircraft with open cockpits. The final regulatory text for this requirement is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 172 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4082 available at 40 CFR 170.607(f)(2).

4083 3. Comments and responses.

4084 Comments. There were very few comments addressing this proposal. One state suggested 

4085 EPA consult with relevant aerial agencies responsible for overseeing the use of open cockpits for 

4086 making pesticide applications to see if the proposal is feasible. 

4087 An aerial applicators association asserted that aerial applications of pesticides using open 

4088 cockpit aircraft are very rare and that EPA is solving a problem that does not exist. They 

4089 objected to handlers operating open cockpit aircraft being required to wear the same PPE as 

4090 handlers operating open cab ground equipment. They did not highlight any specific issue with 

4091 the helmet and visor being lowered when protective eyewear are required. 

4092 EPA Response. EPA acknowledges that while open cockpit aircraft may be rare, 

4093 available exposure data indicate that even pilots in enclosed cab aircraft are exposed to the 

4094 pesticides they apply. Ensuring that the eye is protected from pesticides is required by the 

4095 product labeling. Helmets with face shields in the lowered position provide acceptable eye 

4096 protection, but many items referred to as “visors” offer no eye protection from pesticide sprays.

4097 4. Costs and benefits. This provision does not represent a substantive change to the 

4098 existing rule. EPA expects the cost to aerial applicators to be negligible.

4099 E. Aerial Applications – Use of Gloves

4100 1. Current rule and proposal. In the existing rule, aerial applicators have the option of 

4101 whether to wear chemical resistant gloves to enter and exit the aircraft unless gloves are required 

4102 by the product labeling. In the proposal, EPA inadvertently inserted the regulatory language that 

4103 existed prior to the 2004 rule revision that required pilots to wear chemical resistant gloves. 

4104 2. Final rule. The final rule retains the exception in the existing WPS that offers aerial 

4105 applicators the option of wearing chemical-resistant gloves when entering and exiting the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 173 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4106 aircraft, except when the product labeling requires that chemical-resistant gloves be worn when 

4107 entering and exiting the aircraft. The final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 

4108 CFR 170.607(f)(1). 

4109 3. Comments and responses.

4110 Comments. Many applicators and their associations and pesticide manufacturers noted 

4111 this error. The commenters also asserted the use of gloves presents a hazard to pilots who may 

4112 fall when entering and exiting the aircraft when wearing gloves. They also suggested 

4113 contamination from contact with the exterior of the aircraft is minimized due to advances in 

4114 application techniques (e.g., GPS) that help pilots avoid flying through their spray.

4115 EPA Response. The final rule retains the exception in the existing regulation that offers 

4116 aerial applicators the option of wearing chemical-resistant gloves when entering and exiting the 

4117 aircraft, except when the product labeling requires that chemical resistant gloves be worn 

4118 entering and exiting the aircraft. 

4119 4. Costs and benefits. There is no cost associated with including the existing exception in 

4120 the final regulation. 

4121 F. Enclosed Cabs – Changes to Exceptions to PPE Requirements when Applying Pesticides from 

4122 Inside an Enclosed Cab

4123 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS permits exceptions to the labeling4124 specified PPE when handling tasks are performed from inside an enclosed cab that meets the 

4125 specifications defined in the rule based on the dermal protection provided by the enclosed cab, 

4126 which prevents pesticides from contacting the body. The existing rule also permits persons

4127 occupying an enclosed cab to forego certain labeling-required respiratory protection if the cab 

4128 has been certified by the manufacturer to provide respiratory protection equivalent to the handler 

4129 respiratory protection required by the pesticide labeling. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 174 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4130 EPA proposed to eliminate the requirement for any labeling-specified respiratory 

4131 protection PPE when applying pesticides from inside an enclosed cab. This would have allowed 

4132 handlers to substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for the labeling-specified 

4133 PPE in all cases no matter what type of respiratory protection PPE was required by the labeling. 

4134 2. Final Rule. In the final rule, EPA requires handlers in enclosed cabs to wear the 

4135 labeling-specified respiratory protection except when the only labeling-specified respiratory 

4136 protection is a filtering facepiece respirator (NIOSH approval number prefix TC-84A) or 

4137 dust/mist filtering respirator. In the final rule, handlers in enclosed cabs may substitute a long4138 sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks for the labeling-specified PPE for skin and eye 

4139 protection. If a filtering facepiece respirator (NIOSH approval number prefix TC-84A) or 

4140 dust/mist filtering respirator is required by the pesticide product labeling for applicators, then 

4141 handlers do not need to wear the respirator inside the enclosed cab if the enclosed cab has a 

4142 properly functioning air ventilation system that is used and maintained in accordance with the 

4143 manufacturer’s written operating instructions. If any other type of respirator is required by the 

4144 pesticide labeling for applicators, then the handler must wear the respirator inside the enclosed 

4145 cab during handling activities. 

4146 EPA has retained other exceptions to PPE requirements for handlers using enclosed cabs. 

4147 Specifically, all of the PPE required by the pesticide product labeling for applicators must be 

4148 immediately available to handlers in an enclosed cab and be stored in a sealed container to 

4149 prevent contamination. Handlers must wear the applicator PPE if they exit the cab within a 

4150 treated area during application or when a REI is in effect. Once PPE has been worn in a treated 

4151 area, handlers must remove it before reentering the cab to prevent contamination of the cab. 

4152 The final regulatory text for the enclosed cab exception is available at 40 CFR 

4153 170.607(e).
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 175 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4154 3. Comments and responses.

4155 Comments. EPA did not receive any comments in opposition to the proposed changes to 

4156 the enclosed cab exception. One grower noted that the enclosed cab exception is an excellent 

4157 component of the proposal. Another commenter noted that respirator use is infrequent since the 

4158 spraying operation takes place from inside an enclosed, climate-controlled tractor cab. 

4159 EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and is convinced that the

4160 enclosed cab exception should be retained since it provides an important option to reduce 

4161 potential pesticide exposure through engineering controls rather than PPE, and such cabs can be 

4162 an important tool for addressing heat stress issues for handlers. Although EPA considered a more 

4163 expansive exception under its proposal, after reevaluation of the potential exposure risks for 

4164 handlers and the protections afforded by enclosed cabs, EPA determined that enclosed cabs may

4165 not universally provide respiratory protection necessary to mitigate inhalation risks for any 

4166 pesticide product that required respiratory protection greater than a filtering facepiece respirator 

4167 (NIOSH approval number prefix TC-84A) or dust/mist filtering respirator. EPA determined that 

4168 enclosed cabs may not provide adequate protection from inhalation exposure hazards when the 

4169 inhalation exposure risk arises from vapors or other non-particulate inhalation hazards. 

4170 Additionally, EPA has learned that there are no longer any enclosed cab manufacturers certifying 

4171 cabs to provide respiratory protection and the American Society of Agricultural and Biological 

4172 Engineers has withdrawn their enclosed cab standard. Based on this information, EPA has 

4173 removed provisions under the enclosed cab exception that permit persons occupying an enclosed 

4174 cab to eliminate certain labeling-required respiratory protection PPE if the cab has been certified 

4175 by the manufacturer to provide respiratory protection equivalent to the respiratory protection 

4176 required by the pesticide labeling. 

4177 4. Costs and benefits. EPA does not estimate that the change to the exception to PPE 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 176 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4178 requirements for handlers using a tractor with an enclosed cab to apply pesticides will have a 

4179 significant cost. Handlers will benefit by using adequate respiratory protection when applying 

4180 pesticides from an enclosed cab.

4181 XVIII. General Revisions

4182 A. Label vs. Labeling

4183 1. Current rule and proposal. FIFRA defines the label as “the written, printed, or graphic 

4184 matter on, or attached to, the pesticide or device or any of its containers or wrappers.” 7 U.S.C. 

4185 136(p)(1) For reasons of space and user convenience, detailed use instructions and precautions 

4186 often appear in labeling provided with the pesticide product upon sale. As defined in FIFRA, 

4187 “labeling” includes “all labels and all other written, printed, or graphic matter accompanying the 

4188 pesticide or device at any time; or to which reference is made on the label or in literature 

4189 accompanying the pesticide or device...” 7 U.S.C. 136(p)(2).

4190 Labeling may include booklets distributed with the product when such documentation is 

4191 too long to be included on the label that is securely attached to the container. For example, some 

4192 products have labeling that is 60 or more pages long. FIFRA and EPA regulations require certain 

4193 information to appear on the label – on or attached to the pesticide container. Other information 

4194 necessary to use the product safely, such as directions for use, may be included in a booklet 

4195 distributed with, but not securely attached to, the container (40 CFR 156.10(i)(1)(ii)); this 

4196 information could also be available on the Internet if the producer has decided to provide web4197 distributed labeling for the product (Ref. 21). In either format, the information would be 

4198 considered labeling. Labeling sometimes includes enforceable references to other documents that 

4199 do not physically accompany the container, such as the WPS.

4200 The existing rule discusses employers’ responsibilities related to pesticide labels and 

4201 labeling in several places. The existing rule requires agricultural and handler employers to ensure 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 177 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4202 that pesticides are used in a manner consistent with the labeling. When the emergency assistance 

4203 provisions of the WPS are triggered, the existing rule requires employers to provide information 

4204 from the product labeling to affected workers, handlers, and/or treating medical personnel. 

4205 Handlers must receive training on the format and meaning of information contained on pesticide 

4206 labels and in labeling. Finally, employers must ensure that handlers have either read or have been 

4207 informed in a manner they understand of all labeling requirements related to safe use of the 

4208 pesticide, and that the handler has access to the product labeling during handling activities.

4209 Although the proposal reorganized the rule, some of the requirements for the existing rule 

4210 outlined in the previous paragraph remained essentially unchanged in the proposed rule, e.g., 

4211 agricultural and handler employers’ responsibility to ensure that pesticides are used in a manner 

4212 consistent with the labeling. The proposal included a requirement for employers to maintain 

4213 copies of the pesticide labeling for each pesticide used on the establishment for 2 years from the 

4214 date of application. The proposal also would have required the employer to provide a copy of the 

4215 label and the product’s SDS when the emergency assistance provisions are triggered, rather than 

4216 to provide information from the pesticide labeling.

4217 2. Final rule. Where the proposed rule would have required the employer to provide a 

4218 copy of the pesticide label, or specific information from the labeling, and the SDS under the 

4219 emergency assistance provisions, the final rule only requires the employer to provide the SDS 

4220 and specific information, which can be obtained from the pesticide application and hazard 

4221 information display, rather than the label or labeling. See Unit XIV. for other comments, EPA’s 

4222 responses and the final regulatory text related to emergency assistance. The final rule eliminates 

4223 the proposed requirement for employers to maintain copies of the labeling, rather than the label, 

4224 for each product bearing a WPS requirement on the labeling, and replaces it with a requirement 

4225 for the employer to retain specific information about the product used and the application, as 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 178 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4226 well as the SDS. See Unit VII. for other comments, EPA’s responses and the final regulatory text 

4227 related to this requirement.

4228 For handler training requirements, EPA has amended the language in the final rule to 

4229 delete the word “all” related to labeling. The final rule requires handlers to receive training on 

4230 following the portions of the labeling applicable to the safe use of the pesticide and on the 

4231 format and meaning of information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling applicable to 

4232 the safe use of the pesticide. The final regulatory text for these provisions is available at 40 CFR 

4233 170.501(c)(3)(iii)-(iv).

4234 For labeling and application-specific information the employer must provide to the 

4235 handler, EPA has amended the final rule to require the employer to provide the handler with 

4236 information on all portions of the labeling applicable to the safe use of the pesticide, rather than 

4237 on all labeling requirements. The final regulatory text for this provision is available at 40 CFR 

4238 170.503(a).

4239 3. Comments and responses.

4240 Comments. Commenters raised issues with EPA’s use of the term “labeling” in the 

4241 proposed rule. Commenters raised specific concerns with the use of the broader “labeling” in 

4242 various requirements instead of limiting those requirements to just the label. These concerns 

4243 arose in regard to agricultural and commercial pesticide handler employer duties, emergency 

4244 assistance, hazard communication, and handler training and establishment-specific information.

4245 Some commenters generally disagreed with EPA’s use of “labeling” and requested that 

4246 EPA use “label” instead throughout the rule. They asserted that labeling is too broad and that 

4247 labeling includes materials not attached to the container, such as advertisements, brochures and 

4248 pamphlets. Commenters assert that the broadness of “labeling” applied to requirements to 

4249 provide or retain this information could result in a requirement on employers to track down many 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 179 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4250 ancillary pieces of information for a complete record, or to face a technical violation for failure 

4251 to retain all elements of the labeling.

4252 Under the agricultural and commercial pesticide handler employer duties, at 40 CFR

4253 170.9(a) and 170.13(a) of the proposal, commenters said that EPA’s use of labeling was too 

4254 broad. They asserted that employers’ liability should be only to comply with the WPS rather than 

4255 with the label or all relevant labeling because making the employer responsible for complying 

4256 with all labeling exceeds the scope and intent of the WPS. They also noted that certified 

4257 applicators, those competent to use pesticides according to the labeling instructions and who 

4258 make the actual applications, should be required to comply with the labeling, but that the 

4259 agricultural employer should not. 

4260 In regard to emergency assistance, commenters requested that EPA delete the reference 

4261 to labeling and replace it with a requirement to provide the label and EPA registration number of 

4262 the product. Commenters note that this requirement would be sufficient to provide appropriate 

4263 information for emergencies.

4264 Commenters also requested that in the section on pesticide application and hazard 

4265 information, EPA delete the requirement for the employer to maintain copies of the labeling for 

4266 all WPS-labeled pesticides used on the establishment, and instead to require the employer to 

4267 maintain a copy of the label and EPA-registration number. Again, commenters noted that such a 

4268 requirement would likely result in technical violations without providing benefit to workers or 

4269 handlers.

4270 In the sections on handler training and establishment-specific information, commenters 

4271 took issue with requirements to train handlers on all labeling and to ensure that for specific 

4272 applications handlers have read the labeling or have been informed of all labeling requirements.

4273 Commenters noted that a requirement for handlers to be trained on all labeling requirements, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 180 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4274 rather than those pertinent to their specific tasks, would be overly broad and unnecessary.

4275 Commenters requested that EPA replace “labeling” with “label” in these sections.

4276 EPA Response. EPA disagrees with commenters’ request to replace “labeling” with 

4277 “label” throughout the regulation because the broader term is appropriate in many provisions of 

4278 the WPS. The FIFRA scheme for managing the risks of pesticide products rests primarily on 

4279 mandatory use directions and precautionary statements approved by EPA in the registration 

4280 process and communicated to users through labels and labeling. Although in the case of lower 

4281 risk products intended for general consumer use, this information typically fits on the label, this 

4282 is not the case for many agricultural and commercial-use pesticides.

4283 Labeling does not include advertisements, pamphlets or brochures unless they 

4284 accompany the product when sold or are referenced on the labeling. For instance, EPA has 

4285 indicated that documents such as marketing brochures used to sell the product and to provide 

4286 information to customers and is not labeling as defined by FIFRA section 2(p). 

4287 (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/labels_faq/lr_faq_10.html) If a document of 

4288 this type does not accompany the product when sold and there is no reference to the bulletin on 

4289 the product label, it is not “labeling.” Note though, that non-labeling documentation related to a 

4290 product must not have claims that differ from the product label. 7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(1)(B).

4291 Because mandatory use directions often appear in the labeling of agricultural pesticides, 

4292 rather than the label, some provisions of the WPS appropriately use the word “labeling.” Where 

4293 the word “labeling” appears in the WPS, employers are responsible for following or providing 

4294 labeling as defined in FIFRA. This does not require employers to find, retain, or provide 

4295 advertisements, pamphlets or marketing brochures that do not meet the definition of “labeling.”

4296 For example, it is appropriate that agricultural and handler employers’ duties under the 

4297 final rule include ensuring compliance with “labeling” rather than just the label. The existing 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 181 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4298 regulation has the same requirement under general duties and prohibited actions. 40 CFR 

4299 170.7(a)(2). The labeling may include directions for use or other information essential to the safe 

4300 and effective application of the pesticide, or specific information related to WPS protections, 

4301 such as the REI. For these reasons, EPA has decided not to replace “labeling” with “label” 

4302 throughout the final rule as suggested by the commenters.

4303 Furthermore, the obligation of certified applicators (or any other person legally applying 

4304 a pesticide) to follow the labeling does not negate the obligation of agricultural and handler 

4305 employers to comply with the labeling. Requirements related to the WPS are found both in the 

4306 regulation (e.g., training, application-specific information) and on specific product labeling (e.g., 

4307 directions for use, REI, PPE). In addition, other non-WPS elements of the labeling, such as 

4308 application rates and maximum number of applications to a crop, are relevant to protecting 

4309 workers and handlers from occupational exposure to pesticides. When employers choose to use a 

4310 pesticide that references the WPS on the labeling on their establishment (either as the applicator 

4311 or by directing another person to apply the pesticide on their behalf), they are obligated to ensure 

4312 that all requirements of the labeling are followed, not only those related to the WPS, to ensure 

4313 that workers and handlers are adequately protected.

4314 However, EPA agrees that certain WPS requirements could be limited to the information 

4315 on the label or specific information from the label, and has specified “label” instead of “labeling” 

4316 or specific information from the label where appropriate. For example, EPA agrees with 

4317 commenters that employers need not provide all labeling in the event of the emergency. In the 

4318 current rule, EPA lists specific information that must be provided to a potentially injured worker 

4319 or handler, or to treating medical personnel: Product name, EPA registration number, active 

4320 ingredients, antidote, and first aid and medical treatment information. Since all of this 

4321 information is required on the label (40 CFR 156.10(a)(1)), the final rule allows the employer to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 182 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4322 provide a copy of the label or this specific information from the label, in addition to providing a 

4323 copy of the SDS, when emergency assistance is required.

4324 EPA also agrees with commenters’ request to eliminate the requirement for employers to 

4325 maintain copies of the labeling for all pesticides with a WPS reference statement used on the 

4326 establishment. EPA agrees that if workers, handlers, or other persons need information on a 

4327 specific product that was used on the establishment, such information can be obtained using the 

4328 EPA registration number and product name. In response to comments received, EPA has 

4329 replaced the proposal with a requirement for the employer to retain only the EPA registration 

4330 number, active ingredient(s), product name, and other application-specific information for such 

4331 products, in addition to the SDS.

4332 Similarly, EPA agrees that requiring handler employers to ensure that handlers have been 

4333 trained generally on, and for specific applications have read or been informed of all labeling 

4334 requirements may be unnecessary if they are only using a product for a single type of 

4335 application. The labeling could include directions for use covering multiple application methods 

4336 and multiple crop sites, which may be of no relevance to a particular handler. Although the final 

4337 rule continues to refer to “labeling” in this context, it now requires employers to ensure that for 

4338 specific applications, handlers have read the portions of the labeling applicable to the safe use of 

4339 the pesticide or have been informed in a manner they understand of all portions of the labeling 

4340 applicable to the safe use of the pesticide. Further, EPA has amended handler training to require 

4341 that handlers are instructed on their duty to follow the portions of the labeling applicable to the 

4342 safe use of the pesticide, and on the format and meaning of information contained on pesticide 

4343 labels and in labeling.

4344 4. Costs and benefits. Where requirements related to labeling have imposed a cost, e.g., 

4345 the requirement for the employer to retain product labeling, the cost is discussed in the Unit 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 183 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4346 related to the overall requirement. EPA does not estimate any additional costs with these

4347 requirements.

4348 B. Regulating Other Persons

4349 1. Current rule and proposal. Some provisions in the existing WPS provide protections

4350 to persons other than workers and handlers (“other persons”). For example, an existing 

4351 requirement on the label and in § 170.210(a) specifies that the applicator must apply the pesticide 

4352 in a way that will not contact workers or other persons. The existing requirement for entry4353 restricted areas on nurseries in § 170.110 specifies that an agricultural employer must not allow 

4354 or direct any person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, to enter or remain 

4355 in the restricted area. The existing immediate family exemption in § 170.104(a)(2) states that the 

4356 owner of the agricultural establishment must provide protections to other workers and other 

4357 persons who are not part of his immediate family. The description of closed systems in § 

4358 170.240(d)(4) of the existing rule describes closed systems as systems that enclose the pesticide 

4359 to prevent it from contacting handlers or other persons. Also, the scope and purpose in § 170.1 

4360 of the existing rule explains that the WPS is intended, in part, to reduce the risks of illness or 

4361 injury resulting from the accidental exposure of workers and other persons to pesticides.

4362 The proposed rule included these same protections for persons other than workers and 

4363 handlers and added several additional provisions that would affect “other persons.” The 

4364 proposed requirement for a handler to cease or suspend application if a worker or other person is 

4365 in the treated area or entry-restricted area was intended to supplement the existing “do not 

4366 contact” requirements, which already protect persons other than workers or handlers. In 

4367 addition, EPA proposed to include “other persons involved in the use of a pesticide to which this 

4368 part applies” in the proposed anti-retaliation provision in § 170.15.

4369 2. Final rule. The final rule includes the protections and references to “other persons” 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 184 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4370 that were proposed, except that EPA removed the reference to other persons from the definition 

4371 of closed systems. The final rule’s prohibition against “other persons involved in the use of a

4372 pesticide” retaliating against workers or handlers in § 170.315 of the final rule is consistent with 

4373 OSHA’s non-retaliation provision. The other sections that provide protections to other persons 

4374 continue existing requirements or supplement existing requirements and are discussed in detail in 

4375 Unit IX. and Unit XVII.C.

4376 3. Comments and responses.

4377 Comments. Some grower organizations, states and their organizations, a retailer 

4378 organization, and a commercial applicator opposed including protections for “other persons” in 

4379 the WPS. These commenters argued that the proposal would extend the WPS to persons not 

4380 currently covered and would result in an unwarranted expansion of scope beyond workers, 

4381 handlers and employee/employer relationships. The grower, retailer and applicator commenters 

4382 stated that including “other persons” could create the potential for frivolous legal challenges by 

4383 anti-chemical activists seeking to prevent pesticide applications. 

4384 EPA Response. EPA disagrees with the comments on including protections for “other 

4385 persons” in the WPS. EPA already protects “other persons” in addition to workers and handlers 

4386 in the existing WPS. EPA notes that anti-chemical activists are not using the current protections 

4387 to prevent pesticide applications and the final rule does not appear significantly more likely to be 

4388 used in that manner.

4389 4. Costs and benefits. The final rule generally continues or supplements existing 

4390 protections so there are no incremental costs or benefits to the protections for other persons.

4391 C. Definitions

4392 1. General 

4393 i. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS provides definitions for certain terms for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 185 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4394 use in the rule. In addition to the specific definitions for the twenty terms listed in 40 CFR 170.3, 

4395 the WPS defines the terms “closed system,” “enclosed cab,” “entry-restricted area,” “personal 

4396 protective equipment,” and “use” in other sections of the rule where those terms are used. EPA 

4397 proposed to revise certain existing definitions to provide greater clarity, to add several new 

4398 definitions for terms used in the rule, including definitions for the terms that had previously been 

4399 defined elsewhere, and to eliminate two unnecessary existing definitions for “greenhouse” and 

4400 “forest.”

4401 ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has adopted the revisions to the definitions as 

4402 proposed except for the definitions of the terms “agricultural establishment,” “agricultural plant,” 

4403 “authorized representative,” “closed system,” “commercial pesticide handler employer,” 

4404 “commercial production,” “employ,” “enclosed space production,” “entry-restricted area,” 

4405 “farm,” “forest operation,” “hand labor,” “immediate family,” ”labor contractor” “outdoor 

4406 production,” ”nursery,” and “use.” In the final rule, EPA has deleted the definitions for the terms 

4407 “greenhouse” and “forest” as proposed. EPA has also deleted the existing definitions for the 

4408 terms “farm,” “forest operation,” and “nursery,” as well as the proposed definition for 

4409 “commercial production.” Additionally, in the final rule EPA has added a new definition for the 

4410 term “application exclusion zone.” The discussions of the existing definitions and proposal, final 

4411 rule, comments and EPA response for these terms are contained in Units XVIII.C.2 – XVIII.C.8. 

4412 The final regulatory text for these definitions is available at 40 CFR 170.305.

4413 iii. Comments and responses.

4414 Comments. EPA received comments on the proposed definitions of the terms “authorized 

4415 representative,” “closed system,” “enclosed space production,” “entry-restricted area,” “hand 

4416 labor,” “immediate family,” “outdoor production,” and “use”. EPA did not receive any 

4417 substantive comments opposed to the other proposed revisions related to definitions. EPA 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 186 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4418 received several general comments from state, grower and agricultural producer associations that 

4419 supported developing improved definitions because it would reduce the likelihood of alternative 

4420 interpretations, while improving compliance and enforceability. Many farmworker advocacy 

4421 organizations and public health organizations also supported EPA’s proposed revisions to 

4422 improve definitions, commenting that it is important to have clear and understandable language 

4423 in order to avoid ambiguity.

4424 During USDA’s FIFRA section 25 review of the final rule, USDA commented that the 

4425 definition for “agricultural plant” depends on the definition for “commercial production,” and the 

4426 definition for “commercial production” depends on the definition for “agricultural plant” (Ref. 

4427 15). USDA said similar issues exist in the definitions of “agricultural establishment” and “farm,” 

4428 “forest operation,” and “nursery.” USDA recommended resolving these circular dependencies. 

4429 USDA also commented that the proposed definitions of “employ,” “labor contractor,” and 

4430 “commercial pesticide handler employer” contained problematic language that could confusion 

4431 as to who is ultimately responsible for providing the handler protections in Subpart F of the 

4432 proposed rule. 

4433 EPA Response. EPA agrees that improved definitions will reduce the likelihood of 

4434 ambiguity and alternative interpretations, while improving compliance and enforceability. EPA 

4435 believes these proposed revisions to the definitions adopt more widely used and commonly 

4436 accepted “plain English” language, and will add clarity and consistency to the rule. The proposed 

4437 revisions to the definitions will also help address regulatory or policy issues with the existing 

4438 rule raised by state regulatory partners and other program stakeholders. 

4439 In response to comments from USDA made during their FIFRA section 25 review of the 

4440 final WPS rule, EPA agrees that the definitions for “agricultural plant” and “commercial 

4441 production,” and the definitions for “agricultural establishment” and “farm,” “forest operation,” 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 187 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4442 and “nursery” are circular (Ref. 15). While EPA is not convinced that serious confusion would 

4443 result, EPA has eliminated some definitions and revised others to address USDA’s concern. The 

4444 terms “commercial production,” “farm,” “nursery,” and “forest operation” appear only in the 

4445 definition section and are not used elsewhere in the regulation. Accordingly, EPA has deleted 

4446 these definitions and merged their substantive content into the definitions of “agricultural 

4447 establishment” and “agricultural plant.” EPA also agrees that the current definitions of labor 

4448 contractor and commercial pesticide handler employer contain some problematic language that 

4449 could result in potential confusion and/or conflict regarding agricultural employer and 

4450 commercial pesticide handler employer duties under the rule. In the final rule, EPA has adopted 

4451 revised definitions for “employ,” “labor contractor,” and “commercial pesticide handler 

4452 employer” to address the potential confusion that could result from conflicting language in the 

4453 existing proposed definitions. EPA believes the revised regulatory text clarifies that CPHEs are 

4454 responsible for the handlers they employ and agricultural employers would no longer be 

4455 considered employers of CPHE handlers for the purposes of the WPS, without overlooking the 

4456 fact that some handlers are hired by agricultural employers through labor contractors and not 

4457 CPHEs. A copy of USDA’s comments and EPA’s responses is available in the docket for this 

4458 rulemaking. (Ref. 

4459 iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the proposed changes to the definitions will not 

4460 substantially change the cost of the final rule. 

4461 2. Authorized Representative.

4462 i. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS does not contain a definition for 

4463 “authorized representative.” EPA proposed to add the term “authorized representative” to the 

4464 rule and defined it as “a person designated by the worker or handler, orally or in writing, to 

4465 request and obtain any information that the employer is required to provide upon request to the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 188 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4466 worker or handler.”

4467 ii. Final rule. The rule finalizes the proposed definition with changes. EPA has retitled 

4468 the term “authorized representative” to “designated representative” to better describe the 

4469 relationship between the representative and the worker or handler, and the definition narrows the 

4470 information that is required to be provided by the employer to the designated representative. In 

4471 the final rule, “designated representative” means “any persons designated in writing by a worker 

4472 or handler to exercise a right of access on behalf of the worker or handler to request and obtain a 

4473 copy of the pesticide application and hazard information required by § 170.309(h) in accordance 

4474 with § 170.311(b) of this part.”

4475 iii. Comments and responses.

4476 Comments. EPA received many comments from states, growers, agricultural associations

4477 and pesticide manufacturer associations objecting to the definition of “authorized 

4478 representative.” Most commenters objected to the proposed requirement for employers to make 

4479 certain pesticide information available to an “authorized representative” of their workers or 

4480 handlers rather than the actual definition of authorized representative. Several farm bureau 

4481 commenters and grower groups stated that oral designation of the representative could result in 

4482 abuse, and would be unenforceable. One comment from a farmworker advocacy organization 

4483 stated that EPA should keep the definition for authorized representative and clarify the range of 

4484 representatives that could legitimately be asked to receive information on behalf of a worker or 

4485 handler (e.g., medical care provider, legal advocate, family member, etc.).

4486 EPA Response. EPA has been convinced by comments that designation of the 

4487 representative must be in written form to protect employers from fraudulent claims. A written 

4488 request that identifies the worker or handler can be verified against employment records, and 

4489 information about the dates of their employ can be used to narrow the information needed to be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 189 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4490 provided. The final rule requires employers to respond to written requests. 

4491 EPA disagrees with the recommendation to limit the definition to certain persons that 

4492 could be asked to request the information on behalf of the worker or handler. EPA believes that 

4493 specifying classes of persons permitted to serve as designated representative would unnecessarily 

4494 limit worker and handler access to needed information. The final rule requires employers to 

4495 respond to such requests within 15 days. However, to ensure that medical personnel treating a 

4496 worker or handler have timely access to information necessary for purposes of diagnosis or 

4497 treatment, EPA has included a separate requirement for employers to promptly provide the 

4498 information to treating medical personnel or those working under their direction, at

4499 170.311(b)(8). 

4500 iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that including the definition of authorized 

4501 representative will not change the cost of the final rule. Costs associated with the requirement for

4502 employers to respond to written requests for pesticide application and hazard information are 

4503 included in the discussion in Unit VII.A.

4504 3. Closed System 

4505 i. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS defines the term “closed system” as “a 

4506 system that encloses the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other persons.” EPA 

4507 proposed to move the definition of closed system to the definition section of the rule and to 

4508 redefine a closed system as “a system for mixing or loading pesticides that encloses the pesticide 

4509 during removal of the pesticide from its original container and transfer, mixing, or loading of the 

4510 pesticide product, mixtures or dilutions, and any rinse solution, if applicable, into a new 

4511 container or application equipment, in such a manner that prevents the pesticide and any 

4512 pesticide mixture or use dilution from contacting handlers or other persons before, during and 

4513 after the transfer, except for negligible release associated with normal operation of the system.”
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 190 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4514 ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has defined “closed system” as “an engineering 

4515 control used to protect handlers from pesticide exposure hazards when mixing and loading 

4516 pesticides.” The final regulatory text for this definition is available at 40 CFR 170.305.

4517 iii. Comments and responses.

4518 Comments. EPA did not receive any specific comments on the definition of closed 

4519 system. However, EPA received a number of comments related to EPA’s proposal on closed 

4520 systems that indicated the proposed requirements may be too prescriptive or limiting, could 

4521 eliminate desired flexibility for growers, and could discourage innovation and the adoption of 

4522 closed systems. 

4523 EPA Response. EPA agreed with the comments that the proposed requirements related to 

4524 closed systems may be too prescriptive or limiting, could eliminate desired flexibility for 

4525 growers, and could discourage innovation and the adoption of closed systems. Although the 

4526 comments did not specifically mention the closed system definition, EPA reconsidered the 

4527 proposed definition of closed system in light of the overall comments on closed system 

4528 requirements. EPA believes that a broader definition of “closed system” will encourage industry 

4529 innovation better than the proposed prescriptive definition, and will retain flexibility for handler 

4530 employers to design systems specific to their needs. In the final rule, EPA has adopted a new 

4531 definition of closed system that more accurately defines the nature and intent of a closed system 

4532 without inadvertently prescribing specific requirements and operational components for such 

4533 closed systems.

4534 iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that revising the definition of closed system will not 

4535 change the cost of the final rule.

4536 4. Enclosed Space Production and Outdoor Production.

4537 i. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS does not contain definitions for the terms 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 191 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4538 “enclosed space production” or “outdoor production.” Instead, the existing WPS defines the term 

4539 “greenhouse” to describe the type of WPS-covered agricultural establishments that produce 

4540 agricultural plants inside enclosed structures. The existing rule uses the terms “farm,” “forest”

4541 and “nursery” for WPS-covered agricultural establishments that produce agricultural plants 

4542 outdoors. Greenhouse is defined in the existing WPS as “any operation engaged in the 

4543 production of agricultural plants inside any structure or space that is enclosed with nonporous 

4544 covering and that is of sufficient size to permit worker entry. This term includes, but is not 

4545 limited to, polyhouses, mushroom houses, rhubarb houses, and similar structures. It does not 

4546 include such structures as malls, atriums, conservatories, arboretums, or office buildings where 

4547 agricultural plants are present primarily for aesthetic or climatic modification.” EPA proposed to 

4548 delete the definition of “greenhouse” because it would no longer be necessary as a result of the 

4549 proposed addition of a new definition for “enclosed space production.” EPA proposed to define 

4550 enclosed space production as “production of an agricultural plant in a structure or space that is 

4551 covered in whole or in part and that is large enough to permit a person to enter.” EPA also 

4552 proposed to add a new definition for the term “outdoor production” and defined it as “production 

4553 of an agricultural plant in an outside open space or area that is not enclosed or covered in any 

4554 way.”

4555 ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has deleted the definition of the term “greenhouse” as 

4556 proposed, and has adopted the definitions for “enclosed space production” and “outdoor 

4557 production” with modifications. The final rule defines “enclosed space production” as 

4558 “production of an agricultural plant indoors or in a structure or space that is covered in whole or 

4559 in part by any nonporous covering and that is large enough to permit a person to enter,” and 

4560 defines “outdoor production” as “production of an agricultural plant in an outside area that is not 

4561 enclosed or covered in any way that would obstruct the natural air flow.” The final regulatory 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 192 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4562 text for these definitions is available at 40 CFR 170.305.

4563 iii. Comments and responses.

4564 Comments. EPA received several comments from states and their organizations opposing

4565 the definition of “enclosed space production” as written. A few other commenters also expressed 

4566 concerns with the definition of “outdoor production.” A state association noted that the proposed 

4567 definition could greatly expand areas covered under certain entry restrictions to include any 

4568 covered area such as fields or groves with shade covers and/or screen houses. The commenter 

4569 expressed concerns that entry restrictions currently applicable to greenhouses would be extended 

4570 to these establishments, and is not aware of any need for such an extension of these restrictions. 

4571 States generally echoed these comments. One state requested clarification of whether the term 

4572 “spaces covered in part” includes structures such as “hoop houses,” and another state noted that 

4573 the proposed rule did not define or reference high tunnels and requested clarification of whether 

4574 “high tunnels” are considered a greenhouse for the purposes of WPS (i.e., would “high tunnels” 

4575 be considered a type of enclosed space production?). One state commented that the proposed 

4576 definition expands areas covered under certain entry restrictions to include shade houses and 

4577 screen houses and this would have a major impact in on the state’s nursery industry. Another 

4578 state also expressed concerns that the proposed definition of enclosed space production would 

4579 expand restrictions beyond greenhouses, and suggested that EPA add the phase “where the 

4580 production of agricultural plants for research or commercial purposes occurs” to the definitions 

4581 of enclosed space production and outdoor production so that only those operations engaged in 

4582 the production of agricultural plants for commercial purposes would be covered by the WPS. 

4583 Another state commented that the term “outdoor production” is too broad and by 

4584 misinterpretation, could encompass a number of non-farm activities. 

4585 During USDA’s FIFRA section 25 review of the final rule, USDA commented that the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 193 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4586 inclusion of the term “natural forest” in the definition of “outdoor production” creates confusion 

4587 and is not needed (Ref. 15).

4588 EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and agrees with the comments 

4589 that said the proposed definition of “enclosed space production” could expand areas covered 

4590 under certain entry restrictions to include any covered area such as fields or groves with porous

4591 shade covers and/or screen houses where such restrictions are not necessary. EPA noted the 

4592 potential impact of the proposed definition on the nursery industry as raised by commenters.

4593 EPA also agrees that the proposed definition of “outdoor production” could lead to some outdoor 

4594 production being considered enclosed space production because of the phrase “that is not 

4595 enclosed or covered in any way.” EPA is convinced that the definition of enclosed space 

4596 production and outdoor production should be revised so that operations that use non-porous 

4597 coverings in their plant production operations, such as screen houses and shade houses, are not 

4598 covered by the entry restrictions deemed necessary for the protection of workers and handlers 

4599 that are working with pesticides or in pesticide treated areas in enclosed space production 

4600 operations. Therefore, EPA revised the definitions of enclosed space production and outdoor 

4601 production to clarify that enclosed space production only includes areas covered in whole or in 

4602 part “by any nonporous covering,” rather than “any covering” as in the proposed definition; and 

4603 that outdoor production will include areas that are covered only with coverings that are 

4604 sufficiently porous that they do not obstruct the natural air flow typical of open fields, or in the 

4605 case of forest operations, a natural forest. It is intended that these definitions of enclosed space 

4606 production and outdoor production be complementary, such that all production agriculture is 

4607 either enclosed space production or outdoor production.

4608 EPA does not agree with the request to add the phrase “where the production of 

4609 agricultural plants for research or commercial purposes occurs” to the definitions of enclosed 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 194 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4610 space production and outdoor production so that only those operations engaged in the production 

4611 of agricultural plants for commercial purposes would be covered by the WPS. EPA believes 

4612 other definitions and language in the rule already clearly limit the scope of the WPS to 

4613 establishments where the production of agricultural plants for research or commercial purposes 

4614 occurs, so the addition of such language to these definitions would be redundant and would not 

4615 serve to further limit the scope of the rule in any way not already accomplished through other 

4616 means.

4617 Some commenters requested clarification of whether structures such as “hoop houses,” 

4618 and “high tunnels” are considered a type of enclosed space production. The term “greenhouse” in 

4619 the WPS has resulted in enforcement problems, because of the extreme variability in the types of 

4620 structures that might be considered greenhouses. This problem is compounded when considering 

4621 the many greenhouse-type structures (e.g., polyhouses, mushroom houses, hoop houses, high 

4622 tunnels and similar structures) that have come into use. This is why EPA has replaced the term 

4623 greenhouse with enclosed space production. EPA believes the new terms correspond more 

4624 accurately to the nature of the risk that EPA is concerned about mitigating (i.e., use of pesticides 

4625 in enclosed spaces that could affect pesticide inhalation exposure potential). Therefore, if a 

4626 structure or space is covered in whole or in part by any nonporous covering and is large enough 

4627 to permit a person to enter, then the structure or space would fall under the definition of enclosed 

4628 space production in the final rule. EPA anticipates that most greenhouses, hoop houses, high 

4629 tunnels and similar structures will fall within the definition of enclosed space production, but a 

4630 final determination will be made on a case-by-case basis applying the parameters of the 

4631 definition to each situation.

4632 EPA agrees with USDA that the inclusion of the term “natural forest” in the definition of 

4633 “outdoor production” creates confusion and is not needed. In response, EPA has revised the final 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 195 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4634 definition of outdoor production accordingly (Ref. 15).

4635 iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates adding and changing the definition of enclosed 

4636 space production and outdoor production will not substantially change the cost of the final rule. 

4637 5. Entry-Restricted Area and Application Exclusion Zone.

4638 i. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS does not contain a definition for the 

4639 terms “entry-restricted area” or “application exclusion zone.” Under the existing rule, the term 

4640 “entry-restricted area” is used to refer to areas on an establishment from which workers and other 

4641 persons must be excluded during, and/or immediately after, an ongoing pesticide application to 

4642 protect the workers or other persons from being contacted by the pesticide (either directly or 

4643 through drift). EPA proposed to define the term “entry-restricted area” as “the area from which 

4644 workers or other persons must be excluded during and after the pesticide application.”

4645 ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has added the term “application exclusion zone” 

4646 instead of the proposed term “entry-restricted area.” EPA has defined the term “application 

4647 exclusion zone” as “the area surrounding the application equipment which must be free of all 

4648 persons, other than appropriately trained and equipped handlers, during pesticide applications.”

4649 The final regulatory text for this definition is available at 40 CFR 170.305.

4650 iii. Comments and responses.

4651 Comments. EPA received several comments from states regarding the term “entry4652 restricted area.” One commenter said the term was linguistically awkward and said EPA should 

4653 instead use the term “restricted area buffer.”

4654 EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and agrees with the comments 

4655 that the term “entry-restricted area” was not clear and would be likely to cause confusion. In the 

4656 final rule, EPA has eliminated the use of that term and has therefore deleted the proposed 

4657 definition. The final rule adopts the term “application exclusion zone” to refer to the area from 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 196 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4658 which persons must be excluded during applications. See Unit IX. for EPA’s response to the 

4659 comments on the WPS requirements related to entry-restricted areas. 

4660 iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that not including the proposed definition of the 

4661 term “entry-restricted area” in the final rule and adding the new definition for “application 

4662 exclusion zone” will not substantially change the cost of the final rule. 

4663 6. Hand labor 

4664 i. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS defines hand labor as “any agricultural 

4665 activity performed by hand or with hand tools that causes a worker to have substantial contact 

4666 with surfaces (such as plants, plant parts, or soil) that may contain pesticide residues. These 

4667 activities include, but are not limited to, harvesting, detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, 

4668 planting, sucker removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce into containers in 

4669 the field. Hand labor does not include operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or watering 

4670 equipment or performing the tasks of crop advisors.” In the proposal, EPA intended to revise the 

4671 definition by deleting the following sentence from the existing definition, “These activities 

4672 include, but are not limited to, harvesting, detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, 

4673 sucker removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce into containers in the field.”

4674 In the proposed regulatory text for the definition of term “hand labor,” EPA inadvertently deleted 

4675 the phrase “except that hand labor does not include operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or 

4676 watering equipment or performing crop advisor tasks” from the end of the definition. The 

4677 erroneously proposed definition for the term “hand labor” was “any agricultural activity

4678 performed by hand or with hand tools that cause a worker to have substantial contact with plants, 

4679 plant parts, or soil and other surfaces that may contain pesticide residues.”

4680 ii. Final rule. EPA has corrected the unintentional omission from the proposed definition 

4681 of “hand labor.” The final rule defines “hand labor” as “any agricultural activity performed by 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 197 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4682 hand or with hand tools that cause a worker to have substantial contact with plants, plant parts, or 

4683 soil and other surfaces that may contain pesticide residues, except that hand labor does not 

4684 include operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing crop 

4685 advisor tasks.” The final regulatory text for this definition is available at 40 CFR 170.305 for the 

4686 final regulatory language for definitions.

4687 iii. Comments and responses.

4688 Comments. One commenter objected to the proposed change to the definition of hand 

4689 labor that deleted the phrase “except that hand labor does not include operating, moving, or 

4690 repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing crop advisor tasks” from the end of the 

4691 definition. The commenter indicated that removing this exception from the definition of hand 

4692 labor would make the irrigation exception for early entry unworkable and would disrupt 

4693 irrigation operations.

4694 EPA Response. EPA agrees with the comment on the definition of “hand labor.” In the 

4695 final, rule EPA has deleted the sentence listing hand labor activities as proposed, but has retained 

4696 the clause excluding “operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or watering equipment or 

4697 performing crop advisor tasks” from being considered hand labor tasks 

4698 iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that revising the definition of hand labor will not 

4699 change the cost of the final rule. 

4700 7. Immediate Family. See Unit XVII.A. for a complete discussion of EPA’s consideration 

4701 of the definition of “immediate family” in conjunction with the exemption from certain 

4702 provisions of the WPS for owners and members of their immediate families. 

4703 8. Use

4704 i. Existing definitions and proposal. The existing WPS provides a definition of the term 

4705 “use” (as in “to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling”) for the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 198 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4706 purposes of the rule at 40 CFR 170.9, “Violations of this part.” For the purposes of the WPS, 

4707 EPA has interpreted the term “use” to cover a broad range of pesticide-related activities that are 

4708 listed at 40 CFR 170.9. EPA proposed to move the existing definition for “use” found at 40 CFR 

4709 170.9 into the definitions section of the rule.

4710 ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has adopted the definition for “use” as proposed. The 

4711 final regulatory text for this definition is available at 40 CFR 170.305.

4712 iii. Comments and responses.

4713 Comments. EPA received several comments from states, growers, agricultural

4714 associations and pesticide manufacturer associations objecting to the proposed definition of 

4715 “use.” Most commenters objected to the definition of use because they did not support inclusion 

4716 of “arranging for application of the pesticide” as part of the definition of “use.” Some 

4717 commenters said they believed that this language would greatly expand the scope of the WPS 

4718 and would be unreasonable and unnecessary. Some commenters noted that they could not see 

4719 how “arranging for application of the pesticide” could be considered use.

4720 EPA Response. EPA disagrees with comments that say the proposed definition for the 

4721 term “use” could or will expand the scope of the WPS because this interpretation has been in the 

4722 WPS since the rule first became effective. Moreover, EPA has not been made aware of any 

4723 instances where this interpretation of “use” has resulted in an unreasonable or inappropriate 

4724 outcome. EPA believes that “arranging for application of the pesticide” is appropriately part of 

4725 the definition of “use” for the purposes of the WPS because in production agriculture, the 

4726 individual who physically “uses” a pesticide almost always does so at the direction of another 

4727 person who has substantially greater control over the circumstances of the use. Thus the WPS is 

4728 designed so that when an agricultural or handler employer arranges for the application of a 

4729 pesticide by a handler employee, it triggers certain WPS duties that are properly the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 199 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4730 responsibility of the agricultural or handler employer. For instance, once the agricultural 

4731 employer arranges for a pesticide application by a commercial pesticide handling establishment, 

4732 the commercial pesticide handler employer must provide the agricultural employer with certain 

4733 information about the intended application before the application takes place (so the employer 

4734 will be able to fulfill WPS notification requirements and protect workers during application, 

4735 etc.). In such circumstances, it is reasonable and appropriate that the handler employer should be 

4736 held responsible for the pre-application information exchange even though the application has 

4737 not commenced and even though the handler employer personally never physically “uses” the 

4738 pesticide. Therefore, since EPA has not been made aware of any instances where the existing 

4739 interpretation of the term use has resulted in any problems for growers, states or the agricultural 

4740 industry, EPA has moved the definition for the term “use” into the definitions section of the rule 

4741 without any change from the proposal.

4742 iv. Costs and benefits. Moving the definition of use will not change the cost of the final 

4743 rule.

4744 D. Restructuring 40 CFR part 170

4745 1. Current rule and proposal. The existing WPS is organized into three subparts: 

4746 “General Provisions,” “Standard for Workers,” and “Standard for Handlers.” Content that applies 

4747 to both workers and handlers is repeated creating redundancy throughout the rule.

4748 EPA discussed renaming the regulation “Requirements for Protection of Agricultural 

4749 Workers and Pesticide Handlers” in the preamble of the proposal and proposed reorganizing the 

4750 rule into four subparts: “General Provisions,” “Requirements for Protection of Agricultural 

4751 Workers,” “Requirements for Protection of Pesticide Handlers,” and “Exemptions and 

4752 Exceptions.” EPA proposed creating the “General Provisions” subpart to describe certain 

4753 obligations for agricultural employers, handler employers, and those requirements that apply to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 200 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4754 both. The proposal included subparts “Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers” and 

4755 “Requirements for Protection of Pesticide Handlers” to provide information that supplements the 

4756 general duties and obligations for employers and to outline the content of the training and 

4757 decontamination supplies that the employer must provide for workers and handlers respectively.

4758 EPA proposed to consolidate most of the exceptions and exemptions into a separate subpart titled 

4759 “Exemptions and Exceptions” to make them easier to find and reference.

4760 2. Final Rule. In the final rule, EPA has retained the existing name of the regulation, 

4761 “Worker Protection Standard,” and has adopted the proposed restructuring of the rule with minor 

4762 modifications.

4763 EPA has determined that it is appropriate to allow one year for employers, trainers, and 

4764 state and tribal regulators to prepare for the changes to the WPS. See Unit XIX. In order to allow 

4765 the existing WPS to remain in effect for one year and to make available the revised regulatory 

4766 language in advance of the implementation date, both the existing WPS and the revised WPS 

4767 must appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus the final rule provides that Subparts A, B 

4768 and C of part 170 will remain in effect until one year after the effective date of this final rule.

4769 Subparts D, E, F and G of part 170 contain the full text of the revised WPS; however, these 

4770 subparts will not be implemented until one year after the effective date of this final rule. Some 

4771 provisions of subparts D, E, F and G, such as pesticide safety training and the pesticide 

4772 information display, will not be implemented until two years after the effective date of this final 

4773 rule. One year after the effective date of this final rule, subparts A, B and C will no longer be 

4774 effective. At that time, EPA intends to delete subparts A, B and C from part 170.

4775 In addition to finalizing the proposed structuring of the rule, EPA has added a new 

4776 section providing a process for allowing states and tribes to request equivalency determinations 

4777 from EPA for existing state or tribal laws or regulations that may provide protections equivalent 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 201 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4778 to the WPS. EPA has added this to a retitled subpart: “Exemptions, Exceptions and 

4779 Equivalency.” 

4780 3. Comments and responses.

4781 Comments. EPA did not receive any comments opposed to the proposal to restructure the 

4782 WPS. One commenter noted that the proposed restructuring of the rule increased the clarity of 

4783 the rule and the relationship among the components. Another commenter asserted that there was 

4784 no need to change the name of the regulation, and noted that if EPA was going to change the 

4785 name of the rule, it should more accurately represent the full scope of the rule and the impacted 

4786 establishments.

4787 EPA Response. EPA agrees with the comment that it is unnecessary to change the name 

4788 of the rule. “Worker Protection Standard” and the abbreviation WPS are commonly used and 

4789 associated with the rule. Upon further consideration, EPA agrees that the existing name of the 

4790 rule is very widely recognized and that it will facilitate more effective communications on the 

4791 rule to retain the current name of the rule.

4792 EPA also agrees with the commenter that the proposed restructuring of the rule increases 

4793 the clarity of the rule and the relationship among the components. EPA is adopting the proposed 

4794 restructuring of the WPS in the final rule with the minor modifications noted. EPA expects the 

4795 revised part 170 will be easier to read and understand, thereby improving compliance by worker 

4796 and handler employers.

4797 4. Costs and benefits. EPA does not estimate any costs associated with the restructuring 

4798 of the rule. The benefits of the restructuring will be increased clarity and understanding of the 

4799 rule which should result in improved compliance and more consistent enforcement.

4800 E. Equivalency provisions

4801 1. Current rule and proposal. The current WPS does not contain equivalency provisions 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 202 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4802 that would permit EPA to potentially recognize, through a WPS-established regulatory 

4803 mechanism, state or tribal worker protection laws and/or regulations that may provide equivalent 

4804 or significantly greater protection in comparison to the provisions of the existing WPS, or 

4805 provide equivalent protection at a significantly lower cost. EPA did not propose to add 

4806 equivalency provisions to the rule because it did not receive information from states or tribes that 

4807 such provisions were necessary, and had not been informed by growers that WPS requirements 

4808 conflicted with existing state or tribal worker protection laws or regulations. 

4809 2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has included a section on equivalency because of 

4810 comments received that indicate provisions may be needed to address certain issues with the 

4811 WPS potentially conflicting with existing state worker protection laws or regulations. EPA 

4812 recognizes that some states have existing worker protection provisions in their own laws and 

4813 regulations that may be equivalent to the provisions of the existing WPS, that may provide 

4814 significantly greater protection, or may provide equivalent protection at a significantly lower 

4815 cost, and decided it would be more practical and efficient to establish a mechanism to evaluate 

4816 specific state or tribal requirements and to make equivalency determinations rather than relying 

4817 on other EPA enforcement mechanisms or policies to be able to allow such determinations. The 

4818 final regulatory text for this requirement is available at 40 CFR 170.609.

4819 3. Comments and responses.

4820 Comments. Although EPA did not propose equivalency provisions, EPA received 

4821 comments from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) that indicated it 

4822 would be beneficial if states could be granted ‘equivalency’ as was done for the current WPS.

4823 The CDPR comment refers to an independent enforcement discretion decision that was granted 

4824 under the current WPS to recognize CDPR’s requirement for the content of their field posting 

4825 sign to be equivalent to the existing requirement at 40 CFR 170.120. Comments from some 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 203 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4826 other state pesticide regulatory agencies indicate there may be issues of equivalency between 

4827 their regulations and the final WPS requirements. Although these commenters did not 

4828 specifically raise the need for equivalency provision, they indicated a need for EPA to be aware 

4829 of the issue and potentially identify solutions. 

4830 EPA Response. Based on the comments received and EPA’s experience with the current 

4831 WPS and requests from CDPR for equivalency on certain regulatory requirements, EPA agrees 

4832 that there are potential situations where states or tribes may request EPA to consider equivalency 

4833 under the WPS for their laws or regulations. Therefore, EPA believes it is prudent to consider an 

4834 equivalency process under the WPS, and feels strongly that it is more efficient and advantageous 

4835 to establish a mechanism for considering equivalency in the WPS rule rather than relying on 

4836 other mechanisms. EPA has provided a general equivalency process in the rule that is modeled 

4837 on the provisions that were developed and implemented for substantially the same reason and 

4838 purpose under the pesticide containment regulations in 40 CFR 165.97. (71 FR 47330, August 

4839 16, 2006).

4840 4. Costs and benefits. EPA does not estimate any costs associated with adding the 

4841 equivalency provisions to the rule. The benefits of allowing equivalency under the provisions 

4842 being included in the final rule will be that EPA will be able to more easily consider and permit 

4843 equivalency for some states that have provisions in their own laws and regulations equivalent to 

4844 the provisions of the WPS or that may provide significantly greater protections or equivalent 

4845 protection at a lower cost.

4846 F. Clarifications 

4847 1. Scope and Purpose. In the final rule, EPA has clarified who the rule protects and that 

4848 agricultural and commercial pesticide handler employers are responsible for carrying out the 

4849 requirements of the rule. EPA has also clarified that handlers have responsibilities under the rule 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 204 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4850 to protect workers and other persons during pesticide applications. Refer to 40 CFR 170.301 for 

4851 the revised language.

4852 2. Applicability. In the final rule, EPA has clarified in 40 CFR 170.303(c) that users must 

4853 comply with product labeling requirements where the labeling requirements differ from the rule, 

4854 except as provided in 40 CFR 170.601, 170.603, and 170.607, where the WPS provides 

4855 exceptions to label-required PPE and REIs. 

4856 3. Prohibited Actions. In the proposed rule EPA proposed modifications to the retaliation 

4857 provisions of the rule to clarify the actions that are prohibited under the rule. In the final rule 

4858 EPA has further modified the retaliation provisions based on comments provided from DOL on 

4859 how EPA could improve its retaliation provisions by modeling it after language used in similar 

4860 provisions in DOL regulations. Refer to 40 CFR 170.315 for the regulatory text.

4861 XIX. Implementation

4862 A. Proposal. EPA proposed to make the final rule effective 60 days after the date of 

4863 publication in the Federal Register; however, compliance with certain provisions, including the 

4864 additional content of pesticide safety training and pesticide safety information, and new signs for 

4865 posting, would not be required until 2 years after the effective date of the final rule. EPA 

4866 proposed the 2-year delay between effective date of the final rule and the implementation date to 

4867 allow time for new training materials to be developed and made available, and to give 

4868 employers, trainers, and other affected stakeholders time to make the necessary changes to their 

4869 practices and operations to comply with the new training and pesticide safety information 

4870 requirements. EPA also linked the implementation date for the revised pesticide safety training 

4871 requirements for workers and handlers to the availability of new revised training materials that 

4872 satisfy the new rule requirements. Under the proposal, if EPA announced the availability of such 

4873 materials sooner than 18 months after the effective date of the final rule, then the new training 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 205 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4874 requirements would go into effect 2 years after the effective date of the final rule. If EPA 

4875 announced the availability of materials that comply with the requirements more than 18 months 

4876 after the effective date of the final rule, then the new training requirements would not take effect 

4877 until 180 days after the announcement of availability of complying training materials published 

4878 in the Federal Register.

4879 B. Final rule. EPA has included in the final rule a one-year delay from the effective date 

4880 of the final rule before employers must comply with any of the new WPS requirements. Thus, on 

4881 [insert date one year and 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register], 

4882 employers will be required to comply with almost all of the new and revised WPS requirements.

4883 However, employers will not be required to comply with certain new WPS provisions until two

4884 years after the effective date of the final rule. This two year delay applies to the new 

4885 requirements for pesticide safety training for workers and handlers, pesticide safety information 

4886 and handlers to suspend applications when workers or other persons are in the application 

4887 exclusion zone. As proposed, the final rule provides that compliance with certain new training 

4888 requirements will not be required until the later of two years after the effective date of the final 

4889 rule, or 180 days after EPA publishes in the Federal Register a notice of availability of new 

4890 revised training materials that satisfy the new rule requirements.

4891 The final regulatory text for these provisions is available at 40 CFR 170.2, 170.311(a)(3), 

4892 170.401(c)(3), 170.501(c)(3) and 170.505(b).

4893 C. Comments and responses.

4894 Comments. Most comments that addressed implementation focused on three main areas: 

4895 1) The need for better and more effective enforcement of the revised rule once the new 

4896 requirements are effective; 2) the need for appropriate supporting communication, education, 

4897 training and compliance assistance materials to facilitate effective implementation; and 3) the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 206 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4898 need for additional time before the final rule becomes effective to give regulators and the 

4899 regulated community time to prepare for compliance with new requirements.

4900 Many comments from states, pesticide safety educators, trainers, grower associations and 

4901 pesticide manufacturer associations pointed out a need for appropriate training and compliance 

4902 assistance materials to support effective implementation. Commenters indicated that it was 

4903 essential for EPA to have updated communications and compliance assistance materials, such as 

4904 fact sheets and the “WPS How to Comply” manual, developed and available to all affected 

4905 parties in order for the regulated community to be able to learn and understand new 

4906 requirements. Several states, grower associations and pesticide manufacturer associations 

4907 commented that EPA should provide more time before the new rule requirements become 

4908 effective so that regulators and the regulated community can more adequately prepare for 

4909 compliance with new requirements. However, several farmworker advocacy organizations urged 

4910 EPA to implement the proposed training requirements for workers and handlers sooner than the 

4911 proposal of 2 years from the effective date of the final rule.

4912 EPA Response. EPA considered the comments submitted and agrees that after 

4913 publication of the final rule, some time is needed before the new WPS requirements are 

4914 implemented. EPA understands that State, tribal and federal regulators need time to become 

4915 familiar with the new regulation, provide training to pesticide inspectors, develop the capacity 

4916 for enforcing the new rule requirements, establish appropriate WPS inspection and enforcement 

4917 policies, and conduct outreach to the regulated and protected communities. In addition, 

4918 agricultural employers will need time to become familiar with the new requirements and 

4919 implement any necessary changes. In the final rule, EPA has delayed the implementation of the 

4920 new WPS requirements for one year so that EPA can work with state and tribal pesticide 

4921 regulators and the regulated community to better prepare for compliance with new rule 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 207 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4922 requirements. The existing rule will remain in effect and be enforced during this time, as 

4923 provided in 40 CFR 170.2. 

4924 EPA disagrees with comments that the compliance dates for the new worker and handler 

4925 training requirements should be implemented sooner than 2 years from the effective date of the 

4926 final rule as outlined in the proposal. EPA believes that up to 18 months could be needed in order 

4927 to develop and disseminate new, high quality, multi-lingual worker and handler training 

4928 materials in multimedia formats that comply with the new requirements. Additionally trainers 

4929 will have to obtain the new training materials, become familiar with the new training content and 

4930 ensure that they continue to meet any eligibility requirements to train. Therefore, EPA has

4931 decided to retain the proposed requirement to delay the new training requirements for 2 years 

4932 from the effective date of the final rule (or 180 days after the announcement that training 

4933 materials are available, whichever is later) to allow adequate time for development and 

4934 widespread distribution of the materials to trainers and employers. While EPA agrees that it is 

4935 important for workers and handlers to have the new safety training information as soon as 

4936 possible, time will be needed to create and distribute new training materials and to allow existing 

4937 trainers to familiarize themselves with those new materials. In order to maximize compliance 

4938 with the final rule, and in the interests of consistency and efficiency, EPA intends to develop and 

4939 make available suitable training materials. EPA intends to have new training materials 

4940 developed and disseminated as soon as practical and will encourage employers to begin using the 

4941 new materials as soon as they become available so that many workers and handlers will begin 

4942 receiving the benefits of the new training before the required date.

4943 EPA is committed to a robust outreach, communications and training effort to 

4944 communicate the new rule requirements to affected WPS stakeholders. To facilitate 

4945 implementation, EPA plans to issue plain language “how to comply” fact sheets and guidance 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 208 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4946 materials once the final rule is published. EPA plans to develop compliance assistance materials 

4947 that are targeted to specific agricultural sectors and rule requirements such as respirator 

4948 requirements or the WPS exemptions and exceptions. EPA also intends to develop and 

4949 disseminate new worker and handler training materials, conduct outreach to potentially affected 

4950 parties, and provide assistance and resources to States and Tribes for WPS implementation. EPA 

4951 plans to hold Pesticide Regulatory Education Program courses for State and Tribal pesticide 

4952 program staff that will focus on WPS implementation, and Pesticide Inspector Residential 

4953 Training courses for State and Tribal pesticide inspectors that will focus on WPS inspection 

4954 requirements. 

4955 D. Costs and benefits. The discussion of the overall expected costs and benefits for 

4956 implementation are discussed in Unit II.C. EPA believes that delaying the dates for compliance 

4957 with the final rule for one year after the effective date will allow regulators and the regulated 

4958 community to better prepare for compliance with the rule while delaying immediate costs and 

4959 allowing time for employers to explore ways to minimize implementation costs.

4960 XX. References 

4961 The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this 

4962 document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, 

4963 including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, 

4964 even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating 

4965 these other documents, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER 

4966 INFORMATION CONTACT.

4967 1. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions. 

4968 Washington, D.C. 2015.

4969 2. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions; Proposed Rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 209 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4970 Federal Register (79 FR 15444, March 19, 2014) (FRL-9395-8).

4971 3. EPA. Final Report: Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned Revisions 

4972 to Two Related Rules: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (RIN 2070-AJ22); 

4973 and Certification of Pesticide Applicators (RIN 2070-AJ20). November 3, 2008. 

4974 4. EPA. Response to Comments on Proposed Changes to the Worker Protection 

4975 Standard. 2015.

4976 5. U.S. Senate. S. Rep. No. 92-883 (Part II), 92nd Congress, 2nd Session at 43-46 (1972). 

4977 U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News 1972, p. 4063.

4978 6. DOL. 2011-2012 NAWS data - public set. 

4979 http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm#d-files. Retrieved April 24 2015. 

4980 7. USDA Economic Research Service. Kandel, W. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 

4981 Update. Economic Research Report No. 60. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research 

4982 Service. 2008.

4983 8. EPA. Worker Protection Standard: A Summary of the Public's Comments and the 

4984 Agency's Response. 1992.

4985 9. Burke, L., Hutchins, H. "A Study of Best Practices in Training Transfer and Proposed 

4986 Model of Transfer." Human Resource Development Quarterly. Vol. 19 no. 2, Summer 2008.

4987 10. Calvert, et al, 2008. “Acute pesticide poisoning among agricultural workers in the 

4988 United States, 1998-2005.”American J Ind Med 51, no. 12: 883-898. December 2008.

4989 11. Kasner, et al. "Gender differences in acute pesticide-related illnesses and injuries 

4990 among farmworkers in the United States, 1998-2007. American J Ind Med 55, no. 7: 571-583. 

4991 July 2012. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.22052/full. Retrieved April 24, 2015. 

4992 12. Lee, S-J, Mehler, L, Beckman, J, Diebolt-Brown, B, Prado, J, Lackovic, M, et al. 

4993 “Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-Target Pesticide Drift from Agricultural 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 210 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

4994 Applications.” Environ Health Perspect 119:1162-1169. 2011.

4995 13. EPA. Response to “Pesticides in the Air – Kids at Risk: Petition to Protect Children 

4996 from Pesticide Drift (2009)." 2014.

4997 14. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

4998 Revisions. Washington, D.C. 2014. 

4999 15. EPA. USDA Comments on the Draft Final Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

5000 Revision Rule and EPA Responses. 2015.

5001 16. EPA. Pesticides; Procedural Regulations for Registration Review; Final Rule. 

5002 Federal Register (71 FR 45720, August 9, 2006) (FRL-8080-4).

5003 17. OSHA. Hazard Communication; Final Rule. Federal Register (77 FR 17574, March 

5004 26, 2012).

5005 18. EPA. Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides; Proposed Rule. 

5006 Federal Register (53 FR 25970, July 8, 1988) (FRL 3314-4).

5007 19. OSHA. Hazard Communications Standard; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (53 FR 

5008 29822, August 8, 1988). 

5009 20. EPA. Worker Protection Standard; Hazard Information; Proposed Rule. Federal 

5010 Register (57 FR 38167, August 21, 1992) (FRL-3793-1).

5011 21. EPA. Pesticides; Final Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Web-Distributed 

5012 Labeling; Notice of Availability. Federal Register (79 FR 18908, April 4, 2014) (FRL-9905-

5013 60).

5014 22. EPA. Pesticide Management and Disposal; Standards for Pesticide Containers and 

5015 Containment; Final Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 47330, August 16, 2006) (FRL-8076-2).

5016 23. EPA. Information Collection Request Supporting Statement: Agricultural Worker 

5017 Protection Standard Training and Notification (Final Rule). EPA ICR No. 2491.02 and OMB 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 211 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5018 Control No. 2070-0190. 2015.

5019 XXI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

5020 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and, Executive Order 13563: 

5021 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 

5022 This action is a significant regulatory action because it may raise novel legal or policy 

5023 issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in 

5024 Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted the action 

5025 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and 

5026 Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to 

5027 OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an economic 

5028 analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action, which is available in the 

5029 docket and summarized in Unit II.C. (Ref. 1).

5030 B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

5031 The information collection activities contained in this final rule have been approved by 

5032 OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned OMB Control No. 2070-0190. In 

5033 accordance with the procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11, EPA sought comment on the Information

5034 Collection Request (ICR) document that was submitted to OMB in conjunction with the 

5035 proposed rule (identified under EPA ICR No. 2491.01). Revised to reflect the provisions in this 

5036 final rule, the ICR document (identified under EPA ICR No. 2491.02) was prepared and

5037 submitted to OMB and serves as the basis for OMB’s approval (Ref. 23). A copy of this ICR 

5038 document has been placed in the docket for this final rule and it is briefly summarized here.

5039 The information collection activities related to the existing Worker Protection Standard 

5040 are already approved by OMB in an ICR titled “Worker Protection Standard Training and 

5041 Notification” (EPA ICR No. 1759; OMB Control No. 2070-0148). The final rule ICR addresses 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 212 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5042 adjustments to the estimated number of respondents, time for activities, and wage rates related to 

5043 the current regulatory requirements as approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0148. In addition, 

5044 the final rule ICR addresses program changes related to the amendments, including 

5045 modifications to restrictions in field entry activities during REIs; increased hazard 

5046 communications; increased training (for both workers and handlers); provisions for information 

5047 during emergency assistance; and recordkeeping for respirator and training requirements.

5048 Respondents/affected entities: Agricultural establishments. The number of agricultural 

5049 establishments is based on the 2012 Census of Agriculture data, special tabulation, by the USDA 

5050 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Based on that information, there are about 

5051 870,000 crop producing establishments covered by the rule.

5052 Commercial pesticide handling establishments. Based on information from Hoover’s Dun 

5053 and Bradstreet, EPA estimates there are about 2,000 commercial pesticide handling 

5054 establishments. Based on EPA’s data on certified applicators, there are more than 40,000 

5055 commercial applicators in plant agriculture.

5056 Agricultural workers and handlers. EPA estimates that there are about 1.9 million 

5057 workers, based on the 2012 Census of Agriculture data, special tabulation, by USDA’s NASS. 

5058 Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (7 U.S.C. 136–136y, particularly section 

5059 136w(a)).

5060 Estimated number of respondents: 985,000

5061 Frequency of response: Rule familiarization will occur annually for the first 3 years.

5062 Training of workers and handlers will occur annually. Posting of the hazard communications 

5063 information will occur, on average, 20 times a year. Recordkeeping of training will occur 1.5 

5064 times per year. 

5065 Total estimated burden: 10,448,160 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 213 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5066 1320.3(b).

5067 Total estimated cost: $ 424,166,295 annualized capital or operation and maintenance 

5068 costs. 

5069 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

5070 collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

5071 control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and on 

5072 applicable collection instruments. For this ICR activity, in addition to displaying the applicable 

5073 OMB control number in this unit, the Agency is amending the table in 40 CFR 9.1 to list the 

5074 OMB control number assigned to this ICR activity. Due to the technical nature of the table, EPA 

5075 finds that further notice and comment about amending the table is unnecessary. As a result, EPA 

5076 finds that there is ‘‘good cause’’ under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act 

5077 (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to amend this table without further notice and comment.

5078 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

5079 I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

5080 number of small entities under RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the 

5081 requirements of this action are agricultural and handler employers, and commercial pesticide 

5082 handler employers. EPA expects the impacts to be less than 0.1% of the annual value of sales or 

5083 revenues for the average small entity. EPA calculates the impact of the rule as the percent of 

5084 sales revenue. Only the very smallest farms, with average sales of less than $10,000 per year, 

5085 may face impacts above one percent of sales. The number of entities that may be impacted in 

5086 excess of one percent of sales could be about 12,000 farms, nurseries, and greenhouses or about 

5087 6% of all small farms impacted by the WPS with revenues less than $10,000 per year. However, 

5088 this is likely an overestimate of the number of farms impacted as it does not account for the 

5089 nearly 2,000 such farms in California that would face impacts well below the national average. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 214 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5090 Additionally, there are nearly 23,000 such farms that produce only oil crops or forage whose 

5091 employees are not likely to engage in hand labor activities and would not be covered by worker 

5092 requirements. Please refer to the Economic Assessment, Table 5.4-3. “Small Business Impacts, 

5093 WPS Farms making pesticide applications” for further details of the assessment. 

5094 Although EPA was not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business Advocacy 

5095 Review (SBAR) Panel because this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 

5096 substantial number of small entities, EPA nevertheless convened a panel to obtain advice and 

5097 recommendations from small entity representatives potentially subject to this rule’s 

5098 requirements. A copy of the SBAR Panel Report is included in the docket for this rulemaking 

5099 (Ref. 3).

5100 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

5101 This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described 

5102 in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

5103 The rule requirements would primarily affect agricultural employers and handler employers. The 

5104 total estimated annualized cost of the final rule is $60.2 – 66.9 million.

5105 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

5106 This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 

5107 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

5108 relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 

5109 responsibilities among the various levels of government. However, this action may be of 

5110 significant interest to state governments, because states provide enforcement for pesticide laws. 

5111 EPA solicited and received comments from state partners on the proposed revisions, which are 

5112 addressed in this final rule preamble and the response to comments document. 

5113 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 215 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5114 This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

5115 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed rule would not regulate tribal governments 

5116 directly; agricultural employers and pesticide handler employers are the directly affected entities.

5117 Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

5118 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

5119 Risks

5120 This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

5121 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 

5122 12866. However, it is reasonable to expect that the environmental health or safety risks 

5123 addressed in this rule may have a disproportionate effect on children. As such, EPA considered 

5124 the best available science in order to protect children against environmental health risks and this 

5125 final rule is consistent with EPA's 1995 Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to 

5126 Children (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/1995_ 

5127 childrens_health_policy_statement.pdf), reaffirmed in 2013 

5128 (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

5129 05/documents/reaffirmation_memorandum.pdf). 

5130 Protections include improved training on reducing pesticide residues brought from treated 

5131 areas to the home on workers and handlers’ clothing and bodies and establishing a minimum age 

5132 of 18 for handlers and early entry workers. With regard to establishing an age restriction, while 

5133 studies have not demonstrated a clear cut off point at which adolescents are fully developed, 

5134 literature indicates that their development may continue until they reach their early to mid-20s. 

5135 Additionally, research has shown that adolescents may take more risks, be less aware of the 

5136 potential consequences of their actions on themselves and others, and be less likely to protect 

5137 themselves from known risks. All of this information supports establishing a minimum age to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 216 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5138 allow those handling pesticides to develop more fully before putting themselves, others, and the 

5139 environment at risk, and to allow those performing early-entry activities to develop more fully in 

5140 order to adequately protect themselves from the risks of entering a treated area while an REI is in 

5141 effect. The final rule will reduce the potential for misuse by adolescent handlers who may less 

5142 consistently exercise good judgment when handling agricultural pesticides.

5143 Children face the risk of pesticide exposure from work in pesticide-treated areas, from the 

5144 use of pesticides near their homes, and from residues of pesticides brought home by family 

5145 members after a day of working with pesticides or in pesticide-treated areas. The final rule is 

5146 expected to reduce these exposures and risks. By establishing a minimum age for certain 

5147 pesticide-related activities in agriculture, children would receive less exposure to pesticides that 

5148 may lead to chronic or acute pesticide-related illness. Another requirement to reduce risk to 

5149 children is training for workers and handlers on the risks presented by take-home pesticide 

5150 exposure and how best to reduce it.

5151 Like DOL’s regulations that implement the FLSA, the rule regulates the ages at which 

5152 children can work in certain agricultural activities. The rule establishes a minimum age of 18 for 

5153 pesticide handlers and for early-entry workers, except those working on an establishment owned 

5154 by an immediate family member. Since children in agriculture may face elevated risks of 

5155 pesticide exposure due to their immaturity, failure to exercise good judgment, and developing 

5156 bodies, EPA feels that they warrant special consideration in light of the Executive Order on 

5157 children’s health. EPA expects that the final rule will mitigate or eliminate many agricultural 

5158 pesticide risks faced by youths.

5159 Additional information on EPA’s consideration of the risks to children in development of 

5160 this action can be found in the Economic Analysis for this action (Ref. 1).

5161 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 217 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5162 Supply, Distribution, or Use 

5163 This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

5164 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

5165 distribution or use of energy.

5166 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

5167 This rulemaking does not involve technical standards that would require Agency 

5168 consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272. 

5169 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

5170 Populations and Low-Income Populations

5171 EPA believes that this rule would not have disproportionately high and adverse human 

5172 health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, as specified 

5173 in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it increases the level of 

5174 environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high 

5175 and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or 

5176 low-income population. In fact, the population of agricultural workers and handlers that the rule 

5177 seeks to protect is comprised primarily of minority and low-income individuals. As reviewed in 

5178 Unit IV.B.3., the farmworker community, due to occupation, economic status, health, language 

5179 and other sociodemographic characteristics, faces an increased risk of pesticide exposure which 

5180 this rulemaking seeks to reduce through improving communication and protections. 

5181 EPA engaged with stakeholders from affected communities extensively in the 

5182 development of this rulemaking, in order to obtain meaningful involvement of all parties. EPA 

5183 believes that the rule would improve the health of agricultural workers and handlers by, among 

5184 other things, increasing the frequency of training, enhancing training content to include ways to 

5185 minimize pesticide exposure to children and in the home, adding posting of treated areas near 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 218 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5186 worker and handler housing to prevent accidental entry, and establishing a minimum age for 

5187 pesticide handlers and early-entry workers.

5188 K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

5189 This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA submitted a report 

5190 containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

5191 Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule 

5192 in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

5193
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 219 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5194 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 9

5195 Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

5196 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

5197 Environmental protection, Agricultural worker, Employer, Farms, Forests, Greenhouses, 

5198 Nurseries, Pesticide handler, Pesticides, Worker protection standard.

5199

5200 Dated: _____________________

5201

5202

5203

5204 ____________________________________

5205 Gina McCarthy,

5206 Administrator.

5207
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 220 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5208 Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

5209 1. Part 9 is amended as follows:

5210 PART 9—[AMENDED]

5211 a. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

5212 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-

5213 2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 

5214 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 

5215 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 

5216 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-

5217 7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

5218 b. In § 9.1 the table is amended by revising the entry under the heading ‘‘Worker 

5219 Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides’’ to read as follows:

5220 § 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

5221 * * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

* * * * *

Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides

part 170 2070-0148, 2070-0190

* * * * *

5222

5223 * * * * *

5224 PART 170--[AMENDED]

5225 3. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows:

5226 Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 221 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5227 4. Section 170.2 is added to subpart A to read as follows

5228 § 170.2 Implementation and expiration dates.

5229 (a) Implementation date. Beginning [insert date one year and 60 days after date of 

5230 publication in the Federal Register], the requirements of § 170.301 through § 170.609 of this 

5231 part shall apply to any pesticide product that bears the statement “Use this product only in 

5232 accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170”.

5233 (b) Expiration date. Sections 170.1 through 170.260 of this part shall expire on, and will 

5234 no longer be effective after [insert date one year and 60 days after date of publication in the

5235 Federal Register].

5236 5. In § 170.135 revise paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as follows:

5237 § 170.135 Posted pesticide safety information.

5238 * * * * *

5239 (b) Pesticide safety poster. A safety poster must be displayed that conveys, at a 

5240 minimum, the pesticide safety concepts listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)-(vii) and (b)(2) of this 

5241 section. Displays conforming to § 170.311(a)(3) meet the requirements of this paragraph.

5242 * * *

5243 (c) Emergency medical care information. (1) The name, address, and telephone number 

5244 of the nearest emergency medical care facility shall be on the safety poster or displayed close to 

5245 the safety poster. Displays conforming to § 170.311(a)(3)(ix) meet the requirements of this 

5246 paragraph.

5247 * * * * *

5248 6. In § 170.235 revise paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as follows:

5249 § 170.235 Posted pesticide safety information.

5250 * * * * *
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 222 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5251 (b) Pesticide safety poster. A safety poster must be displayed that conveys, at a 

5252 minimum, the pesticide safety concepts listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)-(vii) and (b)(2) of this 

5253 section. Displays conforming to § 170.311(a)(3) meet the requirements of this paragraph.

5254 * * *

5255 (c) Emergency medical care information. (1) The name, address, and telephone number 

5256 of the nearest emergency medical care facility shall be on the safety poster or displayed close to 

5257 the safety poster. Displays conforming to § 170.311(a)(3)(ix) meet the requirements of this 

5258 paragraph.

5259 * * * * *

5260 7. Subpart D is added to part 170 to read as follows:

5261 Subpart D – General Provisions

5262 Sec. 

5263 § 170.301 Scope and purpose.

5264 § 170.303 Applicability of this part.

5265 § 170.305 Definitions.

5266 § 170.309 Agricultural employer duties.

5267 § 170.311 Display requirements for pesticide safety information and pesticide application and 

5268 hazard information.

5269 § 170.313 Commercial pesticide handler employer duties. 

5270 § 170.315 Prohibited actions. 

5271 § 170.317 Violations of this part. 

5272 § 170.301 Scope and purpose.

5273 This regulation is intended to reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers 

5274 resulting from occupational exposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants 

5275 on agricultural establishments. It requires agricultural employers and commercial pesticide 

5276 handler employers to provide specific information and protections to workers, handlers and other 

5277 persons when pesticides are used on agricultural establishments in the production of agricultural 

5278 plants. It also requires handlers to wear the labeling-specified clothing and personal protective 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 223 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5279 equipment when performing handler activities, and to take measures to protect workers and other 

5280 persons during pesticide applications.

5281 § 170.303 Applicability of this part.

5282 (a) This regulation applies whenever a pesticide product bearing a label requiring 

5283 compliance with this part is used in the production of agricultural plants on an agricultural 

5284 establishment, except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

5285 (b) This regulation does not apply when a pesticide product bearing a label requiring 

5286 compliance with this part is used on an agricultural establishment in any of the following 

5287 circumstances: 

5288 (1) As part of government-sponsored public pest control programs over which the owner, 

5289 agricultural employer and handler employer have no control, such as mosquito abatement and 

5290 Mediterranean fruit fly eradication programs. 

5291 (2) On plants other than agricultural plants, which may include plants in home fruit and 

5292 vegetable gardens and home greenhouses, and permanent plantings for ornamental purposes, 

5293 such as plants that are in ornamental gardens, parks, public or private landscaping, lawns or other 

5294 grounds that are intended only for aesthetic purposes or climatic modification.

5295 (3) For control of vertebrate pests, unless directly related to the production of an 

5296 agricultural plant.

5297 (4) As attractants or repellents in traps. 

5298 (5) On the harvested portions of agricultural plants or on harvested timber. 

5299 (6) For research uses of unregistered pesticides. 

5300 (7) On pasture and rangeland where the forage will not be harvested for hay.

5301 (8) In a manner not directly related to the production of agricultural plants, including, but 

5302 not limited to structural pest control and control of vegetation in non-crop areas.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 224 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5303 (c) Where a pesticide product’s labeling-specific directions for use or other labeling 

5304 requirements are inconsistent with requirements of this part, users must comply with the 

5305 pesticide product labeling, except as provided for in §§ 170.601, 170.603 and 170.607. 

5306 § 170.305 Definitions.

5307 Terms used in this part have the same meanings they have in the Federal Insecticide, 

5308 Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. In addition, the following terms, when used in this 

5309 part, shall have the following meanings: 

5310 Agricultural employer means any person who is an owner of, or is responsible for the 

5311 management or condition of, an agricultural establishment, and who employs any worker or 

5312 handler.

5313 Agricultural establishment means any farm, forest operation, or nursery engaged in the 

5314 outdoor or enclosed space production of agricultural plants. An establishment that is not 

5315 primarily agricultural is an agricultural establishment if it produces agricultural plants for 

5316 transplant or use (in part or their entirety) in another location instead of purchasing the 

5317 agricultural plants.

5318 Agricultural plant means any plant, or part thereof, grown, maintained, or otherwise 

5319 produced for commercial purposes, including growing, maintaining or otherwise producing 

5320 plants for sale or trade, for research or experimental purposes, or for use in part or their entirety 

5321 in another location. Agricultural plant includes, but is not limited to, grains, fruits and 

5322 vegetables; wood fiber or timber products; flowering and foliage plants and trees; seedlings and 

5323 transplants; and turf grass produced for sod. Agricultural plant does not include pasture or 

5324 rangeland used for grazing.

5325 Application exclusion zone means the area surrounding the application equipment that 

5326 must be free of all persons other than appropriately trained and equipped handlers during 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 225 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5327 pesticide applications.

5328 Chemigation means the application of pesticides through irrigation systems.

5329 Closed system means an engineering control used to protect handlers from pesticide 

5330 exposure hazards when mixing and loading pesticides. 

5331 Commercial pesticide handler employer means any person, other than an agricultural 

5332 employer, who employs any handler to perform handler activities on an agricultural 

5333 establishment. A labor contractor who does not provide pesticide application services or 

5334 supervise the performance of handler activities, but merely employs laborers who perform 

5335 handler activities at the direction of an agricultural or handler employer, is not a commercial 

5336 pesticide handler employer.

5337 Commercial pesticide handling establishment means any enterprise, other than an 

5338 agricultural establishment, that provides pesticide handler or crop advising services to 

5339 agricultural establishments.

5340 Crop advisor means any person who is assessing pest numbers, damage, pesticide 

5341 distribution, or the status or requirements of agricultural plants.

5342 Designated representative means any persons designated in writing by a worker or 

5343 handler to exercise a right of access on behalf of the worker or handler to request and obtain a 

5344 copy of the pesticide application and hazard information required by § 170.309(h) in accordance 

5345 with § 170.311(b) of this part.

5346 Early entry means entry by a worker into a treated area on the agricultural establishment 

5347 after a pesticide application is complete, but before any restricted-entry interval for the pesticide 

5348 has expired.

5349 Employ means to obtain, directly or through a labor contractor, the services of a person in 

5350 exchange for a salary or wages, including piece-rate wages, without regard to who may pay or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 226 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5351 who may receive the salary or wages. It includes obtaining the services of a self-employed 

5352 person, an independent contractor, or a person compensated by a third party, except that it does 

5353 not include an agricultural employer obtaining the services of a handler through a commercial 

5354 pesticide handler employer or a commercial pesticide handling establishment. 

5355 Enclosed cab means a cab with a nonporous barrier that totally surrounds the occupant(s) 

5356 of the cab and prevents dermal contact with pesticides that are being applied outside of the cab.

5357 Enclosed space production means production of an agricultural plant indoors or in a 

5358 structure or space that is covered in whole or in part by any nonporous covering and that is large 

5359 enough to permit a person to enter. 

5360 Fumigant means any pesticide product that is a vapor or gas, or forms a vapor or gas 

5361 upon application, and whose pesticidal action is achieved through the gaseous or vapor state. 

5362 Hand labor means any agricultural activity performed by hand or with hand tools that 

5363 causes a worker to have substantial contact with plants, plant parts, or soil and other surfaces that 

5364 may contain pesticide residues, except that hand labor does not include operating, moving, or 

5365 repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing crop advisor tasks.

5366 Handler means any person, including a self-employed person, who is employed by an 

5367 agricultural employer or commercial pesticide handler employer and performs any of the 

5368 following activities: 

5369 (1) Mixing, loading, or applying pesticides.

5370 (2) Disposing of pesticides.

5371 (3) Handling opened containers of pesticides, emptying, triple-rinsing, or cleaning 

5372 pesticide containers according to pesticide product labeling instructions, or disposing of pesticide 

5373 containers that have not been cleaned. The term does not include any person who is only 

5374 handling unopened pesticide containers or pesticide containers that have been emptied or cleaned 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 227 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5375 according to pesticide product labeling instructions.

5376 (4) Acting as a flagger.

5377 (5) Cleaning, adjusting, handling, or repairing the parts of mixing, loading, or application 

5378 equipment that may contain pesticide residues.

5379 (6) Assisting with the application of pesticides.

5380 (7) Entering an enclosed space after the application of a pesticide and before the

5381 inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has been reached or one of the ventilation criteria 

5382 established by § 170.405(b)(3) or the labeling has been met to operate ventilation equipment, 

5383 monitor air levels, or adjust or remove coverings used in fumigation. 

5384 (8) Entering a treated area outdoors after application of any soil fumigant during the 

5385 labeling-specified entry-restricted period to adjust or remove coverings used in fumigation. 

5386 (9) Performing tasks as a crop advisor during any pesticide application or restricted-entry 

5387 interval, or before the inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide product labeling has been 

5388 reached or one of the ventilation criteria established by § 170.405(b)(3) or the pesticide product 

5389 labeling has been met.

5390 Handler employer means any person who is self-employed as a handler or who employs 

5391 any handler.

5392 Immediate family is limited to the spouse, parents, stepparents, foster parents, father-in5393 law, mother-in-law, children, stepchildren, foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, 

5394 grandparents, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law. 

5395 Labor contractor means a person, other than a commercial pesticide handler, who 

5396 employs workers or handlers to perform tasks on an agricultural establishment for an agricultural 

5397 employer or a commercial pesticide handler employer.

5398 Outdoor production means production of an agricultural plant in an outside area that is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 228 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5399 not enclosed or covered in any way that would obstruct the natural air flow.

5400 Owner means any person who has a present possessory interest (e.g., fee, leasehold, 

5401 rental, or other) in an agricultural establishment. A person who has both leased such agricultural 

5402 establishment to another person and granted that same person the right and full authority to 

5403 manage and govern the use of such agricultural establishment is not an owner for purposes of 

5404 this part.

5405 Personal protective equipment means devices and apparel that are worn to protect the 

5406 body from contact with pesticides or pesticide residues, including, but not limited to, coveralls, 

5407 chemical-resistant suits, chemical-resistant gloves, chemical-resistant footwear, respirators, 

5408 chemical-resistant aprons, chemical-resistant headgear, and protective eyewear.

5409 Restricted-entry interval means the time after the end of a pesticide application during 

5410 which entry into the treated area is restricted. 

5411 Safety data sheet has the same meaning as the definition at 29 CFR 1900.1200(c).

5412 Treated area means any area to which a pesticide is being directed or has been directed. 

5413 Use, as in “to use a pesticide” means any of the following: 

5414 (1) Pre-application activities, including, but not limited to: 

5415 (i) Arranging for the application of the pesticide.

5416 (ii) Mixing and loading the pesticide.

5417 (iii) Making necessary preparations for the application of the pesticide, including 

5418 responsibilities related to worker notification, training of workers or handlers, providing 

5419 decontamination supplies, providing pesticide safety information and pesticide application and 

5420 hazard information, use and care of personal protective equipment, providing emergency 

5421 assistance, and heat stress management. 

5422 (2) Application of the pesticide. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 229 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5423 (3) Post-application activities intended to reduce the risks of illness and injury resulting 

5424 from handlers' and workers' occupational exposures to pesticide residues during and after the 

5425 restricted-entry interval, including responsibilities related to worker notification, training of 

5426 workers or early-entry workers, providing decontamination supplies, providing pesticide safety 

5427 information and pesticide application and hazard information, use and care of personal protective 

5428 equipment, providing emergency assistance, and heat stress management. 

5429 (4) Other pesticide-related activities, including, but not limited to, transporting or storing 

5430 pesticides that have been opened, cleaning equipment, and disposing of excess pesticides, spray 

5431 mix, equipment wash waters, pesticide containers, and other pesticide-containing materials.

5432 Worker means any person, including a self-employed person, who is employed and 

5433 performs activities directly relating to the production of agricultural plants on an agricultural 

5434 establishment.

5435 Worker housing area means any place or area of land on or near an agricultural 

5436 establishment where housing or space for housing is provided for workers or handlers by an 

5437 agricultural employer, owner, labor contractor, or any other person responsible for the 

5438 recruitment or employment of agricultural workers.

5439 § 170.309 Agricultural employer duties. 

5440 Agricultural employers must:

5441 (a) Ensure that any pesticide is used in a manner consistent with the pesticide product 

5442 labeling, including the requirements of this part, when applied on the agricultural establishment. 

5443 (b) Ensure that each worker and handler subject to this part receives the protections 

5444 required by this part. 

5445 (c) Ensure that any handler and any early entry worker is at least 18 years old.

5446 (d) Provide to each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any workers or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 230 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5447 handlers information and directions sufficient to ensure that each worker and handler receives 

5448 the protections required by this part. Such information and directions must specify the tasks for 

5449 which the supervisor is responsible in order to comply with the provisions of this part. 

5450 (e) Require each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any workers or 

5451 handlers to provide sufficient information and directions to each worker and handler to ensure 

5452 that they can comply with the provisions of this part.

5453 (f) Provide emergency assistance in accordance with this paragraph. If there is reason to 

5454 believe that a worker or handler has experienced a potential pesticide exposure during his or her 

5455 employment on the agricultural establishment or shows symptoms similar to those associated 

5456 with acute exposure to pesticides during or within 72 hours after his or her employment on the 

5457 agricultural establishment, and needs emergency medical treatment, the agricultural employer 

5458 must do all of the following promptly after learning of the possible poisoning or injury:

5459 (1) Make available to that person transportation from the agricultural establishment, 

5460 including any worker housing area on the establishment, to an operating medical care facility 

5461 capable of providing emergency medical treatment to a person exposed to pesticides.

5462 (2) Provide all of the following information to the treating medical personnel:

5463 (i) Copies of the applicable safety data sheet(s) and the product name(s), EPA registration 

5464 number(s) and active ingredient(s) for each pesticide product to which the person may have been 

5465 exposed. 

5466 (ii) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide on the agricultural 

5467 establishment.

5468 (iii) The circumstances that could have resulted in exposure to the pesticide.

5469 (g) Ensure that workers or other persons employed by the agricultural establishment do 

5470 not clean, repair, or adjust pesticide application equipment, unless trained as a handler under § 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 231 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5471 170.501. Before allowing any person not directly employed by the agricultural establishment to 

5472 clean, repair, or adjust equipment that has been used to mix, load, transfer, or apply pesticides, 

5473 the agricultural employer must provide all of the following information to such person:

5474 (1) Pesticide application equipment may be contaminated with pesticides. 

5475 (2) The potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides.

5476 (3) Procedures for handling pesticide application equipment and for limiting exposure to 

5477 pesticide residues. 

5478 (4) Personal hygiene practices and decontamination procedures for preventing pesticide 

5479 exposures and removing pesticide residues.

5480 (h) Display, maintain, and provide access to pesticide safety information and pesticide 

5481 application and hazard information in accordance with § 170.311 if workers or handlers are on 

5482 the establishment and within the last 30 days a pesticide product has been used or a restricted5483 entry interval for such pesticide has been in effect on the establishment.

5484 (i) Ensure that before a handler uses any equipment for mixing, loading, transferring, or 

5485 applying pesticides, the handler is instructed in the safe operation of such equipment. 

5486 (j) Ensure that before each day of use, equipment used for mixing, loading, transferring, 

5487 or applying pesticides is inspected for leaks, clogging, and worn or damaged parts, and any 

5488 damaged equipment is repaired or replaced. 

5489 (k) Ensure that whenever handlers employed by a commercial pesticide handling 

5490 establishment will be on an agricultural establishment, the handler employer is provided 

5491 information about, or is aware of, the specific location and description of any treated areas on the 

5492 agricultural establishment where a restricted-entry interval is in effect that the handler may be in 

(or may walk within 15493 ⁄4 mile of), and any restrictions on entering those areas. 

5494 (l) Ensure that workers do not enter any area on the agricultural establishment where a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 232 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5495 pesticide has been applied until the applicable pesticide application and hazard information for 

5496 each pesticide product applied to that area is displayed in accordance with § 170.311(b), and 

5497 until after the restricted-entry interval has expired and all treated area warning signs have been 

5498 removed or covered, except for entry permitted by § 170.603 of this part. 

5499 (m) Provide any records or other information required by this part for inspection and

5500 copying upon request by an employee of EPA or any duly authorized representative of a Federal, 

5501 State or Tribal government agency responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

5502 § 170.311 Display requirements for pesticide safety information and pesticide application 

5503 and hazard information.

5504 (a) Display of Pesticide Safety Information. Whenever pesticide safety information and 

5505 pesticide application and hazard information are required to be provided under § 170.309(h), 

5506 pesticide safety information must be displayed in accordance with this paragraph.

5507 (1) General. The pesticide safety information must be conveyed in a manner that workers 

5508 and handlers can understand.

5509 (2) Content prior to [insert date two years and 60 days from date of publication in the 

5510 Federal Register]. Prior to [insert date two years and 60 days from date of publication in the 

5511 Federal Register], the safety information must include all of the following points: 

5512 (i) Help keep pesticides from entering your body. Avoid getting on your skin or into your 

5513 body any pesticides that may be on plants and soil, in irrigation water, or drifting from nearby 

5514 applications.

5515 (ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

5516 (iii) Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues (long-sleeved 

5517 shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf). 

5518 (iv) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean clothes after 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 233 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5519 work. 

5520 (v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again. 

5521 (vi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on 

5522 the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo, and change into clean clothes.

5523 (vii) Follow directions about keeping out of treated or restricted areas.

5524 (viii) The name, address, and telephone number of a nearby operating medical care 

5525 facility capable of providing emergency medical treatment. This information must be clearly 

5526 identified as emergency medical contact information on the display.

5527 (ix) There are Federal rules to protect workers and handlers, including a requirement for 

5528 safety training.

5529 (3) Content after [insert date two years and 60 days from date of publication in the

5530 Federal Register]. After [insert date two years and 60 days from date of publication in the

5531 Federal Register], the pesticide safety information must include all of the points in § 

5532 170.311(a)(3)(i)-(x) instead of the points listed in § 170.311(a)(2)(i)-(ix).

5533 (i) Avoid getting on the skin or into the body any pesticides that may be on or in plants, 

5534 soil, irrigation water, tractors, and other equipment, on used personal protective equipment, or 

5535 drifting from nearby applications. 

5536 (ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

5537 (iii) Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues (long-sleeved 

5538 shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf). 

5539 (iv) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean clothes after 

5540 work. 

5541 (v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again. 

5542 (vi) If pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body use decontamination supplies to wash 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 234 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5543 immediately, or rinse off in the nearest clean water, including springs, streams, lakes or other 

5544 sources if more readily available than decontamination supplies, and as soon as possible, wash or 

5545 shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes.

5546 (vii) Follow directions about keeping out of treated areas and application exclusion 

5547 zones.

5548 (viii) Instructions to employees to seek medical attention as soon as possible if they 

5549 believe they have been poisoned, injured or made ill by pesticides. 

5550 (ix) The name, address, and telephone number of a nearby operating medical care facility 

5551 capable of providing emergency medical treatment. This information must be clearly identified 

5552 as emergency medical contact information on the display.

5553 (x) The name, address and telephone number of the State or Tribal pesticide regulatory 

5554 agency. 

5555 (4) Changes to pesticide safety information. The agricultural employer must update the 

5556 pesticide safety information display within 24 hours of notice of any changes to the information 

5557 required in §§ 170.311(a)(2)(viii) or 170.311(a)(3)(ix).

5558 (5) Location. The pesticide safety information must be displayed at each of the following 

5559 sites on the agricultural establishment:

5560 (i) The site selected pursuant to § 170.311(b)(2) for display of pesticide application and 

5561 hazard information.

5562 (ii) Anywhere that decontamination supplies must be provided on the agricultural 

5563 establishment pursuant to §§ 170.411, 170.509 or 170.605, but only when the decontamination 

5564 supplies are located at permanent sites or being provided at locations and in quantities to meet 

5565 the requirements for 11 or more workers or handlers.

5566 (6) Accessibility. When pesticide safety information is required to be displayed, workers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 235 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5567 and handlers must be allowed access to the pesticide safety information at all times during 

5568 normal work hours.

5569 (7) Legibility. The pesticide safety information must remain legible at all times when the 

5570 information is required to be displayed. 

5571 (b) Keeping and displaying pesticide application and hazard information. Whenever 

5572 pesticide safety information and pesticide application and hazard information is required to be 

5573 provided under § 170.309(h), pesticide application and hazard information for any pesticides that 

5574 are used on the agricultural establishment must be displayed, retained, and made accessible in 

5575 accordance with this paragraph.

5576 (1) Content. The pesticide application and hazard information must include all of the 

5577 following information for each pesticide product applied: 

5578 (i) A copy of the safety data sheet.

5579 (ii) The name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product.

5580 (iii) The crop or site treated and the location and description of the treated area.

5581 (iv) The date(s) and times the application started and ended.

5582 (v) The duration of the applicable labeling-specified restricted-entry interval for that 

5583 application. 

5584 (2) Location. The pesticide application and hazard information must be displayed at a 

5585 place on the agricultural establishment where workers and handlers are likely to pass by or 

5586 congregate and where it can be readily seen and read.

5587 (3) Accessibility. When the pesticide application and hazard information is required to be 

5588 displayed, workers and handlers must be allowed access to the location of the information at all 

5589 times during normal work hours.

5590 (4) Legibility. The pesticide application and hazard information must remain legible at all 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 236 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5591 times when the information is required to be displayed. 

5592 (5) Timing. The pesticide application and hazard information for each pesticide product 

5593 applied must be displayed no later than 24 hours after the end of the application of the pesticide. 

5594 The pesticide application and hazard information must be displayed continuously from the 

5595 beginning of the display period until at least 30 days after the end of the last applicable 

5596 restricted-entry interval, or until workers or handlers are no longer on the establishment, 

5597 whichever is earlier. 

5598 (6) Record retention. Whenever pesticide safety information and pesticide application 

5599 and hazard information is required to be displayed in accordance with this paragraph (b), the 

5600 agricultural employer must retain the pesticide application and hazard information described in § 

5601 170.311(b)(1) on the agricultural establishment for two years after the date of expiration of the 

5602 restricted-entry interval applicable to the pesticide application conducted.

5603 (7) Access to pesticide application and hazard information by a worker or handler. If a 

5604 person is or was employed as a worker or handler by an establishment during the period that 

5605 particular pesticide application and hazard information was required to be displayed and retained 

5606 for two years in accordance with §§ 170.311(b)(5) and 170.311(b)(6), and the person requests a 

5607 copy of such application and/or hazard information, or requests access to such application and/or 

5608 hazard information after it is no longer required to be displayed, the agricultural employer must 

5609 provide the worker or handler with a copy of or access to all of the requested information within 

5610 15 days of the receipt of any such request. The worker or handler may make the request orally or 

5611 in writing. 

5612 (8) Access to pesticide application and hazard information by treating medical personnel. 

5613 Any treating medical personnel, or any person acting under the supervision of treating medical 

5614 personnel, may request, orally or in writing, access to or a copy of any information required to be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 237 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5615 retained for two years by § 170.311(b)(6) in order to inform diagnosis or treatment of a worker 

5616 or handler who was employed on the establishment during the period that the information was 

5617 required to be displayed. The agricultural employer must promptly provide a copy of or access to 

5618 all of the requested information applicable to the worker’s or handler’s time of employment on 

5619 the establishment after receipt of the request.

5620 (9) Access to pesticide application and hazard information by a designated 

5621 representative.

5622 (i) Any worker’s or handler’s designated representative may request access to or a copy 

5623 of any information required to be retained for two years by § 170.311(b)(6) on behalf of a worker 

5624 or handler employed on the establishment during the period that the information was required to 

5625 be displayed. The agricultural employer must provide access to or a copy of the requested 

5626 information applicable to the worker’s or handler’s time of employment on the establishment 

5627 within 15 days after receiving any such request, provided the request meets the requirements 

5628 specified in § 170.311(b)(9)(ii).

5629 (ii) A request by a designated representative for access to or a copy of any pesticide 

5630 application and/or hazard information must be in writing and must contain all of the following:

5631 (A) The name of the worker or handler being represented.

5632 (B) A description of the specific information being requested. The description should 

5633 include the dates of employment of the worker or handler, the date or dates for which the records 

5634 are requested, type of work conducted by the worker or handler (e.g., planting, harvesting, 

5635 applying pesticides, mixing or loading pesticides) during the period for which the records are 

5636 requested, and the specific application and/or hazard information requested.

5637 (C) A written statement clearly designating the representative to request pesticide 

5638 application and hazard information on the worker’s or handler’s behalf, bearing the worker’s or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 238 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5639 handler’s printed name and signature, the date of the designation, and the printed name and 

5640 contact information for the designated representative. 

5641 (D) If the worker or handler requests that the pesticide application and/or the hazard 

5642 information be sent, direction for where to send the information (e.g., mailing address or email 

5643 address). 

5644 (iii) If the written request from a designated representative contains all of the necessary 

5645 information specified in § 170.313(b)(9)(ii), the employer must provide a copy of or access to all 

5646 of the requested information applicable to the worker’s or handler’s time of employment on the 

5647 establishment to the designated representative within 15 days of receiving the request. 

5648 § 170.313 Commercial pesticide handler employer duties. 

5649 Commercial pesticide handler employers must:

5650 (a) Ensure that any pesticide is used in a manner consistent with the pesticide product

5651 labeling, including the requirements of this part, when applied on an agricultural establishment

5652 by a handler employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment. 

5653 (b) Ensure each handler employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment 

5654 and subject to this part receives the protections required by this part. 

5655 (c) Ensure that any handler employed by the commercial pesticide handling 

5656 establishment is at least 18 years old.

5657 (d) Provide to each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any handlers 

5658 employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment, information and directions 

5659 sufficient to ensure that each handler receives the protections required by this part. Such 

5660 information and directions must specify the tasks for which the supervisor is responsible in order 

5661 to comply with the provisions of this part.

5662 (e) Require each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any handlers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 239 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5663 employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment, to provide sufficient information 

5664 and directions to each handler to ensure that the handler can comply with the provisions of this 

5665 part.

5666 (f) Ensure that before any handler employed by the commercial pesticide handling 

5667 establishment uses any equipment for mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides, the 

5668 handler is instructed in the safe operation of such equipment. 

5669 (g) Ensure that, before each day of use, equipment used by their employees for mixing, 

5670 loading, transferring, or applying pesticides is inspected for leaks, obstructions, and worn or 

5671 damaged parts, and any damaged equipment is repaired or is replaced. 

5672 (h) Ensure that whenever a handler who is employed by a commercial pesticide handling 

5673 establishment will be on an agricultural establishment, the handler is provided information about, 

5674 or is aware of, the specific location and description of any treated areas where a restricted-entry 

5675 interval is in effect, and the restrictions on entering those areas. 

5676 (i) Provide the agricultural employer all of the following information before the 

5677 application of any pesticide on an agricultural establishment:

5678 (1) Specific location(s) and description of the area(s) to be treated.

5679 (2) The date(s) and start and estimated end times of application.

5680 (3) Product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s).

5681 (4) The labeling-specified restricted-entry interval applicable for the application.

5682 (5) Whether posting, oral notification or both are required under § 170.409.

5683 (6) Any restrictions or use directions on the pesticide product labeling that must be 

5684 followed for protection of workers, handlers, or other persons during or after application.

5685 (j) If there are any changes to the information provided in § 170.313(i)(1), § 

5686 170.313(i)(4), § 170.313(i)(5), § 170.313(i)(6) or if the start time for the application will be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 240 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5687 earlier than originally forecasted or scheduled, ensure that the agricultural employer is provided 

5688 updated information prior to the application. If there are any changes to any other information 

5689 provided pursuant to § 170.313(i), the commercial pesticide handler employer must provide 

5690 updated information to the agricultural employer within two hours after completing the 

5691 application. Changes to the estimated application end time of less than one hour need not be 

5692 reported to the agricultural employer.

5693 (k) Provide emergency assistance in accordance with this paragraph. If there is reason to 

5694 believe that a handler employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment has 

5695 experienced a potential pesticide exposure during his or her employment by the commercial 

5696 pesticide handling establishment or shows symptoms similar to those associated with acute 

5697 exposure to pesticides during or within 72 hours after his or her employment by the commercial 

5698 pesticide handling establishment, and needs emergency medical treatment, the commercial 

5699 pesticide handler employer must do all of the following promptly after learning of the possible 

5700 poisoning or injury:

5701 (1) Make available to that person transportation from the commercial pesticide handling 

5702 establishment, or any agricultural establishment on which that handler may be working on behalf 

5703 of the commercial pesticide handling establishment, to an operating medical care facility capable 

5704 of providing emergency medical treatment to a person exposed to pesticides.

5705 (2) Provide all of the following information to the treating medical personnel:

5706 (i) Copies of the applicable safety data sheet(s) and the product name(s), EPA registration 

5707 number(s) and active ingredient(s) for each pesticide product to which the person may have been 

5708 exposed. 

5709 (ii) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide.

5710 (iii) The circumstances that could have resulted in exposure to the pesticide.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 241 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5711 (l) Ensure that persons directly employed by the commercial pesticide handling 

5712 establishment do not clean, repair, or adjust pesticide application equipment, unless trained as a 

5713 handler under § 170.501. Before allowing any person not directly employed by the commercial 

5714 pesticide handling establishment to clean, repair, or adjust equipment that has been used to mix, 

5715 load, transfer, or apply pesticides, the commercial pesticide handler employer must provide all of 

5716 the following information to such persons:

5717 (1) Notice that the pesticide application equipment may be contaminated with pesticides. 

5718 (2) The potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides.

5719 (3) Procedures for handling pesticide application equipment and for limiting exposure to 

5720 pesticide residues. 

5721 (4) Personal hygiene practices and decontamination procedures for preventing pesticide 

5722 exposures and removing pesticide residues.

5723 (m) Provide any records or other information required by this part for inspection and 

5724 copying upon request by an employee of EPA or any duly authorized representative of a Federal, 

5725 State or Tribal government agency responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

5726 § 170.315 Prohibited actions. 

5727 No agricultural employer, commercial pesticide handler employer, or other person 

5728 involved in the use of a pesticide to which this part applies, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or 

5729 discriminate against any worker or handler for complying with or attempting to comply with this 

5730 part, or because the worker or handler provided, caused to be provided or is about to provide 

5731 information to the employer or the EPA or any duly authorized representative of a Federal, State 

5732 or Tribal government regarding conduct that the worker or handler reasonably believes violates 

5733 this part, has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 

5734 investigation, proceeding, or hearing concerning compliance with this part, or has objected to, or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 242 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5735 refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the worker or handler 

5736 reasonably believed to be in violation of this part. Any such intimidation, threat, coercion, or 

5737 discrimination violates FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), 7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(2)(G).

5738 § 170.317 Violations of this part. 

5739 (a) Under FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), it is unlawful for any person “to use any registered 

5740 pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.’’ When this part is referenced on a label, 

5741 users must comply with all of its requirements, except those that are inconsistent with product5742 specific instructions on the pesticide product labeling, except as provided for in §§ 170.601, 

5743 170.603 and 170.607. 

5744 (b) A person who has a duty under this part, as referenced on the pesticide product 

5745 labeling, and who fails to perform that duty, violates FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) and is subject to 

5746 a civil penalty under section 14. A person who knowingly violates section 12(a)(2)(G) is subject 

5747 to section 14 criminal sanctions. 

5748 (c) FIFRA section 14(b)(4) provides that a person is liable for a penalty under FIFRA if 

5749 another person employed by or acting for that person violates any provision of FIFRA. The term 

5750 "acting for" includes both employment and contractual relationships, including, but not limited 

5751 to, labor contractors.

5752 (d) The requirements of this part, including the decontamination requirements, must not, 

5753 for the purposes of section 653(b)(1) of Title 29 of the U.S. Code, be deemed to be the exercise 

5754 of statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting the general 

5755 sanitary hazards addressed by the OSHA Field Sanitation Standard, 29 CFR 1928.110, or other 

5756 agricultural non-pesticide hazards.

5757 8. Subpart E is added to part 170 to read as follows:

5758 Subpart E – Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 243 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5759 Sec. 

5760 § 170.401 Training requirements for workers.

5761 § 170.403 Establishment-specific information for workers.

5762 § 170.405 Entry restrictions associated with pesticide applications.

5763 § 170.407 Worker entry restrictions after pesticide applications.

5764 § 170.409 Oral and posted notification of worker entry restrictions.

5765 § 170.411 Decontamination supplies for workers.

5766 § 170.401 Training requirements for workers.

5767 (a) General requirement. Before any worker performs any task in a treated area on an 

5768 agricultural establishment where within the last 30 days a pesticide product has been used or a 

5769 restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been in effect, the agricultural employer must 

5770 ensure that each worker has been trained in accordance with this section within the last 12 

5771 months, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

5772 (b) Exceptions. The following workers need not be trained under this section:

5773 (1) A worker who is currently certified as an applicator of restricted use pesticides under 

5774 part 171 of this chapter.

5775 (2) A worker who has satisfied the handler training requirements in § 170.501.

5776 (3) A worker who is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged as

5777 appropriate in writing by EPA or the State or Tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

5778 enforcement, provided that such certification or licensing requires pesticide safety training that 

5779 includes all the topics in § 170.501(c)(2) or § 170.501(c)(3) as applicable depending on the date 

5780 of training.

5781 (c) Training programs. (1) Pesticide safety training must be presented to workers either 

5782 orally from written materials or audio-visually, at a location that is reasonably free from 

5783 distraction and conducive to training. All training materials must be EPA-approved. The training 

5784 must be presented in a manner that the workers can understand, such as through a translator. The 

5785 training must be conducted by a person who meets the worker trainer requirements of paragraph 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 244 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5786 (c)(4) of this section, and who must be present during the entire training program and must 

5787 respond to workers’ questions. 

5788 (2) The training must include, at a minimum, all of the following topics:

5789 (i) Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work activities.

5790 (ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, including acute and 

5791 chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.

5792 (iii) Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.

5793 (iv) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.

5794 (v) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.

5795 (vi) How to obtain emergency medical care.

5796 (vii) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye 

5797 flushing techniques.

5798 (viii) Hazards from chemigation and drift.

5799 (ix) Hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.

5800 (x) Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home.

5801 (xi) Requirements of this subpart designed to reduce the risks of illness or injury resulting 

5802 from workers' occupational exposure to pesticides, including application and entry restrictions, 

5803 the design of the warning sign, posting of warning signs, oral warnings, the availability of 

5804 specific information about applications, and the protection against retaliatory acts.

5805 (3) EPA intends to make available to the public training materials that may be used to 

5806 conduct training conforming to the requirements of this section. Within 180 days after a notice 

5807 of availability of such training materials appears in the Federal Register, but no earlier than 

5808 [insert date two years and 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register], training 

5809 programs required under this section must include, at a minimum, all of the topics listed in § 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 245 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5810 170.401(c)(3)(i)-(xxiii) instead of the topics listed in § 170.401(c)(2)(i)-(xi).

5811 (i) The responsibility of agricultural employers to provide workers and handlers with 

5812 information and protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. 

5813 This includes ensuring workers and handlers have been trained on pesticide safety, providing 

5814 pesticide safety and application and hazard information, decontamination supplies and 

5815 emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of restrictions during applications and on

5816 entering pesticide treated areas. A worker or handler may designate in writing a representative to 

5817 request access to pesticide application and hazard information.

5818 (ii) How to recognize and understand the meaning of the posted warning signs used for 

5819 notifying workers of restrictions on entering pesticide treated areas on the establishment. 

5820 (iii) How to follow directions and/or signs about keeping out of pesticide treated areas 

5821 subject to a restricted-entry interval and application exclusion zones.

5822 (iv) Where and in what forms pesticides may be encountered during work activities, and 

5823 potential sources of pesticide exposure on the agricultural establishment. This includes exposure 

5824 to pesticide residues that may be on or in plants, soil, tractors, application and chemigation 

5825 equipment, or used personal protective equipment, and that pesticides may drift through the air 

5826 from nearby applications or be in irrigation water. 

5827 (v) Potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides present to workers and

5828 their families, including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.

5829 (vi) Routes through which pesticides can enter the body.

5830 (vii) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.

5831 (viii) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 

5832 (ix) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye 

5833 flushing techniques, and if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body to use decontamination 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 246 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5834 supplies to wash immediately or rinse off in the nearest clean water, including springs, streams, 

5835 lakes or other sources if more readily available than decontamination supplies, and as soon as 

5836 possible, wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes.

5837 (x) How and when to obtain emergency medical care.

5838 (xi) When working in pesticide treated areas, wear work clothing that protects the body 

5839 from pesticide residues and wash hands before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, 

5840 or using the toilet.

5841 (xii) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes 

5842 as soon as possible after working in pesticide treated areas.

5843 (xiii) Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing.

5844 (xiv) Wash work clothes before wearing them again and wash them separately from other 

5845 clothes. 

5846 (xv) Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at work to your home.

5847 (xvi) Safety data sheets provide hazard, emergency medical treatment and other 

5848 information about the pesticides used on the establishment they may come in contact with.

5849 The responsibility of agricultural employers to do all of the following:

5850 (A) Display safety data sheets for all pesticides used on the establishment.

5851 (B) Provide workers and handlers information about the location of the safety data sheets 

5852 on the establishment.

5853 (C) Provide workers and handlers unimpeded access to safety data sheets during normal 

5854 work hours.

5855 (xvii) The rule prohibits agricultural employers from allowing or directing any worker to 

5856 mix, load or apply pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been 

5857 trained as a handler.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 247 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5858 (xviii) The responsibility of agricultural employers to provide specific information to 

5859 workers before directing them to perform early-entry activities. Workers must be 18 years old to 

5860 perform early-entry activities. 

5861 (xix) Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure.

5862 (xx) Keep children and nonworking family members away from pesticide treated areas.

5863 (xxi) After working in pesticide treated areas, remove work boots or shoes before 

5864 entering your home, and remove work clothes and wash or shower before physical contact with 

5865 children or family members. 

5866 (xxii) How to report suspected pesticide use violations to the State or Tribal agency 

5867 responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

5868 (xxiii) The rule prohibits agricultural employers from intimidating, threatening, coercing, 

5869 or discriminating against any worker or handler for complying with or attempting to comply with 

5870 the requirements of this rule, or because the worker or handler provided, caused to be provided 

5871 or is about to provide information to the employer or the EPA or its agents regarding conduct 

5872 that the employee reasonably believes violates this part, and/or made a complaint, testified, 

5873 assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing concerning 

5874 compliance with this rule. 

5875 (4) The person who conducts the training must meet one of the following criteria: 

5876 (i) Be designated as a trainer of certified applicators, handlers or workers by EPA or the 

5877 State or Tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

5878 (ii) Have completed an EPA-approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer program for 

5879 trainers of workers. 

5880 (iii) Be currently certified as an applicator of restricted use pesticides under part 171 of 

5881 this chapter.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 248 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5882 (d) Recordkeeping. (1) For each worker required to be trained under paragraph (a), the 

5883 agricultural employer must maintain on the agricultural establishment, for two years from the 

5884 date of the training, a record documenting each worker’s training including all of the following:

5885 (i) The trained worker’s printed name and signature.

5886 (ii) The date of the training.

5887 (iii) Information identifying which EPA-approved training materials were used.

5888 (iv) The trainer’s name and documentation showing that the trainer met the requirements 

5889 of § 170.401(c)(4) at the time of training. 

5890 (v) The agricultural employer’s name.

5891 (2) An agricultural employer who provides, directly or indirectly, training required under 

5892 paragraph (a) must provide to the worker upon request a copy of the record of the training that 

5893 contains the information required under § 170.401(d)(1).

5894 § 170.403 Establishment-specific information for workers.

5895 Before any worker performs any activity in a treated area on an agricultural establishment 

5896 where within the last 30 days a pesticide product has been used, or a restricted-entry interval for 

5897 such pesticide has been in effect, the agricultural employer must ensure that the worker has been 

5898 informed of, in a manner the worker can understand, all of the following establishment-specific 

5899 information: 

5900 (a) The location of pesticide safety information required by § 170.311(a).

5901 (b) The location of pesticide application and hazard information required by § 

5902 170.311(b).

5903 (c) The location of decontamination supplies required by § 170.411.

5904 § 170.405 Entry restrictions associated with pesticide applications.

5905 (a) Outdoor production pesticide applications. (1) The application exclusion zone is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 249 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5906 defined as follows:

5907 (i) The application exclusion zone is the area that extends 100 feet horizontally from the 

5908 application equipment in all directions during application when the pesticide is applied by any of 

5909 the following methods:

5910 (A) Aerially.

5911 (B) Air blast application.

5912 (C) As a spray using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of smaller than medium (volume 

5913 median diameter of less than 294 microns). 

5914 (D) As a fumigant, smoke, mist, or fog.

5915 (ii) The application exclusion zone is the area that extends 25 feet horizontally from the 

5916 application equipment in all directions during application when the pesticide is applied not as in 

5917 § 170.405(a)(1)(i)(A)-(D) and is sprayed from a height of greater than 12 inches from the 

5918 planting medium using a spray quality (droplet spectrum) of medium or larger (volume median 

5919 diameter of 294 microns or greater).

5920 (iii) There is no application exclusion zone when the pesticide is applied in a manner 

5921 other than those covered in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

5922 (2) During any outdoor production pesticide application, the agricultural employer must 

5923 not allow or direct any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped 

5924 handler involved in the application, to enter or to remain in the treated area or an application 

5925 exclusion zone that is within the boundaries of the establishment until the application is 

5926 complete.

5927 (3) After the application is complete, the area subject to the labeling-specified restricted5928 entry interval and the post-application entry restrictions specified in § 170.407 is the treated area.

5929 (b) Enclosed space production pesticide applications. (1) During any enclosed space 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 250 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5930 production pesticide application described in column A of the Table under paragraph (b)(4) of 

5931 this section, the agricultural employer must not allow or direct any worker or other person, other 

5932 than an appropriately trained and equipped handler involved in the application, to enter or to 

5933 remain in the area specified in column B of the Table under paragraph (b)(4) of this section

5934 during the application and until the time specified in column C of the Table under paragraph 

5935 (b)(4) of this section has expired. 

5936 (2) After the time specified in column C of the Table under paragraph (b)(4) of this 

5937 section has expired, the area subject to the labeling-specified restricted-entry interval and the 

5938 post-application entry restrictions specified in § 170.407 is the area specified in column D of the 

5939 Table under paragraph (b)(4) of this section.

5940 (3) When column C of the Table under paragraph (b)(4) of this section specifies that 

5941 ventilation criteria must be met, ventilation must continue until the air concentration is measured 

5942 to be equal to or less than the inhalation exposure level required by the labeling. If no inhalation 

5943 exposure level is listed on the labeling, ventilation must continue until after one of the following 

5944 conditions is met: 

5945 (i) Ten air exchanges are completed.

5946 (ii) Two hours of ventilation using fans or other mechanical ventilating systems.

5947 (iii) Four hours of ventilation using vents, windows, or other passive ventilation. 

5948 (iv) Eleven hours with no ventilation followed by one hour of mechanical ventilation.

5949 (v) Eleven hours with no ventilation followed by two hours of passive ventilation.

5950 (vi) Twenty-four hours with no ventilation.

5951 (4) The following Table applies to paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this section. 

5952 Table – Entry Restrictions During Enclosed Space Production Pesticide Applications

A. When a B. Workers and C. Until: D. After the expiration 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 251 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

pesticide is applied: other persons, other 

than appropriately 

trained and equipped 

handlers, are 

prohibited in:

of time specified in 

column C, the area 

subject to the 

restricted-entry 

interval is:

(1) As a fumigant. Entire enclosed space 

plus any adjacent 

structure or area that 

cannot be sealed off 

from the treated area.

The ventilation 

criteria of paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section 

are met.

No post-application 

entry restrictions 

required by § 170.407 

after criteria in column 

C are met.

(2) As a

(i) Smoke, or

(ii) Mist, or

(iii) Fog, or

(iv) As a spray using 

a spray quality 

(droplet spectrum) 

of smaller than 

medium (volume 

median diameter of 

less than 294 

microns).

Entire enclosed space. The ventilation 

criteria of paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section 

are met.

Entire enclosed space.

(3) Not as in (1) or 

(2), and for which a 

respiratory 

protection device is 

required for 

application by the 

pesticide product 

labeling.

Entire enclosed space. The ventilation 

criteria of paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section 

are met.

Treated area.

(4) Not as in (1), (2) 

or (3), and:

(i) From a height of 

greater than 12 

inches from the 

planting medium, or 

(ii) As a spray using 

a spray quality 

(droplet spectrum) 

of medium or larger 

(volume median 

diameter of 294 

microns or greater).

Treated area plus 25 

feet in all directions of 

the treated area, but 

not outside the 

enclosed space.

Application is 

complete.

Treated area.

(5) Otherwise. Treated area. Application is 

complete.

Treated area.

5953
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 252 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5954 § 170.407 Worker entry restrictions after pesticide applications.

5955 (a) After the application of any pesticide to an area of outdoor production, the agricultural 

5956 employer must not allow or direct any worker to enter or to remain in the treated area before the 

5957 restricted-entry interval specified on the pesticide product labeling has expired and all treated 

5958 area warning signs have been removed or covered, except for early-entry activities permitted by 

5959 § 170.603.

5960 (b) After the application of any pesticide to an area of enclosed space production, the 

5961 agricultural employer must not allow or direct any worker to enter or to remain in the areas 

5962 specified in column D in Table one under § 170.405(b)(4), before the restricted-entry interval 

5963 specified on the pesticide product labeling has expired and all treated area warning signs have 

5964 been removed or covered, except for early-entry activities permitted by § 170.603.

5965 (c) When two or more pesticides are applied to a treated area at the same time, the 

5966 applicable restricted-entry interval is the longest of all applicable restricted-entry intervals.

5967 § 170.409 Oral and posted notification of worker entry restrictions.

5968 (a) General Requirement. The agricultural employer must notify workers of all entry 

5969 restrictions required by §§ 170.405 and 170.407 in accordance with this section. 

5970 (1) Type of notification required -- (i) Double notification. If the pesticide product 

5971 labeling has a statement requiring both the posting of treated areas and oral notification to 

5972 workers, the agricultural employer must post signs in accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

5973 section and must also provide oral notification of the application to workers in accordance with 

5974 paragraph (c) of this section. 

5975 (ii) Outdoor production areas subject to restricted-entry intervals greater than 48 hours. 

5976 If a pesticide with product labeling that requires a restricted-entry interval greater than 48 hours 

5977 is applied to an outdoor production area, the agricultural employer must notify workers of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 253 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

5978 application by posting warning signs in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.

5979 (iii) Outdoor production areas subject to restricted-entry intervals equal to or less than 

5980 48 hours. If a pesticide with product labeling that requires a restricted-entry interval equal to or 

5981 less than 48 hours is applied to an outdoor production area, the agricultural employer must notify 

5982 workers of the application either by posting warning signs in accordance with paragraph (b) of 

5983 this section or by providing workers with an oral warning in accordance with paragraph (c) of 

5984 this section. 

5985 (iv) Enclosed space production areas subject to restricted-entry intervals greater than 

5986 four hours. If a pesticide with product labeling that requires a restricted-entry interval greater 

5987 than four hours is applied to an enclosed space production area, the agricultural employer must 

5988 notify workers of the application by posting warning signs in accordance with paragraph (b) of 

5989 this section.

5990 (v) Enclosed space production areas subject to restricted-entry intervals equal to or less 

5991 than four hours. If a pesticide with product labeling that requires a restricted-entry interval equal 

5992 to or less than four hours is applied to an enclosed space production area, the agricultural 

5993 employer must notify workers of the application either by posting warning signs in accordance 

5994 with paragraph (b) of this section or by providing workers with an oral warning in accordance 

5995 with paragraph (c) of this section. 

5996 (2) Exceptions. Notification does not need to be given to a worker if the agricultural 

5997 employer can ensure that one of the following is met: 

5998 (i) From the start of the application in an enclosed space production area until the end of 

5999 any restricted-entry interval, the worker will not enter any part of the entire enclosed structure or 

6000 space. 

6001 (ii) From the start of the application to an outdoor production area until the end of any 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 254 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6002 restricted-entry interval, the worker will not enter, work in, remain in, or pass on foot through the 

6003 treated area or any area within 1/4 mile of the treated area on the agricultural establishment.

6004 (iii) The worker was involved in the application of the pesticide as a handler, and is 

6005 aware of all information required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

6006 (b) Requirements for posted warning signs. If notification by posted warning signs is 

6007 required pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the agricultural employer must, unless 

6008 otherwise prescribed by the label, ensure that all warning signs meet the requirements of this 

6009 paragraph. When several contiguous areas are to be treated with pesticides on a rotating or 

6010 sequential basis, the entire area may be posted. Worker entry is prohibited for the entire area 

6011 while the signs are posted, except for entry permitted by § 170.603 of this part. 

6012 (1) General. The warning signs must meet all of the following requirements:

6013 (i) Be one of the three sizes specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and comply with 

6014 the posting placement and spacing requirements applicable to that sign size. 

6015 (ii) Be posted prior to but no earlier than 24 hours before the scheduled application of the 

6016 pesticide. 

6017 (iii) Remain posted throughout the application and any restricted-entry interval. 

6018 (iv) Be removed or covered within three days after the end of the application or any 

6019 restricted-entry interval, whichever is later, except that signs may remain posted after the 

6020 restricted-entry interval has expired as long as all of the following conditions are met: 

6021 (A) The agricultural employer instructs any workers on the establishment that may come 

6022 within 1/4 mile of the treated area not to enter that treated area while the signs are posted.

6023 (B) The agricultural employer ensures that workers do not enter the treated area while the 

6024 signs remain posted, other than entry permitted by § 170.603 of this part. 

6025 (v) Remain visible and legible during the time they are required to be posted. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 255 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6026 (2) Content. (i) The warning sign must have a white background. The words "DANGER" 

6027 and "PELIGRO," plus "PESTICIDES" and "PESTICIDAS," must be at the top of the sign, and 

6028 the words “KEEP OUT” and “NO ENTRE” must be at the bottom of the sign. Letters for all 

6029 words must be clearly legible. A circle containing an upraised hand on the left and a stern face 

6030 on the right must be near the center of the sign. The inside of the circle must be red, except that 

6031 the hand and a large portion of the face must be in white. The length of the hand must be at least 

6032 twice the height of the smallest letters. The length of the face must be only slightly smaller than 

6033 the hand. Additional information such as the name of the pesticide and the date of application 

6034 may appear on the warning sign if it does not detract from the size and appearance of the sign or 

6035 change the meaning of the required information. An example of a warning sign meeting these 

6036 requirements, other than the size and color requirements, follows:

6037 

6038 (ii) The agricultural employer may replace the Spanish language portion of the warning 

6039 sign with equivalent terms in an alternative non-English language if that alternative language is 

6040 the language read by the largest group of workers at that agricultural establishment who do not 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 256 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6041 read English. The alternative language sign must be in the same format as the original sign and 

6042 conform to all other requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.

6043 (3) Size and posting. (i) The standard sign must be at least 14 inches by 16 inches with 

6044 letters at least one inch in height. 

6045 (ii) When posting an outdoor production area using the standard sign, the signs must be 

6046 visible from all reasonably expected points of worker entry to the treated area, including at least 

6047 each access road, each border with any worker housing area within 100 feet of the treated area 

6048 and each footpath and other walking route that enters the treated area. Where there are no 

6049 reasonably expected points of worker entry, signs must be posted in the corners of the treated 

6050 area or in any other location affording maximum visibility. 

6051 (iii) When posting an enclosed space production area using the standard sign and the 

6052 entire structure or space is subject to the labeling-specified restricted-entry interval and the post6053 application entry restrictions specified in § 170.407, the signs must be posted so they are visible 

6054 from all reasonably expected points of worker entry to the structure or space. When posting 

6055 treated areas in enclosed space production using the standard sign and the treated area only 

6056 comprises a subsection of the structure or space, the signs must be posted so they are visible 

6057 from all reasonably expected points of worker entry to the treated area including each aisle or 

6058 other walking route that enters the treated area. Where there are no reasonably expected points of 

6059 worker entry to the treated area, signs must be posted in the corners of the treated area or in any 

6060 other location affording maximum visibility. 

6061 (iv) If a smaller warning sign is used with “DANGER” and “PELIGRO” in letters at least 

6062 7/8 inch in height and the remaining letters at least 1/2 inch in height and a red circle at least 

6063 three inches in diameter containing an upraised hand and a stern face, the signs must be posted 

6064 no farther than 50 feet apart around the perimeter of the treated area in addition to the locations 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 257 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6065 specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this section.

6066 (v) If a smaller sign is used with “DANGER” and “PELIGRO” in letters at least 7/16 

6067 inch in height and the remaining letters at least 1/4 inch in height and a red circle at least one and 

6068 a half inches in diameter containing an upraised hand and a stern face, the signs must be posted 

6069 no farther than 25 feet apart around the perimeter of the treated area in addition to the locations 

6070 specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this section. 

6071 (vi) A sign with “DANGER” and “PELIGRO” in letters less than 7/16 inch in height or 

6072 with any words in letters less than 1/4 inch in height or a red circle smaller than one and a half 

6073 inches in diameter containing an upraised hand and a stern face will not satisfy the requirements 

6074 of the rule. 

6075 (c) Oral warnings -- (1) Requirement. If oral notification is required pursuant to 

6076 paragraph (a) of this section, the agricultural employer must provide oral warnings to workers in 

6077 a manner that the workers can understand. If a worker will be on the establishment when an 

6078 application begins, the warning must be given before the application begins. If a worker arrives 

6079 on the establishment while an application is taking place or a restricted-entry interval for a 

6080 pesticide application is in effect, the warning must be given at the beginning of the worker's 

6081 work period. The warning must include all of the following: 

6082 (i) The location(s) and description of any treated area(s) subject to the entry restrictions 

6083 during and after application specified in §§ 170.405 and 170.407.

6084 (ii) The dates and times during which entry is restricted in any treated area(s) subject to 

6085 the entry restrictions during and after application specified in §§ 170.405 and 170.407.

6086 (iii) Instructions not to enter the treated area or an application exclusion zone during 

6087 application, and that entry to the treated area is not allowed until the restricted-entry interval has 

6088 expired and all treated area warning signs have been removed or covered, except for entry 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 258 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6089 permitted by § 170.603 of this part. 

6090 § 170.411 Decontamination supplies for workers.

6091 (a) Requirement. The agricultural employer must provide decontamination supplies for 

6092 routine washing and emergency decontamination in accordance with this section for any worker 

6093 on an agricultural establishment who is performing an activity in an area where a pesticide was 

6094 applied and who contacts anything that has been treated with the pesticide, including, but not 

6095 limited to, soil, water, and plants.

6096 (b) Materials and quantities. The decontamination supplies required in paragraph (a) of 

6097 this section must include at least 1gallon of water per worker at the beginning of each worker’s 

6098 work period for routine washing and emergency decontamination, soap, and single-use towels. 

6099 The supplies must meet all of the following requirements:

6100 (1) Water. At all times when this part requires agricultural employers to make water 

6101 available to workers, the agricultural employer must ensure that it is of a quality and temperature 

6102 that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. If a 

6103 water source is used for mixing pesticides, it must not be used for decontamination, unless 

6104 equipped with properly functioning valves or other mechanisms that prevent contamination of 

6105 the water with pesticides, such as anti-backflow siphons, one-way or check valves, or an air gap 

6106 sufficient to prevent contamination.

6107 (2) Soap and single-use towels. The agricultural employer must provide soap and single6108 use towels for drying in quantities sufficient to meet the workers' reasonable needs. Hand 

6109 sanitizing gels and liquids or wet towelettes do not meet the requirement for soap. Wet towelettes 

6110 do not meet the requirement for single-use towels.

6111 (c) Timing. (1) If any pesticide with a restricted-entry interval greater than four hours was 

6112 applied, the decontamination supplies must be provided from the time workers first enter the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 259 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6113 treated area until at least 30 days after the restricted-entry interval expires.

6114 (2) If the only pesticides applied in the treated area are products with restricted-entry 

6115 intervals of four hours or less, the decontamination supplies must be provided from the time 

6116 workers first enter the treated area until at least seven days after the restricted-entry interval 

6117 expires.

6118 (d) Location. The decontamination supplies must be located together outside any treated 

6119 area or area subject to a restricted-entry interval, and must be reasonably accessible to the 

6120 workers. The decontamination supplies must not be more than 1/4 mile from where workers are 

6121 working, except that where workers are working more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of 

6122 vehicular access or more than 1/4 mile from any non-treated area, the decontamination supplies 

6123 may be at the nearest place of vehicular access outside any treated area or area subject to a 

6124 restricted-entry interval.

6125 9. Subpart F is added to part 170 to read as follows:

6126 Subpart F – Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Pesticide Handlers

6127 Sec.

6128 § 170.501 Training requirements for handlers. 

6129 § 170.503 Knowledge of labeling, application-specific, and establishment-specific information 

6130 for handlers. 

6131 § 170.505 Requirements during applications to protect handlers, workers, and other persons.

6132 § 170.507 Personal protective equipment. 

6133 § 170.509 Decontamination and eye flushing supplies for handlers.

6134 § 170.501 Training requirements for handlers.

6135 (a) General requirement. Before any handler performs any handler activity involving a 

6136 pesticide product, the handler employer must ensure that the handler has been trained in 

6137 accordance with this section within the last 12 months, except as provided in paragraph (b) of 

6138 this section.

6139 (b) Exceptions. The following handlers need not be trained under this section: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 260 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6140 (1) A handler who is currently certified as an applicator of restricted use pesticides under 

6141 part 171 of this chapter. 

6142 (2) A handler who is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged 

6143 as appropriate in writing by EPA or the State or Tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

6144 enforcement, provided that a requirement for such certification or licensing is pesticide safety 

6145 training that includes all the topics set out in § 170.501(c)(2) or § 170.501(c)(3) as applicable 

6146 depending on the date of training. 

6147 (c) Training programs. (1) Pesticide safety training must be presented to handlers either 

6148 orally from written materials or audio-visually, at a location that is reasonably free from 

6149 distraction and conducive to training. All training materials must be EPA-approved. The training 

6150 must be presented in a manner that the handlers can understand, such as through a translator. The 

6151 training must be conducted by a person who meets the handler trainer requirements of paragraph 

6152 (c)(4) of this section, and who must be present during the entire training program and must 

6153 respond to handlers’ questions. 

6154 (2) The pesticide safety training materials must include, at a minimum, all of the 

6155 following topics:

6156 (i) Format and meaning of information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling, 

6157 including safety information such as precautionary statements about human health hazards.

6158 (ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, including acute and 

6159 chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization.

6160 (iii) Routes by which pesticides can enter the body.

6161 (iv) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning.

6162 (v) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings.

6163 (vi) How to obtain emergency medical care.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 261 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6164 (vii) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures.

6165 (viii) Need for and appropriate use of personal protective equipment.

6166 (ix) Prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of heat-related illness.

6167 (x) Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, 

6168 including general procedures for spill cleanup.

6169 (xi) Environmental concerns such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards.

6170 (xii) Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home.

6171 (xiii) Requirements of this subpart that must be followed by handler employers for the 

6172 protection of handlers and other persons, including the prohibition against applying pesticides in 

6173 a manner that will cause contact with workers or other persons, the requirement to use personal 

6174 protective equipment, the provisions for training and decontamination, and the protection against 

6175 retaliatory acts.

6176 (3) EPA intends to make available to the public training materials that may be used to 

6177 conduct training conforming to the requirements of this section. Within 180 days after a notice 

6178 of availability of such training materials appears in the Federal Register, but no earlier than 

6179 [insert date two years and 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register], training 

6180 programs required under this section must include, at a minimum, all of the topics listed in § 

6181 170.501(c)(3)(i)-(xiv) instead of the points listed in § 170.501(c)(2)(i)-(xiii).

6182 (i) All the topics required by § 170.401(c)(3).

6183 (ii) Information on proper application and use of pesticides.

6184 (iii) Handlers must follow the portions of the labeling applicable to the safe use of the 

6185 pesticide.

6186 (iv) Format and meaning of information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling 

6187 applicable to the safe use of the pesticide. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 262 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6188 (v) Need for and appropriate use and removal of all personal protective equipment. 

6189 (vi) How to recognize, prevent, and provide first aid treatment for heat-related illness. 

6190 (vii) Safety requirements for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, 

6191 including general procedures for spill cleanup. 

6192 (viii) Environmental concerns, such as drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

6193 (ix) Handlers must not apply pesticides in a manner that results in contact with workers 

6194 or other persons.

6195 (x) The responsibility of handler employers to provide handlers with information and 

6196 protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes 

6197 providing, cleaning, maintaining, storing, and ensuring proper use of all required personal 

6198 protective equipment; providing decontamination supplies; and providing specific information 

6199 about pesticide use and labeling information.

6200 (xi) Handlers must suspend a pesticide application if workers or other persons are in the 

6201 application exclusion zone.

6202 (xii) Handlers must be at least 18 years old.

6203 (xiii) The responsibility of handler employers to ensure handlers have received respirator 

6204 fit-testing, training and medical evaluation if they are required to wear a respirator by the product 

6205 labeling.

6206 (xiv) The responsibility of agricultural employers to post treated areas as required by this 

6207 rule.

6208 (4) The person who conducts the training must have one of the following qualifications: 

6209 (i) Be designated as a trainer of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by EPA or the 

6210 State or Tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement.

6211 (ii) Have completed an EPA-approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer program for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 263 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6212 trainers of handlers. 

6213 (iii) Be currently certified as an applicator of restricted use pesticides under part 171 of 

6214 this chapter. 

6215 (d) Recordkeeping. (1) Handler employers must maintain records of training for handlers 

6216 employed by their establishment for two years after the date of the training. The records must be 

6217 maintained on the establishment and must include all of the following information:

6218 (i) The trained handler’s printed name and signature.

6219 (ii) The date of the training.

6220 (iii) Information identifying which EPA-approved training materials were used.

6221 (iv) The trainer’s name and documentation showing that the trainer met the requirements 

6222 of § 170.501(c)(4) at the time of training.

6223 (v) The handler employer’s name. 

6224 (2) The handler employer must, upon request by a handler trained on the establishment,

6225 provide to the handler a copy of the record of the training that contains the information required 

6226 under § 170.501(d)(1).

6227 § 170.503 Knowledge of labeling, application-specific, and establishment-specific 

6228 information for handlers. 

6229 (a) Knowledge of labeling and application-specific information. (1) The handler 

6230 employer must ensure that before any handler performs any handler activity involving a pesticide 

6231 product, the handler either has read the portions of the labeling applicable to the safe use of the 

6232 pesticide or has been informed in a manner the handler can understand of all labeling 

6233 requirements and use directions applicable to the safe use of the pesticide. 

6234 (2) The handler employer must ensure that the handler has access to the applicable 

6235 product labeling at all times during handler activities. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 264 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6236 (3) The handler employer must ensure that the handler is aware of requirements for any 

6237 entry restrictions, application exclusion zones and restricted-entry intervals as described in §§ 

6238 170.405 and 170.407 that may apply based on the handler’s activity.

6239 (b) Knowledge of establishment-specific information. Before any handler performs any 

6240 handler activity on an agricultural establishment where within the last 30 days a pesticide 

6241 product has been used, or a restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been in effect, the 

6242 handler employer must ensure that the handler has been informed, in a manner the handler can 

6243 understand, all of the following establishment-specific information:

6244 (1) The location of pesticide safety information required by § 170.311(a).

6245 (2) The location of pesticide application and hazard information required by § 

6246 170.311(b).

6247 (3) The location of decontamination supplies required by § 170.509.

6248 § 170.505 Requirements during applications to protect handlers, workers, and other 

6249 persons.

6250 (a) Prohibition from contacting workers and other persons with pesticides during 

6251 application. The handler employer and the handler must ensure that no pesticide is applied so as 

6252 to contact, directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately 

6253 trained and equipped handler involved in the application. 

6254 (b) Suspending applications. After [insert date two years and 60 days after the date of 

6255 publication in the Federal Register], the handler performing the application must immediately 

6256 suspend a pesticide application if any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained 

6257 and equipped handler involved in the application, is in the application exclusion zone described 

6258 in § 170.405(a)(1) or the area specified in column B of the Table in § 170.405(b)(4). 

6259 (c) Handlers using highly toxic pesticides. The handler employer must ensure that any 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 265 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6260 handler who is performing any handler activity with a pesticide product that has the skull-and6261 crossbones symbol on the front panel of the pesticide product label is monitored visually or by 

6262 voice communication at least every two hours.

6263 (d) Fumigant applications in enclosed space production. The handler employer must 

6264 ensure all of the following:

6265 (1) Any handler in an enclosed space production area during a fumigant application 

6266 maintains continuous visual or voice contact with another handler stationed immediately outside 

6267 of the enclosed space. 

6268 (2) The handler stationed outside the enclosed space has immediate access to and uses the 

6269 personal protective equipment required by the fumigant labeling for applicators in the event that 

6270 entry becomes necessary for rescue.

6271 § 170.507 Personal protective equipment. 

6272 (a) Handler responsibilities. Any person who performs handler activities involving a 

6273 pesticide product must use the clothing and personal protective equipment specified on the 

6274 pesticide product labeling for use of the product, except as provided in § 170.607 of this part. 

6275 (b) Employer responsibilities for providing personal protective equipment. The handler 

6276 employer must provide to the handler the personal protective equipment required by the pesticide 

6277 product labeling in accordance with this section. The handler employer must ensure that the 

6278 personal protective equipment is clean and in proper operating condition. For the purposes of this 

6279 section, long-sleeved shirts, short-sleeved shirts, long pants, short pants, shoes, and socks are not 

6280 considered personal protective equipment, although such work clothing must be worn if required 

6281 by the pesticide product labeling. 

6282 (1) If the pesticide product labeling requires that "chemical-resistant" personal protective 

6283 equipment be worn, it must be made of material that allows no measurable movement of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 266 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6284 pesticide being used through the material during use. 

6285 (2) If the pesticide product labeling requires that "waterproof" personal protective 

6286 equipment be worn, it must be made of material that allows no measurable movement of water or 

6287 aqueous solutions through the material during use.

6288 (3) If the pesticide product labeling requires that a "chemical-resistant suit" be worn, it 

6289 must be a loose-fitting, one- or two-piece chemical-resistant garment that covers, at a minimum, 

6290 the entire body except head, hands, and feet. 

6291 (4) If the pesticide product labeling requires that "coveralls" be worn, they must be loose6292 fitting, one- or two-piece garments that cover, at a minimum, the entire body except head, hands, 

6293 and feet. 

6294 (5) Gloves must be the type specified on the pesticide product labeling.

6295 (i) Gloves made of leather, cotton, or other absorbent materials may not be worn while 

6296 performing handler activities unless gloves made of these materials are listed as acceptable for 

6297 such use on the pesticide product labeling.

6298 (ii) Separable glove liners may be worn beneath chemical-resistant gloves, unless the 

6299 pesticide product labeling specifically prohibits their use. Separable glove liners are defined as 

6300 separate glove-like hand coverings, made of lightweight material, with or without fingers. Work 

6301 gloves made from lightweight cotton or poly-type material are considered to be glove liners if 

6302 worn beneath chemical-resistant gloves. Separable glove liners may not extend outside the 

6303 chemical-resistant gloves under which they are worn. Chemical-resistant gloves with non6304 separable absorbent lining materials are prohibited.

6305 (iii) If used, separable glove liners must be discarded immediately after a total of no more 

6306 than 10 hours of use or within 24 hours of when first put on, whichever comes first. The liners 

6307 must be replaced immediately if directly contacted by pesticide. Used glove liners must not be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 267 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6308 reused. Contaminated liners must be disposed of in accordance with any Federal, State, or local 

6309 regulations.

6310 (6) If the pesticide product labeling requires that "chemical-resistant footwear" be worn, 

6311 one of the following types of footwear must be worn: 

6312 (i) Chemical-resistant shoes. 

6313 (ii) Chemical-resistant boots. 

6314 (iii) Chemical-resistant shoe coverings worn over shoes or boots. 

6315 (7) If the pesticide product labeling requires that "protective eyewear" be worn, one of the 

6316 following types of eyewear must be worn: 

6317 (i) Goggles. 

6318 (ii) Face shield. 

6319 (iii) Safety glasses with front, brow, and temple protection. 

6320 (iv) Full-face respirator. 

6321 (8) If the pesticide product labeling requires that a "chemical-resistant apron" be worn, a 

6322 chemical-resistant apron that covers the front of the body from mid-chest to the knees must be 

6323 worn. 

6324 (9) If the pesticide product labeling requires that "chemical-resistant headgear" be worn, 

6325 it must be either a chemical-resistant hood or a chemical-resistant hat with a wide brim. 

6326 (10) The respirator specified by the pesticide product labeling must be used. Whenever a 

6327 respirator is required by the pesticide product labeling, the handler employer must ensure that the 

6328 requirements of paragraphs (b)(10)(i) through (iii) of this section are met before the handler 

6329 performs any handler activity where the respirator is required to be worn. The handler employer 

6330 must maintain for two years, on the establishment, records documenting the completion of the 

6331 requirements of paragraphs (b)(10)(i) through (iii) of this section.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 268 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6332 (i) Handler employers must provide handlers with fit testing using the respirator specified 

6333 on the pesticide product labeling in a manner that conforms to the provisions of 29 CFR 

6334 1910.134.

6335 (ii) Handler employers must provide handlers with training in the use of the respirator 

6336 specified on the pesticide product labeling in a manner that conforms to the provisions of 29 

6337 CFR 1910.134(k)(1)(i)-(vi).

6338 (iii) Handler employers must provide handlers with a medical evaluation by a physician 

6339 or other licensed health care professional that conforms to the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134 to 

6340 ensure the handler’s physical ability to safely wear the respirator specified on the pesticide 

6341 product labeling.

6342 (c) Use of personal protective equipment. (1) The handler employer must ensure that 

6343 personal protective equipment is used correctly for its intended purpose and is used according to 

6344 the manufacturer's instructions. 

6345 (2) The handler employer must ensure that, before each day of use, all personal protective 

6346 equipment is inspected for leaks, holes, tears, or worn places, and any damaged equipment is 

6347 repaired or discarded. 

6348 (d) Cleaning and maintenance. (1) The handler employer must ensure that all personal 

6349 protective equipment is cleaned according to the manufacturer's instructions or pesticide product 

6350 labeling instructions before each day of reuse. In the absence of any such instructions, it must be 

6351 washed thoroughly in detergent and hot water. 

6352 (2) If any personal protective equipment cannot or will not be cleaned properly, the 

6353 handler employer must ensure the contaminated personal protective equipment is made unusable 

6354 as apparel or is made unavailable for further use by employees or third parties. The 

6355 contaminated personal protective equipment must be disposed of in accordance with any 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 269 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6356 applicable laws or regulations. Coveralls or other absorbent materials that have been drenched or 

6357 heavily contaminated with a pesticide that has the signal word “DANGER” or “WARNING” on 

6358 the label must not be reused and must be disposed of as specified in this paragraph. Handler 

6359 employers must ensure that any person who handles contaminated personal protective equipment 

6360 described in this paragraph wears the gloves specified on the pesticide product labeling for 

6361 mixing and loading the product(s) comprising the contaminant(s) on the equipment. If two or 

6362 more pesticides are included in the contaminants, the gloves worn must meet the requirements 

6363 for mixing and loading all of the pesticide products. 

6364 (3) The handler employer must ensure that contaminated personal protective equipment is 

6365 kept separate from non-contaminated personal protective equipment, other clothing or laundry 

6366 and washed separately from any other clothing or laundry.

6367 (4) The handler employer must ensure that all washed personal protective equipment is 

6368 dried thoroughly before being stored or reused.

6369 (5) The handler employer must ensure that all clean personal protective equipment is 

6370 stored separately from personal clothing and apart from pesticide-contaminated areas. 

6371 (6) The handler employer must ensure that when filtering facepiece respirators are used, 

6372 they are replaced when one of the following conditions is met: 

6373 (i) When breathing resistance becomes excessive. 

6374 (ii) When the filter element has physical damage or tears. 

6375 (iii) According to manufacturer's recommendations or pesticide product labeling, 

6376 whichever is more frequent.

6377 (iv) In the absence of any other instructions or indications of service life, at the end of 

6378 eight hours of cumulative use. 

6379 (7) The handler employer must ensure that when gas- or vapor-removing respirators are 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 270 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6380 used, the gas- or vapor-removing canisters or cartridges are replaced before further respirator use 

6381 when one of the following conditions is met: 

6382 (i) At the first indication of odor, taste, or irritation. 

6383 (ii) When breathing resistance becomes excessive. 

6384 (iii) When required according to manufacturer's recommendations or pesticide product 

6385 labeling instructions, whichever is more frequent.

6386 (iv) In the absence of any other instructions or indications of service life, at the end of 

6387 eight hours of cumulative use. 

6388 (8) The handler employer must inform any person who cleans or launders personal 

6389 protective equipment of all the following: 

6390 (i) That such equipment may be contaminated with pesticides and there are potentially 

6391 harmful effects from exposure to pesticides.

6392 (ii) The correct way(s) to clean personal protective equipment and how to protect 

6393 themselves when handling such equipment.

6394 (iii) Proper decontamination procedures that should be followed after handling 

6395 contaminated personal protective equipment.

6396 (9) The handler employer must ensure that handlers have a place(s) away from pesticide 

6397 storage and pesticide use areas where they may do all of the following: 

6398 (i) Store personal clothing not worn during handling activities. 

6399 (ii) Put on personal protective equipment at the start of any exposure period. 

6400 (iii) Remove personal protective equipment at the end of any exposure period. 

6401 (10) The handler employer must not allow or direct any handler to wear home or to take 

6402 home employer-provided personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides. 

6403 (e) Heat-related illness. Where a pesticide’s labeling requires the use of personal 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 271 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6404 protective equipment for a handler activity, the handler employer must take appropriate measures 

6405 to prevent heat-related illness.

6406 § 170.509 Decontamination and eye flushing supplies for handlers.

6407 (a) Requirement. The handler employer must provide decontamination and eye flushing 

6408 supplies in accordance with this section for any handler that is performing any handler activity or 

6409 removing personal protective equipment at the place for changing required by § 170.507(d)(9). 

6410 (b) General conditions. The decontamination supplies required in paragraph (a) of this 

6411 section must include: at least three gallons of water per handler at the beginning of each 

6412 handler’s work period for routine washing and potential emergency decontamination; soap; 

6413 single-use towels; and clean clothing for use in an emergency. The decontamination and eye 

6414 flushing supplies required in paragraph (a) of this section must meet all of the following 

6415 requirements:

6416 (1) Water. At all times when this section requires handler employers to make water 

6417 available to handlers for routine washing, emergency decontamination or eye flushing, the 

6418 handler employer must ensure that it is of a quality and temperature that will not cause illness or 

6419 injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. If a water source is used for mixing 

6420 pesticides, it must not be used for decontamination or eye flushing supplies, unless equipped 

6421 with properly functioning valves or other mechanisms that prevent contamination of the water 

6422 with pesticides, such as anti-backflow siphons, one-way or check valves, or an air gap sufficient 

6423 to prevent contamination. 

6424 (2) Soap and single-use towels. The handler employer must provide soap and single-use 

6425 towels for drying in quantities sufficient to meet the handlers' needs. Hand sanitizing gels and 

6426 liquids or wet towelettes do not meet the requirement for soap. Wet towelettes do not meet the 

6427 requirement for single-use towels.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 272 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6428 (3) Clean change of clothing. The handler employer must provide one clean change of 

6429 clothing, such as coveralls, for use in an emergency.

6430 (c) Location. The decontamination supplies must be located together outside any treated 

6431 area or area subject to a restricted-entry interval, and must be reasonably accessible to each 

6432 handler during the handler activity. The decontamination supplies must not be more than 1/4 

6433 mile from the handler, except that where the handler activity is more than 1/4 mile from the 

6434 nearest place of vehicular access or more than 1/4 mile from any non-treated area, the 

6435 decontamination supplies may be at the nearest place of vehicular access outside any treated area 

6436 or area subject to a restricted-entry interval.

6437 (1) Mixing sites. Decontamination supplies must be provided at any mixing site.

6438 (2) Exception for pilots. Decontamination supplies for a pilot who is applying pesticides 

6439 aerially must be in the aircraft or at the aircraft loading site.

6440 (3) Exception for treated areas. The decontamination supplies must be outside any 

6441 treated area or area subject to a restricted-entry interval, unless the soap, single-use towels, water 

6442 and clean change of clothing are protected from pesticide contamination in closed containers.

6443 (d) Emergency eye-flushing. (1) Whenever a handler is mixing or loading a pesticide 

6444 product whose labeling requires protective eyewear for handlers, or is mixing or loading any 

6445 pesticide using a closed system operating under pressure, the handler employer must provide at 

6446 the mixing/loading site immediately available to the handler, a system capable of delivering 

6447 gently running water at a rate of least 0.4 gallons per minute for at least 15 minutes, or at least 

6448 six gallons of water in containers suitable for providing a gentle eye-flush for about 15 minutes.

6449 (2) Whenever a handler is applying a pesticide product whose labeling requires protective 

6450 eyewear for handlers, the handler employer must provide at least one pint of water per handler in 

6451 portable containers that are immediately available to each handler.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 273 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6452 10. Subpart G is added to part 170 to read as follows:

6453 Subpart G – Exemptions, Exceptions and Equivalency

6454 Sec. 

6455 § 170.601 Exemptions.

6456 § 170.603 Exceptions for entry by workers during restricted-entry intervals.

6457 § 170.605 Agricultural employer responsibilities to protect workers entering treated areas during 

6458 a restricted-entry interval.

6459 § 170.607 Exceptions to personal protective equipment requirements specified on pesticide 

6460 product labeling.

6461 § 170.609 Equivalency requests.

6462 § 170.601 Exemptions. 

6463 (a) Exemption for owners of agricultural establishments and their immediate families. (1) 

6464 On any agricultural establishment that is wholly owned by an individual, or where all of the 

6465 owners of the establishment are members of the same immediate family, the owner(s) of the 

6466 establishment are not required to provide the protections of the following provisions to 

6467 themselves or members of their immediate family when they are performing handling activities 

6468 or tasks related to the production of agricultural plants that would otherwise be covered by this 

6469 part on their own agricultural establishment. 

6470 (i) § 170.309(c).

6471 (ii) § 170.309(f) through (j).

6472 (iii) § 170.311.

6473 (iv) § 170.401. 

6474 (v) § 170.403.

6475 (vi) § 170.409.

6476 (vii) § 170.411 and 170.509.

6477 (viii) § 170.501.

6478 (ix) § 170.503.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 274 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6479 (x) § 170.505(c) and (d).

6480 (xi) § 170.507(c) through (e).

6481 (xii) § 170.605(a) through (c) and (e) through (j).

6482 (2) The owners of agricultural establishments must provide all of the applicable 

6483 protections required by this part for any employees or other persons on the establishment that are 

6484 not members of their immediate family.

6485 (b) Exemption for certified crop advisors. Certified crop advisors may make their own 

6486 determination for the appropriate personal protective equipment for entry into a treated area 

6487 during a restricted-entry interval and substitute their self-determined set of personal protective 

6488 equipment for the labeling-required personal protective equipment, and the requirements of §§ 

6489 170.309(e), 170.503(a), 170.507 and 170.509 of this part do not apply to certified crop advisors 

6490 provided the application is complete and all of the following conditions are met:

6491 (1) The crop advisor is certified or licensed as a crop advisor by a program acknowledged 

6492 as appropriate in writing by EPA or a State or Tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

6493 enforcement.

6494 (2) The certification or licensing program requires pesticide safety training that includes 

6495 all the information in § 170.501(c)(2) or § 170.501(c)(3) as applicable depending on the date of 

6496 training. 

6497 (3) The crop advisor who enters a treated area during a restricted-entry interval only 

6498 performs crop advising tasks while in the treated area.

6499 § 170.603 Exceptions for entry by workers during restricted-entry intervals.

6500 An agricultural employer may direct workers to enter treated areas where a restricted6501 entry interval is in effect to perform certain activities as provided in this section, provided that 

6502 the agricultural employer ensures all of the applicable conditions of this section and § 170.605 of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 275 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6503 this part are met. 

6504 (a) Exception for activities with no contact. A worker may enter a treated area during a 

6505 restricted-entry interval if the agricultural employer ensures that all of the following conditions 

6506 are met: 

6507 (1) The worker will have no contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide 

6508 to which the restricted-entry interval applies, including, but not limited to, soil, water, air, or 

6509 surfaces of plants. This exception does not allow workers to perform any activities that involve 

6510 contact with treated surfaces even if workers are wearing personal protective equipment. 

6511 (2) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide 

6512 product labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

6513 pesticide product labeling have been met.

6514 (b) Exception for short-term activities. A worker may enter a treated area during a 

6515 restricted-entry interval for short-term activities, if the agricultural employer ensures that all of 

6516 the following requirements are met: 

6517 (1) No hand labor activity is performed. 

6518 (2) The time in treated areas where a restricted-entry interval is in effect does not exceed 

6519 one hour in any 24-hour period for any worker.

6520 (3) No such entry is allowed during the first 4 hours after the application ends. 

6521 (4) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide 

6522 product labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

6523 pesticide product labeling have been met.

6524 (c) Exception for an agricultural emergency. (1) An agricultural emergency means a 

6525 sudden occurrence or set of circumstances that the agricultural employer could not have 

6526 anticipated and over which the agricultural employer has no control, that requires entry into a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 276 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6527 treated area during a restricted-entry interval, and when no alternative practices would prevent or 

6528 mitigate a substantial economic loss. A substantial economic loss means a loss in profitability 

6529 greater than that which would be expected based on the experience and fluctuations of crop 

6530 yields in previous years. Only losses caused by the agricultural emergency specific to the 

6531 affected site and geographic area are considered. Losses resulting from mismanagement cannot 

6532 be included when determining whether a loss is substantial.

6533 (2) A worker may enter a treated area where a restricted-entry interval is in effect in an 

6534 agricultural emergency to perform tasks necessary to mitigate the effects of the agricultural 

6535 emergency, including hand labor tasks, if the agricultural employer ensures that all the following 

6536 criteria are met: 

6537 (i) The State department of agriculture, or the State or Tribal agency responsible for 

6538 pesticide enforcement declares an agricultural emergency that applies to the treated area, or 

6539 agricultural employer has determined that the circumstances within the treated area are the same 

6540 as circumstances the State department of agriculture, or the State or Tribal agency responsible 

6541 for pesticide enforcement has previously determined would constitute an agricultural emergency. 

6542 (ii) The agricultural employer determines that the agricultural establishment is subject to 

6543 the circumstances that result in an agricultural emergency meeting the criteria of paragraph (c)(1) 

6544 of this section. 

6545 (iii) If the labeling of any pesticide product applied to the treated area requires workers to 

6546 be notified of the location of treated areas by both posting and oral notification, then the 

6547 agricultural employer must ensure that no individual worker spends more than four hours out of 

6548 any 24-hour period in treated areas where such a restricted-entry interval is in effect.

6549 (iv) No such entry is allowed during the first 4 hours after the application ends. 

6550 (v) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 277 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6551 product labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

6552 pesticide product labeling have been met.

6553 (d) Exceptions for limited contact and irrigation activities. A worker may enter a treated 

6554 area during a restricted-entry interval for limited contact or irrigation activities, if the agricultural 

6555 employer ensures that all of the following requirements are met: 

6556 (1) No hand labor activity is performed.

6557 (2) No worker is allowed in the treated area for more than eight hours in a 24-hour 

6558 period.

6559 (3) No such entry is allowed during the first 4 hours after the application ends. 

6560 (4) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide 

6561 product labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

6562 pesticide product labeling have been met.

6563 (5) The task is one that, if not performed before the restricted-entry interval expires, 

6564 would cause substantial economic loss, and there are no alternative tasks that would prevent 

6565 substantial loss. 

6566 (6) With the exception of irrigation tasks, the need for the task could not have been 

6567 foreseen.

6568 (7) The worker has no contact with pesticide-treated surfaces other than minimal contact 

6569 with feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms.

6570 (8) The labeling of the pesticide product that was applied does not require that workers be 

6571 notified of the location of treated areas by both posting and oral notification.

6572 § 170.605 Agricultural employer responsibilities to protect workers entering treated areas 

6573 during a restricted-entry interval.

6574 If an agricultural employer directs a worker to perform activities in a treated area where a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 278 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6575 restricted-entry interval is in effect, all of the following requirements must be met:

6576 (a) The agricultural employer must ensure that the worker is at least 18 years old.

6577 (b) Prior to early entry, the agricultural employer must provide to each early-entry worker 

6578 the information described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section. The information must 

6579 be provided orally in a manner that the worker can understand. 

6580 (1) Location of early-entry area where work activities are to be performed.

6581 (2) Pesticide(s) applied.

6582 (3) Dates and times that the restricted-entry interval begins and ends.

6583 (4) Which exception in § 170.603 is the basis for the early entry, and a description of 

6584 tasks that may be performed under the exception.

6585 (5) Whether contact with treated surfaces is permitted under the exception.

6586 (6) Amount of time the worker is allowed to remain in the treated area.

6587 (7) Personal protective equipment required by the pesticide product labeling for early 

6588 entry.

6589 (8) Location of the pesticide safety information required by § 170.311(a) and the location 

6590 of the decontamination supplies required by § 170.605(h). 

6591 (c) Prior to early entry, the agricultural employer must ensure that each worker either has 

6592 read the applicable pesticide product labeling or has been informed, in a manner that the worker 

6593 can understand, of all labeling requirements and statements related to human hazards or 

6594 precautions, first aid, and user safety.

6595 (d) The agricultural employer must ensure that each worker who enters a treated area 

6596 during a restricted-entry interval is provided the personal protective equipment specified in the 

6597 pesticide product labeling for early entry. The agricultural employer must ensure that the worker 

6598 uses the personal protective equipment as intended according to manufacturer’s instructions and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 279 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6599 follows any other applicable requirements on the pesticide product labeling. Personal protective 

6600 equipment must conform to the standards in § 170.507(b)(1) through (9).

6601 (e) The agricultural employer must maintain the personal protective equipment in 

6602 accordance with § 170.507(c) and (d).

6603 (f) The agricultural employer must ensure that no worker is allowed or directed to wear 

6604 personal protective equipment without implementing measures sufficient to prevent heat-related 

6605 illness and that each worker is instructed in the prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of 

6606 heat-related illness. 

6607 (g) The agricultural employer must instruct each worker on the proper use and removal of 

6608 the personal protective equipment, and as appropriate, on its cleaning, maintenance and disposal. 

6609 The agricultural employer must not allow or direct any worker to wear home or to take home 

6610 employer-provided personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides. 

6611 (h) During any early-entry activity, the agricultural employer must provide 

6612 decontamination supplies in accordance with § 170.509, except the decontamination supplies 

6613 must be outside any area being treated with pesticides or subject to a restricted-entry interval, 

6614 unless the decontamination supplies would otherwise not be reasonably accessible to workers 

6615 performing early-entry tasks.

6616 (i) If the pesticide product labeling of the product applied requires protective eyewear, the 

6617 agricultural employer must provide at least one pint of water per worker in portable containers 

6618 for eyeflushing that is immediately available to each worker who is performing early-entry 

6619 activities. 

6620 (j) At the end of any early-entry activities the agricultural employer must provide, at the 

6621 site where the workers remove personal protective equipment, soap, single-use towels and at 

6622 least three gallons of water per worker so that the workers may wash thoroughly.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 280 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6623 § 170.607 Exceptions to personal protective equipment requirements specified on pesticide 

6624 product labeling.

6625 (a) Body protection. (1) A chemical-resistant suit may be substituted for coveralls. If a 

6626 chemical-resistant suit is substituted for coveralls, any labeling requirement for an additional 

6627 layer of clothing beneath the coveralls is waived. 

6628 (2) A chemical-resistant suit may be substituted for coveralls and a chemical-resistant 

6629 apron. 

6630 (b) Boots. If chemical-resistant footwear with sufficient durability and a tread appropriate 

6631 for wear in rough terrain is not obtainable, then leather boots may be worn in such terrain. 

6632 (c) Gloves. If chemical-resistant gloves with sufficient durability and suppleness are not 

6633 obtainable, then during activities with plants with sharp thorns, leather gloves may be worn over 

6634 chemical-resistant glove liners. However, once leather gloves are worn for this use, thereafter 

6635 they must be worn only with chemical-resistant liners and they must not be worn for any other 

6636 use. 

6637 (d) Closed systems.(1) When pesticides are being mixed or loaded using a closed system 

6638 that meets all of the requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and the handler employer 

6639 meets the requirements of paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the following exceptions to labeling6640 specified personal protective equipment are permitted:

6641 (i) Handlers using a closed system to mix or load pesticides with a signal word of 

6642 “DANGER” or “WARNING” may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks, 

6643 chemical-resistant apron, protective eyewear, and any protective gloves specified on the labeling 

6644 for handlers for the labeling-specified personal protective equipment. 

6645 (ii) Handlers using a closed system to mix or load pesticides other than those specified in 

6646 paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section may substitute protective eyewear, long-sleeved shirt, long 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 281 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6647 pants, and shoes and socks for the labeling-specified personal protective equipment. 

6648 (2) The exceptions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section apply only in the following 

6649 situations:

6650 (i) Where the closed system removes the pesticide from its original container and 

6651 transfers the pesticide product through connecting hoses, pipes and couplings that are sufficiently 

6652 tight to prevent exposure of handlers to the pesticide product, except for the negligible escape 

6653 associated with normal operation of the system.

6654 (ii) When loading intact, sealed, water soluble packaging into a mixing tank or system. If 

6655 the integrity of a water soluble packaging is compromised (for example, if the packaging is 

6656 dissolved, broken, punctured, torn, or in any way allows its contents to escape), it is no longer a 

6657 closed system and the labeling-specified personal protective equipment must be worn.

6658 (3) The exceptions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section apply only where the handler 

6659 employer has satisfied the requirements of § 170.313 and all of the following conditions:

6660 (i) Each closed system must have written operating instructions that are clearly legible 

6661 and include: operating procedures for use, including the safe removal of a probe; maintenance, 

6662 cleaning and repair; known restrictions or limitations relating to the system, such as incompatible 

6663 pesticides, sizes (or types) of containers or closures that cannot be handled by the system; any 

6664 limits on the ability to measure a pesticide; and special procedures or limitations regarding

6665 partially-filled containers.

6666 (ii) The written operating instructions for the closed system must be available at the 

6667 mixing or loading site and must be made available to any handlers who use the system.

6668 (iii) Any handler operating the closed system must be trained in its use and operate the 

6669 closed system in accordance with its written operating instructions.

6670 (iv) The closed system must be cleaned and maintained as specified in the written 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 282 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6671 operating instructions and as needed to make sure the system functions properly. 

6672 (v) All personal protective equipment specified in the pesticide product labeling is 

6673 immediately available to the handler for use in an emergency.

6674 (vi) Protective eyewear must be worn when using closed systems operating under 

6675 pressure.

6676 (e) Enclosed cabs. (1) If a handler applies a pesticide from inside a vehicle’s enclosed 

6677 cab, and if the conditions listed in paragraph (e)(2) of this section are met, exceptions to the 

6678 personal protective equipment requirements specified on the product labeling for applicators are 

6679 permitted as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.

6680 (2) All of the personal protective equipment required by the pesticide product labeling for 

6681 applicators must be immediately available and stored in a sealed container to prevent 

6682 contamination. Handlers must wear the applicator personal protective equipment required by the 

6683 pesticide product labeling if they exit the cab within a treated area during application or when a 

6684 restricted-entry interval is in effect. Once personal protective equipment is worn in a treated area, 

6685 it must be removed before reentering the cab to prevent contamination of the cab. 

6686 (3) Handlers may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks for the 

6687 labeling-specified personal protective equipment for skin and eye protection. If a filtering 

6688 facepiece respirator (NIOSH approval number prefix TC-84A) or dust/mist filtering respirator is 

6689 required by the pesticide product labeling for applicators, then that respirator need not be worn 

6690 inside the enclosed cab if the enclosed cab has a properly functioning air ventilation system 

6691 which is used and maintained in accordance with the manufacture’s written operating 

6692 instructions. If any other type of respirator is required by the pesticide labeling for applicators, 

6693 then that respirator must be worn. 

6694 (f) Aerial applications -- (1) Use of gloves. The wearing of chemical-resistant gloves 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 283 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6695 when entering or leaving an aircraft used to apply pesticides is optional, unless such gloves are 

6696 required on the pesticide product labeling. If gloves are brought into the cockpit of an aircraft 

6697 that has been used to apply pesticides, the gloves shall be kept in an enclosed container to 

6698 prevent contamination of the inside of the cockpit.

6699 (2) Open cockpit. Handlers applying pesticides from an open cockpit aircraft must use the 

6700 personal protective equipment specified in the pesticide product labeling for use during 

6701 application, except that chemical-resistant footwear need not be worn. A helmet may be 

6702 substituted for chemical-resistant headgear. A helmet with a face shield lowered to cover the face 

6703 may be substituted for protective eyewear. 

6704 (3) Enclosed cockpit. Persons occupying an enclosed cockpit may substitute a long6705 sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for labeling-specified personal protective equipment.

6706 (g) Crop advisors. (1) Provided the conditions of paragraphs (g)(2) through (g)(4) of this 

6707 section are met, crop advisors and their employees entering treated areas to perform crop 

6708 advising tasks while a restricted-entry interval is in effect may substitute either of the following 

6709 sets of personal protective equipment for the personal protective equipment specified on the 

6710 pesticide labeling for handler activities:

6711 (i) The personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide product labeling for early 

6712 entry.

6713 (ii) Coveralls, shoes plus socks and chemical-resistant gloves made of any waterproof 

6714 material, and eye protection if the pesticide product labeling applied requires protective eyewear 

6715 for handlers. 

6716 (2) The application has been complete for at least four hours. 

6717 (3) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the pesticide 

6718 product labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 284 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6719 pesticide product labeling have been met.

6720 (4) The crop advisor or crop advisor employee who enters a treated area during a 

6721 restricted-entry interval only performs crop advising tasks while in the treated area.

6722 § 170.609 Equivalency requests.

6723 (a) States and Tribes that have promulgated worker protection regulations to protect 

6724 agricultural workers and pesticide handlers from occupational pesticide exposure effective prior 

6725 to [insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register], have the option of 

6726 requesting authority to continue implementing any provision(s) of the State’s or Tribe’s existing 

6727 regulations that provides equivalent or greater protection in lieu of implementing any similar 

6728 provision(s) in this part.

6729 (b) States or Tribes must submit requests for the authority to continue implementing State 

6730 or Tribal regulation provision(s) in lieu of any similar provision(s) in this part by [insert date 240 

6731 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]. The request must be in the form of a 

6732 letter from the State or Tribe to EPA that includes all of the following:

6733 (1) Identification of the provision(s) of this part for which the State or Tribe is requesting 

6734 regulatory equivalency.

6735 (2) Appropriate documentation establishing that the pertinent State or Tribal worker 

6736 protection provision(s) provides environmental and human health protection that meets or 

6737 exceeds the protections provided by the identified provision(s) in this part.

6738 (3) Identification of any additional modifications to existing State or Tribal regulations 

6739 that would be necessary in order to provide environmental and human health protection that 

6740 meets or exceeds the similar provisions of this part, and an estimated timetable for the State or 

6741 Tribe to effect these changes.

6742 (4) The expected economic impact of requiring compliance with the requirement(s) of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 285 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6743 this part in comparison with compliance with the State or Tribal requirement(s), and an 

6744 explanation of why it is important that employers subject to the State or Tribal authority comply 

6745 with the State or Tribal requirement(s) in lieu of similar provision(s) in this part. 

6746 (5) The signature of the designated representative of the State or Tribal agency 

6747 responsible for pesticide enforcement.

6748 (c) EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs will review the State’s or Tribe’s letter and 

6749 supporting materials and determine whether the State or Tribal provision(s) provide 

6750 environmental and human health protection that meets or exceeds the comparable provision(s) of 

6751 this part. 

6752 (d) EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs will inform the State or Tribe of its determination 

6753 through a letter. The letter will either:

6754 (1) Authorize the State or Tribe to continue implementing its worker protection 

6755 regulatory provision(s) in lieu of the comparable provision(s) of this part; or

6756 (2) Deny the State or Tribe authorization to continue implementing its worker protection 

6757 regulatory provision(s) in lieu of the comparable provision(s) of this part and detail any reasons 

6758 for declining authorization.

6759 (e) Subsequent revisions. Any State or Tribe that has received authorization from EPA 

6760 through the process outlined in this section to continue implementing its State or Tribal worker 

6761 protection regulatory provision(s) must inform EPA by letter within six months of any revision 

6762 to the State or Tribal worker protection laws or regulations. The letter must contain the same 

6763 information outlined in paragraph (b) of this section. The State or Tribe may continue 

6764 implementing provisions of its worker protection regulations identified under paragraph (b) of 

6765 this section unless and until EPA informs the State or Tribe through a letter that EPA has 

6766 determined that the State’s or Tribe’s worker protection regulations no longer provide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 286 of 286 [RIN 2070–AJ22]

6767 environmental and human health protection that meets or exceeds the comparable provision(s) of 

6768 this part based on the revisions.