Vol. 80 Monday, 

No. 211 November 2, 2015 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 170 

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions; Final Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR 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. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing updates and 

revisions to the existing worker 

protection regulation for pesticides. 

This final rule will enhance the 

protections provided to agricultural 

workers, pesticide handlers, and other 

persons under the Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS) by strengthening 

elements of the existing regulation, such 

as training, notification, pesticide safety 

and hazard communication information, 

use of personal protective equipment, 

and the providing of supplies for 

routine washing and emergency 

decontamination. EPA expects this final 

rule to prevent unreasonable adverse 

effects from exposure to pesticides 

among agricultural workers and 

pesticide handlers, vulnerable groups 

(such as minority and low-income 

populations, child farmworkers, and 

farmworker families) and other persons 

who may be on or near agricultural 

establishments, and to mitigate 

exposures that do occur. In order to 

reduce compliance burdens for familyowned farms, in the final rule EPA has 

expanded the existing definition of 

‘‘immediate family’’ and continued the 

existing exemption from many 

provisions of the WPS for owners and 

members of their immediate families. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 1, 2016. Agricultural employers 

and handler employers will be required 

to comply with most of the new 

requirements on January 2, 2017, as 

provided in 40 CFR 170.2. Agricultural 

employers and handler employers will 

be required to comply with certain new 

requirements on January 1, 2018 or 

later, as provided in 40 CFR 

170.311(a)(3), 170.401(c)(3), 

170.501(c)(3) and 170.505(b). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeanne Kasai, Field and External Affairs 

Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–3240; email address: 

kasai.jeanne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2 through 35 of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136– 

136y, and particularly section 25(a), 7 

U.S.C. 136w(a). 

B. What is the purpose of the regulatory 

action? 

EPA is revising the existing Worker 

Protection Standard (WPS), 40 CFR part 

170, to reduce occupational pesticide 

exposure and incidents of related illness 

among agricultural workers (workers) 

and pesticide handlers (handlers) 

covered by the rule, and to protect 

bystanders and others from exposure to 

agricultural pesticide use. This 

regulation, in combination with other 

components of EPA’s pesticide 

regulatory program, is intended to 

prevent unreasonable adverse effects of 

pesticides among workers, handlers and 

other persons who may be on or near 

agricultural establishments, including 

vulnerable groups, such as minority and 

low-income populations. 

C. What are the major changes from the 

proposal to the final rule? 

This final rule revises the existing 

WPS. Some significant changes are 

described in this Unit. Units V. through 

XIX. discuss in more detail the 

proposed rule, public comments 

submitted, EPA’s responses to the 

public comments, and final regulatory 

requirements. 

In regard to training, the final rule 

retains the proposed content expansions 

(including how to protect family 

members and reduce take-home 

exposure) and the requirement for 

employers to ensure that workers and 

handlers receive pesticide safety 

training every year. Employers are 

required to retain records of the training 

provided to workers and handlers for 

two years from the date of training. The 

final rule eliminates the training ‘‘grace 

period,’’ which allowed employers to 

delay providing full pesticide safety 

training to workers (for up to 5 days 

under the existing rule and for up to two 

days under the proposal) from the time 

worker activities began, if the workers 

received an abbreviated training prior to 

entering any treated area. 

In regard to notification, the final rule 

retains the proposed requirements for 

employers to post warning signs around 

treated areas in outdoor production 

when the product used has a restrictedentry interval (REI) greater than 48 

hours and to provide to workers 

performing early-entry tasks, i.e., 

entering a treated area when an REI is 

in effect, information about the 

pesticide used in the area where they 

will work, the specific task(s) to be 

performed, the personal protective 

equipment (PPE) required by the 

labeling and the amount of time the 

worker may remain in the treated area. 

The final rule does not include the 

proposed requirement for employers to 

keep a record of the information 

provided to workers performing earlyentry tasks. The final rule retains the 

existing requirements concerning the 

sign that must be used when posted 

notification of treated areas is required. 

In regard to hazard communication, 

the final rule requires employers to post 

pesticide application information and a 

safety data sheet (SDS) for each 

pesticide used on the establishment 

(known together as pesticide application 

and hazard information) at a central 

location on the establishment (the 

‘‘central display’’), a departure from the 

proposal to eliminate the existing 

requirement for a central display of 

pesticide application-specific 

information. The final rule also requires 

the employer to maintain and make 

available to workers and handlers, their 

designated representatives, and treating 

medical personnel upon request, the 

pesticide application-specific 

information and the SDSs for pesticides 

used on the establishment for two years. 

The final rule does not include the 

proposed requirement for the employer 

to maintain copies of the labeling for 

each product used on the establishment 

for two years. 

In regard to protections during 

pesticide applications, the final rule 

designates the area immediately 

surrounding the application equipment 

as the area from which workers and 

other persons must be excluded. This 

‘‘application exclusion zone’’ differs 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67497 

from the proposed ‘‘entry-restricted 

areas,’’ which would have extended a 

specified distance around the entire 

treated area during application based on 

the application equipment used. The 

final rule requires handlers to suspend 

application, rather than cease 

application, if they are aware of any 

person in the application exclusion 

zone other than a properly trained and 

equipped handler involved in the 

application. 

In regard to establishing a minimum 

age for handlers and workers performing 

early-entry tasks, the final rule requires 

that handlers and workers performing 

early-entry tasks be at least 18 years old, 

rather than the proposed minimum age 

of 16 years old. This minimum age does 

not apply to an adolescent working on 

an establishment owned by an 

immediate family member. The final 

rule does not require the employer to 

record workers’ or handlers’ birthdates 

as part of the training record, but does 

require the employer to verify they meet 

the minimum age requirements. 

In regard to PPE, the final rule crossreferences certain Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration’s (OSHA) 

requirements for respirator use that 

employers will be required to comply 

with, i.e., fit test, medical evaluation, 

and training for handlers using 

pesticides that require respirator use. 

The final rule expands the respirators 

subject to fit testing beyond the proposal 

to include filtering facepiece respirators. 

The final rule maintains the existing 

exception from the handler PPE 

requirements when using a closed 

system to transfer or load pesticides, 

and adopts a general performance 

standard for closed systems, which 

differs from the specific design 

standards based on California’s existing 

standard for closed systems discussed in 

the proposal. 

D. What are the incremental impacts of 

the final rule? 

EPA has prepared an economic 

analysis (EA) of the potential impacts 

associated with this rulemaking (Ref. 1). 

This analysis, which is available in the 

docket, is summarized in greater detail 

in Unit II.C., and the following chart 

provides a brief outline of the costs and 

impacts. 

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 NonHodgkins 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 part-time employee.

EA Chapter 3.4. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you work in or employ 

persons working in crop production 

agriculture where pesticides are 

applied. The following list of North 

American Industrial Classification 

System (NAICS) codes is not intended 

to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 

guide to help readers determine whether 

this document applies to them. 

Potentially affected entities may 

include: 

• Agricultural Establishments (NAICS 

code 111000), e.g., establishments or 

persons, such as farms, orchards, groves, 

greenhouses, and nurseries, primarily 

engaged in growing crops, plants, vines, 

or trees and their seeds. 

• Nursery and Tree Production 

(NAICS code 111421), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in (1) growing nursery 

products, nursery stock, shrubbery, 

bulbs, fruit stock, sod, and so forth, 

under cover or in open fields and/or (2) 

growing short rotation woody trees with 

a growth and harvest cycle of 10 years 

or less for pulp or tree stock. 

• Timber Tract Operations (NAICS 

code 113110), e.g., establishments or 

persons primarily engaged in the 

operation of timber tracts for the 

purpose of selling standing timber. 

• Forest Nurseries and Gathering of 

Forest Products (NAICS code 113210), 

e.g., establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in (1) growing trees for 

reforestation and/or (2) gathering forest 

products, such as gums, barks, balsam 

needles, rhizomes, fibers, Spanish moss, 

ginseng, and truffles. 

• Farm Workers (NAICS codes 11511, 

115112, and 115114), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in providing support activities 

for growing crops; establishments or 

persons primarily engaged in 

performing a soil preparation activity or 

crop production service, such as 

plowing, fertilizing, seed bed 

preparation, planting, cultivating, and 

crop protecting services; and 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in performing services on 

crops, subsequent to their harvest, with 

the intent of preparing them for market 

or further processing. 

• Pesticide Handling on Farms 

(NAICS code 115112), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in performing a soil preparation 

activity or crop production service, such 

as seed bed preparation, planting, 

cultivating, and crop protecting 

services. 

• Farm Labor Contractors and Crew 

Leaders (NAICS code 115115), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in supplying labor for 

agricultural production or harvesting. 

• Pesticide Handling in Forestry 

(NAICS code 115310), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

providing support activities for forestry, 

such as forest pest control. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

• Pesticide Manufacturers (NAICS 

code 325320), e.g., establishments 

primarily engaged in the formulation 

and preparation of agricultural and 

household pest control chemicals 

(except fertilizers). 

• Farm Worker Support Organizations 

(NAICS codes 813311, 813312, and 

813319), e.g., establishments or persons 

primarily engaged in promoting causes 

associated with human rights either for 

a broad or specific constituency; 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in promoting the preservation 

and protection of the environment and 

wildlife; and establishments primarily 

engaged in social advocacy. 

• Farm Worker Labor Organizations 

(NAICS code 813930), e.g., 

establishments or persons primarily 

engaged in promoting the interests of 

organized labor and union employees. 

• Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 

115112, 541690, 541712) e.g., 

establishments or persons who 

primarily provide advice and assistance 

to businesses and other organizations on 

scientific and technical issues related to 

pesticide use and pest pressure. 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is finalizing changes to the WPS. 

The WPS is a regulation primarily 

intended to reduce the risks of injury or 

illness resulting from agricultural 

workers’ and handlers’ use and contact 

with pesticides on farms, forests, 

nurseries and greenhouses. The rule 

primarily seeks to protect workers 

(those who perform hand-labor tasks in 

pesticide-treated crops, such as 

harvesting, thinning, pruning) and 

handlers (those who mix, load and 

apply pesticides). The rule does not 

cover persons working with livestock. 

The existing regulation has provisions 

requiring employers to provide workers 

and handlers with pesticide safety 

training, posting and notification of 

treated areas, and information on entry 

restrictions, as well as PPE for workers 

who enter treated areas after pesticide 

application to perform crop-related 

tasks and handlers who mix, load, and 

apply pesticides. 

The final rule takes into consideration 

comments received from the public in 

response to the proposed rule (Ref. 2), 

as well as additional information such 

as reported incidents of pesticiderelated illness or injury. 

EPA believes that the changes to the 

WPS offer targeted improvements that 

will reduce risk through protective 

requirements and improve operational 

efficiencies. Among other things, EPA 

expects the changes to: 

• Improve effectiveness of worker and 

handler training. 

• Improve protections to workers 

during REIs. 

• Improve protections for workers 

during and after pesticide applications. 

• Expand the information provided to 

workers, thus improving hazard 

communication protections. 

• Expand the content of pesticide 

safety information displayed to improve 

the display’s effectiveness. 

• Improve the protections for crop 

advisor employees. 

• Increase the amounts of 

decontamination water available, thus 

improving the effectiveness of the 

decontamination process. 

• Improve the emergency response 

when workers or handlers experience 

pesticide exposures. 

• Improve the organization of the 

WPS, thus making it easier for 

employers to understand and comply 

with the rule. 

• Clarify that workers and handlers 

are covered by the rule only if they are 

employed, directly or indirectly, by the 

establishment (i.e., receiving a salary or 

wage). 

• Protect adolescents by establishing a 

minimum age for handlers and for 

workers who enter a treated area during 

an REI, but adding an exemption to the 

minimum age requirement for 

adolescents who work on an 

establishment owned by an immediate 

family member. 

• Improve flexibility for small farmers 

and members of their immediate family 

by expanding the definition of 

immediate family members to be more 

inclusive and retaining the exemptions 

from almost all WPS requirements for 

owners and their immediate family 

members. 

C. What are the costs and benefits of the 

rule? 

EPA estimates the incremental cost of 

the revisions to the WPS to be between 

$60.2 and $66.9 million per year, given 

a three percent discount rate. Using a 

seven percent discount rate, the rule is 

estimated to cost between $56.2 and 

$66.9 million per year. The majority of 

the costs, $53.0 to $62.2 million per 

year, are borne by farms, nurseries, and 

greenhouses that hire labor and use 

pesticides, which account for about 20 

percent of all farms producing crops in 

the United States. The approximately 

2,000 commercial pesticide handling 

establishments, which are contracted to 

apply pesticides on farms, may 

collectively see an incremental cost of 

about $1.9 million per year. Familyowned farms that use pesticides and do 

not hire labor may collectively bear 

costs of about $1.4 million per year. 

Total costs amount to an average 

expenditure of about $30 per year per 

farm worker. Benefits, in terms of 

reduced illness from exposure to 

pesticides, are likely to exceed $64 

million per year in terms of avoided 

costs associated with occupational 

pesticide incidents and with reductions 

in chronic diseases associated with 

occupational pesticide exposure, 

although the amount EPA can quantify 

is much less. The estimated quantified 

benefits from reducing acute worker and 

handler exposure to pesticides total 

between $0.6 million and $2.6 million 

annually. 

The changes to the current WPS 

requirements are expected to lead to an 

overall reduction in incidents of unsafe 

pesticide exposure and to improve the 

occupational health of the nation’s 

agricultural workers and pesticide 

handlers. This section provides an 

overview of the qualitative benefits of 

the proposal and the estimated benefits 

that would accrue from avoiding acute 

pesticide exposure in the population 

protected by the WPS. It also provides 

an estimate of the number of chronic 

illnesses with a plausible association 

with pesticide exposure that would 

have to be prevented by the rule 

changes in order for the total estimated 

benefits to meet the estimated cost of 

the proposal. 

A sizeable portion of the agricultural 

workforce may be exposed 

occupationally to pesticides and 

pesticide residues. These exposures can 

pose significant long- and short-term 

health risks. It is difficult to quantify a 

specific level of risk and project the risk 

reduction that would result from this 

rule, because workers and handlers are 

potentially exposed to a wide range of 

pesticides with varying toxicities and 

risks. However, there is strong evidence 

that workers and handlers may be 

exposed to pesticides at levels that can 

cause adverse effects and that both the 

exposures and the risks can be 

substantially reduced. EPA believes the 

provisions in the final rule will reduce 

pesticide exposures and the associated 

risks. 

The estimated quantified benefits 

from reducing acute worker and handler 

exposure to pesticides total between 

$0.6 million and $2.6 million annually 

(Ref. 1). This conservative estimate 

includes only the avoided costs in 

medical care and lost productivity to 

workers and handlers and assumes that 

just 10% of acute pesticide incidents are 

reported. It does not include 

quantification of the reduction in 

chronic effects of pesticide exposure to 

workers and handlers, reduced effects of 

exposure, including developmental 

impacts, to children and pregnant 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67499 

workers and handlers or willingness to 

pay to avoid symptoms of pesticide 

exposure. Because the chronic effects of 

pesticide exposures are seldom 

attributable to a specific cause, and thus 

are unlikely to be recorded in pesticide 

poisoning databases, EPA is not able to 

quantify the benefits expected to accrue 

from the final WPS changes that are 

expected to reduce chronic exposure to 

pesticides. However, associations 

between pesticide exposure and certain 

cancer and non-cancer chronic health 

effects are well documented in the peerreviewed literature, and reducing these 

chronic health effects is an important 

FIFRA goal. 

Even if the lack of quantitative data 

impairs the reliability of estimates of the 

total number of chronic illnesses 

avoided, it is reasonable to expect that 

the proposed changes to the WPS will 

reduce pesticide exposure, and thereby 

reduce the incidence of chronic disease 

associated with pesticide exposure. 

Therefore, EPA conducted a ‘‘break 

even’’ analysis to consider the 

plausibility of the changes to the WPS 

reducing the incidence of chronic 

disease enough to cause the net benefits 

of the proposed rule to exceed its 

anticipated costs. Under this analysis, 

EPA looked at the costs associated with 

non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate 

cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, 

bronchitis, and asthma and their 

frequency among agricultural workers, 

and found that reducing the incidence 

of lung cancer by 0.078% and the 

incidence of the other chronic diseases 

by 0.78% per year (about 44 total cases 

per year among the population of 

workers and handlers protected under 

the WPS) would produce quantified 

benefits sufficient to bridge the gap 

between the quantified benefits from 

reducing acute incidents and the final 

rule’s estimated high-end cost of $66.9 

million. Overall, the weight of evidence 

suggests that the requirements will 

result in long-term health benefits to 

agricultural workers and pesticide 

handlers in excess of the less than 1% 

reduction in just six diseases that 

corresponds with the break-even point 

for the final rule, not only by reducing 

their daily risk of pesticide exposures, 

but also by improving quality of life 

throughout their lives, resulting in a 

lower cost of health care and a healthier 

society. 

The changes to the current WPS 

requirements, specifically improved 

training on reducing pesticide residues 

brought from the treated area to the 

home on workers’ and handlers’ 

clothing and bodies and establishing a 

minimum age for handlers and early 

entry workers, other than those covered 

by the immediate family exemption, 

mitigate the potential for children to be 

exposed to pesticides directly and 

indirectly. The unquantified benefit to 

adolescent workers and handlers, as 

well as children of workers and 

handlers is great; reducing exposure to 

pesticides could translate into fewer 

sick days, fewer days missed of school, 

improved capacity to learn, and better 

long-term health. Parents and caregivers 

reap benefits by having healthier 

families, fewer missed workdays, and 

better quality of life. 

By finalizing several interrelated 

exposure-reduction measures, the rule is 

expected to avoid or mitigate 

approximately 44 to 73% of annual 

reported acute WPS-related pesticide 

incidents. EPA believes the final rule 

will substantially reduce for these 

workers and handlers the potential for 

adverse health effects (acute and 

chronic) from occupational exposures to 

such pesticides and their residues. 

These measures include requirements 

intended to reduce exposure by: 

• Ensuring that workers and handlers 

are informed about the hazards of 

pesticides—the final rule changes the 

content and frequency of required 

pesticide safety training, as well as 

making changes to ensure that the 

pesticide safety training is more 

effective. 

• Reducing exposure to pesticides— 

among other things, the final rule 

changes and clarifies the requirements 

for personal protective equipment. It 

also makes changes to the timing of 

applications when people are nearby. 

These and other provisions should 

directly reduce exposure in the 

agricultural workforce. 

• Mitigating the effects from 

exposures that occur—some accidental 

exposures are inevitable. EPA expects 

the final rule will mitigate the severity 

of health impacts by updating and 

clarifying what is required to respond to 

exposures. 

Further detail on the benefits of this 

proposal is provided in the document 

titled ‘‘Economic Analysis of the 

Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard Revisions’’ which is available 

in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 

1). 

III. Introduction and Procedural 

History 

The existing WPS was published in 

1992 and implemented fully in 1995. 

Since implementation, EPA has sought 

to ensure that the rule provides the 

intended protections effectively and to 

identify necessary improvements. To 

accomplish this, EPA engaged diverse 

stakeholders, individually and 

collectively through organized outreach 

efforts, to discuss the rule and get 

feedback from affected and interested 

parties. Groups with which EPA 

engaged included, but were not limited 

to, farmworker organizations, health 

care providers, state regulators, 

educators and trainers, pesticide 

manufacturers, farmers, organizations 

representing agricultural commodity 

producers and crop advisors. EPA 

engaged these groups formally through 

the National Assessment of the Pesticide 

Worker Safety Program (http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/

workshops.htm), public meetings (e.g., 

National Dialogue on the Worker 

Protection Standard), federal advisory 

committee meetings (e.g., Pesticide 

Program Dialogue Committee, http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/) and a 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

(Ref. 3). EPA also engaged stakeholders 

informally, as individual organizations 

and in small groups. 

Using feedback from stakeholders, 

along with other information, EPA 

developed proposed changes to the WPS 

and published them for public comment 

(Ref. 2). EPA received substantial 

feedback on the proposal, including 

about 2,400 written comments with over 

393,000 signatures. Commenters 

included farmworker advocacy 

organizations, state pesticide regulatory 

agencies (states) and organizations, 

public health organizations, public 

health agencies, growers and grower 

organizations, agricultural producer 

organizations, applicators and 

applicator organizations, pesticide 

manufacturers and organizations, PPE 

manufacturers, farm bureaus, crop 

consultants and organizations, and 

others. The comments received covered 

a wide range of issues and took diverse 

positions. Overall, the comments were 

thoughtful and demonstrated a high 

level of interest in ensuring the 

protection of workers and handlers, 

while minimizing burden on employers 

and regulatory agencies. This document 

discusses some of the significant 

comments received and EPA’s 

responses. A full summary of comments 

received and EPA’s responses are 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Ref. 4). 

While considering stakeholder 

feedback and suggestions in developing 

the final rule, EPA also gathered 

additional information, such as updated 

demographic information for 

farmworkers, new data from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

information on other federal rules (e.g., 

respirator standards, anti-retaliatory 

provisions), and more recent data on 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

incidents related to occupational 

pesticide exposure in agriculture. EPA 

reviewed the methodology used to 

estimate the number of acute pesticiderelated incidents in agriculture and used 

the updated information to revise the 

estimated number of incidents that 

could be prevented under the final rule. 

EPA also revised the Economic Analysis 

for the final rule to include more recent 

information from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service and with 

input from public comments. 

IV. Context and Goals of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Context for This Rulemaking 

1. Statutory authority. Enacted in 

1947, FIFRA established a framework 

for the pre-market registration and 

regulation of pesticide products; since 

1972, FIFRA has prohibited the 

registration of pesticide products that 

cause unreasonable adverse effects. 

FIFRA makes it unlawful to use a 

pesticide in a manner inconsistent with 

the labeling and gives EPA’s 

Administrator authority to develop 

regulations to carry out the Act. FIFRA’s 

legislative history indicates that 

Congress specifically intended for 

FIFRA to protect workers and other 

persons from occupational exposure 

directly to pesticides or to their residues 

(Ref. 5). 

Under FIFRA’s authority, EPA has 

implemented measures to protect 

workers, handlers, other persons, and 

the environment from pesticide 

exposure in two primary ways. First, 

EPA includes specific use instructions 

and restrictions on individual pesticide 

product labeling. These instructions and 

restrictions are the result of EPA’s 

stringent registration and reevaluation 

processes and are based on the risks of 

the particular product. Since users must 

comply with directions for use and 

restrictions on a product’s labeling, EPA 

uses the labeling to convey mandatory 

requirements for how the pesticide must 

be used to protect people and the 

environment from unreasonable adverse 

effects of pesticide exposure. Second, 

EPA enacted the WPS to expand 

protections against the risks of 

agricultural pesticides without making 

individual product labeling longer and 

much more complex. The WPS is a 

uniform set of requirements for workers, 

handlers and their employers that are 

generally applicable to all agricultural 

pesticides and are incorporated onto 

agricultural pesticide labels by 

reference. Its requirements complement 

the product-specific labeling restrictions 

and are intended to minimize 

occupational exposures generally. 

2. EPA’s regulation of pesticides. EPA 

uses a science-based approach to 

register and re-evaluate pesticides, in 

order to protect human health and the 

environment from unreasonable adverse 

effects that might be caused by 

pesticides. The registration process 

begins when a manufacturer submits an 

application to register a pesticide. The 

application must contain required test 

data, including information on the 

pesticide’s chemistry, environmental 

fate, toxicity to humans and wildlife, 

and potential for human exposure. EPA 

also requires a copy of the proposed 

labeling, including directions for use 

and appropriate warnings. 

Once an application for a new 

pesticide product is received, EPA 

conducts an evaluation, which includes 

a detailed review of scientific data to 

determine the potential impact on 

human health and the environment. 

EPA considers the risk assessments and 

results of any peer review, and evaluates 

potential risk management measures 

that could mitigate risks that exceed 

EPA’s level of concern. In the 

registration process, EPA evaluates the 

proposed use(s) of the pesticide to 

determine whether it would cause 

adverse effects on human health, nontarget species, and the environment. In 

evaluating the impact of a pesticide on 

occupational health and safety, EPA 

considers the risks associated with use 

of the pesticide (occupational, 

environmental) and the benefits 

associated with use of the pesticide 

(economic, public health, 

environmental). However, FIFRA does 

not require EPA to balance the risks and 

benefits for each audience. For example, 

a product may pose risks to workers, but 

risk may nevertheless be reasonable in 

comparison to the economic benefit of 

continued use of the product to society 

at large. 

If the application for registration does 

not contain evidence sufficient for EPA 

to determine that the pesticide meets 

the FIFRA registration criteria, EPA 

communicates to the applicant the need 

for more or better refined data, labeling 

modifications, or additional use 

restrictions. Once the applicant has 

demonstrated that a proposed product 

meets the FIFRA registration criteria 

and any applicable requirements under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 321 et seq., EPA 

approves the registration subject to any 

risk mitigation measures necessary to 

meet the FIFRA registration criteria. 

EPA devotes significant resources to the 

regulation of pesticides to ensure that 

each pesticide product meets the FIFRA 

requirement that pesticides not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects to the 

public and the environment. 

When EPA approves a pesticide, the 

labeling generally reflects all risk 

mitigation measures required by EPA. 

The risk mitigation measures may 

include requiring certain engineering 

controls, such as the use of closed 

systems for mixing pesticides and 

loading them into application 

equipment to reduce potential exposure 

to those who handle pesticides; 

establishing conditions on the use of the 

pesticide by specifying certain use sites, 

maximum application rate or maximum 

number of applications; or establishing 

REIs during which entry into an area 

treated with the pesticide is generally 

prohibited until residue levels have 

declined to levels unlikely to cause 

unreasonable adverse effects. Because 

users must comply with the directions 

for use and use restrictions on a 

product’s labeling, EPA uses the 

labeling to establish and convey 

mandatory requirements for how the 

pesticide must be used to protect the 

applicator, the public, and the 

environment from pesticide exposure. 

Under FIFRA, EPA is required to 

review periodically the registration of 

pesticides currently registered in the 

United States. The 1988 FIFRA 

amendments required EPA to establish 

a pesticide reregistration program. 

Reregistration was a one-time 

comprehensive review of the human 

health and environmental effects of 

pesticides first registered before 

November 1, 1984 to make decisions 

about these pesticides’ future use. The 

1996 amendments to FIFRA require that 

EPA establish, through rule making, an 

ongoing ‘‘registration review’’ process of 

all pesticides at least every 15 years. 

The final rule establishing the 

registration review program was signed 

in August 2006 (Ref. 16). The purpose 

of both re-evaluation programs is to 

review all pesticides registered in the 

United States to ensure that they 

continue to meet current safety 

standards based on up-to-date scientific 

approaches and relevant data. 

Pesticides reviewed under the 

reregistration program that met current 

scientific and safety standards were 

declared ‘‘eligible’’ for reregistration. 

The results of EPA’s reviews are 

summarized in Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) documents. The last 

RED was completed in 2008. Often 

before a pesticide could be determined 

‘‘eligible,’’ additional risk reduction 

measures had to be put in place. For a 

number of pesticides, measures 

intended to reduce exposure to handlers 

and workers were needed and are 

reflected on pesticide labeling. To 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67501 

address occupational risk concerns, 

REDs include mitigation measures such 

as: Voluntary cancellation of the 

product or specific use(s); limiting the 

amount, frequency or timing of 

applications; imposing other application 

restrictions; classifying a product or 

specific use(s) for restricted use only by 

certified applicators; requiring the use 

of specific PPE; establishing specific 

REIs; and improving use directions. 

During this process, EPA also 

encouraged registrants to find 

replacements for the inert ingredients of 

greatest concern. As a result of EPA’s 

reregistration efforts, current U.S. farm 

workers are not exposed to many of the 

previously used inert ingredients that 

were of the greatest toxicological 

concern. 

EPA’s registration review program is a 

recurring assessment of products against 

current standards. EPA will review each 

registered pesticide at least every 15 

years to determine whether it continues 

to meet the FIFRA standard for 

registration. Pesticides registered before 

1984 were reevaluated initially under 

the reregistration program. These and 

pesticides initially registered in 1984 or 

later are all subject to registration 

review. 

In summary, EPA’s pesticide 

reregistration and registration reviews 

assess the specific risks associated with 

particular chemicals and ensure that the 

public and environment do not suffer 

unreasonable adverse effects from those 

risks. EPA implements the risk 

reduction and mitigation measures 

identified in the pesticide reregistration 

and registration review programs 

through amendments to individual 

pesticide product labeling. 

3. WPS. The WPS regulation is 

incorporated by reference on certain 

pesticide product labeling through a 

statement in the agricultural use box. 

The WPS provides a comprehensive 

collection of pesticide management 

practices generally applicable to all 

agricultural pesticide use scenarios in 

crop production, complementing the 

product-specific requirements that 

appear on individual pesticide product 

labels. 

The risk reduction measures of the 

WPS may be characterized as being one 

of three types: Information, protection 

and mitigation. To ensure that 

employees will be informed about 

exposure to pesticides, the WPS 

requires that workers and handlers 

receive training on general pesticide 

safety, and that employers provide 

access to information about the 

pesticides with which workers and 

handlers may have contact. To protect 

workers and handlers from pesticide 

exposure, the WPS prohibits the 

application of pesticides in a manner 

that exposes workers or other persons, 

generally prohibits workers and other 

persons from being in areas being 

treated with pesticides, and generally 

prohibits workers from entering a 

treated area while an REI is in effect 

(with limited exceptions that require 

additional protections). In addition, the 

rule protects workers by requiring 

employers to notify them about areas on 

the establishment treated with 

pesticides, through posted and/or oral 

warnings. The rule protects handlers by 

ensuring that they understand proper 

use of and have access to required PPE. 

Finally, the WPS has provisions to 

mitigate exposures if they do occur by 

requiring the employer to provide to 

workers and handlers with an ample 

supply of water, soap and towels for 

routine washing and emergency 

decontamination. The employer must 

also make transportation available to a 

medical care facility if a worker or 

handler may have been poisoned or 

injured by a pesticide and provide 

information about the pesticide(s) to 

which the person may have been 

exposed. 

EPA manages the risks and benefits of 

each pesticide product primarily 

through the labeling requirements 

specific to each pesticide product. If 

pesticide products are used according to 

the labeling, EPA does not expect use to 

cause unreasonable adverse effects. 

However, data on incidents of adverse 

effects to human health and the 

environment from the use of agricultural 

pesticides show that users do not 

always comply with labeling 

requirements. Rigorous ongoing 

training, compliance assistance and 

enforcement are needed to ensure that 

risk mitigation measures are 

appropriately implemented in the field. 

The framework provided by the WPS is 

critical for ensuring that the 

improvements brought about by 

reregistration and registration review are 

realized in the field. For example, the 

requirement for handlers to receive 

instruction on how to use the pesticide 

and the application equipment for each 

application is one way to educate 

handlers about updated requirements on 

product labeling to ensure they use 

pesticides in a manner that will not 

harm themselves, workers, the public or 

the environment. In addition, the REIs 

are established through individual 

product labeling, but action needs to be 

taken at the use site to ensure that 

workers are aware of areas on the 

establishment where REIs are in effect 

and given directions to be kept out of 

the treated area while the REI is in 

effect. The changes to the WPS are 

designed to enhance the effectiveness of 

the existing structure of protections and 

to better realize labeling-based risk 

mitigation measures at the field level. 

B. Goals of This Rulemaking 

Discussions with stakeholders over 

many years, together with EPA’s review 

of incident data, led EPA to identify 

several shortcomings in the current 

regulation that will be addressed by this 

final rule. As discussed in Unit IV.A., 

EPA uses both product-specific labeling 

and the WPS to effectuate occupational 

protections for workers and handlers. 

EPA engages in ongoing reviews and 

reassessments of pesticide products to 

ensure they continue to meet the 

standard of not causing unreasonable 

adverse effects to human health and the 

environment. The WPS must be updated 

to ensure that the rule continues to 

complement the labeling-based 

protections and to address issues 

identified through experience with the 

WPS, and review of incident data and 

stakeholder engagement. 

1. Purpose of the WPS. The WPS is 

intended to reduce the risks associated 

with occupational pesticide exposure to 

workers, handlers and their families, 

and to protect others and the 

environment from risks of pesticide use 

in agricultural production. The rule 

makes employers of workers and 

handlers responsible for providing 

protections to workers and handlers on 

their establishments. By imposing this 

obligation, EPA seeks to ensure those 

who make pesticide use decisions 

(employers) internalize the effects of 

their decisionmaking rather than 

passing on the costs associated with 

these decisions (risks of pesticide 

exposure) to others (workers and 

handlers). 

As noted in Unit IV.A., the 

components of the WPS generally can 

be grouped into three categories: 

Information, protection, and mitigation. 

Employers must provide workers and 

handlers with information needed to 

protect themselves, others, and the 

environment from pesticides and 

pesticide residues through pesticide 

safety training, pesticide application 

and hazard information, and access to 

labeling. Employers must provide 

protections to workers and handlers 

during and after applications in order to 

minimize potential for exposure. 

Finally, employers must be prepared to 

mitigate exposures that do occur by 

providing supplies for washing and 

emergency decontamination, and 

emergency transportation to a medical 

facility if necessary. These elements are 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67502 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary to implement product-specific 

labeling requirements effectively. For 

example, pesticide safety training 

informs workers that areas treated with 

pesticides are off limits for entry for a 

certain period after the application, i.e., 

a product-specific REI, and that their 

employers will inform them of where 

and when REIs are in effect and entry 

into the treated areas is prohibited. In 

some instances, employers must provide 

further protection by posting warning 

signs at treated areas while REIs are in 

effect to remind workers to keep out of 

the treated areas. For handlers, training 

informs them about basic pesticide 

safety and handling precautions and 

reducing the potential to expose 

themselves or others. In addition, the 

employer must provide information for 

each application, informing the handler 

about the product-specific labeling 

restrictions and requirements. 

In summary, the WPS works in 

conjunction with product labeling to 

protect workers and handlers from 

occupational pesticide exposure. The 

rule imposes on the employer the 

responsibility for providing protections 

to workers and handlers and to ensure 

they have access to information 

necessary to protect themselves and 

others during and after pesticide 

application. 

2. Surveillance data. When EPA 

promulgated the existing rule, it used 

existing data on occupational pesticiderelated incidents to estimate that that 

approximately 10,000 to 20,000 

incidents of physician-diagnosed (not 

hospitalized) pesticide poisonings 

occurred in the WPS-covered workforce 

annually. For this rulemaking, EPA 

estimates that about 1,810 to 2,950 acute 

pesticide exposure incidents occur 

annually on agricultural establishments 

that potentially could be prevented by 

the WPS. This substantial drop in the 

estimated number of incidents shows 

that the existing rule and efforts by 

employers, workers and handlers have 

made great accomplishments in 

reducing pesticide exposure for workers 

and handlers. Pesticide use in 

agriculture is safer than it was 20 years 

ago. 

Current occupational health incident 

surveillance data show, however, that 

avoidable incidents continue to occur. 

For example, some of the occupational 

pesticide illnesses reported to state 

health agencies have occurred when 

workers entered a treated area before the 

REI expired. Although employers are 

obligated to warn workers to keep out of 

treated areas and to ensure that workers 

receive training on and information 

about treated areas, incidents continue 

to occur. Another example of potentially 

avoidable exposure is spray drift. 

Labeling instructs handlers to apply 

pesticides in a manner that does not 

contact other persons, but pesticide drift 

continues to cause exposure incidents. 

In addition to surveillance data, studies 

also show that pesticide residues are 

brought home by workers and handlers 

on their bodies and clothing (known as 

‘‘take-home exposure’’), creating an 

exposure pathway for family members. 

This rulemaking is intended to reduce 

avoidable incidents by improving 

information, protections, and 

mitigations for workers and handlers 

without imposing unreasonable burdens 

on employers. Although EPA cannot 

quantify the specific reduction in 

incidents from any single change to the 

regulation, taken together, EPA 

estimates that the final rule will result 

in an annual reduction of between 540 

and 1,620 acute, health-related 

incidents. In addition, EPA expects that 

the final rule will help reduce chronic 

health problems among workers and 

handlers by reducing daily pesticide 

exposures, and thereby improving 

quality of life throughout their lives, 

resulting in a lower cost of health care 

and a healthier society. (See Unit II.C.) 

Units V. through XIX. describe the final 

regulatory requirements and their 

potential to reduce avoidable incidents. 

The Economic Analysis for this 

rulemaking provides an estimate of the 

costs of the requirements and a 

quantitative and qualitative discussion 

of the potential benefits, including 

avoiding acute pesticide-related 

illnesses in workers and handlers (Ref. 

1). 

3. Demographics of workers and 

handlers. In addition to the complexity 

of the science issues involving pesticide 

use, variability of pesticide use patterns 

and incomplete information about 

occupational pesticide-related illnesses 

and injuries, the diversity of the labor 

population at risk and the tasks they 

perform makes it challenging to ensure 

that workers and handlers are 

adequately protected. 

According to the most recent public 

data set available from the Department 

of Labor’s (DOL) National Agricultural 

Worker Survey (NAWS) for 2011–2012, 

64% of agricultural workers in the 

United States were born in Mexico and 

6% in Central and South America (Ref. 

6). A majority (69%) of all survey 

respondents speak Spanish as their 

primary language (Ref. 6). 

Approximately 65% of this population 

speaks a little or no English; 38% 

cannot read English at all and another 

30% can only read English ‘‘a little’’ 

(Ref. 6). Many have received only some 

formal education; on average, the 

highest grade completed by foreign-born 

workers was seventh grade (Ref. 6). 

Approximately 17% of the survey 

respondents were classified as migrant, 

having traveled at least 75 miles in the 

previous year to find a job in agriculture 

(Ref. 6). Only 17% of respondents lived 

in housing provided by their employer 

and 55% rented housing from someone 

other than their employer (Ref. 6). In 

general, agricultural workers surveyed 

by NAWS do not have access to 

employer-provided health insurance— 

in 2011–2012, only 21% of farmworkers 

reported having the option for 

employer-provided health insurance 

(Ref. 6). USDA research, based on 

NAWS data, also reports that workers 

have difficulty entering the health care 

system to receive treatment (Ref. 7). Cost 

was a significant barrier for two-thirds 

of farmworkers, while about a third 

listed language barriers as an 

impediment to receiving care. Most 

workers fear that seeking treatment will 

result in losing their job because 

someone will replace them while they 

are getting treatment or the employer 

will label them as troublemakers and 

dismiss them. The problem is more 

severe among undocumented workers 

because they fear seeking treatment will 

lead to deportation or other adverse 

legal action (Ref. 7). A USDA report 

indicates that the factors mentioned 

previously contribute to the 

disadvantaged status of hired workers in 

agriculture (Ref. 7). 

The NAWS found that 19% of 

workers and handlers surveyed earned 

less than $10,000 annually from 

agricultural work, and another 39% earn 

between $10,000 and $20,000 annually. 

Over 55% of respondents reported a 

total family income below $22,500 (Ref. 

6). 

Both the existing WPS and the 

changes included in the final rule seek 

to eliminate some of the potential 

barriers to achieving effective protection 

of these persons by requiring training in 

a manner that workers and handlers can 

understand, requiring the employer to 

ensure that handlers understand 

relevant portions of the labeling before 

handling a pesticide, and expanding 

training to provide information on 

seeking medical care in the event of a 

pesticide exposure and highlighting the 

anti-retaliation provisions of the WPS. 

4. Summary of the final rule. The final 

rule amends the WPS by: 

• Requiring pesticide safety training at 

one-year intervals and amending the 

existing pesticide safety training 

content. 

• Requiring recordkeeping for 

pesticide safety training. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67503 

• Eliminating the ‘‘grace period’’ that 

allowed workers to enter a treated area 

to perform WPS tasks before receiving 

full pesticide safety training. 

• Establishing a minimum age of 18 

for handlers and for workers who enter 

an area under an REI. 

• Establishing requirements for 

specific training and notification for 

workers who enter an area under an REI. 

• Restricting persons’ entry into 

certain areas surrounding application 

equipment during an application. 

• Clarifying requirements for supplies 

for routine washing and emergency 

decontamination. 

• Requiring employers to post 

warning signs around treated areas 

when the product applied has an REI 

greater than 48 hours and allowing the 

employer to choose to post the treated 

area or give oral notification when the 

product applied has an REI of 48 hours 

or less (unless the labeling requires both 

types of notification). 

• Requiring employers to maintain 

and make available copies of the SDSs 

for products used on the establishment. 

• Requiring employers to provide 

application information and SDSs to 

designated representatives making the 

request on behalf of workers or 

handlers. 

• Adding elements to the requirement 

to maintain application-specific 

information. 

• Adopting by cross reference certain 

OSHA requirements for employers to 

provide training, fit testing and medical 

evaluations to handlers using products 

that require use of respirators. 

• Requiring employers to provide 

supplies for emergency eye flush at all 

pesticide mixing and loading sites when 

handlers use products that require eye 

protection. 

• Maintaining the immediate family 

exemption and ensuring it includes an 

exemption from the new minimum age 

requirements for handlers and earlyentry workers. 

• Expanding the definition of 

‘‘immediate family’’ to allow more 

family-owned operations to qualify for 

the exemptions to the WPS 

requirements. 

• Revising definitions to improve 

clarity and to refine terms. 

• Restructuring the regulation to make 

it easier to read and understand. 

Units V. through XVIII. discuss the 

final rule requirements and elements 

considered in the proposal but not 

included in the final rule. Unit XIX. 

discusses implementation of the final 

regulatory requirements. Each of these 

Units generally describes the existing 

rule, proposal and final regulatory 

requirements (where appropriate), and 

summarizes the major comments 

received and EPA’s responses. A 

separate document summarizing the 

comments received that were relevant to 

the proposal and EPA’s responses has 

also been prepared and is available in 

the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 4). 

EPA has grouped the discussion of the 

final rule and elements considered in 

the proposal but not included in the 

final rule as follows: 

• Unit V: Pesticide Safety Training for 

Workers and Handlers. 

• Unit VI: Notification. 

• Unit VII: Hazard Communication. 

• Unit VIII: Information Exchange 

Between Handler and Agricultural 

Employers. 

• Unit IX: Drift-Related Requirements. 

• Unit X: Establish Minimum Age for 

Handling Pesticides and Working in a 

Treated Area while an REI is in Effect. 

• Unit XI: Restrictions on Worker 

Entry into Treated Areas. 

• Unit XII: Display of Pesticide Safety 

Information. 

• Unit XIII: Decontamination. 

• Unit XIV: Emergency Assistance. 

• Unit XV: Personal Protective 

Equipment. 

• Unit XVI: Decision not to Require 

Monitoring of Handler Exposure to 

Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Pesticides. 

• Unit XVII: Exemptions and 

Exceptions. 

• Unit XVIII: General Revisions. 

• Unit XIX: Implementation. 

V. Pesticide Safety Training for 

Workers and Handlers 

A. Shorten Retraining Interval for 

Workers and Handlers 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS requires employers to 

ensure that workers and handlers are 

trained once every five years. EPA 

proposed to establish an annual 

retraining interval for workers and 

handlers in order to improve the ability 

of workers and handlers to protect 

themselves and their families from 

pesticide exposure. 

2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has 

adopted the proposed requirement for 

workers and handlers to receive full 

pesticide safety training annually. The 

final regulatory text for these 

requirements is available at 40 CFR 

170.401(a) and 170.501(a). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Several farmworker 

advocacy groups and public health 

organizations supported full, annual 

training, stating that the more frequent 

training would improve workers’ and 

handlers’ ability to protect themselves 

and their families, and that annual 

training would be simple to track 

administratively. Agricultural producer 

organizations, pesticide producers, and 

the Small Business Administration’s 

Office of Advocacy recommended an 

initial in-depth training for new workers 

followed annually by a shortened 

‘‘refresher’’ training. A similar 

suggestion was to require initial indepth training for workers and handlers, 

followed by four years of refresher 

training, with an in-depth training every 

fifth year. Some states suggested 

training every two or three years, or 

allowing each state to set its own 

training interval, to parallel the state’s 

pesticide applicator recertification 

interval. A few states recommended a 

system where the training timeframe is 

based on the calendar year, to allow 

flexibility for employers. For example, 

under this proposal, an employee 

trained in March 2014 could be 

retrained as late as December 2015. This 

suggestion would extend the permitted 

interval between worker and handler 

trainings to as long as two years. 

Comments from pesticide industry 

organizations suggested that the 

frequency of worker safety training be 

commensurate with an individual 

workers’ tasks, previous training, and 

experience. 

EPA Response. EPA considered the 

alternatives described for training 

frequency, and agrees with the 

comments that annual training, in some 

form, is the appropriate interval to 

ensure that workers and handlers 

receive more frequent reinforcement of 

the safety principles. EPA rejected the 

suggestion for a limited refresher 

training based on the difficulty both 

employers and regulators would face in 

tracking multiple levels of training 

among a mobile workforce, the burdens 

of maintaining multiple forms of 

training materials and providing 

different trainings where employees are 

on differing cycles for full and refresher 

training, and the fact that very little of 

the substantive content of the required 

training appears to be material that 

would not need to be brought to 

employees’ attention annually. 

The suggestions for biennial or 

triennial training and allowing the states 

to base the frequency of training for 

workers and handlers on their pesticide 

applicator recertification requirements 

would present similar administrative 

problems with tracking trainings and 

introduce the possibility that workers or 

handlers would miss information 

needed to protect themselves. Finally, 

the alternative to establish the frequency 

of training based on the calendar year 

presents similar issues with tracking 

training and needed frequency of 

repetition. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67504 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

The recommendation for training to 

be tailored to the individual workers’ 

tasks, experience, and prior training was 

rejected based on the difficulty in 

tracking the specific training needs with 

a mobile workforce, the need for 

multiple forms of training materials, and 

the potential burden on employers to 

determine specific needs for each 

employee. In addition, the training gives 

practical information that is useful to 

everyone who works with or around 

agricultural pesticides. 

B. Establish Recordkeeping 

Requirements To Verify Training for 

Workers and Handlers 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS does not specify how an 

employer must verify that a worker or 

handler has received pesticide safety 

training. EPA proposed to eliminate the 

existing voluntary training verification 

card system and to require employers to 

maintain records of WPS worker and 

handler training for two years. EPA 

proposed that the training record 

include, among other things, the 

employee’s birthdate to verify minimum 

age for early-entry worker or handler 

activities. EPA proposed to require the 

employer to provide a copy of the 

record to each worker or handler upon 

completion of the training. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed requirement for employers to 

maintain records of worker and handler 

training for two years. Required 

information for the record of worker and 

handler training includes the trained 

worker’s or handler’s name and 

signature, the date of training, the 

trainer’s name, evidence of the trainer’s 

qualification to train, the employer’s 

name, and which EPA-approved 

training materials were used. EPA has 

not included in the final rule the 

proposed requirement for the employer 

to record or retain birthdate of the 

employee. The final rule does not 

require employers to automatically 

provide a copy of the training record to 

each worker and handler; instead, the 

final rule only requires the employer to 

provide a copy of the training record to 

the trained employee upon the 

employee’s request. The final regulatory 

text for the worker and handler training 

recordkeeping requirements appears at 

40 CFR 170.401(d) and 170.501(d), 

respectively. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments—compliance monitoring. 

Comments in support of a requirement 

for recordkeeping stated that it would 

ensure employees received the training 

and that it would improve enforcement 

and compliance. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with these 

commenters that recordkeeping is 

necessary for the purpose of compliance 

monitoring. 

Comments—burden. Commenters 

stated that the proposed requirement to 

distribute the record to every trained 

worker or handler would be 

burdensome and that most workers or 

handlers would not take or keep the 

records. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with these 

commenters and has modified the 

requirement. The final rule requires 

employers to provide training records to 

the trained employee only on the 

employee’s request. This will reduce the 

burden on employers while ensuring 

that interested employees will be able to 

demonstrate to future employers that 

they were appropriately trained. 

Comments—birthdate. There were a 

number of comments, particularly from 

states, related to the proposed 

requirement that employers include the 

trained employee’s birthdate among the 

information to be recorded to document 

training. EPA proposed including the 

trained employee’s birthdate in the 

recordkeeping in order to facilitate its 

use to verify that workers or handlers 

met the proposed minimum age 

requirement for handling pesticides or 

entering treated areas while under an 

REI as allowed under the early entry 

exceptions. States noted that a person’s 

birthdate can be considered confidential 

and personal information, the 

distribution of which can lead to 

identity theft. 

EPA Response. EPA has decided the 

advantages of requiring the employer to 

record the birthdate of the trained 

worker or handler are outweighed in 

this instance by the concerns for 

protecting confidential and personal 

information. Under the final rule, the 

employer is responsible for determining 

that each employee has met the 

minimum age requirement. The final 

rule does not include the proposed 

requirement for the employer to collect 

or retain specific documentation of the 

employee’s birthdate or age. 

C. Establish Trainer Qualifications for 

Workers and Handlers 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS allows workers and 

handlers to be trained by a variety of 

persons, including pesticide applicators 

certified to use restricted use pesticides 

(RUPs) under 40 CFR part 171, persons 

identified by the agency with 

jurisdiction for pesticide enforcement as 

a trainer of certified applicators, or 

persons having completed an approved 

pesticide safety train-the-trainer course. 

In addition, persons trained as handlers 

under the WPS are also eligible to train 

workers. 

EPA proposed to limit eligible trainers 

of workers to those who complete an 

EPA-approved train-the-trainer program 

or are designated by EPA or an 

appropriate state or tribal agency as 

trainers of certified applicators; being a 

certified applicator or trained as a 

handler under the WPS would not 

automatically qualify a person to train 

workers under the proposal. EPA did 

not propose to change the qualifications 

for trainers of handlers. 

2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has 

expanded the class of persons qualified 

to train workers relative to the proposed 

rule. Under the final rule, qualified 

trainers of workers include persons 

who: Have completed a pesticide safety 

train-the-trainer program approved by 

EPA, are designated as a trainer of 

certified applicators, handlers or 

workers by EPA or a state or tribal 

agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement, or are certified pesticide 

applicators under 40 CFR part 171. 

Unlike the proposal, certified 

applicators are considered qualified to 

train workers under the final rule. 

However, consistent with the proposal, 

the persons trained as handlers under 

the WPS are not considered qualified to 

train workers under the final rule. 

The final rule does not make any 

changes from the existing rule and 

proposal related to who is qualified to 

provide training to handlers. 

The final regulatory text for worker 

and handler trainer qualifications is 

available at 40 CFR 170.401(c)(4) and 

170.501(c)(4), respectively. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Many of the comments 

advised EPA to retain certified 

applicators as trainers of workers in the 

final rule. Several commenters stated 

that without certified applicators 

providing worker training, resources 

such as cooperative extension trainers 

would be severely strained and there 

might not be adequate resources to 

provide annual training for workers. 

Several states and others noted that 

certified applicators possess the 

necessary competence to provide 

training to workers; in some states, they 

must receive training specifically for the 

purpose of training workers in order to 

meet their certification requirements. 

Commenters also questioned how a 

certified applicator could be considered 

qualified to train handlers, but not 

workers, as many handlers have the 

same demographic profile as workers. 

There were few comments in support 

of retaining handlers as trainers for 

workers. One comment suggested that 

handlers could be required to take an 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67505 

approved train-the-trainer course to 

ensure they can adequately train 

workers. 

EPA Response. EPA is persuaded by 

the comments that it is reasonable to 

expect that certified applicators can 

competently train workers, as well as 

handlers. Commenters note that 

certified applicators possess knowledge 

of pesticide safety from their 

certification training and pesticide 

handling experience. The commenters 

stated that the additional burden from 

the proposed requirement for annual 

training in combination with the 

elimination of certified applicators as 

trainers would severely strain trainer 

resources and potentially result in fewer 

workers receiving annual training. This 

concern persuaded EPA to include 

certified applicators as qualified to train 

workers in the final rule. 

EPA agrees with the comment that 

handlers who have gone through a trainthe-trainer course should be eligible to 

train workers. Under the final 

regulation, any person, including a 

handler, is qualified to train workers 

after successfully completing an 

approved train-the-trainer course. 

D. Expand the Content of Worker and 

Handler Pesticide Safety Training 

1. Current and proposed rule. The 

existing WPS requires employers to 

provide pesticide safety training 

covering specific content to workers and 

handlers. Under the existing rule, 

worker safety training content must 

include the following 11 points: 

• Where and in what form pesticides 

may be encountered during work 

activities. 

• Hazards of pesticides resulting from 

toxicity and exposure, including acute 

and chronic effects, delayed effects, and 

sensitization. 

• Routes through which pesticides can 

enter the body. 

• Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

• Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

• How to obtain emergency medical 

care. 

• Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures, including 

emergency eye flushing techniques. 

• Hazards from chemigation and drift. 

• Hazards from pesticide residues on 

clothing. 

• Warnings about taking pesticides or 

pesticide containers home. 

• Requirements of the WPS designed 

to reduce the risks of illness or injury 

resulting from workers’ occupational 

exposure to pesticides, including 

application and entry restrictions, the 

design of the warning sign, posting of 

warning signs, oral warnings, the 

availability of specific information 

about applications, and the protection 

against retaliatory acts. 

Under the existing rule, pesticide 

handler safety training must include the 

following 13 basic safety training points: 

• Format and meaning of information 

contained on pesticide labels and in 

labeling, including safety information 

such as precautionary statements about 

human health hazards. 

• Hazards of pesticides resulting from 

toxicity and exposure, including acute 

and chronic effects, delayed effects, and 

sensitization. 

• Routes through which pesticides can 

enter the body. 

• Signs and symptoms of pesticide 

poisoning. 

• Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

• How to get emergency medical care. 

• Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures. 

• Need for and appropriate use of PPE. 

• Prevention, recognition, and first aid 

treatment of heat-related illness. 

• Safety requirements for handling, 

transporting, storing, and disposing of 

pesticides. 

• Environmental concerns. 

• Warnings about taking pesticides or 

pesticide containers home. 

• Training on the requirements of the 

regulation related to handling. 

EPA proposed additional content in 

worker pesticide safety training 

including, among other things, 

information on the requirements for 

early-entry notification and emergency 

assistance, how to reduce pesticide takehome exposure, the availability of 

hazard communication materials for 

workers, the minimum age requirements 

for handling and early entry, and the 

obligations of agricultural employers to 

provide protections to workers. 

EPA proposed additional content in 

handler pesticide safety training, 

including the requirement for handlers 

to cease application if they observe a 

person, other than another trained and 

properly equipped handler, in the area 

being treated or the entry-restricted area, 

and information about the requirement 

for OSHA-equivalent training on 

respirator use, fit-testing of respirators, 

and medical evaluation in the event a 

handler must wear a respirator. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed additions to and expansions of 

the worker and handler pesticide safety 

training. The final regulatory text for the 

content of worker and handler pesticide 

training is available at 40 CFR 

170.401(c)(2)–(3) and 170.501(c)(2)–(3). 

The final rule requires employers to 

ensure that workers are trained on the 

following topics after EPA has 

announced the availability of training 

materials (see Unit XIX. for information 

on the timing of implementation): 

• The responsibility of agricultural 

employers to provide workers and 

handlers with information and 

protections designed to reduce workrelated pesticide exposures and 

illnesses. This includes ensuring 

workers and handlers have been trained 

on pesticide safety, providing pesticide 

safety and application information, 

decontamination supplies and 

emergency medical assistance, and 

notifying workers of restrictions during 

applications and on entering pesticide 

treated areas. A worker or handler may 

designate in writing a representative to 

request access to pesticide application 

and hazard information. 

• How to recognize and understand 

the meaning of the warning sign used 

for notifying workers of restrictions on 

entering pesticide-treated areas on the 

establishment. 

• How to follow directions and/or 

signs about keeping out of pesticidetreated areas subject to an REI and 

application exclusion zones. 

• Where and in what form pesticides 

may be encountered during work 

activities and potential sources of 

pesticide exposure on the agricultural 

establishment. This includes exposure 

to pesticide residues that may be on or 

in plants, soil, tractors, application and 

chemigation equipment, or used PPE, 

and that may drift through the air from 

nearby applications or be in irrigation 

water. 

• Potential hazards from toxicity and 

exposure that pesticides present to 

workers and their families, including 

acute and chronic effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

• Routes through which pesticides can 

enter the body. 

• Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

• Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

• Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures, including 

emergency eye flushing techniques, and 

if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on 

the body, to use decontamination 

supplies to wash immediately or rinse 

off in the nearest clean water, including 

springs, streams, lakes, or other sources, 

if more readily available than 

decontamination supplies, and as soon 

as possible, wash or shower with soap 

and water, shampoo hair, and change 

into clean clothes. 

• How and when to obtain emergency 

medical care. 

• When working in pesticide-treated 

areas, wear work clothing that protects 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67506 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the body from pesticide residues and 

wash hands before eating, drinking, 

using chewing gum or tobacco, or using 

the toilet. 

• Wash or shower with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and change into 

clean clothes as soon as possible after 

working in pesticide-treated areas. 

• Potential hazards from pesticide 

residues on clothing. 

• Wash work clothes before wearing 

them again and wash them separately 

from other clothes. 

• Do not take pesticides or pesticide 

containers used at work to your home. 

• Safety data sheets provide hazard, 

emergency medical treatment and other 

information about the pesticides used 

on the establishment they may come in 

contact with. 

The responsibility of agricultural 

employers to do all of the following: 

Display safety data sheets for all 

pesticides used on the establishment, 

provide workers and handlers 

information about the location of the 

safety data sheets on the establishment, 

and provide workers and handlers 

unimpeded access to safety data sheets 

during normal work hours. 

• The rule prohibits agricultural 

employers from allowing or directing 

any worker to mix, load or apply 

pesticides or assist in the application of 

pesticides unless the worker has been 

trained as a handler. 

• The responsibility of agricultural 

employers to provide specific 

information to workers before directing 

them to perform early-entry activities. 

Workers must be 18 years old to perform 

early-entry activities. 

• Potential hazards to children and 

pregnant women from pesticide 

exposure. 

• Keep children and nonworking 

family members away from pesticidetreated areas. 

• After working in pesticide-treated 

areas, remove work boots or shoes 

before entering your home, and remove 

work clothes and wash or shower before 

physical contact with children or family 

members. 

• How to report suspected pesticide 

use violations to the state or tribal 

agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

• The rule prohibits agricultural 

employers from intimidating, 

threatening, coercing, or discriminating 

against any worker or handler for 

complying with or attempting to comply 

with the requirements of this rule, or 

because the worker or handler has 

provided, caused to be provided, or is 

about to provide information to the 

employer or to the EPA or its agents 

regarding conduct that the employee 

reasonably believes violates this part, 

and/or has made a complaint, testified, 

assisted, or participated in any manner 

in an investigation, proceeding, or 

hearing concerning compliance with 

this rule. 

The final rule requires employers to 

ensure that handlers are trained on the 

following topics after EPA has 

announced the availability of training 

materials (see Unit XIX. for information 

on the timing of implementation): 

• All content for worker training. 

• Information on proper application 

and use of pesticides. 

• Handlers must follow the portions 

of the labeling applicable to the safe use 

of the pesticide. 

• Format and meaning of information 

contained on pesticide labels and in 

labeling applicable to the safe use of the 

pesticide. 

• Need for and appropriate use and 

removal of all PPE. 

• How to recognize, prevent, and 

provide first aid treatment for heatrelated illness. 

• Safety requirements for handling, 

transporting, storing, and disposing of 

pesticides, including general procedures 

for spill cleanup. 

• Environmental concerns, such as 

drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

• Handlers must not apply pesticides 

in a manner that results in contact with 

workers or other persons. 

• The responsibility of handler 

employers to provide handlers with 

information and protections designed to 

reduce work-related pesticide exposures 

and illnesses. This includes providing, 

cleaning, maintaining, storing, and 

ensuring proper use of all required 

personal protective equipment; 

providing decontamination supplies; 

and providing specific information 

about pesticide use and labeling 

information. 

• Handlers must suspend a pesticide 

application if workers or other persons 

are in the application exclusion zone. 

• Handlers must be at least 18 years 

old. 

• The responsibility of handler 

employers to ensure handlers have 

received respirator fit-testing, training 

and medical evaluation if they are 

required to wear a respirator by the 

product labeling. 

• The responsibility of agricultural 

employers to post treated areas as 

required by this rule. 

EPA intends to develop the training 

materials that meet the final training 

requirements and to publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of their 

availability. To allow time for the 

completion and distribution of revised 

training materials and to allow time for 

trainers to become familiar with them 

and begin training workers and 

handlers, the rule extends the 

implementation period for training on 

the new requirements for two years, or 

until six months after EPA has made the 

revised training materials available, 

whichever is longer. 

The final requirements for the content 

of worker and handler pesticide safety 

training are available at 40 CFR 

170.401(c)(2)–(3) and 170.501(c)(2)–(3), 

respectively. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Farmworker advocacy 

organizations, many states, and public 

health organizations provided support 

for the expanded training topics, in 

particular information about preventing 

take home exposure and medical 

evaluation, fit testing and training on 

respirator use for handlers who need to 

wear respirators. Some farmworker 

advocacy organizations commented on 

the importance of information about 

worker rights. 

Agricultural producer organizations 

expressed concern for the additional 

burden of the lengthier training. Some 

states asserted that several of the 

handler training points are beyond the 

scope of the WPS and should be 

addressed in applicator certification 

only. Specifically, they requested that 

EPA eliminate training on 

environmental concerns from pesticide 

use; proper application and use of 

pesticides; and requirements for 

handlers to understand the format and 

meaning of all information contained on 

pesticide labels and labeling, and to 

follow all pesticide label directions. 

These commenters stated that these 

training points are appropriate for 

persons who work under the 

supervision of certified applicators, but 

they do not relate directly to worker or 

handler safety. Two states 

recommended a revision to language in 

the handler training topics requiring 

that ‘‘all’’ information on the pesticide 

label would be required to be covered, 

stating that all labeling information may 

not be relevant to a given application. 

EPA Response. EPA does not agree 

with comments from states that the 

handler training topics related to 

environmental concerns from pesticide 

use, proper application and use, 

requirements for handlers to understand 

the format and meaning of information 

on labels and to follow label directions 

are beyond the scope of the WPS and 

may expand the liability of handlers. 

First, the ‘‘Worker Protection Standard’’ 

title is descriptive, and not 

jurisdictional. The WPS is, in essence, 

a codification of material that EPA 

would otherwise have to require to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67507 

appear on the labels of agricultural 

pesticides. Thus its potential scope is as 

broad as EPA’s labeling authority. While 

there may be some point at which a 

prospective provision might be so 

tangentially related to the rest of the 

WPS that its inclusion in the WPS 

would cause excessive confusion that is 

not the case with the provisions 

included in this final rule. 

In addition, this is not the first time 

that requirements included in the WPS 

have served purposes beyond the 

protection of agricultural workers and 

handlers. Section 170.210(a) of the 

existing rule requires that ‘‘The handler 

employer and the handler shall assure 

that no pesticide is applied so as to 

contact, either directly or through drift, 

any worker or other person, other than 

an appropriately trained and equipped 

handler’’ (emphasis added). Section 

170.234(c) of the existing rule requires 

that, among other things, when 

application equipment is sent to nonhandlers for repair, the handler 

employer must assure that pesticide 

residues have been removed, or else 

warn the person who would perform the 

repair. The handler training point on 

environmental concerns from pesticide 

use already appears in the existing rule 

at 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4)(xi). In response 

to a similar comment on the proposal 

that resulted in the existing regulation, 

EPA stated: 

One comment questioned the 

relevancy of environmental information 

in worker protection training. The 

Agency believes such training is 

relevant to worker protection. Many 

environmental concerns are applicable 

not only to the organisms in the 

environment, but also to workers and 

other persons who may be in that 

environment. Ground and surface water 

warnings, for example, are designed not 

to protect only aquatic organisms, but to 

protect workers and other persons who 

may be using the water for drinking, 

cooking, bathing, etc. The Agency notes 

that FIFRA defines ‘‘environment’’ as 

including ‘‘water, air, land, and all 

plants and man and other animals living 

therein, and the interrelationships 

which exist among these (Ref. 8).’’ 

The final rule retains the requirement 

for handler training on environmental 

concerns related to pesticide use from 

the current WPS. 

EPA does not agree that the training 

topic requiring handlers to receive 

instruction on proper application and 

use of pesticides is only appropriate for 

noncertified applicators making 

application under the direct supervision 

of a certified applicator. First, handlers 

routinely apply pesticides, and 

misapplication of pesticides can result 

in injury to persons covered by the 

WPS, including workers and handlers. 

Training on proper use can help prevent 

such misapplication and consequent 

exposure to people. Second, relying 

solely on the training of noncertified 

applicators under direct supervision 

would cover only applicators using 

Restricted Use Products (RUPs), and 

many agricultural use products covered 

by the WPS are not RUPs. To ensure 

that handlers under the WPS have the 

training to apply pesticides properly, it 

is necessary for them to be trained on 

proper use. The final rule includes the 

handler training topic requiring 

information on proper application and 

use of pesticides. 

EPA does not agree with the 

commenters that requirements for 

handlers to understand the format and 

meaning of information on labels and to 

follow labeling directions are only 

appropriate for noncertified applicators 

applying under the supervision of 

certified applicators. To properly handle 

agricultural pesticides covered by the 

WPS rule, handlers need to understand 

the information on the labeling related 

to safe use of the pesticide and follow 

the use instructions. Use of a product in 

a manner inconsistent with the labeling 

may cause injury or illness to the 

handler and to others. For a more 

detailed discussion of the comments 

and EPA’s responses on issues related to 

labeling, see Unit XVIII.A. 

E. Exception to Full Pesticide Safety 

Training for Workers Prior to Entry Into 

Treated Areas (Grace Period) 

1. Current rule and proposal. Except 

in regard to workers entering treated 

areas during an REI, the existing WPS 

permits the agricultural employer to 

delay providing full pesticide safety 

training until the end of the fifth day 

after the worker’s entry into a treated 

area, often called the ‘‘grace period,’’ 

provided that the worker receives 

training in a basic set of two safety 

points before entering the treated area 

(i.e., an area that has been treated or 

where an REI has been in effect within 

the last 30 days). Under this exception, 

the worker must receive the full safety 

training on the content outlined in the 

rule prior to the sixth day of entry into 

a treated area. EPA proposed to shorten 

the ‘‘grace period’’ to two days, require 

that full training take place before the 

third day of entry into a treated area, 

and expand the basic set of safety 

information to be provided prior to the 

worker’s first entry into a treated area 

under the ‘‘grace period.’’ 

2. Final rule. EPA has eliminated the 

‘‘grace period’’ entirely. The final rule 

requires employers to ensure that 

workers receive full pesticide safety 

training before entering a treated area 

(i.e., an area that has been treated or 

where an REI has been in effect within 

the last 30 days). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Few commenters 

supported the proposed two day grace 

period coupled with the expanded basic 

safety points prior to first entry. Many 

agricultural producer organizations and 

the Small Business Administration’s 

Office of Advocacy requested that EPA 

retain the five day grace period in the 

existing rule, stating it is needed for 

flexibility in scheduling training 

sessions as workers arrive at various 

times on the establishment. Several 

farmworker advocacy organizations and 

two states recommended elimination of 

the grace period entirely. One state 

recommended, as an alternative, 

adoption of the two day grace period 

with reduced material relative to the 

proposal required prior to first entry. 

Farmworker advocacy organizations that 

supported the elimination of the grace 

period cited the importance of workers 

having full safety information prior to 

entering an area with pesticide residues. 

One state that supported the elimination 

of the grace period expressed concern 

that this change would heighten 

concerns about the number of qualified 

trainers in the event that EPA would 

follow through on its proposal to make 

certified applicators ineligible to train 

workers. 

EPA Response. While EPA recognizes 

the flexibility that the grace period 

offers agricultural employers in 

scheduling training sessions for 

workers, and the economic importance 

of that flexibility, EPA remains 

convinced that the elimination of the 

grace period is reasonable. The full 

pesticide safety training provides 

information that workers need to have 

before their exposure to pesticide 

treated areas so they can protect 

themselves. Under OSHA, training must 

take place at the time of the employee’s 

initial assignment. EPA has decided that 

the cost of eliminating the grace period 

is reasonable when compared to the 

benefit from workers receiving the 

complete pesticide safety training before 

their first exposure to pesticides. 

EPA acknowledges concerns raised by 

agricultural producer organizations and 

states that eliminating the ‘‘grace 

period’’ combined with the proposal to 

limit who is qualified to conduct worker 

training could result in an inadequate 

number of people available to provide 

worker training. The final rule 

continues to allow certified applicators 

to be trainers of workers (see Unit V.D.). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67508 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

As a result, EPA expects that there will 

be an adequate number of trainers to 

provide full pesticide safety training for 

workers prior to their entry into treated 

areas. 

F. Training Program Administration 

Requirements 

1. Current rule and proposal. Under 

the existing WPS, pesticide safety 

training must be presented either orally 

from written materials or in audiovisual 

format. The information must be 

presented in a manner that the worker 

or handler can understand, and the 

trainer must respond to questions, but 

the existing rule does not require the 

trainer to be present for the entire 

training period. EPA proposed to retain 

the requirement to provide training in 

an oral and audiovisual format, to 

require that the trainer remain present 

throughout the training session, and to 

require that the training be presented in 

a place that is conducive to learning and 

reasonably free of distractions. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed requirements for the 

presentation of training. Trainers of 

workers and handlers must remain 

present during training sessions to 

respond to questions. The training 

environment must be conducive to 

training and be reasonably free of 

distractions, to help ensure training 

quality. The final rule retains the 

existing requirement for pesticide safety 

training to be delivered either orally 

from written materials or by audiovisual 

means. 

The final regulatory text for these 

requirements is available at 40 CFR 

170.401(c)(1) and 170.501(c)(1). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments on use of videos. Some 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

endorsed the use of videos, stating that 

when used they enhance understanding 

of the material, especially when 

combined with hands-on activities or 

other kinds of learning approaches. 

Other farmworker advocacy 

organizations stated that there is a lack 

of interaction between the trainer and 

the employees trained using a video, 

resulting in reduced information 

transfer. Agricultural producer 

organizations and states also supported 

the use of the video, citing ease of use, 

and effectiveness. Many commenters 

from each category urged EPA to update 

the videos; a few suggested EPA 

evaluate different media presentations. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with the 

commenters who consider videos to be 

effective and useful training material. 

EPA recognizes that a video is a passive 

form of training, and has added the 

requirement for the trainer to be present 

to answer questions during the entire 

session to mitigate this problem. EPA 

also expects the requirement for the 

training to be in a location reasonably 

free of distractions to improve the 

ability of workers and handlers to 

absorb and retain information. 

Comments on the requirement for 

trainers to remain present during entire 

training session. Farmworker advocate 

organizations and another commenter 

supported the proposal for trainers to 

remain present during the entire 

training, citing the need for them to be 

interactive with workers to enhance the 

training and facilitate discussion. One 

commenter, experienced in providing 

pesticide safety training, noted that the 

interaction with trainees, through 

hands-on training and sharing of 

experiences, was effective. Agricultural 

producer organizations opposed the 

requirement, stating that it would be 

distracting for the video to be 

interrupted for questions, and there 

would be lost time for the trainer. One 

commenter suggested it would lead to 

larger training conferences that would 

discourage post-video interaction. Some 

states opposed the requirement for the 

trainer to be present throughout the 

training; one state recommended that 

the trainer only needs to be available 

before and after the training if a video 

is used. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees that 

having trainers present during the entire 

training program could facilitate 

discussion and promote interaction. 

EPA disagrees that the questions for the 

trainer would be disruptive to the 

training. A 2006 study (Burke) cited 

interactive training activities as a best 

practice for supporting training transfer. 

EPA is convinced that the trainer’s 

presence during the video enhances the 

training by enabling questions and 

discussion during the presentation (Ref. 

9). 

Comments on the requirement for the 

training environment to relatively free of 

distractions and conducive to learning. 

The commenters were mostly in 

agreement that the learning 

environment needs to have minimal 

distractions and be conducive to 

learning. Farmworker advocacy 

organizations and public health 

organizations supported the proposed 

requirement as a way to improve the 

learning environment. Two farm 

bureaus suggested allowing the trainer 

to be absent during the video, and to 

have a supervisor present to ensure the 

quality of the training environment. One 

state supported the proposed 

requirement for the training to be 

conducted in an environment free of 

distractions. Finally, one agricultural 

organization described the environment 

where their workers receive training as 

taking place either on or outside their 

transportation bus or in the field, and 

noted that the low number of incidents 

is evidence that the training is effective. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees that the 

requirement for the training 

environment to be reasonably free from 

distractions and conducive to training 

would make it easier for workers and 

handlers to learn. As discussed in the 

previous response, EPA disagrees with 

comments requesting that EPA 

eliminate the requirement for the trainer 

to be present throughout the training. 

The proposal and final rule establish 

requirements for the training location; 

the ultimate responsibility for ensuring 

the requirements are met rests with the 

employer. EPA recognizes that there are 

challenges in locating environments in 

agriculture that are quiet and present 

few distractions; classrooms are rarely 

convenient. However, EPA is requiring 

employers to provide a training 

environment that is reasonably free from 

distractions and conducive to training. 

EPA notes that the final rule does not 

prohibit providing training in any 

specific location, such as outdoors or on 

a bus, as long as the environment is 

reasonably free from distraction and 

conducive to training. 

G. Require Employers To Provide 

Establishment-Specific Information to 

Workers and Handlers 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS does not clearly require 

employers to provide to workers and 

handlers establishment-specific 

information on the location of 

decontamination supplies or hazard 

information as part of their pesticide 

safety training. EPA proposed that in 

addition to required pesticide safety 

training, employers must provide 

workers and handlers with 

establishment-specific information 

about the location of decontamination 

supplies and pesticide safety and hazard 

information, as well as how to obtain 

medical assistance. EPA proposed that 

agricultural and handler employers 

would be required to provide this 

establishment-specific information to all 

workers and handlers, including those 

previously trained on other 

establishments. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed requirement for employers to 

provide establishment-specific 

information to workers and handlers. 

The final rule requires employers to 

provide establishment-specific 

information for workers and handlers 

when they enter the establishment and 

before beginning WPS tasks in areas 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67509 

where within the last 30 days a product 

requiring compliance with the WPS has 

been applied or an REI has been in 

effect. Content for the establishmentspecific information includes the 

location of the pesticide safety 

information, the location of pesticide 

application and hazard information, and 

the location of decontamination 

supplies. Employers are required to 

provide this information in a manner 

that the worker or handler can 

understand, such as through a 

translator, and prior to the worker or 

handler performing activities covered by 

the WPS. Lastly, this information is 

required even if the employer can verify 

that the worker or handler has already 

received the general pesticide safety 

training on another establishment, 

because the information required is 

specific to each establishment. The final 

regulatory text for these requirements is 

available at 40 CFR 170.403 and 

170.503(b). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Commenters largely 

supported the addition of the 

establishment-specific training, with 

some noting that it is currently being 

provided voluntarily. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with the 

commenters that the establishmentspecific training is necessary for 

workers and handlers to know where to 

find information on the establishment to 

protect themselves from pesticides and 

their potential effects. EPA notes that 

some of this information is required 

under the existing rule. However, EPA 

is convinced that consolidating the 

requirements for establishment-specific 

training will make them easier for 

employers to find and comply with, 

resulting in a higher likelihood that 

workers and handlers will receive the 

necessary information. 

H. Costs and Benefits of Revisions to 

Pesticide Safety Training 

1. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of 

changes to pesticide safety training for 

workers and handlers, including 

increased frequency, expanded content, 

recordkeeping, eliminating the ‘‘grace 

period,’’ changing who is qualified to 

conduct training, and amending training 

program administration requirements 

would be $29.9 million annually and 

range from approximately $62 to $80 

per agricultural establishment per year. 

For a complete discussion of the costs 

see the ‘‘Economic Analysis of Final 

Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard’’ (Ref. 1). 

2. Benefits. While EPA can estimate 

the costs of the changes to pesticide 

safety training for workers and handlers, 

quantifying the benefits is more 

difficult. Nonetheless, as explained in 

the NPRM, it is reasonable to expect that 

more frequent training would lead to 

better retention of information by 

workers and handlers, ultimately 

resulting in fewer incidents of pesticide 

exposure and illness in workers and 

handlers, improved decontamination 

procedures, reduced take-home 

exposure, and better protection of 

children. Similarly, providing workers 

with training before they enter a treated 

area will give them tools they need to 

protect themselves before they 

encounter pesticides as part of their 

occupation. Improving the quality of 

worker training by limiting trainers to 

persons who have completed a trainthe-trainer course, are certified 

applicators under Part 171, or have been 

designated by the regulatory agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement as 

a trainer of workers, handlers or 

certified applicators is expected to 

advance worker comprehension of the 

safety principles and result in better 

self-protection. Finally, enhancing the 

quality of the training environment and 

ensuring that there is a knowledgeable 

person available throughout the training 

session to respond to questions will 

improve the ability of the trainee to 

retain the information. 

The expansion of information 

provided in the training will enable 

workers and handlers to better protect 

themselves and their families, by 

increasing their knowledge of how to 

reduce take-home residues from treated 

areas. The training gives practical 

information that is useful to everyone 

who works with or around agricultural 

pesticides. 

The requirement for recordkeeping is 

an important element of the training 

requirement. Although in itself not a 

protective factor, it will support the 

determination of compliance when 

partnered with worker and employer 

interviews and therefore promote 

adherence to the requirements. In the 

final rule the employer must provide the 

record to the worker or handler upon 

request. The burden of providing copies 

of training records will be offset by the 

reduction in the number of trainings 

that would otherwise have to be 

provided to workers and handlers who 

have already been trained at another 

establishment. 

VI. Notification 

A. Posted Notification Timing and Oral 

Notification 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

current WPS requires agricultural 

employers to notify workers about 

pesticide applications and areas on the 

agricultural establishment subject to an 

REI. Notification is required when 

workers are on the establishment during 

application or the REI and will pass 

within one-quarter mile of the treated 

area. On farms, and in forests and nonenclosed nurseries (referred to as 

‘‘outdoor production’’ in the proposal) 

the agricultural employer may choose 

either to post warning signs at the usual 

points of entry around the treated area 

or to notify workers orally about 

applications that will take place on the 

establishment. In greenhouses and some 

other enclosed spaces (referred to as 

‘‘enclosed space production’’ in the 

proposal), the agricultural employer 

must post warning signs for all 

applications, regardless of the product’s 

REI. In cases where the product labeling 

requires both written and oral 

notification of workers, the WPS also 

requires this ‘‘double notification.’’ 

For outdoor production, EPA 

proposed requiring agricultural 

employers to post warning signs where 

the pesticide to be applied has an REI 

greater than 48 hours, and to allow the 

option of oral warning or posted 

notification for products with an REI of 

48 hours or less. For enclosed space 

production, EPA proposed requiring 

posting of warning signs only when the 

product applied has an REI greater than 

four hours, and to allow the option of 

oral warning or posted notification for 

products with an REI of four hours or 

less. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed requirements to post warning 

signs for all ‘‘outdoor production’’ when 

a product with an REI longer than 48 

hours is used, and to allow either oral 

or posted warnings for ‘‘enclosed space 

production’’ when a product with an 

REI of 4 hours or less is used. The final 

regulatory text for these requirements is 

available at 40 CFR 170.409(a)(1)(ii)–(v). 

The final rule modifies the existing 

requirement for employers to take down 

posted warning signs within three days 

of the expiration of the REI by 

prohibiting worker entry into the area 

until the posted warning signs have 

been removed (except for early entry 

pursuant to 40 CFR 170.603). The final 

regulatory text for this prohibition is 

available at 40 CFR 170.409(b). 

3. Comments and Responses. 

Comments. Many states and some 

farmworker advocacy organizations and 

public health organizations supported 

the ‘‘field posting’’ and notification 

requirements as proposed. They noted 

the potential benefit to workers and 

employees of crop advisors of 

mandatory posting for the most toxic 

pesticides. They agreed with EPA’s 

assessment that additional posting 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67510 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

would provide added protection for 

workers while placing a minimal 

burden on employers. 

Several grower associations and farm 

bureaus supported the proposed change 

in notification requirements for indoor 

production but opposed the proposal for 

additional posting for outdoor 

production. They noted that signs can 

be destroyed, removed, or relocated and 

that agricultural producers may not 

return to some fields more than once per 

week. One grower association 

specifically requested that EPA clarify 

how enforcement would address these 

challenges without inappropriately 

penalizing agricultural employers. This 

group stated that workers are fully 

capable of understanding oral 

notification and suggest focusing 

instead on reinforcing the existing oral 

notification. Several grower 

organizations also did not agree that 

EPA justified the cost of the proposal 

with the benefits. 

Farmworker advocacy organizations 

suggested a number of alternatives, 

including requiring both posting signs 

and providing oral warnings for all 

pesticide applications, or at a minimum 

for those pesticides with an REI of 12 

hours or more. Some farmworker 

advocacy organizations suggested 

mandatory posting of any treated area 

subject to an REI greater than 24 hours, 

and others requested that EPA require 

mandatory posting of any treated area 

subject to an REI. They reiterated EPA’s 

rationale that oral notification of 

pesticide application information is 

difficult to recall over multiple days, 

that oral notification may not be clearly 

communicated due to multiple language 

barriers and that it is difficult to verify 

whether oral notification was in fact 

given. 

EPA Response. EPA considered the 

comments submitted and agrees that 

increasing workers’ awareness of treated 

areas will lead to an overall reduction 

in occupational pesticide-related 

illnesses at reasonable cost. 

EPA disagrees with comments that 

suggest oral notification alone would 

provide sufficient notification to 

workers and agrees with comments that 

support increased posting requirements. 

As noted in the proposal for this rule, 

research has shown that oral instruction 

alone may not be an effective method of 

safety instruction. EPA is aware that 

compliance with the posting 

requirement for outdoor production 

could require some establishments to 

change their business practices or 

monitor posted fields more often. 

EPA considered additional posting 

requirements presented by farmworker 

advocacy organizations and was not 

convinced that the increased cost to 

employers to post all treated areas, or to 

post areas treated with products with 

REIs of 12 hours or greater, or 24 hours 

or greater would result in significantly 

more increased protections than the 

requirement to post areas treated with 

products with an REI longer than 48 

hours. EPA concluded that it is 

reasonable to expect workers to 

remember oral warnings regarding REIs 

for two work days, or about 48 hours 

total, and reasonable to require visual 

reminders for longer periods. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the annual cost of posting treated areas 

under an REI of more than 48 hours and 

allowing oral notification for indoor 

production applications of products 

with an REI of 4 hours or less to be 

$10.4 million annually, with the per 

establishment cost of $33, and finds this 

cost to be reasonable in comparison to 

the benefit to workers to avoid pesticide 

illness by remaining out of treated areas 

under an REI. 

B. Revise Content of Warning Sign 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS requires agricultural 

employers to post warning signs with 

the words ‘‘DANGER,’’ ‘‘PELIGRO,’’ 

‘‘PESTICIDES’’ and ‘‘PESTICIDAS,’’ at 

the top of the sign, and the words 

‘‘KEEP OUT’’ and ‘‘NO ENTRE’’ at the 

bottom of the sign. A circle containing 

an upraised hand on the left and a stern 

face on the right must be near the center 

of the sign. EPA proposed replacing 

‘‘KEEP OUT’’ and ‘‘NO ENTRE’’ with 

‘‘Entry Restricted’’ and ‘‘Entrada 

Restringida,’’ and changing the shape 

containing the face and hand to an 

octagon (similar to a stop sign). 

2. Final rule. EPA has decided not to 

change the text or graphic of the existing 

warning sign. The final regulatory text 

for the warning sign content is available 

at 40 CFR 170.409(b)(2). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Two states and several 

grower organizations supported the 

proposed changes on the grounds that 

‘‘Entry Restricted’’ would be less 

confusing to workers than ‘‘KEEP OUT,’’ 

since entry is allowed under certain 

circumstances. Many more state, 

farmworker advocacy organizations, and 

public health organizations opposed 

changing the existing warning sign. 

Those commenters asserted that ‘‘KEEP 

OUT’’ sends a much clearer message 

than ‘‘Entry Restricted,’’ particularly to 

people with lower levels of literacy. 

They noted that the term ‘‘Entrada 

Restringida’’ is not common in Spanish, 

which is the first language of the 

majority of farmworkers in the U.S., 

whereas ‘‘KEEP OUT’’ is simple and 

well understood even by people who do 

not speak or read English. Commenters 

pointed to standard readability test 

results confirming that ‘‘KEEP OUT’’ is 

easily understood by most six-year-olds, 

while ‘‘Entry Restricted’’ is placed at the 

grade 12–13 reading level and would be 

beyond the reading and comprehension 

level of the majority of farmworkers in 

the U.S. 

A number of states commented that 

the existing sign is sufficient. They 

noted that although ‘‘Entry Restricted’’ 

is more accurate, it would be a costly 

change for growers that may lead to 

confusion and not be more protective 

than the language on the existing 

warning sign. States also commented 

that 20 years of training and experience 

with the current sign is what makes it 

effective for keeping workers out of 

fields under an REI. The states and 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

agreed that for the predominantly lowliteracy population of farmworkers, a 

simpler message, along with training on 

the message, is more protective than the 

proposed wording for the warning sign. 

EPA Response. EPA was persuaded 

that the proposed changes to the 

warning sign would be costly for 

employers and not increase protections 

for workers as much as expected. A 

significant factor in EPA’s decision was 

the additional information presented in 

public comments regarding the potential 

lack of understanding of the term 

‘‘Entrada Restringida.’’ EPA was 

convinced that eliminating the existing 

language, ‘‘KEEP OUT,’’ in favor of a 

technically more accurate sign would be 

less protective for the majority of 

workers. The goal of the warning sign is 

to keep workers out of areas that are 

treated with certain pesticides. Entry 

into these areas is prohibited while the 

REI is in effect with a few narrow 

exceptions. Workers that are directed to 

enter treated areas under an REI and/or 

areas where the warning sign is posted 

must have received pesticide safety 

training, be provided additional 

protections, and be informed that their 

entry is subject to the limitations 

established for early entry exceptions in 

the regulation. Because EPA expects 

that the majority of workers would 

never enter treated areas during an REI, 

because 20 years of training and 

experience have familiarized workers 

with the message and intent of the sign, 

and because EPA has added additional 

training and protection for workers 

entering treated areas while an REI is in 

effect, EPA agrees with commenters that 

the easily understood message of ‘‘KEEP 

OUT’’ is most appropriate. 

4. Costs and benefits. Since the final 

rule does not change the requirement in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67511 

the existing rule, there are no costs 

associated with this decision. 

C. Warning Sign Location Revisions 

1. Current rule and proposal. Under 

the existing rule, when signs are 

required for applications in outdoor 

production, they ‘‘shall be visible from 

all usual points of worker entry to the 

treated area, including at least each 

access road, each border with any labor 

camp adjacent to the treated area, and 

each footpath and other walking route 

that enters the treated area.’’ EPA 

proposed maintaining the existing 

posting requirement for outdoor 

production and clarifying the language 

to require posting be visible from ‘‘each 

border with any worker housing area 

within 100 feet of the treated area,’’ 

rather than ‘‘labor camps adjacent to the 

treated area.’’ 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed changes to the warning sign 

location requirements for outdoor 

production. The final regulatory text for 

this requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.409(b)(3)(ii). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Several states, grower 

organizations, and farmworker advocacy 

organizations supported the proposal 

and agreed that it would support EPA’s 

goal of increasing clarity of the rule and 

enhance the ability of employers to 

understand their responsibilities under 

the regulation. Commenters in support 

of the change noted that ‘‘adjacent’’ is a 

vague term that may be interpreted 

differently by different people and that 

‘‘labor camp’’ is too limited and does 

not technically include worker housing. 

They noted that clearer posting 

requirements could lead to better 

compliance and thus be a better system 

for keeping people living in close 

proximity to treated fields safe. 

Some pesticide manufacturers 

opposed the proposal on the grounds 

that it is an overly prescriptive, costly, 

and unnecessary provision which 

would not provide additional protection 

above that already provided by the label 

and existing WPS. 

A public health organization 

proposed adding pesticide application 

information and REIs to the posting 

requirement near worker housing areas. 

One state suggested revising the 

language by stating ‘‘Each border with 

any worker housing area provided by 

this establishment/employer within 100 

feet of the treated area.’’ 

EPA Response. EPA was not 

persuaded by the comments that the 

requirement would be a significant 

additional burden on employers. The 

requirement only clarifies where 

employers need to post warning signs 

but does not increase posting 

requirements beyond what was 

intended in the existing regulation. EPA 

agrees with commenters who noted that 

increased clarity on posting 

requirements will lead to better 

compliance and increase awareness of 

treated fields by workers who live near 

treated areas. 

4. Costs and benefits. Because this 

change only clarifies an existing 

requirement, the cost, if any, would be 

negligible. 

VII. Hazard Communication 

A. Hazard Information—Location and 

Accessibility 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS requires employers to 

display certain information about 

pesticide applications at a central 

location on the establishment when 

workers or handlers are present and an 

application of a pesticide requiring 

compliance with the WPS has been 

made or an REI has been in effect within 

the past 30 days (referred to as the 

‘‘central display’’ requirement). 

EPA proposed to replace the existing 

requirement for the application 

information to be located at the central 

display with a requirement for 

employers to make the application 

information and additional hazard 

information accessible upon request by 

workers, handlers or their authorized 

representatives. 

2. Final rule. EPA has decided not to 

finalize the proposal. The final rule 

generally retains the existing 

requirement related to the location of, 

and accessibility for workers and 

handlers to, the pesticide application 

information, makes some changes to the 

content of the required information, 

requires display of hazard information, 

and includes the accessibility 

requirements proposed for workers, 

handlers, and their designated 

representatives (‘‘authorized 

representatives’’ in the proposal). The 

employer must display the information 

at a place on the establishment where 

workers or handlers are likely to pass by 

(the ‘‘central display’’). The information 

must be displayed when workers or 

handlers are on the establishment and 

an application of a WPS-covered 

pesticide has been made or an REI has 

been in effect within the past 30 days. 

After this time, the information must be 

kept on the establishment for two years 

and made available to workers, 

handlers, or their designated 

representatives or any treating medical 

personnel. The final rule contains more 

specificity than the proposal, 

particularly in reference to the 

designated representative, where details 

are drawn from OSHA’s rule at 29 CFR 

1910 (Ref. 17). 

The designated representative must 

provide written evidence of such 

designation, including the name of the 

worker or handler being represented, a 

description of the specific information 

being requested, including dates of 

employment of the employee, the dates 

for which the records are requested, the 

type of work conducted by the worker 

or handler during that period, a 

statement indicating that the 

representative is designated by the 

worker or handler, the specific 

application and/or hazard information 

requested, a statement designating the 

representative to request the 

information on the worker’s or handler’s 

behalf, the date of the designation, and 

the printed name and contact 

information for the designated 

representative. If the information is to 

be sent to the requester, direction for 

where that information must be sent is 

to be included. When the employer is 

presented a request that contains all of 

the necessary information specified in 

the regulations, the employer must 

provide a copy of, or access to, all of the 

requested information that is applicable 

within 15 working days from the receipt 

of the request. Failure to respond to the 

request would be a violation of the rule. 

The final regulatory text for this 

requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.311(b)(9). 

Workers and handlers who worked on 

the establishment may request, orally or 

in writing, the pesticide-specific 

information retained by the employer. 

The information must have been 

displayed while the worker or handler 

worked on the establishment. The 

employer must provide access to, or a 

copy of, the information within 15 days 

of the request. The regulatory text for 

this requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.311(b)(7). 

Under the requirements to provide 

records to workers, handlers, and 

designated representatives, EPA also 

added language similar to that found in 

OSHA regulations (see 29 CFR 

1910.1020(e)(1)(v)) to ensure that 

whenever a record has been previously 

provided without cost to a worker, 

handler, or their designated 

representative, the agricultural 

employer may charge reasonable, nondiscriminatory administrative costs (i.e., 

search and copying expenses but not 

including overhead expenses) for a 

request by the worker or handler for 

additional copies of the same record. 

Medical personnel or persons acting 

under their supervision may also 

request the pesticide-specific 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67512 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

information required to be retained in 

170.311(b)(6) to inform diagnosis or 

treatment of workers or handlers who 

were employed on the establishment 

during the time the information was 

required to be displayed. The request 

may be provided orally or in writing to 

the agricultural employer, and the 

employer must respond promptly to the 

request. The regulatory text for this 

requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.311(b)(8). 

Lastly, the final rule makes some 

changes to the content of the required 

pesticide application information and 

when it must be posted, as explained in 

Units VII.C. and VII.D. The final 

regulatory text for this requirement is 

available at 40 CFR 170.311(b). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. The overwhelming 

majority of commenters requested EPA 

to keep the existing central display 

requirement. Many comments from 

farmworker advocacy organizations, 

public health organizations, states, and 

some members of Congress noted that 

they thought it was unreasonable and 

unrealistic to think a vulnerable 

population such as workers and 

handlers would request hazard 

information from their employers. These 

commenters cited many reasons for this 

position, including barriers (e.g., 

language differences, concern about 

compromising their immigration status, 

and fear of retribution, retaliation or job 

loss) and the power and social dynamics 

between employer and employee. These 

commenters were adamant that workers 

and handlers needed ready, anonymous, 

unhampered access to hazard 

information as currently provided 

through the central display requirement. 

Most of these commenters supported 

the inclusion of a designated 

representative who could request the 

hazard information on behalf of a 

worker or handler, including 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

citing OSHA’s requirements at 29 CFR 

1910.1020(e)(1) that establish access to 

exposure records for workers in other 

industries. Comments in support of 

including access to hazard information 

by workers’ or handlers’ designated 

representatives note that workers and 

handlers may be reluctant to request the 

information for themselves due to their 

inability to communicate effectively 

with, or fear of, their employer, or 

because they may not be able to 

understand the information without 

help. One comment described a 

situation where a farmworker advocacy 

organization requested such information 

from an employer on behalf of two ill 

workers, but their request was denied 

because the workers themselves did not 

make the request. 

In contrast, there was significant 

opposition from the agricultural 

industry to the proposal for the 

authorized representative, including 

growers, pesticide manufacturers, and 

their organizations, some states, and the 

Small Business Administration’s Office 

of Advocacy. Comments from these 

groups centered on the additional 

burden on employers to provide the 

records. Commenters also expressed 

concerns that allowing access to 

pesticide application information by 

designated representatives could be 

abused by anti-pesticide organizations, 

who could send people onto the 

establishment requesting information 

purportedly on behalf of a worker or 

handler. In addition, some farm bureau 

comments stated that the requirement 

for providing the information to a 

representative is a violation of farmer’s 

legal and privacy rights, stating that the 

representative could demand all 

information related to pesticides on that 

establishment. 

Some commenters provided 

recommendations to improve the 

proposed requirement for a designated 

representative. Suggested improvements 

included limiting the designated 

representative requirement to current 

workers and handlers or to employees 

who worked on the establishment 

within two years of the request, limiting 

access to medical personnel only, or 

limiting the request to a specific 

incident. Many commenters 

recommended that the request be in 

written form, and include designation of 

the representative by the worker or 

handler. One state recommended 

defining a time frame for provision of 

the information to the requester. 

Another state suggested that the request 

clearly identify the information required 

to be provided to the authorized 

representative, and the purpose of the 

request or intended use of the 

information. 

Many of the commenters in favor of 

keeping the existing central display 

requirement explained that a central 

display requirement that provides 

information about general pesticide 

safety, including symptoms of pesticide 

illness, and the specific pesticides used 

on the establishment, is necessary to 

protect the health of workers and 

handlers. First, having information 

available in non-emergency situations 

could help workers and handlers be 

aware of symptoms before they occur, 

help them avoid exposure, and possibly 

enhance the reporting of illnesses. 

Secondly, they stated that emergency 

medical personnel would not have to 

lose critical time tracking down 

information instead of treating the ill or 

injured person if they could rely on 

accessing the information quickly from 

the central display. 

EPA also received comments from one 

pesticide manufacturer organization, a 

couple of states and some farm bureaus 

in favor of the proposal to eliminate the 

existing requirement for a central 

display of pesticide application 

information. These commenters agreed 

with EPA’s observations in the preamble 

to the proposal that this requirement 

imposes a paperwork burden and that 

states often cite employers for technical 

violations of the display requirement. 

The commenters stated it is difficult to 

keep the displayed information current 

when application plans change, 

especially on large establishments. They 

also noted the difficulty keeping 

information legible when it is displayed 

at a central location subject to weather 

conditions. These commenters 

encouraged EPA to eliminate the 

existing central display requirement, not 

to finalize the proposed requirement to 

provide hazard communication 

information to workers, handlers, or 

their designated representative, and to 

require employers to only keep records 

of pesticide applications on their 

establishment. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with those 

commenters who argued that workers 

and handlers must have relatively 

unhindered access to pesticide-specific 

information, and has decided to retain 

the central display requirement. 

Although the extent and type of barriers 

and employer-employee dynamics are 

unique to each situation, EPA 

recognizes that a significant number of 

workers and handlers face 

disadvantages that can reasonably be 

expected to make them hesitant to ask 

their employers for information relating 

to their pesticide exposure. 

Consequently, EPA believes that it is not 

reasonable to make an employee’s task 

of obtaining this information more 

difficult, particularly given the potential 

usefulness of the information if an 

employee may have been harmed by a 

pesticide. Therefore, EPA has decided to 

retain the requirement for the pesticide 

application information to be displayed 

at a place on the establishment where 

workers and handlers are likely to pass 

by or congregate and has added the 

requirement that the SDS must also be 

displayed at that location. In addition, 

in the final rule, workers and handlers 

and their designated representative may 

request either a copy of or access to the 

pesticide-specific information that was 

required to be displayed while the 

worker or handler was employed on the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67513 

establishment. The records of 

application and SDSs must be retained 

for two years after the application. 

Access to the SDSs after the display 

period will afford workers and handlers 

information about the pesticides they 

may have been exposed to, and the 

hazards they may present. 

EPA recognizes, however, that there 

can be difficulties in complying with 

the central display requirement. In 

response to comments about the 

difficulty of keeping accurate 

information posted, EPA has attempted 

to simplify the central display 

requirement by changing the required 

time frame for posting the applicationspecific information (see Unit VII.D.). 

EPA expects this modification to the 

requirement for the timing to post the 

application information will reduce the 

burden on employers, while providing 

employees with ready access to accurate 

information. In response to the 

comments about the difficulty of 

maintaining a legible central display 

when it is subject to weather conditions, 

EPA notes that the central display 

requirement does not mandate that 

employers post the information 

outdoors. The information must be 

displayed ‘‘where workers and handlers 

are likely to pass by and congregate and 

where it can be readily seen and read’’ 

and workers and handlers must be able 

to access the information at all times 

during work hours. This does not 

preclude the central display from being 

maintained in a location sheltered from 

weather conditions, such as a bathroom, 

break area, or changing area, as long as 

the requirements of this section are met. 

EPA has been convinced by 

comments in support to retain the 

option for a designated representative to 

access hazard information (application 

information and SDS) on behalf of a 

worker or handler. EPA agrees that 

including in the rule a requirement, 

based on OSHA’s rule at 29 CFR 

1910.1020, for employers to provide the 

information to a representative who has 

been designated to act on the behalf of 

the worker or handler would give 

workers and handlers more access to 

information related to pesticides used in 

their workplace. Also, EPA is aware that 

California and Texas regulations include 

requirements for employee 

representatives’ to be given access to 

hazard information for farmworkers, 

and comments from the Texas 

Department of Agriculture encouraged 

EPA to require the designation in 

writing and to limit access to records to 

the retention timeframe of two years. 

EPA is unaware of issues related to 

worker representatives in those states. 

In response to the many comments 

opposing the establishment of the 

authorized or designated representative 

based on concerns for the potential for 

anti-chemical activists fraudulently 

acquiring records, the final rule 

includes a requirement for the 

representative to provide to the 

employer documentation (written 

authorization) signed by the worker or 

handler that clearly designates that 

person to act as his or her designated 

representative. The information that can 

be obtained is limited to the application 

and hazard information that is required 

by § 170.311(b) of the final rule that was 

required to be displayed while the 

worker or handler was on the 

establishment, and for the dates 

applicable to the worker’s or handler’s 

dates of employment on the 

establishment. The employer must 

provide the information regardless of 

the worker’s or handler’s employment 

status on that establishment at the time 

of the request. 

EPA was convinced by comments 

about the need for the pesticide specific 

information by medical personnel 

treating workers or handlers who may 

have been exposed to pesticides on the 

establishment, and has added a 

requirement that employers promptly 

provide the information to the 

requesting medical personnel or persons 

they supervise. The information would 

help ensure that the medical 

considerations would include the 

possibility that a pesticide exposure was 

involved in the worker’s or handler’s 

illness. 

B. Pesticide-Specific Hazard 

Communication Materials—General 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS requires employers to 

provide workers and handlers with 

specific pesticide application 

information, but not pesticide-specific 

hazard information on the pesticides 

they may be exposed to in the 

workplace. 

EPA proposed to require employers to 

provide workers and handlers with 

access to the SDSs and pesticide 

labeling for products that have been 

applied on the establishment and to 

which workers and handlers may be 

exposed, in addition to the pesticide 

application information already 

required to be made available. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

requirement for agricultural employers 

to display at a central location pesticide 

application information and SDSs for 

pesticide products used on the 

establishment (referred to as ‘‘pesticide 

application and hazard information’’ in 

the final rule). EPA has not finalized the 

proposal to require employers to 

provide access to pesticide labeling. The 

final regulatory text for this requirement 

is available at 40 CFR 170.311(b). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments on providing safety data 

sheets and pesticide labeling. EPA 

received many comments in favor of the 

proposed requirement. Although many 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

expressed support for a requirement that 

employers maintain both labeling and 

SDS and make them available to 

workers and handlers, few discussed the 

merits or drawbacks. Many farmworker 

advocacy organizations, public health 

organizations and academics, a grower 

organization and others supported a 

requirement to maintain and provide 

SDSs. Some of these commenters 

indicated that the information on a SDS 

would be helpful for the correct 

diagnosis and treatment of pesticiderelated illnesses. Farmworker advocacy 

organizations explained that workers 

want more information on what 

pesticides are used and what they are 

exposed to, along with possible side 

effects. On the other hand, a few grower 

organizations, a farm bureau, a pesticide 

manufacturer organization and a couple 

of states were against a requirement to 

provide SDSs. These commenters 

argued that EPA had not made a case 

strong enough to justify why workers 

need SDSs. They also opposed display 

of SDSs on the grounds that while the 

pesticide product label poses legally 

enforceable requirements on users, SDSs 

do not. 

Some farmworker advocacy 

organizations, public health 

organizations, a grower organization, a 

farm bureau and others thought it would 

not be much of a burden on agricultural 

employers to acquire the SDSs of 

pesticide products because they are 

easily available online or can be 

requested from the pesticide 

manufacturer or distributor. One 

farmworker advocacy organization gave 

the Washington State Employer Hazard 

Communication rule (EHC rule) as an 

example of a requirement for employers 

to make SDSs available to employees 

that is feasible. http://www.lni.wa.gov/ 

IPUB/413-012-000.pdf. The Washington 

State EHC rule applies to employers 

with one or more employees who either 

handle or are potentially exposed to 

hazardous chemicals, including 

pesticides, in their workplace. It 

requires employers to make SDSs for 

each chemical that employees may 

encounter readily accessible and easily 

obtained without delay during each 

work shift, and to ensure that employees 

traveling between workplaces during a 

work shift can immediately obtain the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67514 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

SDS in an emergency. In contrast, a 

couple of grower associations stated that 

it is overly burdensome for agricultural 

employers to get SDSs. One state 

thought it would be difficult for 

employers to locate the correct SDS for 

pesticide products. They also noted that 

small businesses and private applicators 

will have the most difficulty since they 

are not already accustomed to keeping 

SDSs. 

EPA received some comments both 

for and against providing pesticide 

product labeling. Many farmworker 

advocacy groups supported a 

requirement for the employer to provide 

the labeling. These commenters 

maintained that workers and handlers 

want more information on chemicals to 

which they may be exposed. On the 

other hand, farm bureaus, growers and 

grower organizations and states opposed 

a requirement to provide the labeling. 

These commenters expressed concern 

that EPA is expanding its mandate by 

requiring agricultural employers to 

provide the product ‘‘labeling’’ when it 

should be limited only to the WPS 

portions of the ‘‘label.’’ These 

commenters argued that an agricultural 

employer could easily violate this 

requirement by not having the most 

current or correct version of the 

labeling, such as a specimen or 

technical label. 

EPA Response. After consideration of 

the comments, EPA remains convinced 

that access to SDSs offers significant 

health and safety benefits to workers 

and handlers. SDSs contain information 

that is not generally included in 

pesticide labeling regarding chronic, 

developmental, and reproductive 

toxicity that can be valuable to exposed 

and potentially exposed workers, and to 

medical personnel and others who 

provide treatment to an ill or injured 

person. Moreover, given the ubiquity of 

chemicals subject to the OSHA Hazard 

Communication Standard that mandates 

the development and distribution of 

SDSs, it is likely that many health care 

professionals are more familiar with 

SDSs than pesticide labeling. Requiring 

the SDS as part of the central display 

facilitates a quicker identification of the 

pesticide product used in case of an 

incident and may assist in diagnosis. 

The SDS contains information about 

symptoms expected in a person exposed 

to the chemical (immediate, delayed 

and chronic effects) as well as 

recommended treatment, whereas the 

label may not include detailed 

information on symptoms or treatment. 

EPA recognizes that state pesticide 

regulatory agencies do not review, 

approve, or take enforcement action 

based on the information in SDSs. 

However, comments from worker 

advocates indicate that workers and 

handlers want to have more information 

on health effects, which is available on 

SDSs and generally not available on the 

pesticide labeling. OSHA is requiring 

that all SDSs be in a standard format, 

making it easier to locate health 

information (Ref. 17). Accordingly, EPA 

concludes that a requirement to post 

SDSs is an effective way to 

communicate pesticide hazard 

information important to workers and 

handlers. EPA notes that under the final 

rule workers and handlers will learn 

during pesticide safety training about 

SDSs, the information they contain, and 

their availability at central display 

locations. This addition to the training 

will further reinforce workers’ and 

handlers’ awareness and potential use of 

SDSs. 

EPA is persuaded that access to SDSs 

is not a significant obstacle to requiring 

agricultural employers to keep and 

display SDSs for pesticide products 

used on the establishment. Agricultural 

employers can obtain SDSs from the 

distributor of the pesticide, online, or 

upon request from the product 

manufacturer. For example, employers 

in industries other than agriculture— 

including retailers and wholesalers of 

agricultural chemicals—are required by 

the OSHA Hazard Communication 

Standard to make available SDSs to 

their employees. 

Upon consideration of the comments, 

EPA has decided not to require 

agricultural employers include the 

pesticide product label or labeling as 

part of the central display requirement. 

EPA recognizes the burden on 

employers to provide both the SDS and 

label or labeling in addition to the 

pesticide application information. As 

noted previously, the SDS contains the 

health-related information requested in 

comments by worker advocates, and 

that would be most useful to persons 

providing treatment to those who may 

have been exposed to pesticides. EPA 

agrees that if necessary, the labeling for 

a product used for a specific application 

can be located using the applicationspecific information that employers are 

also required to post. See Unit XVIII.A. 

for a complete discussion of comments 

related to labels and labeling. 

Comments on the extent of the 

requirement. EPA received comments 

both to narrow and to expand the scope 

of the proposal requiring employers to 

maintain SDSs and make them available 

to employees. Among the suggestions to 

narrow the scope of the proposal, one 

state suggested EPA keep a central 

repository of SDSs for agricultural 

employers to access and require 

employers to keep the SDS only while 

the associated pesticide product 

remains on the establishment. 

Farmworker advocacy organizations and 

public health organizations 

recommended expanding the proposed 

requirement to a full Hazard 

Communication Standard as required by 

the Washington State ECHC for all 

hazardous chemicals, which requires 

employers to develop a written Hazard 

Communication program, maintain 

availability and access to SDSs, provide 

information and training on hazards in 

the workplace, translate certain 

documents upon request, and keep and 

provide access to exposure records for at 

least 30 years. 

Many farmworker advocacy 

organizations suggested that EPA 

require SDSs to be available in multiple 

languages and provided two examples 

of similar requirements. First, one 

farmworker advocacy organization cited 

the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 

Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801, 

et seq.), administered by the DOL, 

which requires written information on 

the terms of employment to be provided 

in English, Spanish or other language 

common to workers. Second, one 

farmworker advocacy organization 

claimed that in Washington State, 

agricultural employers are required to 

provide translated documents if 

requested. Farmworker advocacy 

organizations asserted that it would be 

easy to translate SDSs because of the 

standard format required by OSHA’s 

adoption of the Globally Harmonized 

System of Classification and Labeling of 

Chemicals. One pesticide manufacturer 

organization was opposed to translating 

the SDS because of the many indigenous 

languages present among workers. 

EPA Response. After reviewing the 

comments, EPA has decided on an 

approach that will provide workers and 

handlers with more information about 

the potential health effects associated 

with the pesticides to which they may 

be exposed without overly burdening 

agricultural employers. Obtaining the 

SDSs for products used on the 

establishment should not be overly 

burdensome to employers; SDSs are 

available from pesticide dealers and the 

internet. An EPA-managed repository of 

the SDSs of all WPS pesticides would 

not significantly improve access and 

would be a significant burden for EPA 

because of the number of pesticides 

included. Stakeholders such as grower 

organizations are free to voluntarily 

develop SDS repositories with 

assistance from members. Voluntary 

programs of this sort would involve 

limited subsets of all WPS-scope 

pesticide products and could possibly 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67515 

be accomplished within a short period 

in comparison to a national, full-scale 

repository program. 

EPA has decided not to reduce the 

amount of time the SDS must be 

available. The cost of retaining the SDS, 

once obtained, is negligible. Employees 

and medical personnel could benefit 

from access to the health effects 

information in the SDS in case of 

symptoms that develop sometime after 

the application has been completed. 

EPA disagrees with commenters’ 

request to adopt a full hazard 

communication proposal as required by 

the Washington State ECHC for all 

hazardous chemicals. The full set of the 

WPS requirements in the final rule 

provide protections similar to those 

provided to workers in other industries 

under OSHA’s Hazard Communication 

Standard program, while recognizing 

differences between agriculture and 

other industries. As discussed in the 

Agency’s 1992 proposed rule on the 

Worker Protection Standard; Hazard 

Information (Ref. 18), in response to 

numerous concerns about potential 

overlap or conflict between EPA’s July 

1988 proposed WPS (Ref. 18) and 

OSHA’s August 1988 proposed Hazard 

Communications Standard (Ref. 19), 

EPA committed to work with OSHA to 

minimize confusion and avoid 

duplication between the two agencies’ 

requirements. Rather than require 

agricultural establishments that may not 

routinely use the same pesticides to 

develop and maintain a written Hazard 

Communication Standard plan listing 

all chemicals that will be used in the 

workplace, EPA’s approach, in both the 

1992 proposed rule on Hazard 

Information (Ref. 20) and this final rule, 

has been to identify specific 

requirements, tailored to fit the context 

of pesticide use in agricultural 

production that serve a purpose similar 

to the Hazard Communication Standard 

requirements in other industries. These 

requirements include pesticide safety 

training, display of basic pesticide 

safety information, notification or 

posting of treated areas, and access to 

information about pesticides used in the 

workplace at a central location. EPA 

notes that the WPS does not exempt 

employers with 10 or fewer employees, 

unlike OSHA’s Hazard Communication 

Standard. EPA also notes that the cost 

of a developing and implementing a full 

hazard communication program specific 

to each establishment could be 

burdensome to small agricultural 

establishments. 

Lastly, although EPA is not requiring 

that SDSs be translated at this time, EPA 

encourages and supports employers to 

display this information in such a way 

that workers and handlers can 

understand, including translation. EPA 

is open to conferring with stakeholders 

on the need for translation and 

identifying content to be translated, if 

necessary. EPA notes that some 

pesticide manufacturers already make 

pesticide product SDSs available in 

Spanish and EPA encourages employers 

to display Spanish SDSs where 

available and appropriate. 

Comments on other forms of hazard 

communications materials. Many 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

suggested EPA develop and provide 

crop sheets, booklets, or other types of 

materials that describe the health effects 

of pesticides, either in lieu of or in 

addition to the SDS. These commenters 

identified a need for a pictorial booklet 

designed for low-literacy audiences on 

the health effects from exposure to 

pesticides, based on the information in 

SDSs. One state suggested that a small 

booklet with basic pesticide exposure 

symptoms by classes of chemicals or 

modes of action, described in layman’s 

terms would be more helpful to workers 

than SDSs. One pesticide manufacturer 

organization opposed the development 

of crop sheets. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with the 

basic concept of providing workers and 

handlers with information on the health 

effects of pesticides for workers and 

handlers in a manner they can 

understand. Pesticide safety training 

and the pesticide information display 

provide workers and handlers with 

information on the symptoms that may 

be associated with exposure to different 

pesticides. If workers or handlers need 

information about the specific effects of 

a pesticide with which they have 

worked, they can consult the SDS. 

However, EPA does not agree with the 

commenters’ request to require crop 

sheets or similar materials because, in 

EPA’s judgment, the benefits of such a 

requirement would not justify the 

substantial costs associated with 

creating, updating, translating and 

distributing materials for every crop, 

growing region, and WPS-scope 

pesticide product. As noted in the 

proposal for this rule, crop sheets and 

other types of material have been 

developed in the past, with very limited 

success. For example, one state’s crop 

sheet program proved to be expensive 

and labor intensive, and the crop sheets 

were left as litter in the fields, unused. 

SDSs already contain information about 

the potential health effects (acute, 

delayed, and chronic) associated with 

use of pesticide products and will be 

readily available in a uniform format, 

including provide hazard information in 

words and in pictograms. 

Comments on inconsistencies in 

information between labels and SDSs. A 

pesticide manufacturer organization 

opposed any requirement by EPA to 

provide SDSs to worker and handlers 

upon request. This commenter 

expressed concern about the confusion 

that may be caused by inconsistencies 

between pesticide labels and SDSs. 

OSHA requires manufacturers to use 

GHS terms and chemical classification 

criteria on SDSs whereas EPA does not 

require their use on pesticide product 

labels. As a result, SDSs and pesticide 

product labels could have different 

hazard statements, pictograms and 

signal words. 

EPA Response. EPA has not finalized 

the proposed requirement for the 

employer to make available pesticide 

product labeling upon request. Instead, 

the final rule requires the employer to 

display only pesticide application 

information and SDSs for pesticide 

products used on the establishment. The 

SDS provides succinct information 

about the known health hazards of the 

product that typically is not presented 

as part of the product label or labeling. 

Such information can be invaluable to 

medical professionals for the diagnosis 

and treatment of certain pesticiderelated illnesses and injuries. Because 

EPA is not requiring the employer to 

display the labeling, EPA does not 

expect issues with a perception of 

conflict between labeling and SDSs. The 

persons who wear PPE and have access 

to the label are pesticide handlers who 

receive more thorough training than 

workers. If pesticide handlers encounter 

conflicting information on labeling and 

SDSs, such as the PPE identified, they 

should know they must follow the 

instructions on the pesticide labeling, as 

they are trained to do. For information 

on OSHA’s adoption of the Globally 

Harmonized System of Classification 

and Labeling of Chemicals for SDSs and 

the pesticide product labeling, see 

EPA’s Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 

2012–1, ‘‘Material Safety Data Sheets as 

Pesticide Labeling’’ (http:// 

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2014-04/documents/pr2012-1.pdf). 

C. Pesticide Application Information— 

Content of Pesticide Application 

Information 

1. Current rule and proposal. In the 

existing WPS, the agricultural employer 

must record and display the following 

information about each pesticide 

application: The location and 

description of the area to be treated, the 

product name, EPA registration number 

and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide 

product, time and date the pesticide is 

to be applied, and REI for the pesticide. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67516 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA proposed to require the 

agricultural employer to record and 

make available, in addition to the 

information required in the existing 

regulation: The specific crop or site 

treated, the start and end dates and 

times of the application, and the end 

date and duration of the REI. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed requirements for the contents 

of pesticide application information, 

with one change. The final rule requires 

agricultural employers to record and 

display the following pesticide 

application information: Product name, 

EPA registration number, and active 

ingredient(s) of the pesticide product 

applied; the crop or site treated and the 

location and description of the treated 

area; the date(s) and times the 

application started and ended; and the 

duration of the REI. The final rule does 

not require the employer to record the 

end date of the REI. The final regulatory 

text for this requirement is available at 

40 CFR 170.311(b)(1)(ii)–(v). 

The agricultural employer must 

record and display the information 

about the crop or site treated and the 

location of the treated area. EPA 

encourages employers to display the 

information in such a way that workers 

and handlers can understand and 

distinguish each treated area from all 

other areas on the establishment; in 

some cases, a map or diagram may be 

appropriate. 

EPA encourages and supports the 

provision and display of the application 

information so it is most useful to 

workers and handlers on the 

establishment. One such option is to 

separate the information about treated 

areas, so those areas where an REI is in 

effect are distinct from those where the 

REI has expired, allowing the viewer to 

more quickly identify areas where entry 

is restricted. Similarly, maps 

highlighting areas where an REI is in 

effect and those where the REI has 

expired could also present the 

information in a user friendly, pictorial 

manner. EPA also sees an opportunity 

for employers to provide information of 

this nature through texting and other 

electronic means to their employees, 

and encourages such communication, in 

addition to the requirement for 

maintaining this information as part of 

the central display. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Many farmworker 

advocacy organizations, a few pesticide 

regulatory agencies, a grower 

organization and others supported the 

proposed expansion of the content 

requirement for pesticide application 

information records. According to these 

commenters, it would be a small burden 

to require additional application 

information, such as crops treated, that 

could help workers proactively avoid 

exposure to pesticides. One state asked 

EPA to parallel the information required 

by USDA to avoid confusion, while 

another suggested that more information 

be required in addition to the 

information proposed to assist state 

pesticide regulatory personnel in 

determining compliance. 

Several farm bureaus, one grower 

organization and several states opposed 

any changes. These commenters 

asserted that the content required by the 

existing regulation is already too 

burdensome. Several farm bureaus 

opposed EPA’s proposed expansion of 

the content of records stating that EPA 

had not justified it with quantifiable 

benefits. A few states, two farmworker 

advocacy organizations and other 

commenters suggested various 

combinations of records limited to three 

or fewer pieces of information. One 

grower organization argued that only a 

record of the active ingredient is needed 

for medical treatment, while another 

questioned how a record of the REI 

benefits the health and safety of 

workers. Lastly, these commenters 

maintained that recordkeeping of 

general use pesticide applications is not 

required by law, the proposed 

requirement is duplicative of state and 

federal requirements, and commercial 

applicators already keep records. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with the 

comments that adding more information 

to application records is a small burden 

compared to the benefits of determining 

compliance and giving workers and 

handlers information to verify the 

location of treated areas. The crop or 

site treated, start and end times and 

date(s) of the application, and duration 

of the REI are important for protecting 

worker and handlers and useful for 

determining compliance. Agricultural 

employers, compliance officers, 

workers, handlers and others will be 

able to calculate the end date and time 

of the REI by having the end date and 

time of the application and the duration 

of the REI included in the pesticide 

application information. The combined 

information will also help workers and 

handlers identify the areas where an REI 

is in effect. EPA did not propose 

requiring more information because the 

proposed content of application records 

fits the needs of stakeholders to 

determine compliance and to give 

workers and handlers the ability to 

discern which area had been treated. An 

arbitrary limit of only three or fewer 

pieces of information may not achieve 

the same benefits. 

The WPS requires agricultural 

employers to maintain records because 

those records provide information that 

is important for the protection of their 

employees. While a significant number 

of agricultural employers may also be 

certified as private pesticide applicators, 

their status as private applicators does 

not exempt them from the WPS 

recordkeeping required of agricultural 

employers. The WPS does not require 

private applicators to maintain records 

on account of their status as private 

applicators. 

The risks of concern under the WPS 

include both RUPs and non-RUPs, while 

certification requirements at the federal 

level, including recordkeeping, only 

apply to those using RUPs. Neither the 

USDA application record requirements 

for private applicators of RUPs, nor state 

application record requirements for 

commercial applicators fully cover the 

information needed under the WPS for 

the protection of workers and handlers. 

The USDA required information does 

not include the active ingredients, 

duration of the REI or the start and end 

dates and times of applications, nor 

does it apply to applications of non-RUP 

pesticides. Commercial applicators 

would have to record the information 

required by the state pesticide 

regulatory agency, which must at a 

minimum include the kinds, amounts, 

uses, dates and places of RUP 

applications. 40 CFR 171.7(b)(1)(iii)(E). 

Also, state pesticide regulatory agencies 

may or may not require records of nonRUP applications. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that all states’ commercial 

applicator RUP application records will 

match exactly the record requirements 

of the WPS. Because the records 

required to be maintained by USDA and 

the states do not include all of the 

information needed for protection of 

workers and handlers, it is appropriate 

to require such recordkeeping through 

the WPS. 

D. Pesticide Application and Hazard 

Information—When Information Must 

Be Made Available 

1. Current rule and proposal. In the 

existing rule, the agricultural employer 

must record and display the pesticide 

application information before the 

application takes place, if workers or 

handlers are present on the 

establishment before the application 

begins. Otherwise, the information must 

be recorded and displayed at the 

beginning of any worker’s or handler’s 

first work period. If the employer posts 

warning signs for a treated area, the 

pesticide application information must 

be displayed at the same time as, or 

earlier than, the warning signs. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67517 

information must remain on display 

when workers are on the establishment 

and from the time of the application 

until 30 days after the REI expires or 

until 30 days after the application end 

date if the REI is 0 hours (or in the rare 

instance where a label might not have 

an REI). 

EPA proposed to require the 

agricultural employer to provide the 

pesticide application information, the 

SDS and labeling upon request during 

normal work hours, no later than the 

end of the day. 

2. Final rule. The final rule requires 

the agricultural employer to display the 

pesticide application information and 

the SDS (pesticide application and 

hazard information) at the central 

display no later than 24 hours after the 

application is complete. Also, the 

employer must display the pesticide 

application and hazard information for 

each treated area before any worker is 

permitted to enter the treated area, even 

if the applicable REI has expired. If 

workers will be in the area, they must 

be notified of the application before it 

starts, by posted signs or orally, and 

warned not to enter the area. The 

application information and SDS must 

remain posted for 30 days from the 

expiration date of the REI or from the 

application end date if the REI is 0 

hours (or in the rare instance where a 

label might not have an REI). EPA did 

not finalize the proposed requirement 

for the agricultural employer to make 

available the pesticide application 

information and the SDS no later than 

the end of the day of the application. 

The final rule eliminates the existing 

requirement to display the application 

information before or at the same time 

a warning sign is posted at a treated 

area. The final regulatory text for this 

requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.311(b)(5) and 40 CFR 170.309(l). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Several farmworker 

advocacy organizations and one public 

health organization requested that EPA 

keep the existing requirement to make 

information available before the 

application so workers and handlers 

would be able to connect symptoms to 

an application if the exposure occurred 

during the application. While many 

farmworker advocacy groups supported 

the display of information before an 

application, some expressed concern 

about the accuracy of the pesticide 

application information displayed when 

information about the application 

changed from what was planned and the 

displayed information was not updated. 

One farm bureau and one pesticide 

manufacturer organization requested 

that EPA require employers to make the 

information available after the 

application. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with the 

commenters that it is important to 

provide workers and handlers with 

accurate information about pesticide 

applications. Displaying the information 

after the application is complete 

benefits workers and handlers because 

they can be confident the information is 

correct, and the employer no longer has 

to change the information when 

application plans change. Under the 

final rule, EPA expects all displays of 

pesticide application information will 

contain accurate information. The final 

rule retains the requirement for workers 

to receive oral notification, or to see 

posted warning signs, or both before an 

application begins, informing them to 

stay out of an area before an application 

begins. 

E. Pesticide Application and Hazard 

Information—Retention of Records 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS requires employers to 

maintain pesticide application 

information at the central display from 

the time of application until 30 days 

after the REI expires. There is no 

requirement for the employer to retain 

the pesticide application information in 

any form after that time. 

EPA proposed to require employers to 

retain, for each application of a WPScovered pesticide, the pesticide 

application information, labeling and 

SDS, for two years from the date of the 

end of the REI for each product applied. 

2. Final rule. The final rule requires 

agricultural employers to retain the 

pesticide application information and 

the SDS for the product used (pesticide 

application and hazard information) for 

two years from the date of expiration of 

the REI applicable to the application 

conducted. EPA has not included the 

proposed requirement for the employer 

to retain the pesticide labeling in the 

final rule. The final regulatory text for 

this requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.311(b)(6). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA received comments 

supporting a two year recordkeeping 

requirement from several states and one 

grower organization. One state 

commented that it did not have a need 

for the information after one year, but 

that two years was not much more of a 

burden. Many farmworker advocacy and 

public health organizations requested 

EPA to require recordkeeping ranging 

from more than two years to as many as 

30 years to help with the diagnosis of 

chronic health effects that could be 

related to pesticide exposure. 

Commenters from some farm bureaus, 

grower associations, and Small Business 

Administration’s Office of Advocacy 

opposed a two-year recordkeeping 

requirement, in part because they 

asserted that EPA could not show 

quantifiable benefits. These commenters 

argued it would be a paperwork exercise 

without health and safety benefits 

driven based on the needs of 

enforcement, and instead should be 

replaced with a minimal, non-intrusive 

requirement. One commenter suggested 

requiring employers to keep records 

only during the harvest season. 

EPA Response. EPA has concluded 

that a two-year recordkeeping 

requirement would be helpful for health 

diagnoses and investigation purposes. 

EPA considered requiring the retention 

of records for five years and asked state 

pesticide regulatory agencies about their 

needs for access to pesticide application 

records. These enforcement agencies 

informed EPA that they rarely need to 

rely on records beyond the two-year 

timeframe. 

EPA notes that this recordkeeping 

requirement does not necessarily 

impose a duplicative burden on 

agricultural employers to obtain 

pesticide application information and 

SDSs twice—once to satisfy the central 

display requirement and once to satisfy 

the recordkeeping requirement. 

Agricultural employers may satisfy this 

recordkeeping requirement by the 

removal of the pesticide application 

information and SDS from the central 

display 31 days from the expiration of 

the REI (or from the end of the pesticide 

application if there is no REI) and 

retaining those records for two years 

from the date of application. EPA 

recognizes that some employers may 

choose to maintain electronic copies of 

pesticide application records and the 

product SDS. The WPS does not specify 

that records must be kept on paper, so 

an employer can maintain records 

electronically as long as the employer 

satisfies all related requirements of the 

WPS, such as being able to quickly 

access and provide the required 

materials in the event of a pesticide 

emergency. 

F. Costs and Benefits 

1. Costs. EPA estimates the cost for 

these final hazard communication 

requirements, implemented together, to 

be $9.3 million annually, or $25 

annually per establishment (Ref. 1). The 

cost of the hazard communication 

requirements differs from the proposed 

requirements because EPA is 

maintaining and revising the existing 

central display requirement, allowing 

the agricultural employer to display 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67518 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

information after the application 

negating the need to update information 

later, and requiring the agricultural 

employer to display and keep records of 

the pesticide application information 

and SDS but not the labeling. 

2. Benefits. Although EPA cannot 

quantify benefits specific to any of these 

requirements, the qualitative benefits 

from workers’ and handlers’ ready 

access to accurate information about 

areas under an REI, pesticides in use, 

and potential health impacts from those 

pesticides convinced EPA to adopt these 

requirements Ref. 1). The final rule 

retains the central posting requirement, 

and allows the employer some 

flexibility in posting the information so 

accurate information is displayed. 

VIII. Information Exchange Between 

Handler and Agricultural Employers 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS requires handler and 

agricultural employers to exchange 

information about pesticide 

applications. When handlers are 

employed by an employer other than the 

agricultural employer, the existing WPS 

requires the agricultural employer to 

provide the handler employer with 

information about treated areas on the 

agricultural establishment the handler 

may be in (or may walk within onequarter mile of), including specific 

location and description of any such 

areas and restrictions on entering those 

areas. The existing WPS requires 

handler employers to provide 

agricultural employers with the 

following information prior to making a 

pesticide application on the agricultural 

establishment: 

• Location and description of the area 

to be treated. 

• Time and date of application. 

• Product name, active ingredient(s), 

and EPA registration number for the 

product. 

• REI for pesticide(s) applied. 

• Whether posted notification, oral 

notification, or both are required. 

• Any other product-specific 

requirements on the product labeling 

concerning protection of workers or 

other persons during or after 

application. 

The agricultural employer must 

display this information for workers and 

handlers employed by the establishment 

at the central location. The current WPS 

requires handler employers to inform 

agricultural employers before the 

application takes place when there will 

be changes to scheduled pesticide 

applications, such as changes to 

scheduled pesticide application times, 

locations, and subsequent REIs. 

In addition to maintaining the current 

requirements, EPA proposed to require 

the agricultural employer to also 

provide to the handler employer 

information about the location of 

‘‘entry-restricted areas’’ on the 

establishment. EPA also proposed to 

require the handler employer to 

communicate to the agricultural 

employer the start and end times of 

pesticide applications and the end date 

of the REI. EPA also proposed to relax 

existing WPS requirements by requiring 

handler employers to provide 

information about any changes to 

pesticide application plans to the 

agricultural employer within two hours 

of the end of the application rather than 

before the application. Changes to the 

estimated application end time of less 

than one hour would not require 

notification. 

Finally, in the proposal, EPA 

unintentionally omitted the provision in 

the existing WPS that the agricultural 

employer need not provide information 

to the handler employer about treated 

areas if the handler will not be in or 

walk within one-quarter mile of those 

treated areas. 

2. Final Rule. Information exchange 

from agricultural employer to handler 

employer. The final rule requires the 

agricultural employer to notify the 

handler employer of any treated areas 

where an REI is in effect and any 

restrictions on entering those areas. EPA 

has not included in the final rule a 

requirement for the agricultural 

employer to communicate to the 

handler employer information about the 

location of ‘‘entry-restricted areas’’ on 

the establishment because of the 

changes to the requirement concerning 

entry-restricted areas, as discussed in 

Unit IX.B. EPA has also revised the final 

rule to correct the unintentional 

omission of the existing rule’s exception 

that the agricultural employer need not 

provide information to the commercial 

handler employer about treated areas if 

the handler will not be in, or walk 

within one-quarter mile of those areas. 

The final regulatory text for these 

requirements is available at 40 CFR 

170.309(k). 

Information exchange from handler 

employer to agricultural employer. EPA 

has finalized the proposal to expand 

and clarify the information the pesticide 

handler employer must provide to the 

agricultural employer with minor 

modifications. The final rule does not 

require the handler employer to convey 

the end date of the REI to the 

agricultural employer. The final 

regulatory text for these requirements is 

available at 40 CFR 170.313(i). 

Timing of exchange of information 

from handler employer to agricultural 

employer. EPA has modified the final 

rule to specify those situations where 

the handler employer must notify the 

agricultural employer of changes to the 

application information before the 

application takes place. EPA has also 

modified the rule to specify the timing 

for notifying agricultural employers if 

the notification is not required before 

the application. The final regulatory text 

for these requirements is available at 40 

CFR 170.313(j). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Many states and a few 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

expressed general support for the 

proposal to expand the information to 

be exchanged. These commenters agreed 

the additional information would help 

agricultural employers protect workers, 

reduce pesticide-related illnesses and 

exposure from drift during applications. 

Many farm bureaus, states, applicators 

and applicator associations and an 

agricultural organization generally 

disagreed with the proposed expansion. 

Some of these commenters argued that 

the proposed requirements are 

unrealistic and impractical given the 

dynamics and unpredictable factors 

involved in a farming operation, such as 

pest infestations and weather changes. 

In addition, they argued that the 

proposal would require multiple parties 

to exchange information, resulting in 

the potential for miscommunication. 

Some commenters also opposed the 

proposed expansion of information 

exchange because EPA did not provide 

documented justification. Crop 

consultants, an applicator association 

and a farm bureau indicated the 

proposal is unnecessary because close 

coordination of information already 

exists between applicators, handlers, 

crop consultants, and growers. 

Furthermore, they stated that not only 

are handlers already required to keep 

workers out of areas during 

applications, applications are often 

scheduled to take place when workers 

are absent. A few states, farm bureaus 

and a crop consultant opposed EPA’s 

proposal to add to the information the 

agricultural employer is required to give 

the handler employer. One crop 

consultant indicated the information is 

already on purchase orders or sales 

agreements between growers and 

commercial handlers or their employers. 

One state requested that EPA omit the 

application start time because it is not 

used to calculate the REI. 

EPA’s proposal on the timing to 

provide notice of a change in 

application plans elicited many 

comments. EPA proposed that this 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67519 

notice be provided within 2 hours of the 

end of the application, unless the only 

change was a difference of less than 1 

hour between scheduled and actual 

application times. One state and several 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

endorsed the requirement because of the 

ease of providing the information in the 

timeframe by relying on existing 

electronic capabilities. One farmworker 

advocacy organization urged EPA to 

require that changes be communicated 

before the start of the application in 

order to enable employers to be able to 

keep workers out of the treated area. 

To prevent confusion about scheduled 

and actual start and end times and to 

avoid miscommunication, one state 

suggested that EPA require the handler 

employer to inform the agricultural 

employer of changes at any time on the 

application day. Two aerial applicators 

explained that a two-hour window for 

notification of change sounds 

reasonable on paper, but not in practice. 

During long workdays of the busy 

season, applicators would have to make 

phone calls in the middle of the night 

and send text messages, usually from 

the airplane during or in between 

applications. Also, it can take more than 

one day to complete an application 

because of factors such as the weather, 

a change in wind direction, or verifying 

the presence of bystanders. These 

situations could require the handler to 

give several updates to multiple parties, 

resulting in a greater chance for errors 

and noncompliance. 

One commenter requested that EPA 

require notification of a change within 

24 hours from the end of the actual 

application, while another advised EPA 

to require notification if the actual 

application completion time is two or 

more hours later than the scheduled 

application time. Several farm bureaus, 

a pesticide applicator and a crop 

consultant organization advised EPA to 

require that changes in application 

plans be communicated: Before the 

scheduled date and times, if the 

application is going to be made earlier 

than expected, or before the end of the 

REI as scheduled, if the application is 

made later than expected. One aerial 

applicator stated that if an REI is greater 

than 24 hours, EPA should require an 

information update before the 

scheduled REI expires or within 24 

hours of the scheduled application time. 

Another aerial applicator recommended 

the handler employer and handler give 

the agricultural employer a window of 

estimated start and completion date(s) 

and time(s). In this situation, the 

handler would not make the application 

outside of that window without the 

approval of the agricultural employer, 

who in turn must keep workers out of 

the area during that time, unless 

notified of a change in the application 

start and completion date(s) and time(s). 

Many commenters noted the absence 

of the existing provision that the 

agricultural employer need not provide 

information to the commercial handler 

employer if the handler will not be in 

or walk within one-quarter mile of an 

area that may be treated with a pesticide 

or under an REI, and noted this could 

result in the need to provide excessive, 

unnecessary information. 

EPA Response. The information 

exchange requirements ensure that 

agricultural employers and handler 

employers have the information they 

need to comply with the requirements 

for notifying workers and handlers of 

risks associated with pesticide 

applications and treated areas (i.e., 

agricultural employers are required to 

notify workers of treated areas and 

display pesticide application and 

hazard information at the central 

location on the establishment for 

workers and handlers to see, and 

handler employers must inform their 

handler employees of treated areas on 

the agricultural establishment near 

where they work). 

EPA has been convinced not to adopt 

the proposed change to expand the 

information required to be 

communicated by the agricultural 

employer to the handler employer to 

include information about the location 

of ‘‘entry-restricted areas’’ on the 

establishment. Requiring employers to 

exchange this information would not be 

practical given other changes in the rule 

related to the ‘‘entry-restricted areas’’ 

(replaced by ‘‘application exclusion 

zones’’ in the final rule) that make the 

tracking of such areas infeasible. EPA 

also agrees that it is not necessary for 

the handler employer to calculate the 

end time of the REI for each application 

and include it in the information 

conveyed to the agricultural employer. 

The requirement to provide this piece of 

information has been deleted from the 

final rule. 

Most of the other information 

required to be exchanged by the final 

rule is already required to be exchanged 

by the existing rule, and therefore EPA 

does not agree that this requirement 

presents a substantially increased or 

unreasonable burden. Agricultural and 

handler employers are currently 

required to exchange information so 

agricultural employers may provide 

notification of application and treated 

areas under an REI to workers and 

handlers. Without this information 

transfer, accurate and timely 

notification would be difficult to 

achieve, exposing workers and handlers 

to potential exposure to pesticides. It is 

critical that the agricultural employer 

know the start times of applications in 

order to be able to notify workers and 

handlers (when they are on the 

establishment) so they may avoid 

treated areas. EPA recognizes that 

exchange of the expanded information 

may already occur on some 

establishments and expects those 

entities to experience less burden than 

in situations where such coordination 

has not already developed. 

EPA recognizes that much of the 

information required may be available 

on sales agreements and purchase 

orders between commercial pesticide 

handlers and agricultural employers, 

which will reduce the burden for 

employers to gather it; however, without 

inclusion of the information exchange 

requirements in the WPS there is no 

assurance of timely exchange of all of 

the necessary information. 

EPA considered the range of options 

suggested for the timing of the 

information exchange. Several of the 

recommendations for notification of 

application changes from the 

commercial pesticide handler employer 

to the agricultural employer can be 

accommodated under the final rule. For 

example, the applicator and agricultural 

employer can agree on a window of the 

estimated start and end times, with the 

understanding that the application 

would be made during that period, 

unless the two communicate and agree 

to a different timeframe. This would 

allow the agricultural employer to notify 

workers of the treatment, keep them 

from the area, and create and post the 

application information, satisfying the 

requirement. 

EPA did not identify any suggestions 

from commenters, apart from those that 

would be covered by the final rule that 

would meet the needs for agricultural 

employers to provide employees 

notification of the application and 

inform them of treated areas under an 

REI, and to record and display the 

pesticide application information. 

Agricultural employers must have 

information about the start time of the 

application before it begins to ensure 

they have the ability to notify workers 

of the application before it commences. 

Agricultural employers must have the 

end time of the application to notify 

workers that although the application 

has ended, entry to the treated area 

remains prohibited because an REI is in 

effect. Without these details being 

provided prior to the application, 

agricultural employers are not able to 

fulfill their responsibilities to protect 

workers. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67520 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA notes that the method for 

notification of changes to application 

information should be agreed upon 

between the handler employer and the 

agricultural employer to ensure receipt, 

and can be accomplished through 

electronic media, telephone, or other 

means. The agricultural employer must 

receive the information in sufficient 

time to record and display the 

information for workers and handlers. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA has 

estimated the cost of the information 

exchange requirements to be negligible 

because the existing rule already 

requires handler employers and 

agricultural employers to collect and 

exchange information. The changes in 

the final rule are minor and offer 

flexibility for employers. The 

information the agricultural employer 

must give the handler employer has 

been clarified. EPA has made minor 

changes to the information the handler 

employer must give the agricultural 

employer. The timing to notify the 

agricultural employer of most changes 

to the information has remained the 

same as the existing regulation, i.e., 

before the application begins. In the 

final rule, two changes provide the 

handler employer flexibility. If the 

product changes or the application is 

made later than originally scheduled, 

the handler employer must notify the 

agricultural employer within two hours 

of the end of the application. If the only 

change was a difference of less than one 

hour between the scheduled and actual 

application times, notification is not 

required. 

EPA expects these changes will 

ensure that the agricultural employer 

provides workers and handlers with 

accurate application information, which 

was problematic under the existing rule, 

and maintains accurate application 

records. The information exchanged and 

the timing of notification of changes of 

actual applications from scheduled 

applications remains essentially 

unchanged. Although notification can 

be given after the fact if a different 

pesticide product is applied or the 

application is completed after it was 

scheduled, this change does not make 

the WPS any less protective of workers, 

handlers and others. The agricultural 

employer will still have the essential 

information needed to know when and 

where to keep workers, handlers and 

others out of areas to be treated during 

and after treatment, and the revised 

information will be available in time for 

proper medical treatment if needed. The 

cost of including additional details is 

reasonable compared to the improved 

ability of workers and handlers to 

identify areas where pesticides are being 

applied or have recently been applied. 

IX. Drift-Related Requirements 

The requirements discussed in this 

section are intended to decrease the 

number of incidents in which workers 

and other persons are exposed to 

pesticides through unintentional contact 

during application. Drift is the off-site 

movement through the air of pesticide 

droplets or particles originating from 

pesticides applied as liquids or dry 

materials. Workers errantly in the area 

being treated may be directly exposed to 

pesticides during application. In 

addition, bystanders (both workers and 

non-workers) located outside a treated 

area may be exposed when pesticide 

droplets or particles move outside the 

area being treated through the air during 

and/or immediately after the pesticide 

application. As used here, the term 

‘‘drift’’ includes both of these modes of 

exposure, but does not include off-site 

movement of pesticide-imbedded soilborne particles by wind or vapor drift 

through volatilization of applied 

pesticide, although these are often 

categorized as ‘‘drift’’ in other contexts. 

EPA has developed methodologies for 

assessing the risks to bystanders from 

exposure to pesticides from drift and 

also from volatilization, and addresses 

risks of concern and other issues via the 

registration review process. The purpose 

of the requirements discussed in this 

section is to prevent workers and other 

persons from being exposed to 

pesticides by unintentional contact 

during application. The term ‘‘drift’’ is 

used as shorthand in this section to refer 

to unintentional exposure from both 

direct exposures to workers in the area 

being treated and drift exposures to 

workers and bystanders. 

A. Overarching Performance Standard 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS includes two related 

requirements that prohibit a pesticide 

from being applied in a way that 

contacts workers or other persons. 

Agricultural products subject to the 

WPS must have this statement on the 

label: ‘‘Do not apply this product in a 

way that will contact workers or other 

persons, either directly or through drift. 

Only protected handlers may be in the 

area during application.’’ 40 CFR 

156.206(a). Also, the existing WPS 

requires the handler employer and the 

handler to assure that no pesticide is 

applied so as to contact, either directly 

or through drift, any worker or other 

person, other than an appropriately 

trained and equipped handler. These 

requirements prohibit application in a 

way that contacts workers or other 

persons both on and off the agricultural 

establishment where the pesticide is 

being applied. 

EPA did not propose any changes to 

the label statement. EPA proposed 

several minor wording changes to the 

WPS requirement for the handler 

employer and the handler, but the 

impact of the proposed requirement 

would be the same as under the existing 

WPS. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed changes to the requirement for 

the handler employer and handler with 

a minor change. The final rule changes 

the language from the proposed 

‘‘handler located on the establishment’’ 

to ‘‘handler involved in the 

application.’’ As with the existing rule, 

the final rule prohibits contact to 

workers and other persons regardless of 

whether or not they are on the 

agricultural establishment. The final 

regulatory text for this requirement is 

available at 40 CFR 170.505(a). There 

are no changes to the label statement at 

40 CFR 156.206(a). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Many commenters, 

including states and their organizations, 

grower associations, farm bureaus and 

pesticide manufacturer associations, 

stated that the existing two 

requirements adequately protect 

workers and bystanders from exposure 

during applications. These commenters 

opposed the other drift-related 

requirements that EPA proposed (entryrestricted areas for farms and forests and 

the requirement to suspend applications 

under certain conditions) as 

unnecessary, asserting the proposed 

requirements do not provide any 

additional protection. 

Many respondents from states and 

their organizations, grower associations, 

farm bureaus and pesticide 

manufacturer associations commented 

that EPA’s risk assessments and 

pesticide labels include conservative 

protections for applicators, handlers, 

workers and bystanders. Some of these 

commenters argued that the existing 

restrictions on the labels, including REIs 

and pesticide-specific buffers, provide 

sufficient protection to workers and 

bystanders. 

Many respondents from all 

commenter types commented on 

incidents where workers or bystanders 

reported being contacted by pesticides 

that were being applied. Some of these 

incidents involve workers in the areas 

where pesticides were applied and other 

incidents involve workers or bystanders 

being exposed to pesticides that drifted 

off the target site. Many of the 

commenters cited three broad studies 

that looked at data from SENSORVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:27 Oct 30, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR2.SGM 02NOR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67521 

Pesticides and California’s Pesticide 

Illness Surveillance Program (Refs. 10, 

11 and 12). Other commenters cited 

specific incidents of exposure from drift 

or workers in the area being treated 

being sprayed directly. Some applicator 

and pesticide manufacturer associations 

cited state data showing that there has 

been a decrease in drift complaints over 

time, dropping from an average of 333 

complaints per year nationwide (from 

1996 through 1998) to an average of 247 

complaints per year (from 2002 through 

2004). 

EPA response. EPA disagrees with the 

assertion that the ‘‘do not contact’’ 

requirements, along with the other 

protections on pesticide labels, are by 

themselves sufficient to protect workers 

and bystanders from being directly 

contacted by pesticides that are applied. 

First, many commenters cited incidents 

where people were directly exposed to 

pesticide applications, even if there was 

disagreement about how regularly these 

types of incidents happen. Second, 

EPA’s risk assessments and registration 

decisions are based on the premise that 

the WPS protections effectively prevent 

people (workers and bystanders) from 

being sprayed directly (Ref. 13). In other 

words, incidents where workers or 

bystanders are sprayed directly result in 

people being exposed to pesticides in a 

way that is not considered in EPA’s risk 

assessments or registration decisions. 

These types of incidents are misuse 

violations but they continue to occur, as 

described in the following sections. 

Therefore, there is a need to supplement 

the existing WPS protections to reduce 

exposures to workers and other persons 

from being directly sprayed with 

pesticides. 

There is no one solution that can 

prevent all drift incidents and it will 

take a comprehensive approach, 

including additional regulatory 

requirements, education, outreach, and 

some common-sense voluntary 

measures to further reduce the number 

of people who are directly exposed to 

pesticide spray/applications. The 

additional regulatory requirements 

include revised requirements for entry 

restrictions during pesticide 

applications and for handlers to 

suspend applications in certain 

circumstances. Common-sense 

voluntary measures include a grower 

talking to his/her neighbors to let them 

know when pesticides are being applied 

so the neighbors can keep workers and 

others away from the boundary of 

adjacent establishments during that 

time, and participating in voluntary 

communication programs such as Spray 

Safe (http://www.spraysafe.org/) and 

Drift Watch (https://driftwatch.org/). 

EPA intends to include information 

about good management practices as 

well as the regulatory requirements 

during outreach for implementation of 

the final rule. It is also worth noting that 

EPA is working to assess and mitigate 

any product-specific risks from 

exposure to pesticides from drift and 

from volatilization within the 

registration review process. 

B. Entry Restrictions To Protect Workers 

and Other Persons During Application 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS establishes entryrestricted areas adjacent to treated areas 

that apply during pesticide application 

for nurseries and greenhouses only. The 

existing rule requires that the 

agricultural employer must not allow or 

direct any person, other than an 

appropriately trained and equipped 

handler, to enter or remain in the entryrestricted area during a pesticide 

application in a nursery or greenhouse. 

The size of the entry-restricted area 

depends on the type of product applied 

and the application method. The entry 

restrictions for greenhouses also include 

ventilation requirements. The existing 

entry restriction requirement applies 

only within the boundaries of the 

agricultural establishment. The existing 

provisions at 40 CFR 170.110 regarding 

entering entry-restricted areas during 

application are different than the 

existing provisions at 40 CFR 170.112 

regarding entry into treated areas after 

the application of a pesticide and before 

the REI specified on the pesticide 

labeling has expired. 

EPA proposed to establish entryrestricted areas during pesticide 

applications on farms and in forests, 

while slightly modifying the 

requirement for entry-restricted areas for 

nurseries and greenhouses. EPA 

proposed two types of entry restrictions: 

One for enclosed space production, 

which would apply to greenhouses and 

other types of indoor production 

operations (e.g., mushroom houses, 

hoop houses, polyhouses), and one for 

outdoor production, which would apply 

to farms, forests and nurseries. In 

addition, EPA proposed to define the 

entry-restricted area as the area from 

which workers or other persons must be 

excluded during and after the pesticide 

application. 

2. Final rule. In regard to enclosed 

space production (e.g., greenhouses, 

mushroom houses, hoop houses), EPA 

has finalized the requirements for entry 

restrictions during pesticide 

applications with several minor 

changes. For the most part, the final rule 

incorporates the existing entry 

restriction and ventilation requirements 

for greenhouses as the requirements for 

enclosed space production. The final 

rule deletes the term ‘‘entry-restricted 

area’’ and adjusts the descriptions of the 

application types to be consistent with 

the changes to the description of 

application exclusion zones for outdoor 

production. In addition, EPA changed 

the definition of ‘‘enclosed space 

production’’ to clarify that it applies 

only to areas with non-porous covering, 

so structures with a covering made of 

fencing or fabric to provide shade on 

plants (no walls) such as shade houses, 

are not considered enclosed spaces 

under the final rule. See the discussion 

of definitions in Unit XVIII.C. of this 

document for more information about 

the changes to this definition. 

In regard to outdoor production (e.g., 

farms, forests, nurseries, shade houses), 

the final rule differs substantially from 

EPA’s proposed requirements. The final 

rule makes the following changes from 

the proposal: 

• Replacing the phrase ‘‘entryrestricted area’’ with ‘‘application 

exclusion zone’’ to make it more distinct 

from the requirements regarding REIs. 

The final regulatory text for this 

requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.405(a). 

• Revising the corresponding 

definition to clarify that the application 

exclusion zone exists only during (not 

after) a pesticide application. The final 

regulatory text for this definition is 

available at 40 CFR 170.305. 

• Revising the corresponding 

definition and regulatory description of 

an application exclusion zone so it is a 

specified distance from the application 

equipment rather than from the edge of 

the treated area, and clarifying that the 

application exclusion zone moves with 

the application equipment. The final 

regulatory text for this requirement is 

available at 40 CFR 170.405(a)(1). 

• Revising some of the application 

methods in the description of the 

application exclusion zone to reflect 

current application methods and to 

differentiate the distances based on the 

spray droplet size rather than pressure. 

The final regulatory text for this 

requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.405(a)(1). 

• Adding a provision to the regulatory 

text to clarify that any labeling 

restrictions supersede the requirements 

of the WPS, including those related to 

application exclusion zones. This was 

discussed in the preamble of the 

proposed rule (Ref. 2 at 15490) but was 

inadvertently left out of the proposed 

regulatory text. The final regulatory text 

for this requirement is available at 40 

CFR 170.303(c) and 170.317(a). 

3. Comments and responses. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67522 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Comments—supporting the proposal 

or more stringent measures. Many 

commenters, including farmworker 

advocacy organizations, public health 

organizations, and a state, generally 

supported the proposed requirement for 

entry-restricted areas. The commenters 

stated that the proposed change should 

provide modest improvements in 

protecting workers from pesticide drift 

during application if there is enough 

training and education of applicators. 

One farmworker advocacy organization 

described an incident where workers 

were in a field topping tobacco at the 

same time a plant growth regulator with 

a 24-hour REI was being applied to the 

adjacent row. The workers were close 

enough to have to move out of the path 

of the tractor. However, because the 

treated area was defined to be only the 

rows being treated, this was permissible 

under the existing WPS. Many 

commenters provided other examples of 

incidents where workers were 

unintentionally exposed directly to the 

pesticide spray. A few farmworker 

advocacy organizations commented that 

many workers say that they have felt the 

spray of pesticides from fields close to 

where they work. A farmworker 

advocacy organization commented that 

in 2012, about 20% of farmworkers in 

New Mexico reported to the 

organization that pesticides were 

applied to the fields at the same time 

that they were working. Another 

farmworker advocacy organization 

stated that about half of the child 

tobacco workers interviewed by the 

organization in 2013 reported that they 

saw tractors spraying pesticides in the 

fields in or adjacent to the ones where 

they were working. 

Many farmworker advocacy 

organizations and several public health 

organizations argued that EPA should 

revise the approach for entry restrictions 

to protect workers on neighboring 

property and to increase the length of 

the entry-restricted area. The 

recommended distances ranged from 60 

to 200 feet for ground application and 

300 feet to a mile or more for aerial 

application. EPA responded to some of 

these suggestions in its response to 

‘‘Pesticides in the Air—Kids at Risk: 

Petition to Protect Children from 

Pesticide Drift (2009)’’ (Ref. 13). 

Comments—opposing the proposal. 

Many states and their organizations, 

grower organizations, farm bureaus, 

applicator organizations, agricultural 

producer organizations, pesticide 

manufacturer organizations, and the 

Small Business Administration’s Office 

of Advocacy opposed the proposed 

requirement to apply the entryrestricted areas to farms and forests. 

Most of these commenters argued that 

the approach is too complicated because 

it establishes another area to be 

controlled that varies by application 

type, may include persons other than 

those employed by the agricultural 

establishment and may be different than 

label restrictions. (Note: Some of the 

comments appear to reflect a 

misunderstanding of the proposal, i.e., 

that the entry-restricted areas would be 

‘‘buffer zones’’ that would remain in 

effect after the application was 

complete.) Some states and their 

organizations commented that the 

requirement to keep individuals out of 

varying widths of areas surrounding 

treated areas would be difficult for an 

agricultural employer to implement and 

even more difficult for a state to enforce. 

Most of these commenters asserted 

that the proposed requirement to apply 

entry-restricted areas to farms and 

forests would present some logistical 

issues that could effectively shut down 

parts of the establishment. For example, 

many ground and aerial pesticide 

applications occur along rural roads or 

near access points to the agricultural 

establishment. These roads and access 

points would be within the proposed 

entry-restricted areas. On larger fields, 

pesticide applications could take several 

hours to complete. Commenters claimed 

that prohibiting workers from using 

these roads or gaining access to farm 

buildings for long periods of time would 

be impractical and could have an 

adverse economic impact. Many of the 

commenters stated that EPA did not 

account for the cost of stopping business 

during some pesticide applications. As 

an example, one grower organization 

opposed the ‘‘worker buffers’’ because 

they could take a lot of area out of 

cultivation on smaller farms, farms with 

widely varied crop maturities and farms 

that are not laid out in large blocks. 

Instead of arbitrary buffers, this 

commenter argued to keep the standard 

as it is—do not apply where workers are 

present and do not allow spray (or drift) 

to contact workers. 

Comments on application types and 

distances. Some commenters addressed 

the specific application methods and 

the distances of 100 feet and 25 feet in 

the proposed entry-restricted areas. 

Some states, grower organizations, 

agricultural organizations and pesticide 

manufacturer organizations commented 

that the distances of 25 to 100 feet are 

not supported by drift reduction 

technologies, applicator standard 

operating procedures or incident data. A 

state commented that the table of 

application methods and distances is 

flawed because it does not account for 

all application scenarios and does not 

logically apply distances. 

EPA Response. Based on the 

comments, EPA has made some changes 

in the final rule from the proposed 

requirement to extend entry-restricted 

areas to farms and forests. However, 

experiences such as those of workers 

having to move to get out of the way of 

the tractor that was applying pesticide 

(described previously) and workers 

being directly sprayed confirm EPA’s 

position that additional protections are 

necessary during pesticide applications 

on farms and in forests. The existing 

WPS prohibits a farm or forest 

agricultural employer from allowing or 

directing any worker to enter or remain 

in a treated area, which is defined to 

include areas being treated. The existing 

regulations require oral notifications 

before pesticide applications to include 

the location and description of the 

treated area, the time during which 

entry is restricted and instructions not 

to enter the treated area until the REI 

has expired. The existing regulations 

require handler employers to ensure 

that pesticides are applied in a manner 

that will not contact a worker either 

directly or through drift. Inasmuch as 

these requirements—clearly intended to 

prevent direct exposure of workers 

during pesticide applications—have 

proven insufficient for that purpose, 

additional measures are needed. 

EPA has changed the final rule in 

several ways to address some of the 

concerns expressed in the comments 

about the logistical problems with the 

proposal. First, in the final rule EPA 

replaced the term ‘‘entry-restricted area’’ 

with ‘‘application exclusion zone,’’ 

which more clearly associates this 

restriction with the period during the 

pesticide application. This new term is 

also less likely to be confused with the 

term ‘‘restricted-entry interval.’’ Second, 

EPA revised the requirements for the 

application exclusion zone so that it is 

not based on the ‘‘treated area,’’ but 

instead a specified distance from the 

application equipment. The application 

exclusion zone is essentially a 

horizontal circle surrounding the 

application equipment that moves with 

the application equipment. For 

example, if a pesticide is applied 

aerially, the border of the application 

exclusion zone is a horizontal circle that 

extends 100 feet from the place on the 

ground directly below the aircraft, and 

moves with the aircraft as the 

application proceeds. 

Because the application exclusion 

zone is based on the location of the 

application equipment, rather than the 

location of the treated area, the 

application exclusion zone could extend 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67523 

beyond the boundary of the agricultural 

establishment. However, in 40 CFR 

170.405(a)(2), the final rule limits the 

requirement for the agricultural 

employer to keep workers and other 

persons out of the treated area or the 

application exclusion zone during 

application to areas that are within the 

boundaries of the agricultural 

establishment, as proposed. The existing 

entry-restricted area requirement for 

nurseries is also limited to areas that are 

within the boundaries of the agricultural 

establishment. EPA retained the existing 

and proposed limitation because this 

requirement applies to the agricultural 

employer. The agricultural employer 

can control what happens on the 

agricultural establishment but could 

have difficulty limiting access to roads 

or fields that are beyond his property. 

The comments reflected a general lack 

of understanding that the proposed 

entry-restricted areas would exist only 

during application, and many comments 

anticipated conflicts between no-spray 

buffers on some pesticide labels and the 

proposed entry-restricted area. 

However, these are two different types 

of requirements. If a label specifies a 

‘‘no-spray’’ buffer, pesticide cannot be 

applied in that area at any time. Under 

the final rule, a pesticide can be applied 

in an application exclusion zone, and 

the requirement for agricultural 

employers is to keep workers and other 

people out of this zone during the 

pesticide application. These two types 

of requirements are distinct, and as a 

result should not be problematic to 

implement. 

EPA reassessed the application 

methods and distances in the proposed 

requirements for entry-restricted areas 

for outdoor production and made some 

changes in the description of 

application exclusion zones in the final 

rule in § 170.405(a)(1). The final rule 

maintains the proposed distances of 100 

feet and 25 feet but revises the 

application methods associated with 

each distance. 

The application methods that have an 

application exclusion zone of 100 feet 

are the ones where pesticide is expected 

to move a longer distance from where 

they are applied. The changes include: 

• Adding air blast applications, to 

more accurately and more broadly 

describe current application methods. 

• Deleting pesticides applied as an 

aerosol because it is unnecessary. 

• Including pesticides applied as a 

spray using a spray quality (droplet 

spectrum) of smaller than medium 

(volume median diameter less than 294 

microns). The volume median diameter 

refers to the midpoint droplet size or 

mean, where half of the volume of spray 

is in droplets smaller, and half of the 

volume is in droplets larger than the 

mean. EPA chose to establish this 

criteria based on the spray quality rather 

than just the pressure because the drop 

size depends on a number of variables, 

including the pressure, the nozzle type, 

liquid properties, and the spray angle. 

Focusing on the spray quality, rather 

than pressure, is also consistent with 

EPA’s voluntary Drift Reduction 

Technology program and current 

models of drift used in EPA’s risk 

assessments. 

The application methods that have an 

application exclusion zone of 25 feet are 

the ones where pesticide is expected to 

move a shorter distance from where 

they are applied. The changes include: 

• Replacing several of the proposed 

criteria with pesticides applied as a 

spray using a spray quality (droplet 

spectrum) of medium or larger (volume 

median diameter of 294 microns or 

larger). 

• Eliminating the criterion based on 

the product label requiring a respirator 

because it is intended to apply to 

enclosed spaces like greenhouses and 

was accidentally included in the 

proposed criteria for outdoor 

production. 

The corresponding changes to 

application methods were made to the 

Table—Entry Restrictions During 

Enclosed Space Production Pesticide 

Applications at 40 CFR 170.405(b)(4) for 

consistency. 

EPA acknowledges that some 

pesticide labels will have restrictions 

that apply during applications that are 

different than the application exclusion 

zones. For example, the restrictions on 

soil fumigant labels are more restrictive 

than the application exclusion zone of 

100 feet specified in 

§ 170.405(a)(1)(i)(D). In situations like 

this, pesticide users must follow the 

product-specific instructions on the 

labeling. As stated in §§ 170.303(c) and 

170.317(a), when 40 CFR Part 170 is 

referenced on a pesticide label, 

pesticide users must comply with all of 

the requirements in 40 CFR Part 170, 

except those that are inconsistent with 

product-specific instructions on the 

pesticide product labeling. 

C. Suspend Application 

1. Current rule and proposal. As 

discussed in Unit IX.A., the existing 

WPS requires handler employers and 

handlers to assure that no pesticide is 

applied so as to contact, either directly 

or through drift, any worker or other 

person, other than an appropriately 

trained and equipped handler. However, 

the existing WPS does not include an 

explicit requirement for handlers to stop 

or suspend application. EPA proposed 

to add a provision to require a handler 

performing a pesticide application to 

immediately stop or suspend the 

pesticide application if any worker or 

other person, other than an 

appropriately trained and equipped 

handler, is in the treated area or the 

entry-restricted area. Based on the 

description of entry-restricted areas in 

the proposed rule, the requirement for 

handlers to stop or suspend application 

in certain circumstances would apply 

only within the boundaries of the 

agricultural establishment. 

2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has 

made several changes to the proposed 

requirement to suspend applications. 

First, EPA revised the language to 

require a handler to ‘‘immediately 

suspend a pesticide application’’ rather 

than to ‘‘immediately stop or suspend a 

pesticide application’’ to clarify that the 

application must be suspended but can 

be restarted once workers or other 

persons are out of the zone. Second, 

EPA changed the area that is covered by 

the requirement to suspend application 

in two ways. EPA replaced ‘‘entryrestricted area’’ with ‘‘application 

exclusion zone,’’ decreasing the size of 

the area that is covered by the 

requirement. See Unit IX.B. Also, EPA 

removed the treated area from the 

requirement. For outdoor production, 

the area covered by the requirement is 

much smaller than the area that would 

have been covered by the proposed rule, 

which would have been the treated area 

plus up to 100 feet beyond the edge of 

the treated area. Third, the application 

exclusion zone can extend beyond the 

boundaries of the agricultural 

establishment for the purposes of this 

requirement, i.e., the handler must 

suspend application if any person other 

than another handler involved in the 

application is in the application 

exclusion zone, regardless of whether 

the application exclusion zone extends 

off of the employer’s property. 

The final rule requires the handler 

performing the application to suspend 

application if people who should not be 

present are in the application exclusion 

zone (which ranges up to 100 feet from 

the application equipment for outdoor 

production) or in the area identified for 

exclusion for enclosed space production 

(which ranges from 25 feet to the entire 

enclosed space plus any adjacent 

structure that cannot be sealed off.) The 

final regulatory text for this requirement 

is available at 40 CFR 170.505(b). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Some commenters, 

including farmworker advocacy 

organizations, public health 

organizations, academics, and a state 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67524 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

generally supported the proposed 

requirement for applicators to stop or 

suspend pesticide applications under 

certain conditions. A farmworker 

advocacy organization supported the 

proposed requirement, stating that 

current rules do not provide meaningful 

guidance on how applicators can 

prevent human exposure during 

applications. Some other commenters 

from farmworker advocacy 

organizations, public health 

organizations and public health 

agencies supported the proposed 

requirement but urged EPA to extend 

the protections to workers at 

neighboring establishments. Many of 

these commenters provided information 

suggesting that workers may be more 

likely to be affected by drift from a 

different establishment. For example, 

commenters cited a Washington 

Department of Health report that 

documented 43 workers in Washington 

being affected by drift from another farm 

while only 13 workers reported being 

affected by drift from the farm where 

they were working in 2010–2011. In 

comments arguing against the need for 

entry-restricted areas, some applicator 

organizations provided examples 

supporting the requirement to suspend 

applications, stating that it is standard 

operating procedure for aerial 

applicators to temporarily avoid making 

passes adjacent to roads or other areas 

if workers happen to be passing by in 

vehicles or on foot. 

Many states and their organizations, 

grower organizations, farm bureaus, 

applicator organizations, agricultural 

producer organizations and pesticide 

manufacturer organizations opposed the 

proposed requirement for handlers to 

stop or suspend pesticide applications 

in certain circumstances. Most of these 

commenters argued that the provision is 

unnecessary because it would not offer 

any protections or prevent contact from 

pesticide applications beyond the 

existing ‘‘do not contact’’ requirement. 

Some commenters raised logistical 

concerns: Applicators may not be aware 

that a person has entered a treated area 

or entry-restricted area in many 

situations, such as in a forest or an 

orchard in full leaf, in a very large field, 

or if there are restricted sight lines or 

rolling hills; the proposed requirement 

would impose unwarranted 

expectations for pilots, who would have 

to be fully aware of boundaries 100 feet 

on all sides of the target area while 

traveling at 150 mph; as proposed, an 

applicator would have to stop if a 

person is in an entry-restricted area 

even if it is not possible for that person 

to encounter pesticides because of wind 

conditions. 

A few grower organizations and farm 

bureaus commented that there is a 

difference between stopping and 

suspending an application and asked 

whether this would require applicators 

to cease application altogether or 

suspend the application until a person 

is no longer in the area. 

EPA Response. As stated in the 

proposal, EPA has identified a need to 

supplement the ‘‘do not contact’’ 

performance standard because exposure 

to drift or direct spray events still 

happen despite the ‘‘do not contact’’ 

requirement, and EPA’s risk 

assessments and registration decisions 

presume that no workers or other 

persons are being sprayed directly. 

Therefore, the final rule includes an 

explicit requirement for handlers to 

suspend pesticide applications under 

certain conditions, which mandates 

applicators to take specified actions to 

prevent exposing people to pesticide 

during applications. 

However, EPA revised the final rule 

in response to several points made by 

commenters. First, the final rule 

requires a handler to ‘‘immediately 

suspend a pesticide application’’ rather 

than to ‘‘immediately stop or suspend a 

pesticide application.’’ This change was 

made to clarify that the application 

must be suspended immediately if 

workers or persons other than handlers 

are in the specified areas but can be 

restarted once workers or other persons 

are out of the specified area. 

EPA was persuaded by the 

commenters who raised logistical 

concerns about the proposed 

requirement, which were related to the 

handler not being able to see the person 

or a person entering an edge of a large 

area that is not near the application 

equipment. EPA revised the 

requirement in the final rule to decrease 

the size of the area that the handler 

must monitor for workers or persons 

other than handlers by removing the 

treated area from the area covered by 

this requirement and by changing the 

‘‘application exclusion zone’’ so it is 

measured from the application 

equipment rather than from the edge of 

the treated area. In the final rule, the 

handler performing the application 

must suspend application if any of the 

identified people are in the application 

exclusion zone (which ranges up to 100 

feet from the application equipment) 

rather than if any of the people are in 

the entire treated area plus that distance 

(up to 100 feet) from the edge of the 

treated area. 

EPA was also persuaded by the 

comments and incident information 

about workers at neighboring 

establishments being directly contacted 

by drift. The incidents cited by 

commenters show that workers are 

directly exposed to pesticide 

applications from neighboring 

establishments as well as from the 

establishment where they are working. 

To reduce the number of incidents 

where workers are exposed to drift from 

neighboring establishments, the final 

rule extends the application exclusion 

zone beyond the boundaries of the 

agricultural establishment for this 

requirement, thus requiring applicators 

to immediately suspend applications if 

people other than a properly trained and 

equipped handler are in the application 

exclusion zone. 

EPA has decided to extend the 

application exclusion zone beyond the 

boundaries of the agricultural 

establishment for the requirement to 

suspend applications for several 

reasons. First, this addresses more of the 

worker drift cases, where workers are 

within 100 feet of the agricultural 

establishment to protect more workers. 

Out of 17 incidents identified in the 

comments, only one would have been 

prevented if the application exclusion 

zone was limited to the boundaries of 

the agricultural establishment as 

provided in the proposed rule. The 

requirement in the final rule would 

have prevented at least four of the 

incidents reported in the comments, and 

possibly as many as 12, depending on 

the actual distances between the 

workers and application equipment, 

which were not specified in the 

comments. Second, the existing 

requirement that the handler must 

assure the pesticide is applied in a way 

that does not contact workers or other 

persons already extends beyond the 

boundary of the agricultural 

establishment. The new, explicit 

requirement to suspend application if 

people other than handlers are in the 

application exclusion zone is intended 

to supplement the existing ‘‘do not 

contact’’ requirement by giving the 

applicator specific criteria for 

suspending application. These specific 

criteria should be equally useful to 

applicators attempting to comply with 

the existing ‘‘do not contact’’ 

requirement beyond the boundaries of 

the agricultural establishment. Third, 

the application exclusion zone would 

extend a maximum of 100 feet beyond 

the boundary of an agricultural 

establishment only for the length of time 

it takes for the equipment applying the 

pesticide to pass by, so this should not 

shut down roads or access points to the 

establishment for long periods of time. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67525 

To reiterate a point made in Unit IX.B., 

the final rule does not hold agricultural 

employers responsible for keeping 

workers and other persons out of 

portions of the application exclusion 

zone that extend beyond the boundaries 

of the agricultural establishment. On the 

other hand, this provision in 

§ 170.505(b) of the final rule imposes a 

requirement on the handler applying the 

pesticide to immediately suspend the 

application if workers or persons other 

than handlers involved in the 

application are in the application 

exclusion zone, whether on the 

establishment or beyond the boundaries 

of the establishment. 

D. Costs and Benefits 

1. Costs. In the proposal, EPA 

estimated the cost for restricting entry to 

areas adjacent to an area being treated 

would be negligible. EPA assumed that 

employers could generally reassign 

workers to other tasks for the duration 

of the pesticide application in instances 

where worker tasks in the adjacent areas 

had to be stopped until the application 

was complete. In the proposal, EPA 

estimated the cost of the requirement to 

suspend application would be negligible 

because it essentially clarifies an 

existing requirement. In the final rule, 

EPA estimates the costs of both 

requirements remains negligible. 

2. Benefits. EPA believes both of the 

drift-related requirements discussed in 

this section of the preamble will help 

reduce the number of exposures of 

workers and other non-handlers to 

unintentional contact to pesticide 

applications. Therefore, the benefits of 

these requirements outweigh the 

negligible costs. 

X. Establish Minimum Age for Handling 

Pesticides and Working in a Treated 

Area While an REI Is in Effect 

A. Current Rule and Proposal 

The existing regulation does not 

establish any age restriction for handlers 

or early-entry work. EPA proposed to 

prohibit persons younger than 16 years 

of age from handling pesticides, with an 

exception for handlers working on an 

establishment owned by an immediate 

family member. EPA requested 

comment on an alternative option of 

prohibiting any person under 18 years 

old from handling pesticides. 

The existing WPS establishes 

conditions for when a worker may enter 

into a treated area under an REI. The 

conditions are related to the type of 

work performed (often referred to as 

‘‘early-entry’’ tasks) and the length of 

time the worker may be in the treated 

area. However, the existing WPS 

establishes no minimum age for workers 

entering a treated area under an REI to 

perform early-entry tasks. EPA proposed 

to prohibit any worker under 16 years 

old from entering a treated area under 

an REI to perform early-entry tasks, with 

an exemption from this prohibition for 

persons covered by the immediate 

family exemption. EPA requested 

comment on an alternative option of 

prohibiting any person under 18 years 

old from entering treated areas during 

the REI to perform early-entry tasks. 

B. Final Rule 

The final rule prohibits persons 

younger than 18 years old from 

handling pesticides. EPA has retained 

the proposed exemption for handlers 

working on an establishment owned by 

an immediate family member. The final 

regulatory text for the prohibition is 

available at 40 CFR 170.309(c) and 

170.313(c). The final regulatory text for 

the exemption is available at 40 CFR 

170.601(a)(1)(i). 

The final rule prohibits persons 

younger than 18 years old from entering 

treated areas during the REI to perform 

early-entry tasks, and retains the 

proposed exemption for persons 

working on an establishment owned by 

an immediate family member. The final 

regulatory text for this prohibition is 

available at 40 CFR 170.309(c) and 

170.605(a). The final regulatory text for 

the exemption is available at 40 CFR 

170.601(a)(1)(xii). 

C. Comments and Responses 

Comments. Many commenters 

requested that EPA establish a 

minimum age of 18 for handlers and 

early-entry workers. Commenters cited 

several reasons for their request. First, 

many commenters noted that 

adolescents’ bodies are still developing 

and they may be more susceptible to the 

effects of pesticide exposure. Second, 

commenters noted that adolescents are 

less mature and their judgment is not as 

well developed as that of adults. This 

immaturity may mean that adolescents 

may be less consistently aware of risks 

associated with handling pesticides or 

entering a treated area while an REI is 

in effect, that they may not adequately 

protect themselves or other workers 

from known risks, and that spills, 

splashes, and improper handling 

practices may be more likely. A few 

commenters submitted studies related to 

development of maturity and decisionmaking skills in adolescents in support 

of this assertion. Third, commenters 

asserted that restricting handling 

activities to persons at least 18 years old 

could result in higher potential 

economic benefit from avoiding 

exposure and any potentially related 

chronic effects to children, because they 

have a longer potential life span. Fourth, 

because information on the potential 

chronic effects of pesticide exposure on 

developing systems is not known, 

commenters recommended that EPA 

prohibit adolescents from handling 

pesticides and entering treated areas 

while an REI is in effect as a precaution 

until it can be shown that they would 

not suffer adverse chronic effects from 

potential exposure. Finally, a few 

commenters noted that persons under 

18 years old are protected in other 

industries by OSHA and should receive 

similar protections under the WPS, and 

that some states have already prohibited 

handling of pesticides in agriculture by 

anyone under 18 years old. 

Some commenters expressed support 

for a minimum age of 16. States 

primarily supported EPA’s proposal to 

establish a minimum age of 16, noting 

that establishing a minimum age of 18 

would require them to change their state 

laws. Other commenters supporting the 

proposed minimum age of 16 noted that 

this requirement would align with 

DOL’s restriction on handling pesticides 

in toxicity categories I and II in 

agriculture. 

A few commenters opposed 

establishing any minimum age. These 

commenters asserted that EPA should 

not take any action because the DOL’s 

hazardous occupations orders under the 

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 

already prohibit adolescents under 16 

years old from handling pesticides in 

toxicity categories I and II in agriculture 

with limited exceptions. Some 

commenters also assert that establishing 

any minimum age for pesticide handlers 

is a matter that should be handled by 

the states, not EPA. 

Some commenters requested that EPA 

eliminate the exception from any 

minimum age requirement for members 

of the owner’s immediate family. 

Commenters assert that adolescents’ 

developmental status does not differ if 

they are an employee on a farm owned 

by an immediate family member or by 

someone unrelated to them. Other 

commenters supported EPA’s proposal 

or requested that EPA establish a higher 

minimum age only if EPA also retains 

the exception for members of the 

owner’s immediate family. 

EPA Response. Based on the 

comments received and an evaluation of 

existing literature related to adolescents’ 

development of maturity and judgment, 

EPA has decided that the benefits of 

further reductions in adolescent 

pesticide exposures justify their cost; 

the final rule generally prohibits 

persons under 18 years old from 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67526 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

handling pesticides or entering a treated 

area while an REI is in effect. EPA 

recognizes that adolescents’ bodies and 

judgment are still developing. While 

studies have not demonstrated a clear 

cut off point at which adolescents are 

fully developed, literature indicates that 

their development may continue until 

they reach their early to mid-20s. EPA 

also agrees that research has shown that 

adolescents may take more risks, be less 

aware of the potential consequences of 

their actions on themselves and others, 

and be less likely to protect themselves 

from known risks. All of this 

information supports establishing a 

higher minimum age than proposed in 

order to allow those handling pesticides 

to develop more fully before putting 

themselves, others, and the environment 

at risk, and to allow those performing 

early-entry activities to develop more 

fully in order to adequately protect 

themselves from the risks of entering a 

treated area while an REI is in effect. 

The final rule will reduce the potential 

for misuse by adolescent handlers who 

may less consistently exercise good 

judgment when handling agricultural 

pesticides. 

EPA notes commenters’ assertions 

that avoiding pesticide exposure in 

adolescents could result in higher 

potential economic benefit because of 

adolescents’ longer potential lifespans. 

EPA agrees that it is appropriate to take 

reasonable precautions to protect 

adolescents from pesticide exposures, 

both because of the potential impact of 

pesticides on further development and 

because adolescents may not properly 

appreciate (and take appropriate steps to 

avoid) the risks of potential pesticide 

exposure. While statistical associations 

have been observed in studies that 

estimate the relation between pesticide 

exposure and chronic health outcomes 

such as cancer, the causal nature of 

these associations has not yet been 

determined; thus quantifying the 

magnitude of the chronic health risk 

reduction expected as a result of 

pesticide exposure reduction is not 

possible. However, based on what is 

known about the potential for 

biologically active chemicals generally 

to disrupt developmental processes, it is 

reasonable to have heightened concern 

for adolescents under the age of 18 in 

situations where they face particularly 

high pesticide exposures. Prohibiting 

adolescents under the age of 18 from 

handling agricultural pesticides will 

protect them from any potential risks of 

pesticide use through handling 

activities, ensuring that adolescents do 

not suffer unreasonable adverse effects 

from handling agricultural pesticides. 

Prohibiting adolescents under 18 years 

old from entering a treated area while an 

REI is in effect will protect them by 

delaying their entry into treated areas 

until residues are at a level that should 

not cause unreasonable adverse effects. 

EPA recognizes that DOL prohibits 

persons under 18 years old from 

engaging in hazardous tasks in other 

industries, and that some states have 

taken action to prohibit certain 

adolescents from handling pesticides in 

agriculture (state minimum ages for 

pesticide handlers, where established, 

range from 16 years old to 18 years old). 

These examples of protections for 

adolescents in other industries or by 

states indicate a recognition that 

different standards for certain 

adolescents and adults are appropriate. 

EPA disagrees with commenters’ 

assertions that EPA should defer to the 

states or the FLSA and not establish any 

age-related restrictions on pesticide 

handling or early-entry activities. EPA 

has the responsibility under FIFRA to 

regulate the use of pesticides to avoid 

unreasonable adverse effects, apart from 

any requirements established by other 

federal or state laws. The DOL’s actions 

under the FLSA limiting the use of 

certain pesticides to persons at least 16 

years old do not preclude EPA from 

taking actions to ensure that human 

health and the environment are 

protected from unreasonable adverse 

effects. While DOL’s hazardous 

occupations order prohibiting those 

under 16 years old from handling 

certain pesticides satisfies the purposes 

of the FLSA, those purposes are distinct 

from those of FIFRA. EPA has 

concluded that because, as discussed 

previously, adolescents’ bodies, 

maturity, and judgment are still 

developing, the handling of agricultural 

pesticides and entry into a treated area 

while an REI is in effect by persons 

under 18 years old presents an 

unreasonable likelihood of adverse 

effects. Therefore, the final rule 

generally limits pesticide handling and 

early-entry activities to persons who are 

at least 18 years old. 

EPA agrees that adolescents’ 

developmental status does not differ if 

they are employees on a farm owned by 

an immediate family or by someone 

unrelated to them. However, EPA 

recognizes that imposing a minimum 

age for handling agricultural pesticides 

or performing early-entry tasks on 

owners or members of their immediate 

families could significantly disrupt 

some immediate family-owned farms. 

Given the high social cost of imposing 

a minimum age requirement on owners 

and members of their immediate 

families on farms owned by members of 

the same immediate family, EPA has 

finalized the proposed exemption to this 

requirement. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of requiring handlers and earlyentry workers to be at least 18 years old 

would be $3.1 million annually. EPA 

estimates that, on average, the cost 

would be about $8 per agricultural 

establishment per year. The cost per 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment per year is estimated to be 

over $360. The estimated cost of the 

final requirement is likely to be 

overstated, particularly for commercial 

pesticide handling establishments, 

because EPA made some very 

conservative assumptions regarding the 

amount of time an adolescent works. 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits 

associated with this specific proposal. 

However, this requirement would 

improve the health of adolescent 

handlers, as well as other workers and 

handlers on the establishment and the 

environment. It would also improve the 

health of adolescent workers by 

reducing their potential for exposure to 

pesticides in a treated area when an REI 

is in effect. As discussed in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, 

adolescents’ judgment is not fully 

developed. Restricting adolescents’ 

ability to handle pesticides will lead to 

less exposure potential for the handlers 

themselves, and less potential for 

misapplication that could cause 

negative impacts on other handlers or 

workers on the establishment, as well as 

the environment. 

XI. Restrictions on Worker Entry Into 

Treated Areas 

A. Requirements for Entry During an REI 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS establishes specific 

exceptions to the general prohibition 

against sending workers into a treated 

area while an REI is in effect. Workers 

who enter pesticide-treated areas during 

an REI (known as ‘‘early-entry workers’’) 

without adequate protection may face 

an elevated risk from pesticide 

exposure. Under the existing rule, the 

employer must: Ensure that the worker 

has read or been informed of the human 

health hazards on the product labeling; 

provide instruction on how to put on, 

use, and remove PPE; stress the 

importance of washing after removing 

the PPE; and instruct the worker on how 

to prevent, recognize, and treat heatrelated illness. The employer must also 

implement measures to prevent heat 

related illness when workers must wear 

PPE. 

In addition to these existing 

requirements, EPA proposed to require 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67527 

employers to inform workers sent into a 

treated area while the REI is in effect of 

the specific exception under which they 

would enter, to describe the tasks 

permitted and any limitations required 

under that exception, and to identify the 

PPE required by the labeling. EPA also 

proposed to require the employer to 

create a record of the oral notification 

provided to early-entry workers, to 

obtain the signature of each early-entry 

worker acknowledging the oral 

notification prior to the early entry, and 

to maintain the record for 2 years. 

2. Final Rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed requirements for the employer 

to inform the worker of the type of 

exception which permits the entry into 

the area under an REI, to describe the 

tasks that the worker may perform and 

other limitations under the exception, 

and to identify the PPE that must be 

worn. However, EPA has decided not to 

require employers to create or maintain 

records of the oral notification. The final 

regulatory text for this requirement is 

available at 40 CFR 170.605. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments on oral notification. 

Comments on the proposal to inform 

workers of the early entry exception and 

to explain the PPE were largely 

supportive, recognizing the reasonable 

nature of the proposed information. 

Commenters in support of the proposal 

included a pesticide manufacturer 

organization and farmworker advocacy 

organizations. One public health 

organization supported the proposal, 

but recommended that the requirement 

be modeled after OSHA’s confined 

space regulations, to include: Specific 

training for early entry, a requirement 

for workers to be provided respirators 

and other necessary PPE, written 

emergency rescue procedures and 

resources in case of an overexposure or 

other mishap, on-site monitoring of the 

worker from outside the entry zone, and 

recordkeeping of each entry. 

Several agricultural producer 

organizations and pesticide 

manufacturer organizations supported 

the proposal, but expressed concern for 

the requirement for employers to 

manage heat stress. 

EPA Response. EPA has decided not 

to amend the final rule based on 

OSHA’s confined space regulations. 

OSHA’s definition of a confined space 

is one in which there is limited or 

restricted means for entry or exit. These 

characteristics exacerbate any hazard to 

the employee, in that the employee 

could be overcome by a toxic 

atmosphere or by physical engulfment, 

such as in a grain storage bin, and be 

unable to quickly exit. EPA recognizes 

a similar potential for pesticide handlers 

making fumigant applications in 

greenhouses to be overcome by the 

fumigant. The WPS provides protections 

for such scenarios by requiring PPE, 

including respirators where required by 

the label, and continuous monitoring by 

a handler outside of the treatment area. 

The handler entering the greenhouse 

would have specific instructions on the 

labeled hazards. The monitoring 

handler must have access to the PPE 

required by the product labeling in case 

they would need to enter the 

greenhouse for rescue of the applicator. 

However, except for the use of 

fumigants, which have specific label 

requirements because of their increased 

potential for inhalation risk, the more 

common scenario of a worker entering 

a treated area on a farm, forest, or in a 

nursery during the REI would not pose 

such risks from a toxic atmosphere. It is 

unlikely that there would be an 

environment that could concentrate the 

pesticide and produce a potentially lifethreatening environment. The 

predominant component of exposure 

during work in a treated area where an 

REI is in effect is dermal, with rare 

exceptions. Specific information about 

the entry must include the human 

health hazards on the pesticide labeling, 

explanation of the required PPE and the 

proper way to wear and remove PPE, 

description of the tasks that may be 

performed and any limitations on the 

time permitted in the area. Workers 

directed to enter a treated area during 

the REI must have had the pesticide 

safety training so they may protect 

themselves. Employers must provide the 

PPE required by the product label for 

early entry to minimize exposure. 

Employers must provide early entry 

workers with the decontamination 

supplies appropriate for pesticide 

handlers. 

EPA agrees with commenters that heat 

stress can be a problem for workers in 

warm, humid climes and when 

employees must wear PPE. EPA notes 

that requirements related to heat stress 

for early entry workers are already 

included in the existing rule at 40 

CFR170.112(c)(6)(x) and 170.112(c)(7). 

Comments in opposition to the earlyentry exceptions. A number of 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

voiced opposition, in general, to most or 

all of the early entry exceptions in the 

existing rule, suggesting that workers 

should not be required to enter treated 

areas under an REI, due to risk of 

exposure. 

EPA Response. In deciding whether to 

allow workers to enter treated areas 

prior to the expiration of the REI, EPA 

considered the risk to the workers and 

the benefits from the early-entry 

activities. In each case, EPA determined 

that the potential risks to properly 

trained and equipped early-entry 

workers are reasonable in comparison to 

the significant economic impacts from 

delaying necessary activities, provided 

that the required limitations to each 

exception are observed. 

Comments on recordkeeping of oral 

notification. One farmworker advocacy 

organization supported the 

recordkeeping requirement, stating that 

the ‘‘proposed changes will ensure early 

entry workers are adequately informed 

about the risks of the work they are 

asked to do.’’ In contrast, several states 

and their organizations expressed 

concern for the recordkeeping 

requirement, stating that it is not 

practical and would result in technical 

violations, such as failures to obtain the 

necessary signatures, without enhancing 

worker protection. 

EPA Response. EPA was convinced by 

the rationale provided by the states that 

the requirement for records of 

notification to early-entry workers was 

too burdensome for agriculture, while 

adding little or no protections for the 

workers. There is typically some 

urgency to the need for entry into a 

treated area while the REI is in effect; 

the added burden to create records 

during this time could be unreasonable 

as it would not necessarily increase 

protection of early-entry workers. EPA 

retained the requirement for employers 

to provide protective information to 

early-entry workers, but did not include 

the proposed recordkeeping 

requirement because it is unclear that 

such records would improve the 

transmission of information. 

B. Clarify Conditions of the ‘‘No 

Contact’’ Exception 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS allows workers to enter 

areas while an REI is in effect for 

activities that do not result in contact 

with any treated surfaces. In the 

proposal, EPA sought to clarify the ‘‘no 

contact’’ requirement of the exception 

by explaining that performing tasks 

while wearing PPE does not qualify as 

‘‘no contact.’’ The proposal offered three 

examples of acceptable ‘‘no contact’’ 

activities. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed clarification. The final rule 

adds to the exception the following 

language: ‘‘This exception does not 

allow workers to perform any activities 

that involve contact with treated 

surfaces even if workers are wearing 

personal protective equipment.’’ The 

final regulatory text for this requirement 

is available at 40 CFR 170.603(a)(1). 

3. Comments and responses. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67528 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Comments. One farm bureau stated 

that workers are prevented from having 

contact with pesticides and their 

residues through the medium of PPE. 

EPA Response. Although PPE—when 

properly fitted, worn, removed, cleaned 

and maintained—can provide 

significant protection against pesticide 

exposures, it does not eliminate 

exposure. The variation in exposure 

reduction offered by various types of 

PPE can be seen in EPA’s ‘‘Exposure 

Surrogate Reference Table’’ (http:// 

www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/ 

handler-exposure-table.pdf). Use of PPE 

for activities involving contact with 

pesticide-treated surfaces does not 

reduce risks to the same level as nocontact activities. EPA has finalized the 

‘‘no contact’’ exception as proposed 

because the PPE appropriate for early 

entry into treated areas under this 

exception is appropriate only for 

activities that do not involve contact 

with treated surfaces. 

C. Limit ‘‘Agricultural Emergency’’ 

Exception 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS permits entry into a 

treated area during an REI when a state, 

tribal, or federal agency having 

jurisdiction declares the existence of 

conditions that could cause an 

agricultural emergency. EPA proposed 

that only agricultural emergency 

determinations by EPA, state and tribal 

pesticide regulatory agencies, and state 

departments of agriculture, could 

authorize early entry under the 

agricultural emergency exception. 

In addition, EPA proposed to limit the 

time a worker may be in the treated area 

under the agricultural emergency 

exception when the label of the product 

used to treat the area requires both oral 

and written notification (‘‘double 

notification’’). Under the existing rule, 

there is no time limit; EPA proposed to 

establish allowing workers to be in a 

treated area under this exception for a 

maximum of 4 hours in any 24 hour 

period. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposal, with one change. The final 

rule does not include EPA as an agency 

with authorization to declare the 

existence of conditions that could cause 

an agricultural emergency because EPA 

decided that States and Tribes are best 

situated to decide what conditions in 

their respective jurisdictions could 

constitute an agricultural emergency. 

The final regulatory text for this 

requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.603(c). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments on restricting the 

declaration of an agricultural 

emergency. One state supported the 

proposal, but recommended broadening 

it to include the state governor. Another 

state found the proposal satisfactory. 

One grower organization opposed the 

proposal, stating that pre-approval to 

enter the treated area would be 

cumbersome and unnecessary if the 

criteria are clearly defined and 

documented. Another grower 

organization and a farm bureau from the 

same state expressed concern that this 

change would seriously impact growers’ 

ability to enter a treated area to manage 

fires, fix broken irrigation and 

chemigation pipes, and address other 

problems that could pose risks to 

adjacent public areas and cause crop 

loss. These commenters recommended 

that EPA develop guidance to instruct 

relevant municipal agencies such as 

local fire departments to declare 

agricultural emergencies. 

Commenters also suggested that there 

is a need for entities other than EPA, 

state departments of agriculture and the 

state pesticide regulatory agencies to 

declare agricultural emergencies. In the 

examples provided by commenters, fires 

and broken irrigation or chemigation 

pipes could pose risks to the public and 

the crop. 

EPA Response. As described in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, EPA 

noted that entities other than the state 

pesticide regulatory agencies, state 

departments of agriculture, and EPA 

might not have the background and 

technical expertise to assess the benefits 

and risks to workers from the entry 

while the REI is in effect, and might not 

understand the statutory requirement to 

consider both risks and benefits when 

establishing conditions for early-entry 

workers. EPA decided not to include 

state governors as an entity authorized 

to declare an agricultural emergency 

because it is not necessary; a state 

governor could direct the state 

department of agriculture or pesticide 

regulatory agency to determine whether 

conditions that could result in an 

agricultural emergency exist. 

The need for pre-approval for 

conditions that may result in an 

agricultural emergency is a requirement 

in the existing rule. EPA has responded 

to the concern of the grower 

organization through its Interpretive 

Guidance Workgroup on the existing 

WPS, which clarified that state pesticide 

regulatory agencies may establish 

guidance or regulations describing the 

circumstances that could constitute an 

agricultural emergency and for which 

entry into areas under an REI is 

permitted. If a grower determines that 

such conditions exist at a site, then 

workers may enter the area while the 

REI is in effect under the agricultural 

emergency exception, consistent with 

applicable restrictions. 

EPA has decided not to expand the 

declaring agencies to include municipal 

agencies such as local fire departments, 

but will work with state pesticide 

regulatory agencies and departments of 

agriculture to support identification of 

circumstances that could constitute an 

agricultural emergency in their 

jurisdictions. EPA recommends that 

these entities identify, in their states, 

local conditions that could constitute 

such emergencies. Through state 

regulation or by policy, these agencies 

may pre-approve entry when such 

conditions occur. 

D. Codify ‘‘Limited Contact’’ and 

‘‘Irrigation’’ Exceptions 

1. Current rule and proposal. EPA 

established ‘‘limited contact’’ and 

‘‘irrigation’’ exceptions as 

administrative exceptions in 1995. 

Although these exceptions are noted in 

the existing rule at 40 CFR 

170.112(e)(7), the terms and conditions 

of these exceptions are not included in 

the existing rule. These exceptions 

permit entry into a treated area during 

the REI for certain non-hand labor 

activities, including irrigation. The 

existing exception for irrigation requires 

that the need for the early entry be 

unforeseen. 

EPA proposed to incorporate the 

terms and conditions for these 

exceptions into the final rule, and to 

eliminate the requirement for the need 

for irrigation to be unforeseen. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

rule as proposed. The final regulatory 

text for this requirement is available at 

40 CFR 170.603(d). 

3. Comments. Two farm bureaus 

specifically supported the codification 

of the limited contact and irrigation 

exceptions. 

E. Eliminate the Option for an Exception 

Requiring Agency Approval 

1. Current rule and proposal. Under 

the existing rule, an applicant may 

request approval from EPA for an 

exception to the prohibition on worker 

entry into a treated area during the REI 

for a specific need. EPA proposed to 

eliminate the process for requesting an 

exception from the rule. 

2. Final rule. EPA is finalizing the 

proposal to eliminate the provision for 

exceptions requiring Agency approval. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comment. One grower opposed the 

elimination of the provision, citing the 

evolution of farming practices and the 

potential for conflict between new 

practices and the rule. The commenter 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67529 

stated that there is no administrative 

burden to the EPA, except to evaluate 

requests if they are submitted. 

EPA Response. EPA included the 

administrative exception process into 

the WPS in 1992 in recognition that the 

general prohibition on routine early 

entry might significantly affect various 

agricultural entities or practices in ways 

that might only become apparent as the 

1992 WPS was put into effect. EPA 

created a small number of exceptions 

during the 1990s, but none since 1997. 

The effects of reentry intervals on 

agricultural entities and practices are 

now sufficiently well understood that 

the administrative exception process is 

no longer needed in the WPS. As 

explained in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, EPA finds the pesticide 

re-evaluation process a more 

appropriate venue than the WPS for 

considering the economic impacts of 

REIs on particular agricultural entities 

and practices. Under EPA’s registration 

review process, applicants may request 

alternative REIs for specific needs for 

their crop. This process takes into 

account the potential increased risk to 

workers and the benefits to the 

production of the crop. In cases where 

EPA finds that the revision of an REI is 

warranted, the product label will be 

amended to specify the REI for that 

particular use. 

F. Costs and Benefits 

1. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of 

implementing the requirement for oral 

notification prior to workers’ entry into 

a treated area under an REI to be about 

$706,000 per year, or about $2 per 

establishment annually. EPA estimates 

that the revisions to the exceptions 

allowing entry into a treated area before 

the REI expires would have negligible 

cost, if any. 

2. Benefits. EPA concludes that the 

benefit of providing detailed 

information about the tasks they are to 

undertake and the limitations on their 

exposure to the worker prior to entry 

into an area under an REI is reasonable 

compared with the cost. 

XII. Display of Pesticide Safety 

Information 

A. Pesticide Safety Information Content 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing rule requires employers to 

display a pesticide safety poster 

containing the following information: 

• Avoid getting on your skin or into 

your body any pesticides that may be on 

plants and soil, in irrigation water, or 

drifting from nearby applications. 

• Wash before eating, drinking, using 

chewing gum or tobacco, or using the 

toilet. 

• Wear work clothing that protects the 

body from pesticide residues (longsleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and 

socks, and a hat or scarf). 

• Wash/shower with soap and water, 

shampoo hair, and put on clean clothes 

after work. 

• Wash work clothes separately from 

other clothes before wearing them again. 

• Wash immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body. As soon as 

possible, shower, shampoo, and change 

into clean clothes. 

• Follow directions about keeping out 

of treated or restricted areas. 

• There are federal rules to protect 

workers and handlers, including a 

requirement for safety training. 

The existing rule also requires the 

employer to provide contact information 

for the nearest emergency medical care 

facility and to promptly update the 

safety information poster when any of 

the required contact information 

changes. 

EPA proposed changing the term for 

what employers must display from 

‘‘pesticide safety poster’’ to ‘‘pesticide 

safety information.’’ EPA proposed 

retaining the existing content 

requirements of the existing rule, with 

one exception. EPA proposed removing 

the item regarding federal rules to allow 

the other information to be more 

prominent. EPA proposed retaining the 

requirement to display the contact 

information for the medical facility and 

amending the language from ‘‘nearest 

emergency medical care facility’’ to ‘‘a 

nearby operating medical facility.’’ 

Finally, EPA proposed requiring the 

employer to provide on the display the 

name, address, and telephone number of 

the state or tribal pesticide regulatory 

agency. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed requirements for content, and 

has added a point to the proposed 

display requirements that advises 

workers and handlers to seek medical 

attention as soon as possible if they 

believe they have been made ill from 

pesticides. EPA has also amended one 

of the existing required points to clarify 

that if pesticides are spilled or sprayed 

on the body, workers and handlers 

should rinse immediately in the nearest 

clean water if more readily available 

than the decontamination supplies, and 

should wash with soap and water as 

soon as possible. The final rule refers to 

the requirement as ‘‘pesticide safety 

information’’ and allows display of the 

information in any format that meets the 

requirements of the rule, rather than 

only as a pesticide safety poster. EPA 

has included a requirement in the final 

rule for the employer to update the 

pesticide information display within 24 

hours of notice of any changes to the 

medical facility or pesticide regulatory 

agency contact information. Finally, 

EPA has provided an option in the 

regulatory text that allows employers to 

comply by following the requirements at 

40 CFR 170.311(a)(1)–(4) before they are 

fully implemented. The final regulatory 

text for these requirements is available 

at 40 CFR 170.311(a)(1)–(4). 

The final rule delays implementation 

of the changes to the required pesticide 

safety information until two years after 

the rule is made final, in order to allow 

time for model pesticide safety 

information display materials to be 

developed and distributed. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Farmworker advocacy 

groups and public health organizations 

supported the emergency medical care 

change and inclusion of the state or 

tribal agency responsible for 

enforcement. However, they urged 

implementation sooner than the 

proposed two years from the effective 

date of the final rule. One commenter 

reported that a recent survey they 

conducted indicated that 25% of 

respondents did not complain about 

pesticide-related health problems or 

pesticide applications to the fields 

while they were working because they 

did not know to whom to complain and 

62% feared losing their jobs if they were 

to complain. 

In general, agricultural producer 

organizations did not object to the 

proposed changes for providing 

emergency medical information but two 

commenters were concerned about 

spurious reporting of alleged violations 

resulting from inclusion of the state or 

tribal regulatory agency in the pesticide 

safety information. Two commenters 

interpreted the proposal as requiring 

injured workers to contact state or tribal 

agencies responsible for enforcement for 

emergency medical attention. A grower 

organization pointed out that the nearest 

operating medical facility might change 

depending on the time of day and 

wondered if they needed to list hours of 

operation and addresses of all 

emergency medical care facilities in the 

area where the employer operates. 

One commenter suggested the safety 

poster should always be in a 

standardized format and requested that 

EPA not allow the information to be 

displayed in several different formats. 

EPA Response. EPA has concluded 

that there was general support for the 

proposed requirement regarding the 

content of the safety information 

display. EPA has delayed 

implementation of the final 

requirements for two years after 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67530 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

publication of the final rule to allow 

time for display material to be updated, 

printed and distributed. However, EPA 

encourages employers to implement the 

new requirements prior to that date by 

allowing employers the option to use 

the new safety information content. 

In response to concerns about the 

placement of the medical facility 

information and the inclusion of 

regulatory agency information in the 

display, EPA has revised the regulatory 

text to clarify that the contact 

information about the medical facility 

must be clearly identified as the 

emergency medical contact information 

on the display. Displaying the 

regulatory agency information is 

important for the ability of workers and 

handlers to report possible violations, 

and in those states where it is already 

required, it does not appear to have 

generated spurious reporting of alleged 

violations. EPA appreciates that some 

states may already require employers to 

make such medical and regulatory 

information available and where state 

requirements meet or exceed the federal 

requirement, they do not need to be 

duplicated. However, EPA has added 

this requirement to the WPS to ensure 

the information is available to workers 

and handlers in all states. 

EPA is finalizing the proposed 

requirement to identify a nearby 

operating emergency medical care 

facility to simplify the requirement in 

situations where the nearest operating 

emergency medical facility varies with 

the location of workers and handlers. 

EPA disagrees with the comment 

requesting that the information be 

displayed in a standardized format. As 

long as the information is provided in 

a way that workers and handlers can 

understand, EPA sees no need to 

mandate a specific format. 

B. Location of Pesticide Safety 

Information Display 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing rule requires agricultural and 

handler employers to display the 

pesticide safety poster at a central 

location on the establishment. EPA 

proposed to require that agricultural 

employers display the pesticide safety 

information at locations where 

decontamination supplies must be 

provided, in addition to the existing 

requirement to display it at a central 

location. 

2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has 

amended the proposal to require that in 

addition to displaying pesticide safety 

information at a central location, 

employers must also display it at 

permanent decontamination supply 

locations and where decontamination 

supplies are provided in quantities to 

meet the needs of 11 or more workers 

or handlers. The final regulatory text for 

this requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.311(a)(5). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Farmworker advocacy 

organizations and public health 

organizations supported requiring 

display of pesticide safety information 

where decontamination supplies are 

provided for easy access to safety 

information for farm workers and 

families at strategic locations. They 

asserted that this would improve the 

ability of farmworkers and their families 

to stay healthy. They maintained that 

due to language barriers, immigration 

status, and fear of retaliation, 

farmworkers are often reluctant to ask 

their employers for information. Three 

individual farmworkers also commented 

on the proposed rule and echoed 

concerns expressed by farmworker 

advocacy groups and public health 

organizations. The commenters 

requested clear information in Spanish 

and English at a central location with 

easy access that includes telephone 

numbers, places to go for help, and 

hospitals in the area. They stated that it 

was important that employers give 

farmworkers the necessary information 

about the pesticide application without 

workers having to ask for information. 

About half of the grower organizations 

commenting had no objection to the 

additional mandate on employers and 

agreed that the additional reminders at 

decontamination sites have potential 

benefits. 

The remaining grower organizations 

believed that the proposed requirement 

would pose a significant burden. One 

commenter stated that duplicating the 

pesticide safety information at multiple 

sites throughout an agricultural 

organization did not equate to a better 

training program and believed this 

requirement would likely result in 

additional fines for noncompliance 

without raising safety awareness. Some 

pointed out that workers are bused in 

for a day in the field and irrigators are 

sent to different areas by phone; none of 

these congregate at a central location. 

Many states opposed displaying the 

pesticide safety information at 

decontamination sites. Because of the 

mobile nature of many decontamination 

sites, such as the back of a pickup truck, 

some noted the proposed requirement 

would be burdensome. One indicated 

that it would be difficult for a grower 

owning fields across multiple counties 

to keep the pesticide safety information 

accurate. They generally supported 

displaying the pesticide safety 

information at permanent 

decontamination sites and base of 

operation mix/load sites. Several states 

asked for clarification about what types 

of decontamination sites would be 

required to display the pesticide safety 

information and suggested that portable 

toilet facilities and plumbed wash sites 

would be more appropriate locations. 

Others mentioned the lack of 

protection from the weather of the 

pesticide safety information at OSHArequired restroom facilities and the lack 

of access to this information when the 

vehicles carrying decontamination 

supplies are locked up at night. Two 

states recommended different sizes for 

the pesticides safety information. One 

state suggested that pesticide safety 

information displays be no larger than 

11 x 17 inches and laminated to 

withstand at least one year’s worth of 

weather conditions for use at 

decontamination sites; this state also 

recommended resizing the existing 

pesticide safety information to 8.5 x 11 

inches or less and made of durable card 

stock or plastic for the agricultural 

workers to take home. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with the 

commenters who supported requiring 

safety information displays at a central 

location and anywhere decontamination 

supplies must be provided because the 

information is a useful reminder of the 

hygienic safety principles from their 

training. However, EPA was persuaded 

by arguments that the burden to display 

the information at mobile 

decontamination sites could be 

substantial, based on concerns for their 

ability to display the information so that 

it could be easily seen by workers, such 

as by posting it on a vertical surface. 

The final rule requires employers to 

display the information at the central 

display and all permanent sites, 

including a lavatory or bathroom, where 

decontamination supplies are provided 

to meet the requirements of the rule. 

However, for other locations where 

decontamination supplies must be 

provided, the pesticide information 

display is required only when the 

supplies are provided for 11 or more 

workers or handlers. This aligns with 

OSHA’s field sanitation standard that 

requires toilet facilities for 11 or more 

workers. EPA notes that employers may 

use these portable toilet facilities or 

permanent wash sites to display the 

information, as recommended by some 

states. 

EPA does not agree with the 

contention that requiring the pesticide 

safety information display at multiple 

locations would result in fines for 

noncompliance, without greatly 

benefiting the employee. The pesticide 

safety information display reinforces the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67531 

hygienic training principles from the 

safety training, and when coupled with 

access to decontamination supplies, 

offers a hands-on opportunity for 

workers and handlers to adopt these 

practices. Additionally, information 

about medical facilities available to 

workers where they may be exposed to 

pesticides may help them take steps to 

respond to an emergency. 

EPA appreciates the comments 

regarding display size and options for 

lamination. The final rule does not 

establish a specific size for the 

information or require it to be 

laminated. However, the final rule 

requires the information to be legible at 

all times while it is displayed, and EPA 

expects that employers will opt for the 

optimal size and protection from the 

elements for their specific needs. 

Because the final rule limits the type of 

decontamination sites covered by this 

requirement and includes flexibility for 

identifying the regulatory agency and a 

nearby operating emergency medical 

care facility, it is possible but unlikely 

that some growers with larger 

establishments may need to provide 

different specific contact information 

about the regulatory agency and/or the 

medical facility, depending on the area 

where workers or handlers are working. 

Commenters suggested the 

information be available in English and 

Spanish. EPA notes that the requirement 

is for the information to be provided in 

a manner that the workers and handlers 

can understand, which may include 

making it available in English and 

Spanish, or in other languages as 

appropriate. 

EPA plans to develop and make 

available to agricultural and handler 

employers posters bearing the pesticide 

safety information, in a bilingual and 

pictorial format and with space for 

employers to add the required 

regulatory agency and medical facility 

information. As discussed in the 

proposed rule, the information does not 

have to be displayed as a poster as long 

as the display includes the required 

information and meets the requirements 

of the section. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

1. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of 

requiring additional pesticide safety 

information displays at permanent sites 

with decontamination supplies and at 

other locations where there are 11 or 

more workers or handlers and of 

requiring contact information on the 

display to be updated to be $390,000 

annually, or about $1 annually per 

establishment per year. 

2. Benefits. Workers and handlers will 

benefit from having access to 

information about basic pesticide safety 

at locations they are likely to visit. In 

addition, workers and handlers will 

benefit from having accurate 

information about nearby medical 

facilities and how to contact the state 

regulatory agency if necessary. EPA 

finds the costs from this requirement are 

reasonable when compared to the 

benefits of reminding employees about 

basic pesticide safety and hygienic 

practices at the sites where they 

routinely wash. 

XIII. Decontamination 

A. Clarify the Quantity of Water 

Required for Decontamination 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing rule requires employers to 

provide ‘‘enough water for routine 

washing and emergency eye flush’’ 

when workers are performing activities 

in areas where a pesticide was applied 

and the REI has expired. For early-entry 

workers, the existing WPS requires 

employers to provide ‘‘a sufficient 

amount of water’’ for decontamination. 

The existing WPS requires employers to 

provide handlers with ‘‘enough water 

for routine washing, for emergency eye 

flushing and for washing the entire body 

in case of an emergency.’’ EPA proposed 

to require specific quantities of water for 

workers, early-entry workers and 

handlers based on its 1993 guidance, 

‘‘How to Comply with the Worker 

Protection Standard for Agricultural 

Pesticides; What Employers Need to 

Know.’’ In the guidance, EPA 

recommended one gallon of water per 

worker for routine decontamination, 

three gallons of water for early-entry 

workers for decontamination and three 

gallons of water per handler for routine 

handwashing and potential emergency 

decontamination. 

EPA requested comment on the 

proposed quantities of water and the use 

of waterless cleansing agents in place of 

soap, water, and single-use towels. EPA 

also requested information on the 

efficacy of waterless cleansing agents for 

removing pesticide residues. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

proposed decontamination water 

requirements. EPA has also clarified 

that employers must make the required 

quantities of water and other 

decontamination supplies available at 

the beginning of the work period. The 

final rule does not allow waterless 

cleansing agents to be used in place of 

water, soap, and single-use towels. The 

final regulatory text for these 

requirements is available at 40 CFR 

170.411(b), 170.509(b) and 170.605(h). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. A majority of commenters 

supported the proposal to require one 

gallon of water per worker for routine 

decontamination, three gallons of water 

for early-entry workers for 

decontamination and three gallons of 

water per handler for routine washing 

and emergency decontamination but 

many requested clarification of the time 

frame associated with the supply; they 

wondered if the prescribed amounts 

were the maximum quantity per site or 

per number of workers, the minimum 

amount at the beginning of the day or 

at all times during the work period. Six 

commenters were in favor of replacing 

soap and water with a waterless 

cleansing agent. One commenter noted 

such a substitution would be effective 

for workers but not handlers; another 

suggested that these agents might be less 

bulky than the existing required 

supplies. One commenter provided 

information on a specific waterless 

cleansing agent. 

EPA Response. EPA notes that the 

proposed quantities of water for 

decontamination are intended for 

agricultural settings that are not subject 

to the field standards of OSHA and the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI). Based on comments, EPA has 

clarified the final rule to require that the 

specified amount of supplies be 

available at the beginning of the work 

period and that they are to be calculated 

per worker and per handler. The final 

rule does not require the replenishment 

of used supplies until the beginning of 

the next work period. The information 

supplied by commenters was 

insufficient to convince EPA to replace 

water, soap, and single-use towels with 

a waterless cleansing agent. The one 

waterless cleansing agent discussed in 

the comments had limited use since the 

information indicated it could be used 

to remove only one family of pesticides; 

workers and handlers are likely to 

encounter residues from various 

families of pesticides. 

B. Eliminate the Substitution of Natural 

Waters for Decontamination Supplies 

1. Current rule and proposal. For sites 

where worker or handler activities are 

farther than one-quarter mile from the 

nearest vehicular access, the existing 

rule permits employers to allow workers 

and handlers to use clean water from 

springs, streams, lakes or other sources 

(‘‘natural waters’’ for the purposes of 

this section) for decontamination, if 

such water is more accessible than the 

employer-provided water. The employer 

must ensure any water used for 

decontamination, including natural 

waters, is of a quality and temperature 

that will not cause illness or injury. EPA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67532 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed to eliminate the provision that 

allows employers to permit workers and 

handlers to substitute natural waters for 

the required decontamination supplies 

at remote sites. For remote sites, the 

proposal would have maintained the 

existing requirement for employers to 

provide all decontamination supplies 

(soap, single-use towels, clean change of 

clothing and water) at the nearest point 

of vehicular access. However, the 

existing regulation does not permit 

substitution of waters from natural 

sources for the decontamination water 

at the point of nearest vehicular access, 

and EPA’s proposed change 

mischaracterized the existing 

requirements. 

2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has 

removed from the regulatory text the 

provision that allows employers to 

permit workers and handlers to use 

clean water from springs, streams, lakes 

or other sources if that water is more 

accessible in remote locations where the 

decontamination supplies are farther 

than one-quarter mile from where 

workers and handlers are working. EPA 

is taking this approach to remove 

confusion about the employer’s 

responsibilities. The employer must 

always provide the decontamination 

supplies in quantities outlined in the 

regulation. When workers or handlers 

are performing tasks at remote sites 

more than one-quarter mile from the 

nearest point of vehicular access, 

employers must provide all required 

decontamination supplies (soap, singleuse towels, and water, plus clean 

change of clothing if required) at the 

nearest point of vehicular access. Under 

the final rule, employers are required to 

make the decontamination supplies 

available as close as possible to the 

remote site (as determined by how close 

a vehicle can get) and employers do not 

have to check or confirm that water 

from springs, streams, lakes or other 

sources at remote sites meets the 

standard of being of a quality and 

temperature that will not cause illness 

or injury. EPA has amended the training 

requirements to cover the proper use of 

natural waters at remote sites by 

workers and handlers. EPA believes that 

workers and handlers in these remote 

areas should primarily rely on the 

decontamination water that is provided 

by the employer for routine washing 

and emergency decontamination 

because the quality of the natural waters 

at the remote site is unknown. In case 

of an overexposure, such as a spill, 

contact from drift, or direct spray, 

workers and handlers should always use 

the emergency decontamination 

supplies if they are more readily 

available. However, training will 

emphasize that workers or handlers 

should rinse immediately using the 

nearest source of clean water to mitigate 

the exposure, and to use the nearest 

source of clean water, including springs, 

streams, lakes or other sources, if more 

readily available than the 

decontamination supplies. Workers and 

handlers will be advised through 

training that as soon as possible they 

should decontaminate thoroughly with 

the soap, water and towels provided by 

the employer and, if available, change 

into clean clothes. EPA plans to modify 

training materials to incorporate this 

information. The final regulatory text for 

worker and handler decontamination is 

available at 40 CFR 170.411(b)(1), 

170.509(b)(1), and 170.605(h)–(j). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Many commenters 

supported not using natural waters to 

replace the required decontamination 

supplies. Two states, a farmworker 

advocacy organization, and a grower 

organization supported the need for 

employees to access the nearest clean 

water in case of an exposure. Some 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

expressed concern that the quality of the 

natural waters might be questionable 

and not the best choice for 

decontamination. 

Finally, one farm bureau commenter 

stated that large scale planting activities 

can place workers more than onequarter mile from vehicular access, and 

retaining the existing requirement is 

more reasonable than expecting workers 

to carry washing water with them. 

EPA Response. EPA maintains its 

position that the employer-provided 

decontamination supplies, provided 

within one-quarter mile of the workers 

and handlers—or in remote areas, at the 

nearest point of vehicular access to 

worker and handler work sites—are the 

appropriate supplies for routine 

washing and emergency 

decontamination. The employer must 

ensure this water meets the minimum 

criteria for quality. However, EPA agrees 

with commenters that prompt washing 

in clean water is an important step in 

reducing overexposure, for example, 

from a spill, contact from drift, or direct 

spray. EPA has identified acute 

incidents that would have been 

mitigated if the exposed worker or 

handler had decontaminated promptly. 

EPA is concerned that the existing 

requirements for employers to ensure 

the quality of natural waters prior to its 

use and for them to permit its use will 

prevent workers and handlers from 

using these waters to decontaminate in 

case of an emergency. Ensuring the 

quality of all natural waters on their 

establishment could be burdensome for 

employers, and as a result they might 

not evaluate the quality or permit the 

use of natural waters. 

To ensure that workers and handlers 

needing emergency decontamination 

can use water that is more accessible 

than the decontamination water 

provided by the employer, the employer 

no longer must predetermine that the 

quality of the water meets the criteria or 

permit their employees access. The rule 

permits the use of natural waters for 

emergency decontamination, but does 

not require it. Workers and handlers 

seeking to mitigate an emergency 

exposure will be informed in their 

training to use the nearest clean water 

to immediately rinse off if such water is 

more readily available than the 

employer-provided decontamination 

supplies, and then go to where the 

employer-provided supplies are to fully 

decontaminate. EPA believes the 

benefits of using natural clean waters to 

decontaminate immediately in an 

emergency pesticide exposure situation 

outweighs the potential risks of making 

workers or handlers wait until they can 

use supplied decontamination water 

that has been evaluated for quality but 

may be less available to immediately 

address the exposure. EPA thinks that 

washing in natural waters in any 

agricultural area is unlikely to pose risks 

comparable to a significant direct 

pesticide exposure. 

C. Requirements for Ocular 

Decontamination in Case of Exposed 

Pesticide Handlers 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing rule requires employers to 

provide ‘‘enough’’ water to handlers for 

routine and emergency washing and 

emergency eye flushing. For handlers 

who use products that require eye 

protection, employers must provide 

each handler with at least one pint of 

water that they can carry for use in the 

event of an ocular pesticide exposure. 

EPA proposed to require employers to 

provide clean, running water at 

permanent (i.e., plumbed and not 

portable) mixing and loading sites for 

handlers to use in the event of an ocular 

pesticide exposure when using a 

pesticide with labeling that requires eye 

protection. 

2. Final rule. Under the final rule, 

employers must provide water for 

ocular decontamination either through a 

system capable of delivering 0.4 gallons/ 

minute for at least 15 minutes or from 

six gallons of water able to flow gently 

for about 15 minutes. This water must 

be available at all mixing and loading 

sites where handlers are mixing or 

loading a product that requires eye 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67533 

protection or when closed systems, 

operating under pressure, are in use. 

The final rule amends the existing 

requirement for employers to provide at 

least one pint of water per handler in 

portable containers that are immediately 

available to handlers applying the 

pesticide, rather than to all handlers 

mixing, loading and applying 

pesticides, if the pesticide labeling 

requires protective eyewear. The final 

regulatory text for these requirements is 

available at 40 CFR 170.509(d). 

The term ‘‘potable’’ in the preamble 

and regulatory text for the proposed rule 

was a typographical error and has been 

corrected to ‘‘portable’’ in the final rule. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. There was general support 

for this proposal. Many commenters 

urged EPA to adopt or coordinate with 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) standard Z358.1–2009 and/or 

the OSHA requirements, 29 CFR 

1928.110, as several states have done. 

Many requested a definition of 

‘‘permanent mixing and loading site’’ 

and ‘‘a system capable.’’ Some qualified 

their support based on the inclusion of 

‘‘nurse rigs,’’ ‘‘nurse tanks’’ and 

‘‘gravity-fed tanks’’ in the final rule. 

Commenters also explained that much 

of the mixing and loading is done in the 

field rather than at a site with running 

water. Other commenters wondered if 

the water for decontamination needed to 

be potable. 

EPA Response. The OSHA standard at 

29 CFR 1910.151(c) specifies that ‘‘. . . 

where the eyes or body of any person 

may be exposed to injurious corrosive 

materials, suitable facilities for quick 

drenching or flushing of the eyes and 

body shall be provided . . .’’. The ANSI 

standard provides specifications for two 

types of eyewash stations, plumbed and 

gravity-fed. The specifications describe 

a system with a precise rate of flow (0.4 

gallons/minute for 15 minutes), that can 

activate in 1 second or less and does not 

require the user to control the flow of 

water. While the OSHA and ANSI 

standards are very protective, EPA 

believes that the final rule requirements 

provide handlers with mitigation 

appropriate to pesticide exposure in 

agricultural settings at significantly 

lower costs than the ANSI standards. 

Based on the comments, EPA realized 

that there might have been some 

confusion regarding the nature of 

permanent mixing and loading sites, the 

plumbing associated with nonpermanent mixing and loading sites, 

and the quality of the water required. In 

the final rule, EPA decided to apply the 

requirements to all mixing and loading 

sites where pesticides whose labeling 

requires protective eyewear are handled 

because the risk to handlers who mix 

and load these products is the same, 

regardless of where they perform the 

tasks. Rather than specify what types of 

water tanks or eye wash systems would 

comply with the requirement, EPA 

opted for flexibility. The final rule 

allows employers to provide either at 

least 6 gallons of water in containers 

suitable for providing a gentle eye flush 

for about 15 minutes, or a system 

capable of delivering gently running 

water at a rate of 0.4 gallons per minute 

for at least 15 minutes to satisfy the 

requirement. One emergency eyewash 

system is required at a mixing/loading 

site when a handler is mixing or loading 

a product whose labeling requires 

protective eyewear for handlers, 

regardless of how many handlers are 

mixing or loading at that site. The final 

retains the existing requirement for 

water to be of ‘‘a quality and 

temperature that will not cause illness 

or injury.’’ 

D. Showers for Handler 

Decontamination 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing rule establishes specific 

requirements for routine and emergency 

handler decontamination supplies, but 

these requirements do not include 

shower facilities. EPA considered but 

did not propose a requirement for 

handler employers to provide shower 

facilities. 

2. Final rule. EPA has not included in 

the final rule a requirement for 

employers to provide shower facilities 

for handlers. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Many commenters 

supported the proposal for not 

providing shower facilities for handlers 

while others requested that EPA require 

employers to provide shower facilities 

for handlers. Those against adding the 

shower requirement noted the provision 

would not necessarily guarantee use in 

order to reduce take-home or handler 

exposure. Those supporting a 

requirement for shower facilities 

indicated that handlers would use them 

if they were provided. Both groups, 

however, agreed that better training and 

adequate information on reducing takehome exposure, as suggested by EPA, 

would be a better approach. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees that 

additional training for handlers and 

clarified decontamination provisions 

such as the provision of at least 3 

gallons of water per handler for routine 

and emergency washing, available at the 

beginning of the day, would help reduce 

take-home exposure without requiring 

shower facilities. The estimate of the 

cost of installing showers as provided in 

the proposal, combined with the lack of 

confidence that most handlers would 

routinely use showers if provided, led to 

the conclusion that a shower 

requirement would be unlikely to 

reduce risks to an extent commensurate 

with the costs. 

E. Costs and Benefits 

1. Costs. EPA estimates the total cost 

of the revisions to the decontamination 

requirements to be approximately 

$412,000 annually, or about $1 per 

establishment per year, CPHEs $21 per 

establishment per year. 

EPA does not believe there will be 

any cost associated with deleting the 

provision allowing employers to direct 

workers and handlers to use natural 

waters in addition to the 

decontamination supplies required by 

the rule. The final rule still allows 

workers and handlers to use clean, 

natural waters, but removes employers’ 

obligation to ensure that the water is of 

a temperature and quality that will not 

cause harm. 

Because EPA is not imposing a 

requirement for employers to provide 

shower facilities for handlers, there is 

no estimated cost. Refer to the Economic 

Analysis of the proposed rule for details 

regarding the estimated cost of requiring 

showers for handlers (Ref. 14). 

2. Benefits. EPA expects that workers 

and handlers will benefit from having 

access to sufficient supplies for routine 

washing and decontamination. In 

addition, handlers will benefit by 

having sufficient water available to rinse 

their eyes in the event of an accident 

while mixing or loading certain 

pesticides. Employers will benefit from 

certainty about the amount of water that 

they must supply and when that water 

must be available. 

XIV. Emergency Assistance 

A. Current Rule and Proposal 

The existing WPS requires employers 

of workers or handlers, including those 

handlers employed by the agricultural 

establishment or those working for a 

pesticide handling establishment, to 

provide prompt transportation to an 

emergency medical facility to 

employees who have been poisoned or 

injured by exposure to pesticides used 

on the establishment. Emergency 

medical assistance under the existing 

rule consists of the prompt provision of 

transportation to an emergency medical 

facility for the worker or handler and 

the provision of obtainable information 

about the exposure, including 

information about the product(s) that 

may have been used, to emergency 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67534 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

medical personnel or the exposed 

employee. 

EPA proposed to require agricultural 

and handler employers to provide 

emergency medical assistance within 30 

minutes after learning that an employee 

may have been poisoned or injured by 

exposure to pesticides as a result of his 

or her employment, replacing the 

current standard of ‘‘prompt.’’ The 

proposed change was intended to 

ensure that the potentially injured party 

would be on route to a medical facility 

within 30 minutes. 

EPA also proposed that the employer 

provide a copy of the pesticide label, or 

specific information from the label, 

along with the SDS and circumstances 

of the pesticide use and potential 

exposure, to employees potentially 

injured by exposure to pesticides and to 

treating medical personnel. 

B. Final Rule 

EPA has retained the existing 

requirement for providing 

transportation and information 

promptly. The final rule clarifies that 

these requirements apply only to 

current or recently employed workers, 

and that emergency assistance must be 

provided if there is reason to believe 

that a worker or handler has been 

potentially exposed to pesticides or 

shows symptoms of pesticide exposure. 

EPA has amended the requirement for 

the information that the employer must 

provide related to emergency assistance. 

The final rule requires the employer to 

provide to treating medical personnel a 

copy of the SDS, product name, EPA 

registration number and active 

ingredient for each pesticide product to 

which the person may have been 

exposed, as well as the circumstances of 

application or use of the pesticide on 

the agricultural establishment and the 

circumstances that could have resulted 

in exposure to the pesticide. This is a 

slight change to the existing rule which 

makes the information available to the 

worker or handler. In this final rule, the 

worker or handler has access to the 

information through the hazard 

communications requirement. This 

provision deals specifically with 

meeting the needs for medical 

assistance, and requires that the 

information be provided to the medical 

personnel. 

EPA has clarified in the final rule that 

the provision of the emergency 

assistance requirement for 

transportation and information applies 

only to currently employed workers 

seeking emergency medical assistance 

or recently employed workers within 72 

hours after their employment for acute 

exposures occurring on the agricultural 

establishment. 

The final regulatory text for these 

requirements is available at 40 CFR 

170.309(f) and 170.313(k). 

Readiness is among the most 

important factors in an employer’s 

ability to promptly carry out the 

emergency assistance requirements. 

EPA strongly encourages employers to 

develop an emergency response plan 

and to address in such a plan details 

related to the emergency medical 

assistance requirements of the WPS. 

EPA also encourages employers to 

periodically test, evaluate and, if 

necessary, update the plan. EPA will 

develop a sample plan to help 

employers prepare for possible 

pesticide-related emergencies. 

Employers can also find additional 

information concerning the 

development and implementation of an 

emergency preparedness program at the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s 

Web site, http://www.ready.gov/

business/. 

Although EPA believes that it is 

important for employers to develop 

emergency response plans, EPA has not 

made this a requirement of the final 

rule. EPA recognizes that pesticide 

exposure is just one of many hazards 

that should be addressed in an 

emergency response plan, and that EPA 

has very little information about the 

extent of emergency planning in the 

agricultural community. Accordingly, 

EPA has decided that it would be 

unwise to address this issue in the WPS 

without the benefit of a more robust 

dialogue with all stakeholders. 

C. Comments and Responses 

Comments. Many private citizens and 

farmworker advocacy organizations, 

some pesticide state regulatory agencies 

and several public health organizations 

supported the proposal to require 

agricultural employers and handler 

employers to provide emergency 

medical assistance within 30 minutes 

after learning that an employee may 

have been poisoned or injured by 

exposure to pesticides as a result of his 

or her employment, replacing the 

current standard of ‘‘prompt.’’ They 

stated that the clarification of time for 

the provision of transportation and 

information would improve the safety of 

farmworkers. 

The Progressive Congressional 

Caucus, many farmworker advocacy 

organizations and public health 

organizations expressed concern that 

the proposed emergency response time 

of 30 minutes is too long and 

recommended that it should be further 

reduced. Commenters reasoned that 

pesticide poisoning can be fatal or result 

in long-term effects if not quickly 

treated. 

On the other hand, many commenters, 

mostly growers and farm bureaus, and 

some states and agricultural producer 

organizations expressed opposition to 

the proposal and favored retaining 

‘‘prompt ’’ to allow more flexibility due 

to geographical constraints. The Small 

Business Administration’s Office of 

Advocacy stated that small farms that 

are farther away from medical facilities 

would not be able to obtain emergency 

transportation within the timeframe. 

Those with few employees and limited 

transportation options would be 

overburdened in attempting to comply 

with a 30 minute timeframe. 

Commenters representing many 

states, several agricultural industries, 

many growers and farm bureaus, and 

the Small Business Administration’s 

Office of Advocacy recommended that 

emergency response requirements 

should apply only to current employees 

seeking emergency medical assistance 

for acute incidents. 

Additional comments from states and 

their organizations recommended that 

the agriculture emergency requirement 

address only acute exposures to current 

employees of the establishment. They 

raised concerns for the potential for 

former employees or those with 

exposures in the past to request 

emergency assistance. One commenter 

stated that allowing any person who 

was ever employed by the establishment 

the ability to demand emergency 

assistance could cause problems with 

compliance and enforcement. Some of 

these organizations requested 

clarification of the term ‘‘emergency 

medical facility.’’ 

Commenters also recommended that 

the requirement allow, similar to OSHA, 

trained first aid providers on the 

establishment to provide care, which 

could enable more timely treatment. 

Commenters noted that requiring the 

employer to provide the label to 

employees potentially injured by 

exposure to pesticides and to treating 

medical personnel could lead to further 

exposure, if the employee takes an open 

container of pesticides bearing the label. 

Further, commenters suggested that the 

information outlined in the proposal 

could be obtained from sources other 

than the label. 

EPA Response. EPA was convinced by 

the concerns raised by members of the 

agricultural community that 

geographical constraints, in some cases, 

would make the 30 minute response 

timeframe for transportation difficult or 

impossible to meet. Agricultural 

establishments can be very large and are 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67535 

often distant from population centers. 

Remote locations, including those in 

forestry, are common; and the distance 

to an emergency medical facility or to 

an ambulance service can be significant. 

The final rule requires employers to 

comply with the emergency assistance 

requirements by promptly making 

transportation available to an emergency 

medical facility for potentially injured 

employees and providing the SDS, 

specific product information, and 

information about the exposure to the 

treating medical personnel. Because the 

information about the pesticide may be 

critical to effectively manage the illness, 

EPA decided to focus the requirement to 

ensure that treating medical personnel 

receive the information. The agricultural 

employer must provide that information 

in a way that is reasonably expected to 

be accessible to the treating medical 

personnel. The requirement does not 

preclude the employer providing the 

information to injured employees and 

does not prevent injured employees 

from requesting this information. This 

requirement will allow continued 

flexibility for employers and encourage 

timely medical treatment for potentially 

injured employees. 

In deciding to retain the requirement 

for prompt provision of transportation, 

EPA also took into consideration 

OSHA’s standard for the provision of 

transportation to persons in 

construction, which requires ‘‘Proper 

equipment for prompt transportation of 

the injured person to a physician or 

hospital.’’ 29 CFR 1926.50(e). 

EPA agrees with the recommendation 

to clarify that the requirement applies 

only to current or recently employed 

workers seeking emergency medical 

assistance for acute exposures occurred 

at the agricultural establishment, and 

has revised the final rule accordingly. 

EPA notes that for some cases of 

suspected pesticide injury, the attention 

of a trained first aid provider can 

mitigate the injury. Such treatment 

would not negate the obligations of the 

employer to provide transportation 

promptly to an injured employee, or to 

provide information about the pesticide 

and exposure to medical personnel, but 

is encouraged. Allowing a competent 

first aid provider to administer timely 

treatment to an injured employee could 

offset complications from longer 

exposures. 

EPA agrees with comments that a 

requirement to provide the label in the 

event of an emergency could be 

burdensome and place employees at risk 

for additional exposure if the label is 

attached to an open container of 

pesticides. EPA has not included the 

proposed requirement to provide the 

label or information from the label; 

rather, the final rule requires the 

employer to provide the necessary 

information, but does not specify the 

source of the information. EPA has 

removed from the list of specific pieces 

of information the employer must 

provide information about antidote, first 

aid, and recommended treatment 

because the SDS contains this 

information. EPA notes that the 

information about the product and the 

SDS will be available as part of the 

pesticide application and hazard 

information. 

In response to the requests for 

clarification of what qualifies as an 

emergency medical facility, EPA notes 

that a hospital, clinic, or infirmary 

offering emergency health services 

qualifies. 

Finally, the employer must provide 

information about the pesticide and the 

exposure to the treating medical 

personnel. 

D. Costs and Benefits 

There are no incremental costs 

associated with the decision to retain 

the requirement of prompt provision of 

transportation in the existing rule. The 

cost associated with the SDS were 

included in the costs for the pesticide 

application and hazard information. 

There are significant benefits to 

reducing damage from pesticide 

exposure by prompt medical attention. 

XV. Personal Protective Equipment 

A. Respirators: Fit Testing, Training and 

Medical Evaluation 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing regulation requires handler 

employers to ensure that each handler’s 

respirator fits correctly. However, the 

existing rule does not provide specific 

details on ensuring that a respirator fits 

properly, nor does it require employers 

to conduct medical evaluations of the 

handler’s fitness for respirator use, 

provide training on the proper use of 

respirators, or retain fit test records. 

EPA proposed to require handler 

employers to comply with the respirator 

fit testing, training, and medical 

evaluation requirements set by OSHA at 

29 CFR 1910.134 whenever a respirator 

other than a dust or mist filtering mask 

is required by the labeling. EPA did not 

propose any new requirements for 

filtering facepiece respirators (OSHA’s 

term for dust or mist filtering masks). 

The OSHA standard includes a specific 

standard for fitting a user for respirator 

use, training on recognizing when the 

respirator seal may be broken, and what 

steps to take to properly use and 

maintain respirators. OSHA also 

requires respirator users to be medically 

evaluated to ensure the respirator use 

does not cause undue stress on their 

bodies. EPA proposed to require that 

employers comply with the OSHA 

requirements for fit testing, training, and 

medical evaluation by cross-referencing 

29 CFR 1910.134, in order to avoid 

creating a duplicative regulation and to 

ensure that if technology advances lead 

OSHA to amend its standard, the change 

would automatically apply to pesticide 

uses subject to the WPS as well. EPA 

also proposed to require handler 

employers to maintain records of the fit 

test, training, and medical evaluation for 

two years. 

2. Final rule. EPA has retained the 

proposed elements in the final rule, 

with some changes and clarifications. 

Specifically, the final rule cross 

references and requires compliance with 

the OSHA standards for fit testing, 

training, and medical evaluation when a 

respirator is required by the labeling. 

The final rule expands from the 

proposal the types of respirators covered 

by the requirement to include filtering 

facepiece respirators. The final rule also 

adds an additional item to the list of 

conditions that would trigger 

replacement of the gas- or vaporremoving canisters or cartridges. 

In the final rule, EPA has retained the 

proposed requirement for handler 

employers to maintain records of the fit 

testing, medical evaluation, and 

training. The final rule clarifies that the 

required training is limited to the care 

and use of respirators, 29 CFR 

1910.134(k)(1)(i)–(vi), and does not 

include the training on the general 

requirements (i.e., 29 CFR 

1930.134(k)(1)(vii)). 

The final regulatory text for these 

requirements is available at 40 CFR 

170.507(b)(10) and 170.507(d)(7). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA received many 

comments in favor of requiring handler 

employers to comply with the respirator 

fit testing, training, and medical 

evaluation requirements established in 

the OSHA standard. Many farmworker 

advocacy organizations and some PPE 

manufacturers asserted that EPA should 

also apply the proposed standards for fit 

testing, training, and medical 

monitoring to users of filtering facepiece 

respirators in addition to the other 

respirator types (e.g., tight fitting 

elastomeric facepieces). Commenters 

suggested that filtering facepiece 

respirators are widely used and covered 

by OSHA’s respirator requirements, and 

that their exclusion would result in 

inadequate protection for many 

pesticide handlers. OSHA defines a 

filtering facepiece as ‘‘a negative 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67536 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

pressure particulate respirator with a 

filter as an integral part of the facepiece 

or with the entire facepiece composed of 

the filtering medium’’ in 29 CFR 

1910.134(b). 

Furthermore, many farmworker 

advocacy organizations stated that EPA 

should require compliance with all 

elements of 29 CFR 1910.134, rather 

than the proposal to just include fit 

testing, training, and medical 

evaluation. Specifically, they urged EPA 

to adopt OSHA’s requirements for 

employers to develop a respiratory 

protection program (29 CFR 

1910.134(c)) and conduct a workplace 

hazard evaluation (29 CFR 

1910.134(d)(1)(iii)). 

Nearly all commenters expressed 

support for a general requirement 

related to proper respirator care and use, 

such as appears in the existing rule. 

However, many pesticide manufacturers 

and their associations, state farm 

bureaus and agricultural producer 

organizations questioned the feasibility 

of the proposed requirement for medical 

evaluations because locating qualified 

physicians practicing in rural areas 

would be difficult. Other farm bureaus 

noted that the OSHA standard applies to 

general industries, shipyards, marine 

terminals, longshoring and construction, 

and it would not likely be easily 

adopted in agricultural settings. Some 

commenters, including the Small 

Business Administration’s Office of 

Advocacy, also asserted that EPA’s cost 

estimates associated with the medical 

evaluations and fit testing were too low. 

Some commenters, including a state 

farm bureau, raised concerns that EPA’s 

reference to OSHA’s regulations could 

give OSHA legal grounds to pursue 

oversight of certain small farming 

operations, contrary to provisions of 

existing law. 

EPA Response. In the final rule, EPA 

has required that employers comply 

with the respirator fit testing, training, 

and medical evaluation requirements 

described in the proposed rule when the 

use of respirators is required by the 

labeling. The final rule also expands its 

coverage to include filtering facepiece 

respirators (referred to as dust/mist 

filtering respirators in the proposal). 

EPA included filtering facepiece 

respirators in the final rule to ensure 

that handlers required to use any type 

of respirator are adequately protected. 

Filtering facepiece respirators need to be 

fit tested and used properly to provide 

the intended protection. In addition, 

this will ensure that respirators used 

under the WPS provide the same level 

of protection as comparable respirators 

used under OSHA’s respiratory 

protection requirements. 

EPA acknowledges that, if the final 

rule were to require handler employers 

to comply with the OSHA requirement 

to adopt a worksite-specific respiratory 

protection program, such a requirement 

would address in detail the selection, 

cleaning, storing, repair and 

replacement of respirators, as well as 

worksite-specific procedures when 

respirator use is required. EPA has 

decided not to expand the final rule to 

include the OSHA requirement to adopt 

a worksite-specific respiratory 

protection program because specific 

respirator requirements are described on 

EPA-approved, product-specific 

pesticide labeling. These productspecific respirator requirements are 

based on the acute inhalation toxicity of 

the end-use product or a comprehensive 

risk assessment informed by incident 

data, or on extensive pesticide active 

ingredient toxicology data, exposure 

science and epidemiology data (if 

available), or on both. Therefore, 

requiring a general worksite-specific 

respiratory protection program would 

duplicate the analysis underlying 

product-specific respirator requirements 

included on pesticide labeling. 

EPA acknowledges that implementing 

respirator fit testing, training, and 

medical evaluation in agriculture will 

place additional burden on agricultural 

employers. However, the proper fit and 

use of respirators is essential in order to 

realize the protections respirators are 

intended to provide. EPA’s pesticide 

risk assessment process relies on 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) protection 

factors (i.e., respirators used according 

to OSHA’s standards) when deciding 

whether handler inhalation exposure 

can be mitigated by respirator use. If the 

handler inhalation exposure can be 

mitigated by a particular type of 

respirator, EPA may require the use of 

that respirator on the pesticide label, 

among other risk mitigation measures. 

Without the protection provided by the 

respirators identified on the label, use of 

those pesticides would cause 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

pesticide user, i.e., the handler. 

EPA is aware of several states, 

including California, Oregon and 

Washington, that have successfully 

incorporated all aspects of the OSHA 

standard for respirators in agriculture, 

demonstrating the feasibility of applying 

OSHA’s requirements in agriculture. 

North Carolina has incorporated many 

innovative ways to facilitate the medical 

evaluation and fit testing process, and 

helped farmers (including handler 

employers) locate reputable sources for 

online services for fit testing and 

medical evaluation, and sources for 

NIOSH-approved respirators, filters, and 

cartridges. EPA plans to work with 

stakeholders such as state regulatory 

agencies, universities, and others to 

provide outreach assistance such as 

training programs and written materials 

and to encourage the dissemination of 

information about fit testing and 

medical evaluation resources. 

EPA has reviewed and revised its cost 

estimates for fit testing, training and 

medical evaluation. The cost estimate 

assumes that farms would designate one 

handler to be fit tested so the 

incremental costs for the filtering 

facepiece respirators reflects the need to 

fit test and train on multiple types of 

respirators. The increased costs also 

reflects the cost of the on-line medical 

evaluation, which replaces the 

estimated time of a medical technician 

reviewing the evaluation, and the cost of 

the employer’s time to arrange (if offsite) or oversee (if on-farm) the 

evaluation and fit test, which was 

previously omitted. EPA has also 

updated wages, price of materials and 

services such as the cost of the medical 

evaluation and the fit test materials. 

Details of the revised estimate are 

available in the Economic Analysis for 

this final rule (Ref. 1). 

EPA recognizes that some handlers 

may not be able to use a tight-fitting 

respirator. EPA notes that the purpose of 

the medical evaluation is to ensure 

handlers are able to tolerate the physical 

burden caused by the use of respirators. 

Many medical conditions, such as 

cardiovascular diseases and the reduced 

pulmonary function caused by smoking, 

could impede the ability of the handler 

to wear a respirator without adverse 

health impacts. The medical evaluation 

should identify these potential issues 

and disqualify the handler from using a 

tight-fitting respirator. Tight fitting 

respirators include filtering facepiece 

respirators, full and half face 

elastomeric respirators and tight fitting 

powered air purifying respirators 

(PAPR). However, for these handlers, 

loose-fitting PAPRs are an option for 

respiratory protection because they do 

not require medical evaluations or fit 

testing. EPA notes that many handler 

employers may be able to rely on online 

services where medical evaluations can 

be performed by relying on medical 

questionnaires. The employee would 

complete the medical questionnaire, 

which would be provided to the 

licensed medical professional for 

review. If the employee is cleared by the 

review, he or she is approved to wear 

a respirator. If the employee is not 

cleared through the review of the 

questionnaire, the employer may send 

the employee for further medical review 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67537 

or the employer may identify a different 

employee to handle the pesticide. 

EPA does not believe that including 

in the WPS a requirement that 

employers must perform respirator fit 

testing, training, and medical evaluation 

in accordance with OSHA’s 

requirements by cross-reference to 29 

CFR 1910.134 affects the scope of 

OSHA’s jurisdiction. This final rule 

changes only the FIFRA WPS, which is 

implemented and enforced by EPA, the 

States and Tribes, and not by OSHA. 

However, in consideration of the 

commenters who asked that EPA require 

compliance with all elements of OSHA 

requirements at 29 CFR 1910.134, the 

Agency re-evaluated other elements of 

that regulation. As part of that reevaluation, EPA identified an 

inconsistency between the Agency’s 

proposal and OSHA’s requirements 

concerning a change schedule for the 

replacement of the gas- or vaporremoving canisters or cartridges. 

Specifically, OSHA requirements 

address change schedules that utilize 

NIOSH end-of-service-life indicator 

designations (29 CFR 

1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(2)). To ensure 

respirator protections are of greater 

consistency across industries, EPA has 

added the OSHA requirement that 

triggers the replacement of the gas- or 

vapor-removing canisters or cartridges 

to the list of conditions in the final rule 

at § 170.507(d)(7) through an 

incorporation by reference. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost to employers of complying with 

the WPS respirator requirements that 

cross-reference the OSHA standard 

would be $10.6 million annually, or 

about $43 per year, on average, for 

agricultural establishments with 

handlers and about $8 for commercial 

pesticide handling establishments per 

year. On family-owned farms that use 

pesticides and do not hire labor, the 

estimated annual cost of the respirator 

requirements is approximately $9 per 

establishment per year. As explained 

previously, the estimated cost increased 

in the final rule because the cost 

analysis was revised to account for 

handlers to be fit tested and trained to 

use multiple types of respirators, the 

cost of an on-line medical evaluation, 

and the employer’s time to arrange for 

the fit testing, evaluation and training. 

EPA assumes that about 30 percent of 

handlers working on 60 percent of farms 

that employ handlers will be fit tested 

in any year; the average cost per farm 

reflects this assumption. The cost to 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishments only reflects the cost of 

recordkeeping because EPA assumes 

that they already comply with OSHA’s 

respirator requirements because they 

engage in activities outside of the scope 

of the WPS that are covered by OSHA. 

The cost estimates for agricultural 

establishments are very conservative 

because of broad assumptions regarding 

the number of handlers and farms 

affected, and the fact that some 

establishment owners are already 

required to comply with OSHA 

requirements related to respirator use 

for other reasons. 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits 

associated with this specific 

requirement. However, ensuring that 

handlers can safely use respirators and 

that those respirators fit properly will 

increase the protections offered by 

respirators to the levels presumed in 

EPA’s pesticide registration decisions. 

This should lead to a reduction in 

occupational pesticide-related illnesses. 

In comparison to these expected 

benefits of proper respirator use and 

reduced illnesses, the costs associated 

with the final rule requirements appear 

to be reasonable. 

B. Chemical-Resistant PPE 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

definition for ‘‘chemical resistant’’ in 

the existing WPS is a ‘‘material that 

allows no measurable movement of the 

pesticide being used through the 

material during use.’’ Prior to the 

proposed rule, EPA received many 

comments from stakeholders suggesting 

that there was no way for agricultural 

employers, handlers, early-entry 

workers, pesticide educators and 

inspection personnel to ensure the PPE 

being used was ‘‘chemical resistant.’’ 

EPA proposed requiring employers to 

provide PPE defined by its manufacturer 

as chemical resistant. 

2. Final rule. EPA has rejected the 

proposed change. The final rule retains 

the existing definition of chemical 

resistance. The final regulatory text for 

this requirement is available at in 40 

CFR 170.507(b)(1). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. While several commenters 

representing states and academia 

supported the idea of PPE 

manufacturers defining chemical 

resistant in principle, many also 

questioned the feasibility of such an 

approach. Specifically, the commenters 

questioned whether manufacturers can 

reliably label PPE as chemical resistant 

in a permanent manner that would be 

easy for enforcement personnel to check 

during inspections. Several other 

commenters from pesticide 

manufacturers and PPE manufacturers 

suggested such claims may not be able 

to be made for the wide range of 

pesticide formulations and active 

ingredients. One PPE manufacturer 

asserted that the existing definition was 

purposefully worded to ensure worker 

protection and that EPA’s proposal oversimplifies a very complex and critical 

issue. Many other commenters 

reiterated this latter comment regarding 

over-simplification of the process for 

developing chemical resistant PPE. 

EPA Response. EPA recognizes the 

many comments highlighting the 

challenging issues involved with having 

PPE being defined as chemical resistant 

by the equipment manufacturer, who 

does not know the ingredients in every 

pesticide product. EPA agrees with 

commenters that the proposed approach 

would create more problems than it 

would resolve. Therefore, the final rule 

retains the existing chemical resistant 

definition. 

4. Costs and benefits. Because EPA is 

retaining the current definition of 

chemical resistant, there are no 

estimated costs. 

C. Contaminated PPE 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS requires employers to 

ensure that PPE is cleaned before each 

day of reuse. If the article cannot be 

properly cleaned, the employer must 

dispose of it in accordance with 

applicable Federal, State, and local 

regulations. EPA proposed to add a 

requirement for employers to render 

unusable contaminated PPE that cannot 

be properly cleaned before it is 

disposed. 

2. Final rule. In the final rule, the 

employer must ensure that 

contaminated PPE is made unusable as 

apparel or disposed of in such a way 

that it is unavailable for further use. 

EPA has also included in the final rule 

a requirement for the person who 

cleans, disposes, or otherwise handles 

the contaminated PPE to wear the gloves 

required for mixing and loading the 

pesticide that contaminated the PPE. 

The final regulatory text for this 

requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.507(d)(2). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Prior to the proposed 

rulemaking, state pesticide regulatory 

agencies expressed concern that unless 

proper measures are taken, 

contaminated PPE might be reused 

either as PPE or simply as a garment, 

placing the person wearing it at risk 

from pesticide exposure. In support of 

the proposal, one public health 

organization commented that rendering 

contaminated garments unusable would 

prevent adverse health effects. A state 

noted that the proposal was an effective 

method to reduce the potential for 

access to contaminated PPE. One grower 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67538 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

organization noted that the potential for 

exposure exists when individuals cut or 

render contaminated PPE unusable, and 

suggested a requirement to seal the 

contaminated PPE in a disposal 

container and to dispose of the 

container in an appropriate manner. 

In contrast, some grower 

organizations stated that the current 

requirement is adequate and EPA 

should not adopt the proposal. Some 

farm bureaus opposed the proposal and 

thought the concern for individuals 

gaining access to contaminated PPE was 

well meaning yet hypothetical. Some of 

these commenters suggested it could 

lead to confusing violation scenarios, 

specifically from the interpretation of 

‘‘render unusable.’’ 

EPA Response. The final rule clarifies 

that the requirement is to make the PPE 

‘‘unusable as apparel.’’ EPA agrees that 

access to contaminated PPE might be 

prevented by sealing it in a container 

and entrusting it to a waste disposal 

system that effectively prevents 

diversion of waste, and that such an 

approach would reduce pesticide 

exposure to the person handling the 

contaminated article relative to many 

methods of rendering the PPE unusable. 

EPA has included in the final rule a 

provision allowing the PPE to be ‘‘made 

unavailable for further use’’ as an 

alternative to the proposed requirement 

to render the contaminated PPE 

unusable. To reduce the potential 

exposure to a person handling 

contaminated PPE, the final rule 

requires that a person must wear gloves 

while handling PPE covered by 40 CFR 

170.507(d)(2). 

EPA disagrees with comments from 

farm bureaus suggesting that there is 

little likelihood of persons accessing 

contaminated PPE. As mentioned in the 

preamble to the proposed rulemaking, 

state pesticide regulatory agencies have 

raised concerns for the potential reuse 

of contaminated PPE to EPA. EPA relies 

on state pesticide regulatory agencies to 

raise issues with implementation of the 

existing WPS that arise when they 

conduct inspections of WPS 

establishments. EPA has chosen to 

amend the existing rule in response to 

the input provided by the States. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA has 

estimated that the cost of rendering the 

PPE unusable or unavailable is 

negligible. Although the benefits cannot 

be quantified, contact with 

contaminated PPE may result in 

significant exposure, especially if worn 

repeatedly. The negligible cost of this 

requirement compared to the benefit 

from ensuring that contaminated PPE 

cannot continue to cause exposure is 

reasonable. 

XVI. Decision Not To Require 

Monitoring of Handler Exposure to 

Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Pesticides 

A. Current Rule and Proposal 

The existing WPS does not have a 

requirement to monitor cholinesterase 

(ChE) levels in workers or handlers. In 

the proposal, EPA invited comment on 

whether to require routine ChE 

monitoring of handlers. However, 

because EPA’s initial judgement was 

that the benefits of routine ChE 

monitoring would not justify the cost, 

EPA did not propose to add a 

requirement for routine monitoring of 

ChE inhibition in handlers. 

B. Final Rule 

The final rule does not include a 

requirement for routine ChE monitoring 

for handlers. 

C. Comments and Responses 

Comments. In response to the 

proposal, several grower organizations, 

state farm bureaus, crop consultants and 

their organizations, and states and their 

organizations expressed support for 

EPA’s decision not to require a 

mandatory routine ChE monitoring 

program as part of the WPS. Several 

commenters stated that the most 

effective approach to prevent handler 

exposure to any pesticide product is to 

address the potential for exposure in 

advance of use, rather than after 

exposure has taken place. Many of these 

commenters agreed with EPA’s 

assessment in the proposal that EPA’s 

worker risk assessments and mitigation 

measures are sufficient to provide the 

necessary protection from pesticide 

exposure during handling. One 

commenter also suggested that requiring 

ChE monitoring may add to confusion 

and provide a false sense of safety to 

workers, health care providers, and 

regulators because it only measures 

exposure. These commenters suggested 

that the best approach that can be taken 

to mitigate exposure would be to 

address it through product-specific risk 

assessments supporting the registration 

of pesticide products, robust handler 

training on specific pesticides, and 

effective enforcement of label 

requirements. 

In addition, some of the commenters 

objected that ChE monitoring is an 

invasive process, and that routine ChE 

monitoring would be extremely timeconsuming and costly and would 

provide information of questionable 

value. One commenter stated that a 

proper ChE monitoring program would 

require that a baseline be established for 

employees, and that it would be highly 

unlikely that a baseline could be 

obtained for many workers because of 

previous exposure to organophosphate 

insecticides, while another commenter 

suggested that exposure to other 

common materials can change the levels 

of ChE, especially in serum level 

measurements, making it difficult to 

establish a baseline. Another commenter 

added that the timing of meals, stress, 

physical activity, and changes in body 

mass can cause ChE levels to fluctuate 

within an individual, and that the 

baseline value should be taken on the 

day of handling a ChE-inhibiting 

pesticide prior to exposure due to this 

intra-individual variability. The 

commenter suggested that baselines 

established every 1 to 2 years, as 

currently recommended by Washington 

State and California, respectively, 

would not provide meaningful 

information concerning the degree of 

exposure due to these daily fluctuations. 

Conversely, several commenters, 

including some members of Congress, 

the California Department of Public 

Health, Washington State’s Department 

of Health and Department of Labor and 

Industries, several public health 

organizations, academics, and 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

supported the idea of adopting a routine 

ChE monitoring program as part of this 

rulemaking, particularly for handlers 

who use ChE-inhibiting pesticides like 

organophosphates and N-methylcarbamate pesticides. Many of these 

commenters cited the existing ChE 

monitoring programs in California and 

Washington State in their arguments for 

why ChE monitoring should be 

expanded nationally. 

Some commenters stated that 

California and Washington have 

longstanding medical monitoring 

programs with proven track records in 

reducing exposure to, and illnesses 

from, highly neurotoxic chemicals. 

These commenters stated that the 

successful implementation of these 

monitoring programs has helped health 

professionals understand the effects of 

these classes of pesticides and prevent 

poisoning by identifying overexposure. 

Two commenters stated that 

Washington’s program is effective and 

protects workers as reflected by 

worksite field evaluations of action level 

ChE depressions, which have identified 

multiple pesticide WPS violations that 

are believed to contribute to worker 

exposure. A couple of commenters 

stated that the benefits realized by the 

state programs, which would expand 

nationally if monitoring were to be 

required, include: 

• Greater certainty about the 

frequency of pesticide overexposure. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67539 

• Avoidance of serious pesticide 

illness. 

• Improved compliance with the 

WPS. 

• Identification of any existing PPE, 

work practice, and engineering control 

requirements that are not sufficient to 

protect pesticide handlers from 

exposure. 

• Greater awareness of chemical and 

exposure hazards. 

Some commenters cited Washington 

State’s data that shows that the 

percentage of overexposed participating 

handlers who required remedial action 

fell from 20% when the program started 

in 2004 to 6% in 2013, for a reduction 

of 70%. These commenters stated that 

Washington’s Department of Labor and 

Industries found that ChE monitoring 

helped identify the causes of 

overexposure, which allowed for those 

causes to be corrected by alerting 

employers and handlers to unsafe work 

practices, conditions, or equipment. 

Additionally, a couple of commenters 

stated that the percentages of handlers 

who actually reached the removal level 

from handling ChE-inhibiting pesticides 

remained consistently low after the 

implementation of the ChE monitoring 

program, with the percentages being 

3.8% in 2004, 0% in 2010 and 2011, 

2.3% in 2012, and 4% in 2013. These 

commenters believed that the sharp 

decline in the number of handlers 

needing remedial action, along with the 

consistently low percentage of handlers 

who exceeded 20% below their baseline 

(i.e., those who reach the evaluation 

level in the state programs), shows that 

the program has been effective in 

reducing exposure to OPs and 

carbamates, and that monitoring should 

be implemented nationally so that all 

workers receive similar benefits. 

Some commenters in support of 

requiring ChE monitoring also discussed 

the costs associated with ChE 

monitoring. They stated that the cost of 

implementation should not deter EPA 

from requiring medical monitoring on a 

national level. A few commenters stated 

that EPA’s estimate that the cost of ChE 

monitoring would average $53 per year 

per agricultural establishment was a 

small cost when contrasted with the 

70% reduction in overexposure 

according to Washington State’s data. A 

couple of commenters also stated that 

monitoring in California and 

Washington has led to substantially 

fewer pesticide poisonings and reduced 

use of these highly toxic pesticides, and 

can, in turn, reduce long-term medical 

costs to farmworkers and the 

agricultural economy. Some 

commenters stated that EPA’s analysis 

did not include an estimation of the 

medical expenses that were saved, the 

lost wages prevented, and the pesticiderelated illnesses avoided as a result of 

early detection and intervention. As a 

result, the commenters believed that the 

benefits of a national ChE monitoring 

program would more than justify the 

costs given the severe effects of 

overexposure to ChE-inhibiting 

pesticides. 

Other commenters supporting ChE 

monitoring stated that employees who 

handle ChE-inhibiting chemicals in 

non-agricultural sectors routinely 

receive the protection of medical 

monitoring. For example, some 

commenters stated that OSHA requires 

medical monitoring for workers who 

handle a wide range of toxic substances. 

They also stated that USDA requires 

monitoring of its employees who may be 

exposed to organophosphate or 

carbamate pesticides. These 

commenters stated that these safeguards 

should be provided for all workers who 

handle these pesticides, and therefore 

should be included in the final rule. 

EPA Response. After reviewing the 

comments, EPA continues to believe 

that the expected benefits of a routine 

ChE monitoring program for handlers 

are not sufficient to justify the costs. As 

stated in the proposed rule, EPA 

believes that Washington State’s efforts 

have identified the primary reasons for 

ChE inhibition among pesticide 

handlers. In many cases, ChE 

depression was caused by handlers not 

following basic safety and hygiene 

procedures, e.g., not wearing the labelrequired PPE and failing to wash before 

meals or bathroom breaks. Additionally, 

several handlers who did wear 

respirators as required by labeling had 

beards, which compromised the seal 

between the face and the respirator and 

reduced the protection intended to be 

afforded by the PPE. EPA believes that 

requiring expanded and more frequent 

handler training, in combination with 

requirements for fit testing and training 

on proper respirator use for handlers, 

addresses the primary reasons for 

overexposure to ChE-inhibiting 

pesticides. 

The revised labeling with increased 

protections and new mitigation 

measures resulting from the 

reregistration of organophosphates and 

carbamates will also result in lowered 

handler exposure. Reregistration has 

resulted in some uses of the most 

acutely toxic organophosphates being 

phased out. For the remaining uses, EPA 

has imposed additional PPE 

requirements, requirements for closedsystem mixing and loading, and 

reductions to rates of application and 

number of annual applications 

permitted. As labels with updated PPE 

requirements for handlers are seen and 

followed in the field, EPA expects to see 

reduced numbers of overexposures. 

Additionally, the organophosphates and 

carbamates that are still registered are 

being used less frequently and being 

replaced by pesticides with lower risks, 

also reducing the potential for 

overexposure. 

While EPA estimated the costs of a 

national, routine ChE monitoring 

program to be at least $15.2 million 

annually, or about $53 per agricultural 

establishment per year and $120 per 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment per year, this estimate 

does not include the full costs that 

would be expected of a national ChE 

monitoring program. As stated in the 

proposed rule, a national, routine ChE 

monitoring program would likely 

include program components such as 

training, recordkeeping, clinical testing, 

and field investigations, which were not 

included in the estimated costs because 

the initial $15.2 million estimate 

appeared by itself to be 

disproportionately high in comparison 

to the expected benefits. Additionally, 

the estimated costs do not include the 

states’ costs to build infrastructure to 

support ChE monitoring or to cover 

continued laboratory costs such as 

equipment maintenance and 

administrative support. If EPA were to 

calculate these additional costs, the 

estimated costs would be much higher 

than $15.2 million annually. Therefore, 

EPA stands by its assessment in the 

proposed rule that the cost of 

implementing a national, routine ChE 

monitoring program is not justified by 

its limited benefits. 

EPA believes that the increased 

handler protections being finalized in 

this rulemaking, combined with the 

product-specific risk mitigation 

measures, will appropriately address the 

elevated potential for ChE inhibition in 

handlers. Moreover, the training and 

PPE elements of the final rule will have 

the combined effect of providing 

important protective benefits to all 

pesticide handlers through increased 

knowledge of exposure risks and 

prevention strategies. This approach 

will lead to a reduction of pesticide 

exposures because it prevents handler 

exposure before it occurs. 

D. Costs and Benefits 

Since EPA is not requiring routine 

ChE monitoring, there are no costs 

associated with this decision. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67540 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

XVII. Exemptions and Exceptions 

A. Immediate Family 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

WPS currently exempts the owners of 

agricultural establishments from 

requirements to provide certain WPS 

protections to themselves and their 

immediate family members. Owners are 

required to comply with all applicable 

provisions of the WPS for any worker or 

handler employed on the establishment 

who is not a member of the owner’s 

immediate family. The definition of 

‘‘immediate family’’ in the existing rule 

includes only the owner’s spouse, 

children, stepchildren, foster children, 

parents, stepparents, foster parents, 

brothers, and sisters. EPA proposed to 

expand the definition of ‘‘immediate 

family’’ to add father-in-law, mother-inlaw, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, 

grandparents, grandchildren, brothersin-law, and sisters-in-law. 

Note, too, that the existing WPS 

definitions of workers and handlers 

depend upon them being employed for 

compensation. Therefore, any person 

performing worker or handler tasks who 

does not receive a wage, salary or other 

compensation is not a worker or handler 

protected by the WPS, regardless of 

familial relationship to the owner. 

EPA requested comment on but did 

not propose changes narrowing the 

immediate family exemption in two 

ways: (1) Limiting it only to those 

immediate family members of an owner 

of an agricultural establishment who are 

at least 16 years old, and (2) eliminating 

the exemptions from requirements 

regarding emergency assistance for 

workers and handlers and regarding 

handler monitoring during fumigant 

application. 

As part of the proposal to establish a 

minimum age for pesticide handlers and 

early-entry workers, EPA proposed to 

add an exemption from the minimum 

age requirements to the immediate 

family exemption. 

2. Final rule. EPA has finalized the 

definition of ‘‘immediate family’’ as 

limited to the owner’s spouse, parents, 

stepparents, foster parents, father-inlaw, mother-in-law, children, 

stepchildren, foster children, sons-inlaw, daughters-in-law, grandparents, 

grandchildren, brothers, sisters, 

brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, 

uncles, nieces, nephews, and first 

cousins. ‘‘First cousin’’ means the child 

of a parent’s sibling, i.e., the child of an 

aunt or uncle. The final regulatory text 

for this definition is available at 40 CFR 

170.305. 

EPA has amended the exemption from 

certain provisions of the WPS for 

owners and members of their immediate 

families to include exemptions from the 

minimum age requirements for handlers 

and early-entry workers. The final 

regulatory text for this exemption is 

available at 40 CFR 170.601(a)(1)(i) and 

170.601(a)(1)(xii). 

EPA has clarified the final regulatory 

text related to the exemption from 

certain provisions of the WPS for 

owners and members of their immediate 

families. The exemption in the final rule 

will apply to owners and members of 

their immediate family on any 

agricultural establishment where a 

majority of the establishment is owned 

by one or more members of the same 

immediate family. The final regulatory 

text for this exemption is available at 40 

CFR 170.601(a)(1). 

EPA has not included in the final rule 

any of the other changes to the owner 

and immediate family exemption 

considered in the proposal. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Most of the commenters 

expressed general support for the 

proposed expansion to the definition of 

immediate family and the inclusion of 

an exemption from the minimum age 

requirement. Some commenters asserted 

that the definition provides greater 

clarity about who qualifies under the 

immediate family exemption and will 

assist both the regulated community and 

state regulatory agencies in ensuring 

compliance with the proposed rule. 

A few commenters requested that EPA 

expand the definition to include 

cousins. Many commenters, including 

the Small Business Administration’s 

Office of Advocacy, requested that EPA 

expand the definition further to include 

aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and 

cousins. Commenters requesting further 

expansion of the definition noted that 

an expansion of the family members 

considered immediate family under the 

WPS would better reflect the reality of 

the family farm in America. 

Commenters also requested that EPA 

further expand the definition and 

exemption to recognize varying 

ownership patterns used to assure the 

continued operation of the farm and the 

involvement of siblings and their heirs. 

One commenter suggested that EPA 

align the exemption with USDA’s 

interpretation of farm ownership by 

family members, which considers a 

‘‘family farm’’ to be one where a 

majority of the farm is owned by family 

members, rather than retaining EPA’s 

interpretation of the exemption as 

applying only on establishments that are 

wholly owned by one or more members 

of the same immediate family. 

A few commenters requested that EPA 

delete the definition of immediate 

family and eliminate the exemption. 

These commenters noted that risks from 

pesticide exposure are the same for 

family and non-family members, so all 

persons need the same level of 

protection regardless of their familial 

relationship to the owner. 

EPA Response. EPA has further 

expanded the definition of immediate 

family to also include aunts, uncles, 

nieces, nephews, and first cousins (i.e., 

child of a parent’s sibling, child of an 

aunt or uncle) and is retaining the 

exemption in the WPS. EPA believes 

that the proposed definition of 

‘‘immediate family’’ represents an 

appropriate accommodation to the 

social costs of the WPS to farm owners 

and members of their immediate 

families relative to FIFRA’s requirement 

to prevent unreasonable adverse effects. 

EPA considered commenters’ requests 

to expand the definition of ‘‘immediate 

family.’’ Commenters suggested that a 

definition that includes cousins, or 

cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces and 

nephews would better reflect the actual 

patterns of family-based farm ownership 

in the United States. EPA agrees with 

commenters’ suggestions that familybased farm ownership may extend 

beyond relationships covered by EPA’s 

existing or proposed definition. EPA 

agrees with commenters’ requests to 

expand the definition to include aunts, 

uncles, nieces, nephews, and first 

cousins. For clarity, EPA has chosen to 

define ‘‘first cousin’’ as the child of a 

parent’s sibling, i.e., the child of an aunt 

or uncle. 

EPA has clarified the applicability of 

the exemption in the final rule in 

response to comments. The exemption 

in the final rule applies to the owners 

and their immediate family members on 

any agricultural establishment where a 

majority of the establishment is owned 

by one or more members of the same 

immediate family. A ‘‘majority of the 

establishment’’ means that more than 50 

percent of the equity in the 

establishment is owned by one or more 

members of the same immediate family 

as defined in the WPS. 

EPA agrees that the risks associated 

with pesticide exposure do not vary 

based on a person’s relationship to the 

owner of the establishment. However, 

EPA recognizes that family-owned farms 

need flexibility and expects that those 

family members working on an 

establishment covered by the immediate 

family exception would be adequately 

prepared and supervised by family 

members. Although owners and their 

immediate family members are 

exempted from certain provisions of the 

WPS (e.g., providing pesticide safety 

training and specific decontamination 

supplies for immediate family 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67541 

members), they are obligated to follow 

the pesticide labeling and other WPS 

provisions that are established to protect 

workers and handlers from risks 

associated with specific pesticides. For 

these reasons, EPA has chosen not to 

eliminate the definition of immediate 

family or the exemption from certain 

portions of the rule for the 

establishment owner and members of 

his or her immediate family. 

Although owners of establishments 

and members of their immediate family 

are exempt from some of the provisions 

of the rule, EPA expects that they will 

voluntarily follow the provisions from 

which they are exempt, or achieve 

equivalent risk mitigations through 

other means. EPA encourages owners 

and family members to carefully study 

the WPS requirements and assure 

themselves that they are not placing 

each other at risk of unreasonable 

adverse effects. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

changing the definition of immediate 

family and adding to the existing 

exemptions for owners and members of 

their immediate family an exemption 

from the minimum age requirements 

would not substantially change the cost 

of the final rule. 

B. Crop Advisors and Employees 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing rule exempts employers from 

complying with certain handler 

requirements when the employee 

performs crop advising tasks in a treated 

area under an REI and is a certified or 

licensed crop advisor or directly 

supervised by a certified or licensed 

crop advisor. A certified or licensed 

crop advisor is one who has fulfilled the 

requirements of a program 

acknowledged as appropriate in writing 

by EPA or a state or tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

The existing rule allows a certified or 

licensed crop advisor to make specific 

determinations regarding the 

appropriate PPE, decontamination and 

safe method of conduct for those 

working under his or her direct 

supervision. A person employed by a 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment performing crop advising 

tasks after expiration of an REI is not 

subject to any provisions of the WPS. 

The rule also exempts employers from 

complying with worker requirements 

such as providing decontamination 

supplies and emergency assistance for 

certified or licensed crop advisors and 

for persons they directly supervise. 

EPA proposed to eliminate the 

exemptions for employees directly 

supervised by certified or licensed crop 

advisors. EPA also proposed to 

eliminate the exemption from the 

worker decontamination and emergency 

assistance provisions for certified or 

licensed crop advisors employed as 

workers on agricultural establishments. 

2. Final Rule. EPA has eliminated 

both exemptions as proposed. However, 

EPA has included in the final rule 

added flexibility in the PPE 

requirements for crop advisors and their 

employees. Specifically, EPA has added 

language to the final regulation that 

allows crop advisors and their 

employees who perform crop advising 

tasks while an REI is in effect to 

substitute the label-required handler 

PPE with either the label-required PPE 

for early-entry activities or a standard 

set of crop advisor PPE. The standard 

set of PPE for crop advising tasks 

included in the final rule consists of 

coveralls, shoes plus socks, chemicalresistant gloves made of any waterproof 

material and eye protection if the 

labeling of the pesticide product applied 

requires protective eyewear for 

handlers. The final regulatory text for 

this requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.601(b) and 170.607(g). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. In response to the 

proposal, crop consultant associations, 

several states and other commenters 

objected to eliminating the exemption 

currently in place for employees 

working under the direct supervision of 

a certified or licensed crop advisor. 

They asserted that certified and licensed 

crop advisors often exceed the 

minimum safety training requirements 

when educating their employees and 

those employees are aware of the risks 

associated with their work. Some crop 

consultant associations and other 

commenters noted that they are not 

aware of any case of endangerment or 

harm that has occurred to any employee 

under the direct supervision of a 

certified or licensed crop advisor. 

The crop advisor associations also 

expressed concern that EPA 

underestimated the economic impact to 

crop advisors, and in turn to farmers, of 

eliminating this exemption, citing 

specifically the increased costs of 

additional PPE, the cost of work done by 

certified or licensed crop advisors 

instead of by their employees, and the 

cost of increased management time. 

Crop consultant associations and other 

commenters contended that these 

increased costs could discourage 

investment in integrated pest 

management (IPM) and result in 

increased pesticide use that might put 

workers at increased risk of pesticide 

exposure. Several states supported 

EPA’s proposal to eliminate the crop 

advisor exemption. 

EPA Response. After consideration of 

the comments submitted, EPA has 

concluded that the burdens associated 

with eliminating the exemption for 

employees of crop advisors are justified 

by the additional protections provided 

to workers performing crop advising 

tasks who are not certified or licensed 

crop advisors. EPA has retained the 

exemption to the WPS for certified or 

licensed crop advisors because these 

individuals are highly trained about 

pesticide risks and how to protect 

themselves. EPA eliminated the 

exemption for crop advisors’ employees 

because pest scouting tasks may result 

in substantial contact with a pesticide 

on treated surfaces in pesticide-treated 

areas. The amount of contact with 

pesticides during scouting depends on 

variables such as the height and density 

of the crop, the nature of the activity, 

the surface that contains the pesticide 

residue, and whether residues are dry or 

wet. While EPA recognizes that the crop 

consulting industry has implemented a 

training program for employees, the 

program is not required and can vary in 

content and quality from employer to 

employer. Additionally, crop scouts and 

assistant crop advisors are generally 

entry-level employees who may not feel 

empowered to ask an employer for PPE 

or other protections and may not 

understand the complex factors 

influencing risk well enough to take 

appropriate protective measures for 

themselves. 

Incident monitoring programs do not 

capture illness data specifically 

associated with crop advising tasks 

because cases are categorized under a 

general ‘‘field worker’’ label. However, 

EPA’s risk assessments indicate that 

people doing crop advising tasks during 

an REI are at risk of chronic, low-level 

pesticide exposure over time. PPE 

requirements and availability of 

decontamination supplies during and 

after an REI are fundamental to 

mitigating risks of concern for workers. 

Allowing workers who are supervised 

by certified or licensed crop advisors to 

conduct crop advising tasks without the 

same basic protections provided for 

other workers would establish a lesser 

standard of protection for similar types 

of work. EPA understands that IPM 

programs require post-application entry 

and the timing is critical to efficacy. By 

retaining the exemption for certified or 

licensed crop advisors to conduct crop 

advising tasks during an REI and 

allowing flexibility for employers to 

substitute the label required PPE for 

handlers with either PPE for early-entry 

workers or a standard set of PPE, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67542 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

increased costs noted in comments are 

reduced. 

4. Costs and Benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of amending the exemption for 

crop advisors would be negligible. EPA 

finds that the incremental cost of 

employers providing decontamination 

supplies and PPE for crop advisor 

employees are reasonable compared to 

the cost. EPA is allowing flexibility in 

the choice of PPE for crop advisor 

employees who must enter treated areas 

under an REI to accommodate entry into 

multiple fields with the same attire. 

Benefits from reduced exposure to 

pesticides as a result of requiring the 

standard protections for all workers, 

including those supervised by certified 

or licensed crop advisors, are reasonable 

when compared to their cost. 

C. Closed Systems 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS permits exceptions to the 

label-specified PPE when using a closed 

system for certain pesticide handling 

activities. The existing rule does not 

adequately describe the specific 

characteristics of an acceptable closed 

system. EPA proposed to establish 

specific design criteria and operating 

standards for closed systems based on 

California’s existing standards in the 

1998 Closed Systems Director’s Memo 

(http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/cac/

cacwhs98-01.pdf). 

2. Final Rule. EPA has modified the 

proposed approach regarding closed 

systems. Specifically, in the final rule 

EPA has adopted a broad definition, a 

performance-based standard, and basic 

operating standards. The operating 

standards require the handler employer 

to ensure that written operating 

instructions for the closed system are 

available, that the handler receives 

training on use of the closed system, 

and that the system is maintained 

according to the written instructions. 

Specific design criteria and 

recordkeeping requirements that EPA 

proposed are not included in the final 

rule. 

The final rule retains the existing 

requirements for PPE when a closed 

system is used: Labeling-mandated PPE 

must be immediately available for use in 

an emergency and handlers must use 

protective eyewear for closed systems 

that operate under pressure. 

The final regulatory text for the 

definition of closed systems is available 

at 40 CFR 170.305. The final regulatory 

text for the closed system exception is 

available at 40 CFR 170.607(d)(3). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Most comments that 

addressed closed systems supported the 

goal of encouraging their use as an 

engineering control through a WPS 

exception; however, very few 

individuals, states or organizations 

supported the proposal as written. 

Several farmworker advocacy 

organizations and public health 

organizations suggested that EPA 

require closed systems for all Toxicity 

Category I pesticide products rather 

than continuing the voluntary system. 

Comments from states and grower and 

industry associations supported the 

existing voluntary, performance-based 

system and objected to the proposed 

specific design criteria, noting a number 

of weaknesses in the criteria. 

Specifically, they noted that the 

pressure requirements were too 

prescriptive and would not allow 

effective mixing, that the proposal did 

not address water soluble packaging or 

lock and load systems used for dry 

formulations, and that the complicated 

requirements would be a deterrent to 

increased adoption of closed systems. A 

number of commenters also noted that 

the design standards are too restrictive 

to accommodate future innovation. 

States commented that assessing 

compliance with the design standard 

would require extensive inspector 

training and could result in technical 

violations without providing additional 

handler protection. 

EPA Response. EPA considered the 

comments submitted and was 

convinced that the prescriptive 

requirements in the proposal would be 

a disincentive to the voluntary adoption 

of closed systems. In response, EPA has 

finalized a closed system performance 

standard that will permit flexibility for 

the system while meeting the protection 

goals. 

In response to comments advocating 

that EPA require closed systems for all 

Toxicity Category I pesticides under the 

rulemaking, EPA reminds the 

commenters that worker risk 

assessments and the risk management 

processes establish the required 

protections that appear on product 

labels. EPA identifies the basic 

protections, often PPE, to protect 

handlers from risks of concern. If 

handler exposure during mixing and 

loading is above the established level of 

concern, and if PPE does not reduce 

exposure to below the level of concern, 

the pesticide label may require a closed 

system for mixing and loading. EPA has 

required the use of closed systems on 

some product labeling. 

EPA recognizes that the reduction in 

handler PPE alone is not likely to be 

enough incentive for an employer to use 

closed systems. However, EPA is 

convinced that on larger establishments, 

the efficiency and comparative 

protection value of a closed system, 

combined with the reduction in PPE 

that must be worn by the handler, may 

induce users to adopt closed systems. 

Establishing requirements for such 

closed systems—whether required or 

used voluntarily—is necessary to 

protect handlers, who could be exposed 

to concentrated pesticides if they use 

poorly designed or constructed closed 

systems. 

EPA agrees with the comments that a 

broad definition of ‘‘closed system’’ will 

encourage industry innovation better 

than the proposed prescriptive rule and 

will allow flexibility for employers to 

design systems specific to their needs. A 

broad performance standard, along with 

requirements concerning operating 

instructions, training and maintenance, 

will enable employers, handlers and 

regulatory personnel to determine 

whether a closed system qualifies for 

the exemption. The operating standards 

will ensure that the closed systems are 

used as intended and are adequately 

maintained. 

EPA notes that the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

(CDPR) no longer supports use of the 

prescriptive-based criteria upon which 

EPA modeled the proposal outlined in 

the NRPM. In December 2014, CDPR 

published proposed regulations 

outlining a simplified, performancebased criteria for closed system design. 

California is the only state with specific 

closed system standards, and has 

required their use with certain 

chemicals since the 1970s. CDPR 

developed their revised closed systems 

standard and discussed the proposal 

with representatives from groups that 

will be directly affected including 

agricultural producer organizations, 

manufacturers, applicators, and 

growers, as well as at CDPR’s Pesticide 

Registration and Evaluation Committee 

and the Agricultural Pest Control 

Advisory Committee and Pest 

Management Advisory Committee 

meetings. EPA considered CDPR’s 

proposed rule in the development of the 

final closed systems standard. EPA’s 

final closed system requirements were 

developed using CDPR’s proposal as a 

model and do not conflict with CDPR’s 

proposed closed system requirements. 

Section 170.607(d)(2)(i) establishes a 

performance standard for closed 

systems. Specifically, a closed system 

must remove the pesticide from its 

original container and transfer the 

pesticide product through connecting 

hoses, pipes and couplings that are 

sufficiently tight to prevent exposure of 

handlers to the pesticide product, 

except for the negligible escape 

associated with normal operation of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67543 

system. This closed system performance 

standard is based on the criteria for 

closed systems in section 6746(f)(1) of 

CDPR’s proposed regulations with a few 

changes, partly to accommodate the 

different terminology in the two sets of 

regulations. Also, EPA adjusted the 

requirement to apply to transferring any 

pesticide product rather than a pesticide 

concentrate so the WPS criterion would 

apply to transferring liquid formulations 

and dry formulations whereas 

California’s proposed requirements 

would only apply to liquid 

formulations. Lastly, EPA added the 

phrase ‘‘except for the negligible escape 

associated with normal operation of the 

system’’ to provide the flexibility 

intended in the proposed rule. The 

existing WPS describes a closed system 

as preventing the pesticide from 

contacting handlers or other persons, 

which is a very high standard because 

it does not allow any exposure. The 

phrase ‘‘except for the negligible escape 

associated with normal operation of the 

system’’ is intended to account for the 

expected or predictable small release of 

pesticides from existing closed systems 

when hoses, pipes and couplings are 

disconnected. EPA recognizes that there 

will often be a small amount of material 

in the hoses, pipes and couplings to 

which the handler possibly could be 

exposed. EPA has not quantified the 

maximum amount of pesticide escape 

that is acceptable, but notes that it 

should be consistent with the intent of 

a closed system, which is to prevent 

contact to the handlers or other persons. 

EPA also adjusted the final regulatory 

text for closed systems to address the 

comments about water soluble 

packaging. The regulatory text in the 

final rule was revised to state clearly 

that the closed system exception from 

PPE applies when intact, sealed water 

soluble packaging is loaded into a 

mixing tank or system. The regulation 

also clarifies that water soluble 

packaging is no longer a closed system 

if the integrity of the packaging is 

compromised. This language in the final 

rule incorporates EPA’s current position 

about water soluble packaging and 

closed systems, as established in the 

Interpretive Guidance on the WPS: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/

workers/wpsinterpolicy.htm. 

While the final rule includes only a 

performance standard, EPA recognizes 

that it may be helpful to have guidance 

on how to construct a system to meet 

that standard. As part of California’s 

proposed rulemaking, CDPR and the 

University of California, Davis (UC 

Davis) developed plans for building a 

closed system to release along with the 

proposal. The ‘‘Overview of Closed 

Systems Components and User Designs’’ 

document includes lists of component 

parts (and costs) for three levels of 

systems (basic, medium and high). The 

design plans developed by CDPR and 

UC Davis will provide users with 

examples of representative closed 

systems components so they can 

identify or develop acceptable closed 

systems. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the cost of the final closed system 

requirements will be $2.1 million 

annually. EPA estimates that cost per 

agricultural establishment will range 

from $5–$30 per year, and the cost per 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment will be about $21 per 

year. EPA estimates that on family 

establishments, the cost would range 

from $1–$30 per year. Many 

commenters from the pesticide industry 

and grower associations stated that EPA 

underestimated the costs of closed 

systems in the proposed rule partly 

because existing closed systems would 

need to be upgraded to meet the 

proposed standards. The changes to 

replace the proposed specific design 

standards with a broad performance 

standard in the final rule address these 

comments, because employers will be 

able to continue using most existing 

closed systems with minimal 

adjustments. For details refer to the 

Economic Analysis accompanying this 

rule (Ref. 1). In addition, EPA notes that 

the WPS does not require use of closed 

systems, so commenters who assumed 

many pesticide users would have to 

purchase expensive closed systems were 

incorrect. 

EPA adjusted the closed system cost 

estimates from the proposed rule in 

several ways to reflect changes in the 

final rule. The cost estimate in the 

proposed rule assumed that some users 

of closed systems would purchase new 

systems while others would revert to 

using PPE. In light of the revised 

definition, the final cost estimate 

assumes that most users would simply 

purchase an adapter to connect their 

existing closed system to the pesticide 

container, which is the part that most 

likely needs to be added to convert 

existing mechanical transfer systems to 

be closed systems that meet EPA’s 

criteria. These changes and costs are 

based on the CDPR and UC Davis 

document ‘‘Overview of Closed Systems 

Components and User Designs,’’ which 

includes lists of component parts and 

their costs for three levels of systems. In 

addition, the cost of developing 

operating instructions was added, 

assuming that most closed systems are 

custom-made systems that would 

require the employer to develop 

operating instructions, while the costs 

of keeping records of maintenance was 

deleted. EPA reduced the estimated 

number of farms using closed systems 

based on information from the 

Agricultural Handler Exposure Task 

Force, which showed that the limited 

number of pesticide users who use 

closed systems are primarily larger 

establishments and commercial 

pesticide handling establishments. 

Therefore, the estimated costs of the 

closed system criteria decreased from 

the proposed rule to the final rule. 

Using closed systems is preferred to 

wearing PPE as an approach for 

managing chemical exposure in the 

‘‘hierarchy of controls’’ established 

under standard industrial hygiene 

principles. Enclosing the chemical and 

substantially reducing the potential for 

exposure at the source reduces the 

potential for subsequent exposure to 

handlers, other people, and the 

environment. 

D. Aerial Applications—Eyewear 

Protection for Open Cockpits 

1. Current rule and proposal. Under 

the existing WPS, where labeling 

requires eye protection, the requirement 

may be satisfied by goggles, safety 

glasses with front, brow and temple 

protection, or a full face respirator. The 

existing WPS allows aerial applicators 

applying pesticides from open cockpit 

aircraft to substitute a visor for labelrequired eye protection. Because the 

term ‘‘visor’’ can be used to refer to the 

brim of a cap that provides only shade 

and offers little eye protection from 

pesticide sprays, EPA proposed to 

clarify the requirement by removing the 

term. EPA proposed to allow aerial 

applicators to substitute for the labelrequired eyewear a helmet with the face 

shield lowered, because this more 

clearly indicates EPA’s expectation of a 

clear visor that covers and adequately 

protects the eyes. 

2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has 

removed the term ‘‘visor.’’ The final rule 

allows the substitution of a helmet with 

face shield lowered for labeled 

protective eyewear for aerial applicators 

in aircraft with open cockpits. The final 

regulatory text for this requirement is 

available at 40 CFR 170.607(f)(2). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. There were very few 

comments addressing this proposal. One 

state suggested EPA consult with 

relevant aerial agencies responsible for 

overseeing the use of open cockpits for 

making pesticide applications to see if 

the proposal is feasible. 

An aerial applicators association 

asserted that aerial applications of 

pesticides using open cockpit aircraft 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67544 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

are very rare and that EPA is solving a 

problem that does not exist. They 

objected to handlers operating open 

cockpit aircraft being required to wear 

the same PPE as handlers operating 

open cab ground equipment. They did 

not highlight any specific issue with the 

helmet and visor being lowered when 

protective eyewear are required. 

EPA Response. EPA acknowledges 

that while open cockpit aircraft may be 

rare, available exposure data indicate 

that even pilots in enclosed cab aircraft 

are exposed to the pesticides they apply. 

Ensuring that the eye is protected from 

pesticides is required by the product 

labeling. Helmets with face shields in 

the lowered position provide acceptable 

eye protection, but many items referred 

to as ‘‘visors’’ offer no eye protection 

from pesticide sprays. 

4. Costs and benefits. This provision 

does not represent a substantive change 

to the existing rule. EPA expects the 

cost to aerial applicators to be 

negligible. 

E. Aerial Applications—Use of Gloves 

1. Current rule and proposal. In the 

existing rule, aerial applicators have the 

option of whether to wear chemical 

resistant gloves to enter and exit the 

aircraft unless gloves are required by the 

product labeling. In the proposal, EPA 

inadvertently inserted the regulatory 

language that existed prior to the 2004 

rule revision that required pilots to wear 

chemical resistant gloves. 

2. Final rule. The final rule retains the 

exception in the existing WPS that 

offers aerial applicators the option of 

wearing chemical-resistant gloves when 

entering and exiting the aircraft, except 

when the product labeling requires that 

chemical-resistant gloves be worn when 

entering and exiting the aircraft. The 

final regulatory text for this requirement 

is available at 40 CFR 170.607(f)(1). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Many applicators and 

their associations and pesticide 

manufacturers noted this error. The 

commenters also asserted the use of 

gloves presents a hazard to pilots who 

may fall when entering and exiting the 

aircraft when wearing gloves. They also 

suggested contamination from contact 

with the exterior of the aircraft is 

minimized due to advances in 

application techniques (e.g., GPS) that 

help pilots avoid flying through their 

spray. 

EPA Response. The final rule retains 

the exception in the existing regulation 

that offers aerial applicators the option 

of wearing chemical-resistant gloves 

when entering and exiting the aircraft, 

except when the product labeling 

requires that chemical resistant gloves 

be worn entering and exiting the 

aircraft. 

4. Costs and benefits. There is no cost 

associated with including the existing 

exception in the final regulation. 

F. Enclosed Cabs—Changes to 

Exceptions to PPE Requirements When 

Applying Pesticides From Inside an 

Enclosed Cab 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS permits exceptions to the 

labeling-specified PPE when handling 

tasks are performed from inside an 

enclosed cab that meets the 

specifications defined in the rule based 

on the dermal protection provided by 

the enclosed cab, which prevents 

pesticides from contacting the body. 

The existing rule also permits persons 

occupying an enclosed cab to forego 

certain labeling-required respiratory 

protection if the cab has been certified 

by the manufacturer to provide 

respiratory protection equivalent to the 

handler respiratory protection required 

by the pesticide labeling. 

EPA proposed to eliminate the 

requirement for any labeling-specified 

respiratory protection PPE when 

applying pesticides from inside an 

enclosed cab. This would have allowed 

handlers to substitute a long-sleeved 

shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for 

the labeling-specified PPE in all cases 

no matter what type of respiratory 

protection PPE was required by the 

labeling. 

2. Final Rule. In the final rule, EPA 

requires handlers in enclosed cabs to 

wear the labeling-specified respiratory 

protection except when the only 

labeling-specified respiratory protection 

is a filtering facepiece respirator (NIOSH 

approval number prefix TC–84A) or 

dust/mist filtering respirator. In the final 

rule, handlers in enclosed cabs may 

substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long 

pants, shoes and socks for the labelingspecified PPE for skin and eye 

protection. If a filtering facepiece 

respirator (NIOSH approval number 

prefix TC–84A) or dust/mist filtering 

respirator is required by the pesticide 

product labeling for applicators, then 

handlers do not need to wear the 

respirator inside the enclosed cab if the 

enclosed cab has a properly functioning 

air ventilation system that is used and 

maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s written operating 

instructions. If any other type of 

respirator is required by the pesticide 

labeling for applicators, then the 

handler must wear the respirator inside 

the enclosed cab during handling 

activities. 

EPA has retained other exceptions to 

PPE requirements for handlers using 

enclosed cabs. Specifically, all of the 

PPE required by the pesticide product 

labeling for applicators must be 

immediately available to handlers in an 

enclosed cab and be stored in a sealed 

container to prevent contamination. 

Handlers must wear the applicator PPE 

if they exit the cab within a treated area 

during application or when a REI is in 

effect. Once PPE has been worn in a 

treated area, handlers must remove it 

before reentering the cab to prevent 

contamination of the cab. 

The final regulatory text for the 

enclosed cab exception is available at 40 

CFR 170.607(e). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA did not receive any 

comments in opposition to the proposed 

changes to the enclosed cab exception. 

One grower noted that the enclosed cab 

exception is an excellent component of 

the proposal. Another commenter noted 

that respirator use is infrequent since 

the spraying operation takes place from 

inside an enclosed, climate-controlled 

tractor cab. 

EPA Response. EPA considered the 

comments submitted and is convinced 

that the enclosed cab exception should 

be retained since it provides an 

important option to reduce potential 

pesticide exposure through engineering 

controls rather than PPE, and such cabs 

can be an important tool for addressing 

heat stress issues for handlers. Although 

EPA considered a more expansive 

exception under its proposal, after 

reevaluation of the potential exposure 

risks for handlers and the protections 

afforded by enclosed cabs, EPA 

determined that enclosed cabs may not 

universally provide respiratory 

protection necessary to mitigate 

inhalation risks for any pesticide 

product that required respiratory 

protection greater than a filtering 

facepiece respirator (NIOSH approval 

number prefix TC–84A) or dust/mist 

filtering respirator. EPA determined that 

enclosed cabs may not provide adequate 

protection from inhalation exposure 

hazards when the inhalation exposure 

risk arises from vapors or other nonparticulate inhalation hazards. 

Additionally, EPA has learned that there 

are no longer any enclosed cab 

manufacturers certifying cabs to provide 

respiratory protection and the American 

Society of Agricultural and Biological 

Engineers has withdrawn their enclosed 

cab standard. Based on this information, 

EPA has removed provisions under the 

enclosed cab exception that permit 

persons occupying an enclosed cab to 

eliminate certain labeling-required 

respiratory protection PPE if the cab has 

been certified by the manufacturer to 

provide respiratory protection 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67545 

equivalent to the respiratory protection 

required by the pesticide labeling. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA does not 

estimate that the change to the 

exception to PPE requirements for 

handlers using a tractor with an 

enclosed cab to apply pesticides will 

have a significant cost. Handlers will 

benefit by using adequate respiratory 

protection when applying pesticides 

from an enclosed cab. 

XVIII. General Revisions 

A. Label vs. Labeling 

1. Current rule and proposal. FIFRA 

defines the label as ‘‘the written, 

printed, or graphic matter on, or 

attached to, the pesticide or device or 

any of its containers or wrappers.’’ 7 

U.S.C. 136(p)(1) For reasons of space 

and user convenience, detailed use 

instructions and precautions often 

appear in labeling provided with the 

pesticide product upon sale. As defined 

in FIFRA, ‘‘labeling’’ includes ‘‘all 

labels and all other written, printed, or 

graphic matter accompanying the 

pesticide or device at any time; or to 

which reference is made on the label or 

in literature accompanying the pesticide 

or device . . .’’ 7 U.S.C. 136(p)(2). 

Labeling may include booklets 

distributed with the product when such 

documentation is too long to be 

included on the label that is securely 

attached to the container. For example, 

some products have labeling that is 60 

or more pages long. FIFRA and EPA 

regulations require certain information 

to appear on the label—on or attached 

to the pesticide container. Other 

information necessary to use the 

product safely, such as directions for 

use, may be included in a booklet 

distributed with, but not securely 

attached to, the container (40 CFR 

156.10(i)(1)(ii)); this information could 

also be available on the Internet if the 

producer has decided to provide webdistributed labeling for the product (Ref. 

21). In either format, the information 

would be considered labeling. Labeling 

sometimes includes enforceable 

references to other documents that do 

not physically accompany the container, 

such as the WPS. 

The existing rule discusses 

employers’ responsibilities related to 

pesticide labels and labeling in several 

places. The existing rule requires 

agricultural and handler employers to 

ensure that pesticides are used in a 

manner consistent with the labeling. 

When the emergency assistance 

provisions of the WPS are triggered, the 

existing rule requires employers to 

provide information from the product 

labeling to affected workers, handlers, 

and/or treating medical personnel. 

Handlers must receive training on the 

format and meaning of information 

contained on pesticide labels and in 

labeling. Finally, employers must 

ensure that handlers have either read or 

have been informed in a manner they 

understand of all labeling requirements 

related to safe use of the pesticide, and 

that the handler has access to the 

product labeling during handling 

activities. 

Although the proposal reorganized 

the rule, some of the requirements for 

the existing rule outlined in the 

previous paragraph remained essentially 

unchanged in the proposed rule, e.g., 

agricultural and handler employers’ 

responsibility to ensure that pesticides 

are used in a manner consistent with the 

labeling. The proposal included a 

requirement for employers to maintain 

copies of the pesticide labeling for each 

pesticide used on the establishment for 

2 years from the date of application. The 

proposal also would have required the 

employer to provide a copy of the label 

and the product’s SDS when the 

emergency assistance provisions are 

triggered, rather than to provide 

information from the pesticide labeling. 

2. Final rule. Where the proposed rule 

would have required the employer to 

provide a copy of the pesticide label, or 

specific information from the labeling, 

and the SDS under the emergency 

assistance provisions, the final rule only 

requires the employer to provide the 

SDS and specific information, which 

can be obtained from the pesticide 

application and hazard information 

display, rather than the label or labeling. 

See Unit XIV. for other comments, 

EPA’s responses and the final regulatory 

text related to emergency assistance. 

The final rule eliminates the proposed 

requirement for employers to maintain 

copies of the labeling, rather than the 

label, for each product bearing a WPS 

requirement on the labeling, and 

replaces it with a requirement for the 

employer to retain specific information 

about the product used and the 

application, as well as the SDS. See Unit 

VII. for other comments, EPA’s 

responses and the final regulatory text 

related to this requirement. 

For handler training requirements, 

EPA has amended the language in the 

final rule to delete the word ‘‘all’’ 

related to labeling. The final rule 

requires handlers to receive training on 

following the portions of the labeling 

applicable to the safe use of the 

pesticide and on the format and 

meaning of information contained on 

pesticide labels and in labeling 

applicable to the safe use of the 

pesticide. The final regulatory text for 

these provisions is available at 40 CFR 

170.501(c)(3)(iii)–(iv). 

For labeling and application-specific 

information the employer must provide 

to the handler, EPA has amended the 

final rule to require the employer to 

provide the handler with information on 

all portions of the labeling applicable to 

the safe use of the pesticide, rather than 

on all labeling requirements. The final 

regulatory text for this provision is 

available at 40 CFR 170.503(a). 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Commenters raised issues 

with EPA’s use of the term ‘‘labeling’’ in 

the proposed rule. Commenters raised 

specific concerns with the use of the 

broader ‘‘labeling’’ in various 

requirements instead of limiting those 

requirements to just the label. These 

concerns arose in regard to agricultural 

and commercial pesticide handler 

employer duties, emergency assistance, 

hazard communication, and handler 

training and establishment-specific 

information. 

Some commenters generally disagreed 

with EPA’s use of ‘‘labeling’’ and 

requested that EPA use ‘‘label’’ instead 

throughout the rule. They asserted that 

labeling is too broad and that labeling 

includes materials not attached to the 

container, such as advertisements, 

brochures and pamphlets. Commenters 

assert that the broadness of ‘‘labeling’’ 

applied to requirements to provide or 

retain this information could result in a 

requirement on employers to track 

down many ancillary pieces of 

information for a complete record, or to 

face a technical violation for failure to 

retain all elements of the labeling. 

Under the agricultural and 

commercial pesticide handler employer 

duties, at 40 CFR 170.9(a) and 170.13(a) 

of the proposal, commenters said that 

EPA’s use of labeling was too broad. 

They asserted that employers’ liability 

should be only to comply with the WPS 

rather than with the label or all relevant 

labeling because making the employer 

responsible for complying with all 

labeling exceeds the scope and intent of 

the WPS. They also noted that certified 

applicators, those competent to use 

pesticides according to the labeling 

instructions and who make the actual 

applications, should be required to 

comply with the labeling, but that the 

agricultural employer should not. 

In regard to emergency assistance, 

commenters requested that EPA delete 

the reference to labeling and replace it 

with a requirement to provide the label 

and EPA registration number of the 

product. Commenters note that this 

requirement would be sufficient to 

provide appropriate information for 

emergencies. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67546 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Commenters also requested that in the 

section on pesticide application and 

hazard information, EPA delete the 

requirement for the employer to 

maintain copies of the labeling for all 

WPS-labeled pesticides used on the 

establishment, and instead to require 

the employer to maintain a copy of the 

label and EPA-registration number. 

Again, commenters noted that such a 

requirement would likely result in 

technical violations without providing 

benefit to workers or handlers. 

In the sections on handler training 

and establishment-specific information, 

commenters took issue with 

requirements to train handlers on all 

labeling and to ensure that for specific 

applications handlers have read the 

labeling or have been informed of all 

labeling requirements. Commenters 

noted that a requirement for handlers to 

be trained on all labeling requirements, 

rather than those pertinent to their 

specific tasks, would be overly broad 

and unnecessary. Commenters 

requested that EPA replace ‘‘labeling’’ 

with ‘‘label’’ in these sections. 

EPA Response. EPA disagrees with 

commenters’ request to replace 

‘‘labeling’’ with ‘‘label’’ throughout the 

regulation because the broader term is 

appropriate in many provisions of the 

WPS. The FIFRA scheme for managing 

the risks of pesticide products rests 

primarily on mandatory use directions 

and precautionary statements approved 

by EPA in the registration process and 

communicated to users through labels 

and labeling. Although in the case of 

lower risk products intended for general 

consumer use, this information typically 

fits on the label, this is not the case for 

many agricultural and commercial-use 

pesticides. 

Labeling does not include 

advertisements, pamphlets or brochures 

unless they accompany the product 

when sold or are referenced on the 

labeling. For instance, EPA has 

indicated that documents such as 

marketing brochures used to sell the 

product and to provide information to 

customers and is not labeling as defined 

by FIFRA section 2(p). (http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/

labels/labels_faq/lr_faq_10.html) If a 

document of this type does not 

accompany the product when sold and 

there is no reference to the bulletin on 

the product label, it is not ‘‘labeling.’’ 

Note though, that non-labeling 

documentation related to a product 

must not have claims that differ from 

the product label. 7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(1)(B). 

Because mandatory use directions 

often appear in the labeling of 

agricultural pesticides, rather than the 

label, some provisions of the WPS 

appropriately use the word ‘‘labeling.’’ 

Where the word ‘‘labeling’’ appears in 

the WPS, employers are responsible for 

following or providing labeling as 

defined in FIFRA. This does not require 

employers to find, retain, or provide 

advertisements, pamphlets or marketing 

brochures that do not meet the 

definition of ‘‘labeling.’’ 

For example, it is appropriate that 

agricultural and handler employers’ 

duties under the final rule include 

ensuring compliance with ‘‘labeling’’ 

rather than just the label. The existing 

regulation has the same requirement 

under general duties and prohibited 

actions. 40 CFR 170.7(a)(2). The labeling 

may include directions for use or other 

information essential to the safe and 

effective application of the pesticide, or 

specific information related to WPS 

protections, such as the REI. For these 

reasons, EPA has decided not to replace 

‘‘labeling’’ with ‘‘label’’ throughout the 

final rule as suggested by the 

commenters. 

Furthermore, the obligation of 

certified applicators (or any other 

person legally applying a pesticide) to 

follow the labeling does not negate the 

obligation of agricultural and handler 

employers to comply with the labeling. 

Requirements related to the WPS are 

found both in the regulation (e.g., 

training, application-specific 

information) and on specific product 

labeling (e.g., directions for use, REI, 

PPE). In addition, other non-WPS 

elements of the labeling, such as 

application rates and maximum number 

of applications to a crop, are relevant to 

protecting workers and handlers from 

occupational exposure to pesticides. 

When employers choose to use a 

pesticide that references the WPS on the 

labeling on their establishment (either 

as the applicator or by directing another 

person to apply the pesticide on their 

behalf), they are obligated to ensure that 

all requirements of the labeling are 

followed, not only those related to the 

WPS, to ensure that workers and 

handlers are adequately protected. 

However, EPA agrees that certain 

WPS requirements could be limited to 

the information on the label or specific 

information from the label, and has 

specified ‘‘label’’ instead of ‘‘labeling’’ 

or specific information from the label 

where appropriate. For example, EPA 

agrees with commenters that employers 

need not provide all labeling in the 

event of the emergency. In the current 

rule, EPA lists specific information that 

must be provided to a potentially 

injured worker or handler, or to treating 

medical personnel: Product name, EPA 

registration number, active ingredients, 

antidote, and first aid and medical 

treatment information. Since all of this 

information is required on the label (40 

CFR 156.10(a)(1)), the final rule allows 

the employer to provide a copy of the 

label or this specific information from 

the label, in addition to providing a 

copy of the SDS, when emergency 

assistance is required. 

EPA also agrees with commenters’ 

request to eliminate the requirement for 

employers to maintain copies of the 

labeling for all pesticides with a WPS 

reference statement used on the 

establishment. EPA agrees that if 

workers, handlers, or other persons 

need information on a specific product 

that was used on the establishment, 

such information can be obtained using 

the EPA registration number and 

product name. In response to comments 

received, EPA has replaced the proposal 

with a requirement for the employer to 

retain only the EPA registration number, 

active ingredient(s), product name, and 

other application-specific information 

for such products, in addition to the 

SDS. 

Similarly, EPA agrees that requiring 

handler employers to ensure that 

handlers have been trained generally on, 

and for specific applications have read 

or been informed of all labeling 

requirements may be unnecessary if 

they are only using a product for a 

single type of application. The labeling 

could include directions for use 

covering multiple application methods 

and multiple crop sites, which may be 

of no relevance to a particular handler. 

Although the final rule continues to 

refer to ‘‘labeling’’ in this context, it 

now requires employers to ensure that 

for specific applications, handlers have 

read the portions of the labeling 

applicable to the safe use of the 

pesticide or have been informed in a 

manner they understand of all portions 

of the labeling applicable to the safe use 

of the pesticide. Further, EPA has 

amended handler training to require 

that handlers are instructed on their 

duty to follow the portions of the 

labeling applicable to the safe use of the 

pesticide, and on the format and 

meaning of information contained on 

pesticide labels and in labeling. 

4. Costs and benefits. Where 

requirements related to labeling have 

imposed a cost, e.g., the requirement for 

the employer to retain product labeling, 

the cost is discussed in the Unit related 

to the overall requirement. EPA does not 

estimate any additional costs with these 

requirements. 

B. Regulating Other Persons 

1. Current rule and proposal. Some 

provisions in the existing WPS provide 

protections to persons other than 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67547 

workers and handlers (‘‘other persons’’). 

For example, an existing requirement on 

the label and in § 170.210(a) specifies 

that the applicator must apply the 

pesticide in a way that will not contact 

workers or other persons. The existing 

requirement for entry-restricted areas on 

nurseries in § 170.110 specifies that an 

agricultural employer must not allow or 

direct any person, other than an 

appropriately trained and equipped 

handler, to enter or remain in the 

restricted area. The existing immediate 

family exemption in § 170.104(a)(2) 

states that the owner of the agricultural 

establishment must provide protections 

to other workers and other persons who 

are not part of his immediate family. 

The description of closed systems in 

§ 170.240(d)(4) of the existing rule 

describes closed systems as systems that 

enclose the pesticide to prevent it from 

contacting handlers or other persons. 

Also, the scope and purpose in § 170.1 

of the existing rule explains that the 

WPS is intended, in part, to reduce the 

risks of illness or injury resulting from 

the accidental exposure of workers and 

other persons to pesticides. 

The proposed rule included these 

same protections for persons other than 

workers and handlers and added several 

additional provisions that would affect 

‘‘other persons.’’ The proposed 

requirement for a handler to cease or 

suspend application if a worker or other 

person is in the treated area or entryrestricted area was intended to 

supplement the existing ‘‘do not 

contact’’ requirements, which already 

protect persons other than workers or 

handlers. In addition, EPA proposed to 

include ‘‘other persons involved in the 

use of a pesticide to which this part 

applies’’ in the proposed anti-retaliation 

provision in § 170.15. 

2. Final rule. The final rule includes 

the protections and references to ‘‘other 

persons’’ that were proposed, except 

that EPA removed the reference to other 

persons from the definition of closed 

systems. The final rule’s prohibition 

against ‘‘other persons involved in the 

use of a pesticide’’ retaliating against 

workers or handlers in § 170.315 of the 

final rule is consistent with OSHA’s 

non-retaliation provision. The other 

sections that provide protections to 

other persons continue existing 

requirements or supplement existing 

requirements and are discussed in detail 

in Unit IX. and Unit XVII.C. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Some grower 

organizations, states and their 

organizations, a retailer organization, 

and a commercial applicator opposed 

including protections for ‘‘other 

persons’’ in the WPS. These 

commenters argued that the proposal 

would extend the WPS to persons not 

currently covered and would result in 

an unwarranted expansion of scope 

beyond workers, handlers and 

employee/employer relationships. The 

grower, retailer and applicator 

commenters stated that including ‘‘other 

persons’’ could create the potential for 

frivolous legal challenges by antichemical activists seeking to prevent 

pesticide applications. 

EPA Response. EPA disagrees with 

the comments on including protections 

for ‘‘other persons’’ in the WPS. EPA 

already protects ‘‘other persons’’ in 

addition to workers and handlers in the 

existing WPS. EPA notes that antichemical activists are not using the 

current protections to prevent pesticide 

applications and the final rule does not 

appear significantly more likely to be 

used in that manner. 

4. Costs and benefits. The final rule 

generally continues or supplements 

existing protections so there are no 

incremental costs or benefits to the 

protections for other persons. 

C. Definitions 

1. General 

i. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS provides definitions for 

certain terms for use in the rule. In 

addition to the specific definitions for 

the twenty terms listed in 40 CFR 170.3, 

the WPS defines the terms ‘‘closed 

system,’’ ‘‘enclosed cab,’’ ‘‘entryrestricted area,’’ ‘‘personal protective 

equipment,’’ and ‘‘use’’ in other sections 

of the rule where those terms are used. 

EPA proposed to revise certain existing 

definitions to provide greater clarity, to 

add several new definitions for terms 

used in the rule, including definitions 

for the terms that had previously been 

defined elsewhere, and to eliminate two 

unnecessary existing definitions for 

‘‘greenhouse’’ and ‘‘forest.’’ 

ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA 

has adopted the revisions to the 

definitions as proposed except for the 

definitions of the terms ‘‘agricultural 

establishment,’’ ‘‘agricultural plant,’’ 

‘‘authorized representative,’’ ‘‘closed 

system,’’ ‘‘commercial pesticide handler 

employer,’’ ‘‘commercial production,’’ 

‘‘employ,’’ ‘‘enclosed space 

production,’’ ‘‘entry-restricted area,’’ 

‘‘farm,’’ ‘‘forest operation,’’ ‘‘hand 

labor,’’ ‘‘immediate family,’’ ’’labor 

contractor’’ ‘‘outdoor production,’’ 

’’nursery,’’ and ‘‘use.’’ In the final rule, 

EPA has deleted the definitions for the 

terms ‘‘greenhouse’’ and ‘‘forest’’ as 

proposed. EPA has also deleted the 

existing definitions for the terms 

‘‘farm,’’ ‘‘forest operation,’’ and 

‘‘nursery,’’ as well as the proposed 

definition for ‘‘commercial production.’’ 

Additionally, in the final rule EPA has 

added a new definition for the term 

‘‘application exclusion zone.’’ The 

discussions of the existing definitions 

and proposal, final rule, comments and 

EPA response for these terms are 

contained in Units XVIII.C.2—XVIII.C.8. 

The final regulatory text for these 

definitions is available at 40 CFR 

170.305. 

iii. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA received comments 

on the proposed definitions of the terms 

‘‘authorized representative,’’ ‘‘closed 

system,’’ ‘‘enclosed space production,’’ 

‘‘entry-restricted area,’’ ‘‘hand labor,’’ 

‘‘immediate family,’’ ‘‘outdoor 

production,’’ and ‘‘use’’. EPA did not 

receive any substantive comments 

opposed to the other proposed revisions 

related to definitions. EPA received 

several general comments from state, 

grower and agricultural producer 

associations that supported developing 

improved definitions because it would 

reduce the likelihood of alternative 

interpretations, while improving 

compliance and enforceability. Many 

farmworker advocacy organizations and 

public health organizations also 

supported EPA’s proposed revisions to 

improve definitions, commenting that it 

is important to have clear and 

understandable language in order to 

avoid ambiguity. 

During USDA’s FIFRA section 25 

review of the final rule, USDA 

commented that the definition for 

‘‘agricultural plant’’ depends on the 

definition for ‘‘commercial production,’’ 

and the definition for ‘‘commercial 

production’’ depends on the definition 

for ‘‘agricultural plant’’ (Ref. 15). USDA 

said similar issues exist in the 

definitions of ‘‘agricultural 

establishment’’ and ‘‘farm,’’ ‘‘forest 

operation,’’ and ‘‘nursery.’’ USDA 

recommended resolving these circular 

dependencies. USDA also commented 

that the proposed definitions of 

‘‘employ,’’ ‘‘labor contractor,’’ and 

‘‘commercial pesticide handler 

employer’’ contained problematic 

language that could confusion as to who 

is ultimately responsible for providing 

the handler protections in Subpart F of 

the proposed rule. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees that 

improved definitions will reduce the 

likelihood of ambiguity and alternative 

interpretations, while improving 

compliance and enforceability. EPA 

believes these proposed revisions to the 

definitions adopt more widely used and 

commonly accepted ‘‘plain English’’ 

language, and will add clarity and 

consistency to the rule. The proposed 

revisions to the definitions will also 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67548 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

help address regulatory or policy issues 

with the existing rule raised by state 

regulatory partners and other program 

stakeholders. 

In response to comments from USDA 

made during their FIFRA section 25 

review of the final WPS rule, EPA agrees 

that the definitions for ‘‘agricultural 

plant’’ and ‘‘commercial production,’’ 

and the definitions for ‘‘agricultural 

establishment’’ and ‘‘farm,’’ ‘‘forest 

operation,’’ and ‘‘nursery’’ are circular 

(Ref. 15). While EPA is not convinced 

that serious confusion would result, 

EPA has eliminated some definitions 

and revised others to address USDA’s 

concern. The terms ‘‘commercial 

production,’’ ‘‘farm,’’ ‘‘nursery,’’ and 

‘‘forest operation’’ appear only in the 

definition section and are not used 

elsewhere in the regulation. 

Accordingly, EPA has deleted these 

definitions and merged their substantive 

content into the definitions of 

‘‘agricultural establishment’’ and 

‘‘agricultural plant.’’ EPA also agrees 

that the current definitions of labor 

contractor and commercial pesticide 

handler employer contain some 

problematic language that could result 

in potential confusion and/or conflict 

regarding agricultural employer and 

commercial pesticide handler employer 

duties under the rule. In the final rule, 

EPA has adopted revised definitions for 

‘‘employ,’’ ‘‘labor contractor,’’ and 

‘‘commercial pesticide handler 

employer’’ to address the potential 

confusion that could result from 

conflicting language in the existing 

proposed definitions. EPA believes the 

revised regulatory text clarifies that 

CPHEs are responsible for the handlers 

they employ and agricultural employers 

would no longer be considered 

employers of CPHE handlers for the 

purposes of the WPS, without 

overlooking the fact that some handlers 

are hired by agricultural employers 

through labor contractors and not 

CPHEs. A copy of USDA’s comments 

and EPA’s responses is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. (Ref. 15). 

iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

the proposed changes to the definitions 

will not substantially change the cost of 

the final rule. 

2. Authorized Representative. i. 

Current rule and proposal. The existing 

WPS does not contain a definition for 

‘‘authorized representative.’’ EPA 

proposed to add the term ‘‘authorized 

representative’’ to the rule and defined 

it as ‘‘a person designated by the worker 

or handler, orally or in writing, to 

request and obtain any information that 

the employer is required to provide 

upon request to the worker or handler.’’ 

ii. Final rule. The rule finalizes the 

proposed definition with changes. EPA 

has retitled the term ‘‘authorized 

representative’’ to ‘‘designated 

representative’’ to better describe the 

relationship between the representative 

and the worker or handler, and the 

definition narrows the information that 

is required to be provided by the 

employer to the designated 

representative. In the final rule, 

‘‘designated representative’’ means ‘‘any 

persons designated in writing by a 

worker or handler to exercise a right of 

access on behalf of the worker or 

handler to request and obtain a copy of 

the pesticide application and hazard 

information required by § 170.309(h) in 

accordance with § 170.311(b) of this 

part.’’ 

iii. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA received many 

comments from states, growers, 

agricultural associations and pesticide 

manufacturer associations objecting to 

the definition of ‘‘authorized 

representative.’’ Most commenters 

objected to the proposed requirement 

for employers to make certain pesticide 

information available to an ‘‘authorized 

representative’’ of their workers or 

handlers rather than the actual 

definition of authorized representative. 

Several farm bureau commenters and 

grower groups stated that oral 

designation of the representative could 

result in abuse, and would be 

unenforceable. One comment from a 

farmworker advocacy organization 

stated that EPA should keep the 

definition for authorized representative 

and clarify the range of representatives 

that could legitimately be asked to 

receive information on behalf of a 

worker or handler (e.g., medical care 

provider, legal advocate, family 

member, etc.). 

EPA Response. EPA has been 

convinced by comments that 

designation of the representative must 

be in written form to protect employers 

from fraudulent claims. A written 

request that identifies the worker or 

handler can be verified against 

employment records, and information 

about the dates of their employ can be 

used to narrow the information needed 

to be provided. The final rule requires 

employers to respond to written 

requests. 

EPA disagrees with the 

recommendation to limit the definition 

to certain persons that could be asked to 

request the information on behalf of the 

worker or handler. EPA believes that 

specifying classes of persons permitted 

to serve as designated representative 

would unnecessarily limit worker and 

handler access to needed information. 

The final rule requires employers to 

respond to such requests within 15 

days. However, to ensure that medical 

personnel treating a worker or handler 

have timely access to information 

necessary for purposes of diagnosis or 

treatment, EPA has included a separate 

requirement for employers to promptly 

provide the information to treating 

medical personnel or those working 

under their direction, at 170.311(b)(8). 

iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

that including the definition of 

authorized representative will not 

change the cost of the final rule. Costs 

associated with the requirement for 

employers to respond to written 

requests for pesticide application and 

hazard information are included in the 

discussion in Unit VII.A. 

3. Closed System. i. Current rule and 

proposal. The existing WPS defines the 

term ‘‘closed system’’ as ‘‘a system that 

encloses the pesticide to prevent it from 

contacting handlers or other persons.’’ 

EPA proposed to move the definition of 

closed system to the definition section 

of the rule and to redefine a closed 

system as ‘‘a system for mixing or 

loading pesticides that encloses the 

pesticide during removal of the 

pesticide from its original container and 

transfer, mixing, or loading of the 

pesticide product, mixtures or dilutions, 

and any rinse solution, if applicable, 

into a new container or application 

equipment, in such a manner that 

prevents the pesticide and any pesticide 

mixture or use dilution from contacting 

handlers or other persons before, during 

and after the transfer, except for 

negligible release associated with 

normal operation of the system.’’ 

ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA 

has defined ‘‘closed system’’ as ‘‘an 

engineering control used to protect 

handlers from pesticide exposure 

hazards when mixing and loading 

pesticides.’’ The final regulatory text for 

this definition is available at 40 CFR 

170.305. 

iii. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA did not receive any 

specific comments on the definition of 

closed system. However, EPA received a 

number of comments related to EPA’s 

proposal on closed systems that 

indicated the proposed requirements 

may be too prescriptive or limiting, 

could eliminate desired flexibility for 

growers, and could discourage 

innovation and the adoption of closed 

systems. 

EPA Response. EPA agreed with the 

comments that the proposed 

requirements related to closed systems 

may be too prescriptive or limiting, 

could eliminate desired flexibility for 

growers, and could discourage 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67549 

innovation and the adoption of closed 

systems. Although the comments did 

not specifically mention the closed 

system definition, EPA reconsidered the 

proposed definition of closed system in 

light of the overall comments on closed 

system requirements. EPA believes that 

a broader definition of ‘‘closed system’’ 

will encourage industry innovation 

better than the proposed prescriptive 

definition, and will retain flexibility for 

handler employers to design systems 

specific to their needs. In the final rule, 

EPA has adopted a new definition of 

closed system that more accurately 

defines the nature and intent of a closed 

system without inadvertently 

prescribing specific requirements and 

operational components for such closed 

systems. 

iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

that revising the definition of closed 

system will not change the cost of the 

final rule. 

4. Enclosed space production and 

outdoor production. i. Current rule and 

proposal. The existing WPS does not 

contain definitions for the terms 

‘‘enclosed space production’’ or 

‘‘outdoor production.’’ Instead, the 

existing WPS defines the term 

‘‘greenhouse’’ to describe the type of 

WPS-covered agricultural 

establishments that produce agricultural 

plants inside enclosed structures. The 

existing rule uses the terms ‘‘farm,’’ 

‘‘forest’’ and ‘‘nursery’’ for WPS-covered 

agricultural establishments that produce 

agricultural plants outdoors. 

Greenhouse is defined in the existing 

WPS as ‘‘any operation engaged in the 

production of agricultural plants inside 

any structure or space that is enclosed 

with nonporous covering and that is of 

sufficient size to permit worker entry. 

This term includes, but is not limited to, 

polyhouses, mushroom houses, rhubarb 

houses, and similar structures. It does 

not include such structures as malls, 

atriums, conservatories, arboretums, or 

office buildings where agricultural 

plants are present primarily for aesthetic 

or climatic modification.’’ EPA 

proposed to delete the definition of 

‘‘greenhouse’’ because it would no 

longer be necessary as a result of the 

proposed addition of a new definition 

for ‘‘enclosed space production.’’ EPA 

proposed to define enclosed space 

production as ‘‘production of an 

agricultural plant in a structure or space 

that is covered in whole or in part and 

that is large enough to permit a person 

to enter.’’ EPA also proposed to add a 

new definition for the term ‘‘outdoor 

production’’ and defined it as 

‘‘production of an agricultural plant in 

an outside open space or area that is not 

enclosed or covered in any way.’’ 

ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA 

has deleted the definition of the term 

‘‘greenhouse’’ as proposed, and has 

adopted the definitions for ‘‘enclosed 

space production’’ and ‘‘outdoor 

production’’ with modifications. The 

final rule defines ‘‘enclosed space 

production’’ as ‘‘production of an 

agricultural plant indoors or in a 

structure or space that is covered in 

whole or in part by any nonporous 

covering and that is large enough to 

permit a person to enter,’’ and defines 

‘‘outdoor production’’ as ‘‘production of 

an agricultural plant in an outside area 

that is not enclosed or covered in any 

way that would obstruct the natural air 

flow.’’ The final regulatory text for these 

definitions is available at 40 CFR 

170.305. 

iii. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA received several 

comments from states and their 

organizations opposing the definition of 

‘‘enclosed space production’’ as written. 

A few other commenters also expressed 

concerns with the definition of ‘‘outdoor 

production.’’ A state association noted 

that the proposed definition could 

greatly expand areas covered under 

certain entry restrictions to include any 

covered area such as fields or groves 

with shade covers and/or screen houses. 

The commenter expressed concerns that 

entry restrictions currently applicable to 

greenhouses would be extended to these 

establishments, and is not aware of any 

need for such an extension of these 

restrictions. States generally echoed 

these comments. One state requested 

clarification of whether the term 

‘‘spaces covered in part’’ includes 

structures such as ‘‘hoop houses,’’ and 

another state noted that the proposed 

rule did not define or reference high 

tunnels and requested clarification of 

whether ‘‘high tunnels’’ are considered 

a greenhouse for the purposes of WPS 

(i.e., would ‘‘high tunnels’’ be 

considered a type of enclosed space 

production?). One state commented that 

the proposed definition expands areas 

covered under certain entry restrictions 

to include shade houses and screen 

houses and this would have a major 

impact in on the state’s nursery 

industry. Another state also expressed 

concerns that the proposed definition of 

enclosed space production would 

expand restrictions beyond 

greenhouses, and suggested that EPA 

add the phase ‘‘where the production of 

agricultural plants for research or 

commercial purposes occurs’’ to the 

definitions of enclosed space 

production and outdoor production so 

that only those operations engaged in 

the production of agricultural plants for 

commercial purposes would be covered 

by the WPS. Another state commented 

that the term ‘‘outdoor production’’ is 

too broad and by misinterpretation, 

could encompass a number of non-farm 

activities. 

During USDA’s FIFRA section 25 

review of the final rule, USDA 

commented that the inclusion of the 

term ‘‘natural forest’’ in the definition of 

‘‘outdoor production’’ creates confusion 

since there is no explanation of what the 

term ‘‘natural forest’’ means and 

therefore the term is not needed (Ref. 

15). 

EPA Response. EPA considered the 

comments submitted and agrees with 

the comments that said the proposed 

definition of ‘‘enclosed space 

production’’ could expand areas 

covered under certain entry restrictions 

to include any covered area such as 

fields or groves with porous shade 

covers and/or screen houses where such 

restrictions are not necessary. EPA 

noted the potential impact of the 

proposed definition on the nursery 

industry as raised by commenters. EPA 

also agrees that the proposed definition 

of ‘‘outdoor production’’ could lead to 

some outdoor production being 

considered enclosed space production 

because of the phrase ‘‘that is not 

enclosed or covered in any way.’’ EPA 

is convinced that the definition of 

enclosed space production and outdoor 

production should be revised so that 

operations that use non-porous 

coverings in their plant production 

operations, such as screen houses and 

shade houses, are not covered by the 

entry restrictions deemed necessary for 

the protection of workers and handlers 

that are working with pesticides or in 

pesticide treated areas in enclosed space 

production operations. Therefore, EPA 

revised the definitions of enclosed space 

production and outdoor production to 

clarify that enclosed space production 

only includes areas covered in whole or 

in part ‘‘by any nonporous covering,’’ 

rather than ‘‘any covering’’ as in the 

proposed definition; and that outdoor 

production will include areas that are 

covered only with coverings that are 

sufficiently porous that they do not 

obstruct the natural air flow typical of 

open fields or forests. It is intended that 

these definitions of enclosed space 

production and outdoor production be 

complementary, such that all 

production agriculture is either 

enclosed space production or outdoor 

production. 

EPA does not agree with the request 

to add the phrase ‘‘where the 

production of agricultural plants for 

research or commercial purposes 

occurs’’ to the definitions of enclosed 

space production and outdoor 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67550 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

production so that only those operations 

engaged in the production of 

agricultural plants for commercial 

purposes would be covered by the WPS. 

EPA believes other definitions and 

language in the rule already clearly limit 

the scope of the WPS to establishments 

where the production of agricultural 

plants for research or commercial 

purposes occurs, so the addition of such 

language to these definitions would be 

redundant and would not serve to 

further limit the scope of the rule in any 

way not already accomplished through 

other means. 

Some commenters requested 

clarification of whether structures such 

as ‘‘hoop houses,’’ and ‘‘high tunnels’’ 

are considered a type of enclosed space 

production. The term ‘‘greenhouse’’ in 

the WPS has resulted in enforcement 

problems, because of the extreme 

variability in the types of structures that 

might be considered greenhouses. This 

problem is compounded when 

considering the many greenhouse-type 

structures (e.g., polyhouses, mushroom 

houses, hoop houses, high tunnels and 

similar structures) that have come into 

use. This is why EPA has replaced the 

term greenhouse with enclosed space 

production. EPA believes the new terms 

correspond more accurately to the 

nature of the risk that EPA is concerned 

about mitigating (i.e., use of pesticides 

in enclosed spaces that could affect 

pesticide inhalation exposure potential). 

Therefore, if a structure or space is 

covered in whole or in part by any 

nonporous covering and is large enough 

to permit a person to enter, then the 

structure or space would fall under the 

definition of enclosed space production 

in the final rule. EPA anticipates that 

most greenhouses, hoop houses, high 

tunnels and similar structures will fall 

within the definition of enclosed space 

production, but a final determination 

will be made on a case-by-case basis 

applying the parameters of the 

definition to each situation. 

EPA agrees with USDA that the 

inclusion of the term ‘‘natural forest’’ in 

the definition of ‘‘outdoor production’’ 

creates confusion and is not needed. In 

response, EPA has revised the final 

definition of outdoor production 

accordingly (Ref. 15). 

iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

adding and changing the definition of 

enclosed space production and outdoor 

production will not substantially change 

the cost of the final rule. 

5. Entry-restricted area and 

application exclusion zone. i. Current 

rule and proposal. The existing WPS 

does not contain a definition for the 

terms ‘‘entry-restricted area’’ or 

‘‘application exclusion zone.’’ Under the 

existing rule, the term ‘‘entry-restricted 

area’’ is used to refer to areas on an 

establishment from which workers and 

other persons must be excluded during, 

and/or immediately after, an ongoing 

pesticide application to protect the 

workers or other persons from being 

contacted by the pesticide (either 

directly or through drift). EPA proposed 

to define the term ‘‘entry-restricted 

area’’ as ‘‘the area from which workers 

or other persons must be excluded 

during and after the pesticide 

application.’’ 

ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA 

has added the term ‘‘application 

exclusion zone’’ instead of the proposed 

term ‘‘entry-restricted area.’’ EPA has 

defined the term ‘‘application exclusion 

zone’’ as ‘‘the area surrounding the 

application equipment which must be 

free of all persons, other than 

appropriately trained and equipped 

handlers, during pesticide 

applications.’’ The final regulatory text 

for this definition is available at 40 CFR 

170.305. 

iii. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA received several 

comments from states regarding the 

term ‘‘entry-restricted area.’’ One 

commenter said the term was 

linguistically awkward and said EPA 

should instead use the term ‘‘restricted 

area buffer.’’ 

EPA Response. EPA considered the 

comments submitted and agrees with 

the comments that the term ‘‘entryrestricted area’’ was not clear and would 

be likely to cause confusion. In the final 

rule, EPA has eliminated the use of that 

term and has therefore deleted the 

proposed definition. The final rule 

adopts the term ‘‘application exclusion 

zone’’ to refer to the area from which 

persons must be excluded during 

applications. See Unit IX. for EPA’s 

response to the comments on the WPS 

requirements related to entry-restricted 

areas. 

iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

that not including the proposed 

definition of the term ‘‘entry-restricted 

area’’ in the final rule and adding the 

new definition for ‘‘application 

exclusion zone’’ will not substantially 

change the cost of the final rule. 

6. Hand labor. i. Current rule and 

proposal. The existing WPS defines 

hand labor as ‘‘any agricultural activity 

performed by hand or with hand tools 

that causes a worker to have substantial 

contact with surfaces (such as plants, 

plant parts, or soil) that may contain 

pesticide residues. These activities 

include, but are not limited to, 

harvesting, detasseling, thinning, 

weeding, topping, planting, sucker 

removal, pruning, disbudding, roguing, 

and packing produce into containers in 

the field. Hand labor does not include 

operating, moving, or repairing 

irrigation or watering equipment or 

performing the tasks of crop advisors.’’ 

In the proposal, EPA intended to revise 

the definition by deleting the following 

sentence from the existing definition, 

‘‘These activities include, but are not 

limited to, harvesting, detasseling, 

thinning, weeding, topping, planting, 

sucker removal, pruning, disbudding, 

roguing, and packing produce into 

containers in the field.’’ In the proposed 

regulatory text for the definition of term 

‘‘hand labor,’’ EPA inadvertently 

deleted the phrase ‘‘except that hand 

labor does not include operating, 

moving, or repairing irrigation or 

watering equipment or performing crop 

advisor tasks’’ from the end of the 

definition. The erroneously proposed 

definition for the term ‘‘hand labor’’ was 

‘‘any agricultural activity performed by 

hand or with hand tools that cause a 

worker to have substantial contact with 

plants, plant parts, or soil and other 

surfaces that may contain pesticide 

residues.’’ 

ii. Final rule. EPA has corrected the 

unintentional omission from the 

proposed definition of ‘‘hand labor.’’ 

The final rule defines ‘‘hand labor’’ as 

‘‘any agricultural activity performed by 

hand or with hand tools that cause a 

worker to have substantial contact with 

plants, plant parts, or soil and other 

surfaces that may contain pesticide 

residues, except that hand labor does 

not include operating, moving, or 

repairing irrigation or watering 

equipment or performing crop advisor 

tasks.’’ The final regulatory text for this 

definition is available at 40 CFR 170.305 

for the final regulatory language for 

definitions. 

iii. Comments and responses. 

Comments. One commenter objected 

to the proposed change to the definition 

of hand labor that deleted the phrase 

‘‘except that hand labor does not 

include operating, moving, or repairing 

irrigation or watering equipment or 

performing crop advisor tasks’’ from the 

end of the definition. The commenter 

indicated that removing this exception 

from the definition of hand labor would 

make the irrigation exception for early 

entry unworkable and would disrupt 

irrigation operations. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with the 

comment on the definition of ‘‘hand 

labor.’’ In the final, rule EPA has deleted 

the sentence listing hand labor activities 

as proposed, but has retained the clause 

excluding ‘‘operating, moving, or 

repairing irrigation or watering 

equipment or performing crop advisor 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67551 

tasks’’ from being considered hand labor 

tasks. 

iv. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates 

that revising the definition of hand labor 

will not change the cost of the final rule. 

7. Immediate Family. See Unit 

XVII.A. for a complete discussion of 

EPA’s consideration of the definition of 

‘‘immediate family’’ in conjunction with 

the exemption from certain provisions 

of the WPS for owners and members of 

their immediate families. 

8. Use. i. Existing definitions and 

proposal. The existing WPS provides a 

definition of the term ‘‘use’’ (as in ‘‘to 

use any registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling’’) for the 

purposes of the rule at 40 CFR 170.9, 

‘‘Violations of this part.’’ For the 

purposes of the WPS, EPA has 

interpreted the term ‘‘use’’ to cover a 

broad range of pesticide-related 

activities that are listed at 40 CFR 170.9. 

EPA proposed to move the existing 

definition for ‘‘use’’ found at 40 CFR 

170.9 into the definitions section of the 

rule. 

ii. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA 

has adopted the definition for ‘‘use’’ as 

proposed. The final regulatory text for 

this definition is available at 40 CFR 

170.305. 

iii. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA received several 

comments from states, growers, 

agricultural associations and pesticide 

manufacturer associations objecting to 

the proposed definition of ‘‘use.’’ Most 

commenters objected to the definition of 

use because they did not support 

inclusion of ‘‘arranging for application 

of the pesticide’’ as part of the definition 

of ‘‘use.’’ Some commenters said they 

believed that this language would 

greatly expand the scope of the WPS 

and would be unreasonable and 

unnecessary. Some commenters noted 

that they could not see how ‘‘arranging 

for application of the pesticide’’ could 

be considered use. During its review of 

the draft final rule under FIFRA section 

25(a), USDA noted that the term 

‘‘arranging for the application of the 

pesticide’’ as part of the definition of the 

term ‘‘use’’ could lead to persons that 

call on or answer the telephone and 

‘‘arrange’’ for pest management by 

scheduling the appointment on behalf of 

another to be covered by the rule and 

possibly have WPS responsibilities. 

EPA Response. EPA disagrees with 

comments that say the proposed 

definition for the term ‘‘use’’ could or 

will expand the scope of the WPS 

because this interpretation has been in 

the WPS since the rule first became 

effective. Moreover, EPA has not been 

made aware of any instances where this 

interpretation of ‘‘use’’ has resulted in 

an unreasonable or inappropriate 

outcome. EPA believes that ‘‘arranging 

for application of the pesticide’’ is 

appropriately part of the definition of 

‘‘use’’ for the purposes of the WPS 

because in production agriculture, the 

individual who physically ‘‘uses’’ a 

pesticide almost always does so at the 

direction of another person who has 

substantially greater control over the 

circumstances of the use. Thus the WPS 

is designed so that when an agricultural 

or handler employer arranges for the 

application of a pesticide by a handler 

employee, it triggers certain WPS duties 

that are properly the responsibility of 

the agricultural or handler employer. 

For instance, once the agricultural 

employer arranges for a pesticide 

application by a commercial pesticide 

handling establishment, the commercial 

pesticide handler employer must 

provide the agricultural employer with 

certain information about the intended 

application before the application takes 

place (so the employer will be able to 

fulfill WPS notification requirements 

and protect workers during application, 

etc.). In such circumstances, it is 

reasonable and appropriate that the 

handler employer should be held 

responsible for the pre-application 

information exchange even though the 

application has not commenced and 

even though the handler employer 

personally never physically ‘‘uses’’ the 

pesticide. 

EPA interprets ‘‘arranging for 

application of the pesticide’’ as used in 

§ 170.9(a) and § 170.305 as a means of 

assuring that the entities (generally the 

agricultural employer or handler 

employer) with the most authority and 

control over WPS compliance would be 

legally responsible for WPS compliance. 

EPA does not interpret ‘‘arranging for 

application of the pesticide’’ as making 

subordinate persons who merely 

perform the clerical functions of 

arranging for application of the 

pesticide liable for WPS compliance. 

Therefore, since EPA has not been made 

aware of any instances where the 

existing interpretation of the term use 

has resulted in any problems for 

growers, states or the agricultural 

industry, EPA has moved the definition 

for the term ‘‘use’’ into the definitions 

section of the rule without any change 

from the proposal. 

iv. Costs and benefits. Moving the 

definition of use will not change the 

cost of the final rule. 

D. Restructuring 40 CFR Part 170 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

existing WPS is organized into three 

subparts: ‘‘General Provisions,’’ 

‘‘Standard for Workers,’’ and ‘‘Standard 

for Handlers.’’ Content that applies to 

both workers and handlers is repeated 

creating redundancy throughout the 

rule. 

EPA discussed renaming the 

regulation ‘‘Requirements for Protection 

of Agricultural Workers and Pesticide 

Handlers’’ in the preamble of the 

proposal and proposed reorganizing the 

rule into four subparts: ‘‘General 

Provisions,’’ ‘‘Requirements for 

Protection of Agricultural Workers,’’ 

‘‘Requirements for Protection of 

Pesticide Handlers,’’ and ‘‘Exemptions 

and Exceptions.’’ EPA proposed creating 

the ‘‘General Provisions’’ subpart to 

describe certain obligations for 

agricultural employers, handler 

employers, and those requirements that 

apply to both. The proposal included 

subparts ‘‘Requirements for Protection 

of Agricultural Workers’’ and 

‘‘Requirements for Protection of 

Pesticide Handlers’’ to provide 

information that supplements the 

general duties and obligations for 

employers and to outline the content of 

the training and decontamination 

supplies that the employer must provide 

for workers and handlers respectively. 

EPA proposed to consolidate most of the 

exceptions and exemptions into a 

separate subpart titled ‘‘Exemptions and 

Exceptions’’ to make them easier to find 

and reference. 

2. Final Rule. In the final rule, EPA 

has retained the existing name of the 

regulation, ‘‘Worker Protection 

Standard,’’ and has adopted the 

proposed restructuring of the rule with 

minor modifications. 

EPA has determined that it is 

appropriate to allow one year for 

employers, trainers, and state and tribal 

regulators to prepare for the changes to 

the WPS. See Unit XIX. In order to 

allow the existing WPS to remain in 

effect for one year and to make available 

the revised regulatory language in 

advance of the implementation date, 

both the existing WPS and the revised 

WPS must appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Thus the final rule 

provides that Subparts A, B and C of 

part 170 will remain in effect until one 

year after the effective date of this final 

rule. Subparts D, E, F and G of part 170 

contain the full text of the revised WPS; 

however, these subparts will not be 

implemented until one year after the 

effective date of this final rule. Some 

provisions of subparts D, E, F and G, 

such as pesticide safety training and the 

pesticide information display, will not 

be implemented until two years after the 

effective date of this final rule. One year 

after the effective date of this final rule, 

subparts A, B and C will no longer be 

effective. At that time, EPA intends to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67552 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

delete subparts A, B and C from part 

170. 

In addition to finalizing the proposed 

structuring of the rule, EPA has added 

a new section providing a process for 

allowing states and tribes to request 

equivalency determinations from EPA 

for existing state or tribal laws or 

regulations that may provide protections 

equivalent to the WPS. EPA has added 

this to a retitled subpart: ‘‘Exemptions, 

Exceptions and Equivalency.’’ 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. EPA did not receive any 

comments opposed to the proposal to 

restructure the WPS. One commenter 

noted that the proposed restructuring of 

the rule increased the clarity of the rule 

and the relationship among the 

components. Another commenter 

asserted that there was no need to 

change the name of the regulation, and 

noted that if EPA was going to change 

the name of the rule, it should more 

accurately represent the full scope of the 

rule and the impacted establishments. 

EPA Response. EPA agrees with the 

comment that it is unnecessary to 

change the name of the rule. ‘‘Worker 

Protection Standard’’ and the 

abbreviation WPS are commonly used 

and associated with the rule. Upon 

further consideration, EPA agrees that 

the existing name of the rule is very 

widely recognized and that it will 

facilitate more effective 

communications on the rule to retain 

the current name of the rule. 

EPA also agrees with the commenter 

that the proposed restructuring of the 

rule increases the clarity of the rule and 

the relationship among the components. 

EPA is adopting the proposed 

restructuring of the WPS in the final 

rule with the minor modifications 

noted. EPA expects the revised part 170 

will be easier to read and understand, 

thereby improving compliance by 

worker and handler employers. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA does not 

estimate any costs associated with the 

restructuring of the rule. The benefits of 

the restructuring will be increased 

clarity and understanding of the rule 

which should result in improved 

compliance and more consistent 

enforcement. 

E. Equivalency Provisions 

1. Current rule and proposal. The 

current WPS does not contain 

equivalency provisions that would 

permit EPA to potentially recognize, 

through a WPS-established regulatory 

mechanism, state or tribal worker 

protection laws and/or regulations that 

may provide equivalent or significantly 

greater protection in comparison to the 

provisions of the existing WPS, or 

provide equivalent protection at a 

significantly lower cost. EPA did not 

propose to add equivalency provisions 

to the rule because it did not receive 

information from states or tribes that 

such provisions were necessary, and 

had not been informed by growers that 

WPS requirements conflicted with 

existing state or tribal worker protection 

laws or regulations. 

2. Final rule. In the final rule, EPA has 

included a section on equivalency 

because of comments received that 

indicate provisions may be needed to 

address certain issues with the WPS 

potentially conflicting with existing 

state and tribal worker protection laws 

or regulations. EPA recognizes that 

some states and tribes have existing 

worker protection provisions in their 

own laws and regulations that may be 

equivalent to the provisions of the 

existing WPS, that may provide 

significantly greater protection, or may 

provide equivalent protection at a 

significantly lower cost, and decided it 

would be more practical and efficient to 

establish a mechanism to evaluate 

specific state or tribal requirements and 

to make equivalency determinations 

rather than relying on other EPA 

enforcement mechanisms or policies to 

be able to allow such determinations. 

The final regulatory text for this 

requirement is available at 40 CFR 

170.609. 

3. Comments and responses. 

Comments. Although EPA did not 

propose equivalency provisions, EPA 

received comments from the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

(CDPR) that indicated it would be 

beneficial if states could be granted 

‘equivalency’ as was done for the 

current WPS. The CDPR comment refers 

to an independent enforcement 

discretion decision that was granted 

under the current WPS to recognize 

CDPR’s requirement for the content of 

their field posting sign to be equivalent 

to the existing requirement at 40 CFR 

170.120. Comments from some other 

state pesticide regulatory agencies 

indicate there may be issues of 

equivalency between their regulations 

and the final WPS requirements. 

Although these commenters did not 

specifically raise the need for 

equivalency provision, they indicated a 

need for EPA to be aware of the issue 

and potentially identify solutions. 

EPA Response. Based on the 

comments received and EPA’s 

experience with the current WPS and 

requests from CDPR for equivalency on 

certain regulatory requirements, EPA 

agrees that there are potential situations 

where states or tribes may request EPA 

to consider equivalency under the WPS 

for their laws or regulations. Therefore, 

EPA believes it is prudent to consider 

an equivalency process under the WPS, 

and feels strongly that it is more 

efficient and advantageous to establish a 

mechanism for considering equivalency 

in the WPS rule rather than relying on 

other mechanisms. EPA has provided a 

general equivalency process in the rule 

that is modeled on the provisions that 

were developed and implemented for 

substantially the same reason and 

purpose under the pesticide 

containment regulations in 40 CFR 

165.97. (71 FR 47330, August 16, 2006). 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA does not 

estimate any costs associated with 

adding the equivalency provisions to 

the rule. The benefits of allowing 

equivalency under the provisions being 

included in the final rule will be that 

EPA will be able to more easily consider 

and permit equivalency for some states 

that have provisions in their own laws 

and regulations equivalent to the 

provisions of the WPS or that may 

provide significantly greater protections 

or equivalent protection at a lower cost. 

F. Clarifications 

1. Scope and Purpose. In the final 

rule, EPA has clarified who the rule 

protects and that agricultural and 

commercial pesticide handler 

employers are responsible for carrying 

out the requirements of the rule. EPA 

has also clarified that handlers have 

responsibilities under the rule to protect 

workers and other persons during 

pesticide applications. Refer to 40 CFR 

170.301 for the revised language. 

2. Applicability. In the final rule, EPA 

has clarified in 40 CFR 170.303(c) that 

users must comply with product 

labeling requirements where the 

labeling requirements differ from the 

rule, except as provided in 40 CFR 

170.601, 170.603, and 170.607, where 

the WPS provides exceptions to labelrequired PPE and REIs. 

3. Prohibited Actions. In the proposed 

rule EPA proposed modifications to the 

retaliation provisions of the rule to 

clarify the actions that are prohibited 

under the rule. In the final rule EPA has 

further modified the retaliation 

provisions based on comments provided 

from DOL on how EPA could improve 

its retaliation provisions by modeling it 

after language used in similar provisions 

in DOL regulations. Moreover, we note 

that this rule does not preempt the 

general anti-retaliation provision in the 

DOL-administered Occupational Safety 

and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 660(c). Refer 

to 40 CFR 170.315 for the regulatory 

text. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67553 

XIX. Implementation 

A. Proposal 

EPA proposed to make the final rule 

effective 60 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register; 

however, compliance with certain 

provisions, including the additional 

content of pesticide safety training and 

pesticide safety information, and new 

signs for posting, would not be required 

until 2 years after the effective date of 

the final rule. EPA proposed the 2-year 

delay between effective date of the final 

rule and the implementation date to 

allow time for new training materials to 

be developed and made available, and 

to give employers, trainers, and other 

affected stakeholders time to make the 

necessary changes to their practices and 

operations to comply with the new 

training and pesticide safety 

information requirements. EPA also 

linked the implementation date for the 

revised pesticide safety training 

requirements for workers and handlers 

to the availability of new revised 

training materials that satisfy the new 

rule requirements. Under the proposal, 

if EPA announced the availability of 

such materials sooner than 18 months 

after the effective date of the final rule, 

then the new training requirements 

would go into effect 2 years after the 

effective date of the final rule. If EPA 

announced the availability of materials 

that comply with the requirements more 

than 18 months after the effective date 

of the final rule, then the new training 

requirements would not take effect until 

180 days after the announcement of 

availability of complying training 

materials published in the Federal 

Register. 

B. Final Rule 

EPA has included in the final rule a 

one-year delay from the effective date of 

the final rule before employers must 

comply with any of the new WPS 

requirements. Thus, on January 2, 2017, 

employers will be required to comply 

with almost all of the new and revised 

WPS requirements. However, employers 

will not be required to comply with 

certain new WPS provisions until two 

years after the effective date of the final 

rule. This two year delay applies to the 

new requirements for pesticide safety 

training for workers and handlers, 

pesticide safety information and 

handlers to suspend applications when 

workers or other persons are in the 

application exclusion zone. As 

proposed, the final rule provides that 

compliance with certain new training 

requirements will not be required until 

the later of two years after the effective 

date of the final rule, or 180 days after 

EPA publishes in the Federal Register a 

notice of availability of new revised 

training materials that satisfy the new 

rule requirements. 

The final regulatory text for these 

provisions is available at 40 CFR 170.2, 

170.311(a)(3), 170.401(c)(3), 

170.501(c)(3) and 170.505(b). 

C. Comments and Responses 

Comments. Most comments that 

addressed implementation focused on 

three main areas: (1) The need for better 

and more effective enforcement of the 

revised rule once the new requirements 

are effective; (2) the need for 

appropriate supporting communication, 

education, training and compliance 

assistance materials to facilitate 

effective implementation; and (3) the 

need for additional time before the final 

rule becomes effective to give regulators 

and the regulated community time to 

prepare for compliance with new 

requirements. 

Many comments from states, pesticide 

safety educators, trainers, grower 

associations and pesticide manufacturer 

associations pointed out a need for 

appropriate training and compliance 

assistance materials to support effective 

implementation. Commenters indicated 

that it was essential for EPA to have 

updated communications and 

compliance assistance materials, such as 

fact sheets and the ‘‘WPS How to 

Comply’’ manual, developed and 

available to all affected parties in order 

for the regulated community to be able 

to learn and understand new 

requirements. Several states, grower 

associations and pesticide manufacturer 

associations commented that EPA 

should provide more time before the 

new rule requirements become effective 

so that regulators and the regulated 

community can more adequately 

prepare for compliance with new 

requirements. However, several 

farmworker advocacy organizations 

urged EPA to implement the proposed 

training requirements for workers and 

handlers sooner than the proposal of 2 

years from the effective date of the final 

rule. 

EPA Response. EPA considered the 

comments submitted and agrees that 

after publication of the final rule, some 

time is needed before the new WPS 

requirements are implemented. EPA 

understands that State, tribal and 

federal regulators need time to become 

familiar with the new regulation, 

provide training to pesticide inspectors, 

develop the capacity for enforcing the 

new rule requirements, establish 

appropriate WPS inspection and 

enforcement policies, and conduct 

outreach to the regulated and protected 

communities. In addition, agricultural 

employers will need time to become 

familiar with the new requirements and 

implement any necessary changes. In 

the final rule, EPA has delayed the 

implementation of the new WPS 

requirements for one year so that EPA 

can work with state and tribal pesticide 

regulators and the regulated community 

to better prepare for compliance with 

new rule requirements. The existing 

rule will remain in effect and be 

enforced during this time, as provided 

in 40 CFR 170.2. 

EPA disagrees with comments that the 

compliance dates for the new worker 

and handler training requirements 

should be implemented sooner than 2 

years from the effective date of the final 

rule as outlined in the proposal. EPA 

believes that up to 18 months could be 

needed in order to develop and 

disseminate new, high quality, multilingual worker and handler training 

materials in multimedia formats that 

comply with the new requirements. 

Additionally trainers will have to obtain 

the new training materials, become 

familiar with the new training content 

and ensure that they continue to meet 

any eligibility requirements to train. 

Therefore, EPA has decided to retain the 

proposed requirement to delay the new 

training requirements for 2 years from 

the effective date of the final rule (or 

180 days after the announcement that 

training materials are available, 

whichever is later) to allow adequate 

time for development and widespread 

distribution of the materials to trainers 

and employers. While EPA agrees that it 

is important for workers and handlers to 

have the new safety training information 

as soon as possible, time will be needed 

to create and distribute new training 

materials and to allow existing trainers 

to familiarize themselves with those 

new materials. In order to maximize 

compliance with the final rule, and in 

the interests of consistency and 

efficiency, EPA intends to develop and 

make available suitable training 

materials. EPA intends to have new 

training materials developed and 

disseminated as soon as practical and 

will encourage employers to begin using 

the new materials as soon as they 

become available so that many workers 

and handlers will begin receiving the 

benefits of the new training before the 

required date. 

EPA is committed to a robust 

outreach, communications and training 

effort to communicate the new rule 

requirements to affected WPS 

stakeholders. To facilitate 

implementation, EPA plans to issue 

plain language ‘‘how to comply’’ fact 

sheets and guidance materials once the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

final rule is published. EPA plans to 

develop compliance assistance materials 

that are targeted to specific agricultural 

sectors and rule requirements such as 

respirator requirements or the WPS 

exemptions and exceptions. EPA also 

intends to develop and disseminate new 

worker and handler training materials, 

conduct outreach to potentially affected 

parties, and provide assistance and 

resources to States and Tribes for WPS 

implementation. EPA plans to hold 

Pesticide Regulatory Education Program 

courses for State and Tribal pesticide 

program staff that will focus on WPS 

implementation, and Pesticide Inspector 

Residential Training courses for State 

and Tribal pesticide inspectors that will 

focus on WPS inspection requirements. 

D. Costs and Benefits 

The discussion of the overall expected 

costs and benefits for implementation 

are discussed in Unit II.C. EPA believes 

that delaying the dates for compliance 

with the final rule for one year after the 

effective date will allow regulators and 

the regulated community to better 

prepare for compliance with the rule 

while delaying immediate costs and 

allowing time for employers to explore 

ways to minimize implementation costs. 

XX. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket, even if the referenced 

document is not physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

these other documents, please consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. EPA. Economic Analysis of the 

Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

Revisions. Washington, DC 2015. 

2. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revisions; Proposed 

Rule. Federal Register (79 FR 15444, 

March 19, 2014) (FRL–9395–8). 

3. EPA. Final Report: Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on EPA Planned 

Revisions to Two Related Rules: Worker 

Protection Standard for Agricultural 

Pesticides (RIN 2070–AJ22); and 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators 

(RIN 2070–AJ20). November 3, 2008. 

4. EPA. Response to Comments on Proposed 

Changes to the Worker Protection 

Standard. 2015. 

5. U.S. Senate. S. Rep. No. 92–883 (Part II), 

92nd Congress, 2nd Session at 43–46 

(1972). U.S. Code Congressional and 

Administrative News 1972, p. 4063. 

6. DOL. 2011–2012 NAWS data—public set. 

http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/

naws.cfm#d-files. Retrieved April 24 

2015. 

7. USDA Economic Research Service. Kandel, 

W. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 

Update. Economic Research Report No. 

60. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Economic Research Service. 2008. 

8. EPA. Worker Protection Standard: A 

Summary of the Public’s Comments and 

the Agency’s Response. 1992. 

9. Burke, L., Hutchins, H. ‘‘A Study of Best 

Practices in Training Transfer and 

Proposed Model of Transfer.’’ Human 

Resource Development Quarterly. Vol. 19 

no. 2, Summer 2008. 

10. Calvert, et al, 2008. ‘‘Acute pesticide 

poisoning among agricultural workers in 

the United States, 1998–2005.’’American 

J Ind Med 51, no. 12: 883–898. December 

2008. 

11. Kasner, et al. ‘‘Gender differences in 

acute pesticide-related illnesses and 

injuries among farmworkers in the 

United States, 1998–2007. American J 

Ind Med 55, no. 7: 571–583. July 2012. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/

10.1002/ajim.22052/full. Retrieved April 

24, 2015. 

12. Lee, S–J, Mehler, L, Beckman, J, DieboltBrown, B, Prado, J, Lackovic, M, et al. 

‘‘Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated 

with Off-Target Pesticide Drift from 

Agricultural Applications.’’ Environ 

Health Perspect 119:1162–1169. 2011. 

13. EPA. Response to ‘‘Pesticides in the Air— 

Kids at Risk: Petition to Protect Children 

from Pesticide Drift (2009).’’ 2014. 

14. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed 

Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

Revisions. Washington, DC 2014. 

15. EPA. USDA Comments on the Draft Final 

Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

Revision Rule and EPA Responses. 2015. 

16. EPA. Pesticides; Procedural Regulations 

for Registration Review; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (71 FR 45720, August 9, 

2006) (FRL–8080–4). 

17. OSHA. Hazard Communication; Final 

Rule. Federal Register (77 FR 17574, 

March 26, 2012). 

18. EPA. Worker Protection Standards for 

Agricultural Pesticides; Proposed Rule. 

Federal Register (53 FR 25970, July 8, 

1988) (FRL 3314–4). 

19. OSHA. Hazard Communications 

Standard; Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register (53 FR 29822, August 8, 1988). 

20. EPA. Worker Protection Standard; Hazard 

Information; Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register (57 FR 38167, August 21, 1992) 

(FRL–3793–1). 

21. EPA. Pesticides; Final Guidance for 

Pesticide Registrants on Web-Distributed 

Labeling; Notice of Availability. Federal 

Register (79 FR 18908, April 4, 2014) 

(FRL–9905–60). 

22. EPA. Pesticide Management and 

Disposal; Standards for Pesticide 

Containers and Containment; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (71 FR 47330, August 

16, 2006) (FRL–8076–2). 

23. EPA. Information Collection Request 

Supporting Statement: Agricultural 

Worker Protection Standard Training 

and Notification (Final Rule). EPA ICR 

No. 2491.02 and OMB Control No. 2070– 

0190. 2015. 

XXI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review; and, Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action because it may raise novel legal 

or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted the 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011), and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket. 

EPA prepared an economic analysis of 

the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action, which is 

available in the docket and summarized 

in Unit II.C. (Ref. 1). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this final rule have been submitted to 

OMB for approval under the PRA, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document that 

the EPA prepared has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 2491.02 and OMB 

Control No. 2070–0190 (Ref. 23). You 

can find a copy of the ICR in the docket 

for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The information collection activities 

related to the existing Worker Protection 

Standard are already approved by OMB 

in an ICR titled ‘‘Worker Protection 

Standard Training and Notification’’ 

(EPA ICR No. 1759; OMB Control No. 

2070–0148). The final rule ICR 

addresses adjustments to the estimated 

number of respondents, time for 

activities, and wage rates related to the 

current regulatory requirements as 

approved under OMB Control No. 2070– 

0148. In addition, the final rule ICR 

addresses program changes related to 

the amendments, including 

modifications to restrictions in field 

entry activities during REIs; increased 

hazard communications; increased 

training (for both workers and handlers); 

provisions for information during 

emergency assistance; and 

recordkeeping for respirator and 

training requirements. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Agricultural establishments. The 

number of agricultural establishments is 

based on the 2012 Census of Agriculture 

data, special tabulation, by the USDA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67555 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS). Based on that information, 

there are about 870,000 crop producing 

establishments covered by the rule. 

Commercial pesticide handling 

establishments. Based on information 

from Hoover’s Dun and Bradstreet, EPA 

estimates there are about 2,000 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishments. Based on EPA’s data on 

certified applicators, there are more 

than 40,000 commercial applicators in 

plant agriculture. 

Agricultural workers and handlers. 

EPA estimates that there are about 1.9 

million workers, based on the 2012 

Census of Agriculture data, special 

tabulation, by USDA’s NASS. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (7 U.S.C. 136–136y, 

particularly section 136w(a)). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

985,000. 

Frequency of response: Rule 

familiarization will occur annually for 

the first 3 years. Training of workers and 

handlers will occur annually. Posting of 

the hazard communications information 

will occur, on average, 20 times a year. 

Recordkeeping of training will occur 1.5 

times per year. 

Total estimated burden: 10,448,160 

hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $ 424,166,295 

annualized capital or operation and 

maintenance costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and on 

applicable collection instruments. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The 

small entities subject to the 

requirements of this action are 

agricultural and handler employers, and 

commercial pesticide handler 

employers. EPA expects the impacts to 

be less than 0.1% of the annual value 

of sales or revenues for the average 

small entity. EPA calculates the impact 

of the rule as the percent of sales 

revenue. Only the very smallest farms, 

with average sales of less than $10,000 

per year, may face impacts above one 

percent of sales. The number of entities 

that may be impacted in excess of one 

percent of sales could be about 12,000 

farms, nurseries, and greenhouses or 

about 6% of all small farms impacted by 

the WPS with revenues less than 

$10,000 per year. However, this is likely 

an overestimate of the number of farms 

impacted as it does not account for the 

nearly 2,000 such farms in California 

that would face impacts well below the 

national average. Additionally, there are 

nearly 23,000 such farms that produce 

only oil crops or forage whose 

employees are not likely to engage in 

hand labor activities and would not be 

covered by worker requirements. Please 

refer to the Economic Assessment, Table 

5.4–3. ‘‘Small Business Impacts, WPS 

Farms making pesticide applications’’ 

for further details of the assessment. 

Although EPA was not required by 

the RFA to convene a Small Business 

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because 

this rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, EPA 

nevertheless convened a panel to obtain 

advice and recommendations from 

small entity representatives potentially 

subject to this rule’s requirements. A 

copy of the SBAR Panel Report is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Ref. 3). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

rule requirements would primarily 

affect agricultural employers and 

handler employers. The total estimated 

annualized cost of the final rule is 

$60.2—66.9 million. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. However, 

this action may be of significant interest 

to state governments, because states 

provide enforcement for pesticide laws. 

EPA solicited and received comments 

from state partners on the proposed 

revisions, which are addressed in this 

final rule preamble and the response to 

comments document. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The proposed rule would not 

regulate tribal governments directly; 

agricultural employers and pesticide 

handler employers are the directly 

affected entities. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This final rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by Executive Order 

12866. However, it is reasonable to 

expect that the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed in this rule may 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children. As such, EPA considered the 

best available science in order to protect 

children against environmental health 

risks and this final rule is consistent 

with EPA’s 1995 Policy on Evaluating 

Health Risks to Children (http://

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/

2014-/documents/1995_childrens_

health_policy_statement.pdf), 

reaffirmed in 2013 (http://

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/

2014-05/documents/reaffirmation_

memorandum.pdf). 

Protections include improved training 

on reducing pesticide residues brought 

from treated areas to the home on 

workers and handlers’ clothing and 

bodies and establishing a minimum age 

of 18 for handlers and early entry 

workers. With regard to establishing an 

age restriction, while studies have not 

demonstrated a clear cut off point at 

which adolescents are fully developed, 

literature indicates that their 

development may continue until they 

reach their early to mid-20s. 

Additionally, research has shown that 

adolescents may take more risks, be less 

aware of the potential consequences of 

their actions on themselves and others, 

and be less likely to protect themselves 

from known risks. All of this 

information supports establishing a 

minimum age to allow those handling 

pesticides to develop more fully before 

putting themselves, others, and the 

environment at risk, and to allow those 

performing early-entry activities to 

develop more fully in order to 

adequately protect themselves from the 

risks of entering a treated area while an 

REI is in effect. The final rule will 

reduce the potential for misuse by 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

adolescent handlers who may less 

consistently exercise good judgment 

when handling agricultural pesticides. 

Children face the risk of pesticide 

exposure from work in pesticide-treated 

areas, from the use of pesticides near 

their homes, and from residues of 

pesticides brought home by family 

members after a day of working with 

pesticides or in pesticide-treated areas. 

The final rule is expected to reduce 

these exposures and risks. By 

establishing a minimum age for certain 

pesticide-related activities in 

agriculture, children would receive less 

exposure to pesticides that may lead to 

chronic or acute pesticide-related 

illness. Another requirement to reduce 

risk to children is training for workers 

and handlers on the risks presented by 

take-home pesticide exposure and how 

best to reduce it. 

Like DOL’s regulations that 

implement the FLSA, the rule regulates 

the ages at which children can work in 

certain agricultural activities. The rule 

establishes a minimum age of 18 for 

pesticide handlers and for early-entry 

workers, except those working on an 

establishment owned by an immediate 

family member. Since children in 

agriculture may face elevated risks of 

pesticide exposure due to their 

immaturity, failure to exercise good 

judgment, and developing bodies, EPA 

feels that they warrant special 

consideration in light of the Executive 

Order on children’s health. EPA expects 

that the final rule will mitigate or 

eliminate many agricultural pesticide 

risks faced by youths. 

Additional information on EPA’s 

consideration of the risks to children in 

development of this action can be found 

in the Economic Analysis for this action 

(Ref. 1). 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration under NTTAA 

section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes that this rule would not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority, low-income, or 

indigenous populations, as specified in 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), because it increases 

the level of environmental protection for 

all affected populations without having 

any disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. In 

fact, the population of agricultural 

workers and handlers that the rule seeks 

to protect is comprised primarily of 

minority and low-income individuals. 

As reviewed in Unit IV.B.3., the 

farmworker community, due to 

occupation, economic status, health, 

language and other sociodemographic 

characteristics, faces an increased risk of 

pesticide exposure which this 

rulemaking seeks to reduce through 

improving communication and 

protections. 

EPA engaged with stakeholders from 

affected communities extensively in the 

development of this rulemaking, in 

order to obtain meaningful involvement 

of all parties. EPA believes that the rule 

would improve the health of 

agricultural workers and handlers by, 

among other things, increasing the 

frequency of training, enhancing 

training content to include ways to 

minimize pesticide exposure to children 

and in the home, adding posting of 

treated areas near worker and handler 

housing to prevent accidental entry, and 

establishing a minimum age for 

pesticide handlers and early-entry 

workers. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA submitted 

a report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural worker, Employer, Farms, 

Forests, Greenhouses, Nurseries, 

Pesticide handler, Pesticides, Worker 

protection standard. 

Dated: September 28, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 170—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 170 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w. 

■ 2. Section 170.2 is added to subpart A 

to read as follows: 

§ 170.2 Implementation and expiration 

dates. 

(a) Implementation date. Beginning 

January 2, 2017, the requirements of 

§ 170.301 through § 170.609 of this part 

shall apply to any pesticide product that 

bears the statement ‘‘Use this product 

only in accordance with its labeling and 

with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 

CFR part 170’’. 

(b) Expiration date. Sections 170.1 

through 170.260 of this part shall expire 

on, and will no longer be effective after 

January 2, 2017. 

■ 3. In § 170.135, revise paragraphs (b) 

and (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 170.135 Posted pesticide safety 

information. 

* * * * * 

(b) Pesticide safety poster. A safety 

poster must be displayed that conveys, 

at a minimum, the pesticide safety 

concepts listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (vii) and (b)(2) of this section. 

Displays conforming to § 170.311(a)(3) 

meet the requirements of this paragraph. 

(c) * * * 

(1) The name, address, and telephone 

number of the nearest emergency 

medical care facility shall be on the 

safety poster or displayed close to the 

safety poster. Displays conforming to 

§ 170.311(a)(3)(ix) meet the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 170.235, revise paragraphs (b) 

and (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 170.235 Posted pesticide safety 

information. 

* * * * * 

(b) Pesticide safety poster. A safety 

poster must be displayed that conveys, 

at a minimum, the pesticide safety 

concepts listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (vii) and (b)(2) of this section. 

Displays conforming to § 170.311(a)(3) 

meet the requirements of this paragraph. 

(c) * * * 

(1) The name, address, and telephone 

number of the nearest emergency 

medical care facility shall be on the 

safety poster or displayed close to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67557 

safety poster. Displays conforming to 

§ 170.311(a)(3)(ix) meet the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Subpart D is added to part 170 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart D—General Provisions 

Sec. 

§ 170.301 Scope and purpose. 

§ 170.303 Applicability of this part. 

§ 170.305 Definitions. 

§ 170.309 Agricultural employer duties. 

§ 170.311 Display requirements for 

pesticide safety information and 

pesticide application and hazard 

information. 

§ 170.313 Commercial pesticide handler 

employer duties. 

§ 170.315 Prohibited actions. 

§ 170.317 Violations of this part. 

§ 170.301 Scope and purpose. 

This regulation is primarily intended 

to reduce the risks of illness or injury 

to workers and handlers resulting from 

occupational exposures to pesticides 

used in the production of agricultural 

plants on agricultural establishments. It 

requires agricultural employers and 

commercial pesticide handler 

employers to provide specific 

information and protections to workers, 

handlers and other persons when 

pesticides are used on agricultural 

establishments in the production of 

agricultural plants. It also requires 

handlers to wear the labeling-specified 

clothing and personal protective 

equipment when performing handler 

activities, and to take measures to 

protect workers and other persons 

during pesticide applications. 

§ 170.303 Applicability of this part. 

(a) This regulation applies whenever 

a pesticide product bearing a label 

requiring compliance with this part is 

used in the production of agricultural 

plants on an agricultural establishment, 

except as provided in paragraphs (b) 

and (c) of this section. 

(b) This regulation does not apply 

when a pesticide product bearing a label 

requiring compliance with this part is 

used on an agricultural establishment in 

any of the following circumstances: 

(1) As part of government-sponsored 

public pest control programs over which 

the owner, agricultural employer and 

handler employer have no control, such 

as mosquito abatement and 

Mediterranean fruit fly eradication 

programs. 

(2) On plants other than agricultural 

plants, which may include plants in 

home fruit and vegetable gardens and 

home greenhouses, and permanent 

plantings for ornamental purposes, such 

as plants that are in ornamental gardens, 

parks, public or private landscaping, 

lawns or other grounds that are 

intended only for aesthetic purposes or 

climatic modification. 

(3) For control of vertebrate pests, 

unless directly related to the production 

of an agricultural plant. 

(4) As attractants or repellents in 

traps. 

(5) On the harvested portions of 

agricultural plants or on harvested 

timber. 

(6) For research uses of unregistered 

pesticides. 

(7) On pasture and rangeland where 

the forage will not be harvested for hay. 

(8) In a manner not directly related to 

the production of agricultural plants, 

including, but not limited to structural 

pest control and control of vegetation in 

non-crop areas. 

(c) Where a pesticide product’s 

labeling-specific directions for use or 

other labeling requirements are 

inconsistent with requirements of this 

part, users must comply with the 

pesticide product labeling, except as 

provided for in §§ 170.601, 170.603 and 

170.607. 

§ 170.305 Definitions. 

Terms used in this part have the same 

meanings they have in the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act, as amended. In addition, the 

following terms, when used in this part, 

shall have the following meanings: 

Agricultural employer means any 

person who is an owner of, or is 

responsible for the management or 

condition of, an agricultural 

establishment, and who employs any 

worker or handler. 

Agricultural establishment means any 

farm, forest operation, or nursery 

engaged in the outdoor or enclosed 

space production of agricultural plants. 

An establishment that is not primarily 

agricultural is an agricultural 

establishment if it produces agricultural 

plants for transplant or use (in part or 

their entirety) in another location 

instead of purchasing the agricultural 

plants. 

Agricultural plant means any plant, or 

part thereof, grown, maintained, or 

otherwise produced for commercial 

purposes, including growing, 

maintaining or otherwise producing 

plants for sale or trade, for research or 

experimental purposes, or for use in 

part or their entirety in another location. 

Agricultural plant includes, but is not 

limited to, grains, fruits and vegetables; 

wood fiber or timber products; 

flowering and foliage plants and trees; 

seedlings and transplants; and turf grass 

produced for sod. Agricultural plant 

does not include pasture or rangeland 

used for grazing. 

Application exclusion zone means the 

area surrounding the application 

equipment that must be free of all 

persons other than appropriately trained 

and equipped handlers during pesticide 

applications. 

Chemigation means the application of 

pesticides through irrigation systems. 

Closed system means an engineering 

control used to protect handlers from 

pesticide exposure hazards when 

mixing and loading pesticides. 

Commercial pesticide handler 

employer means any person, other than 

an agricultural employer, who employs 

any handler to perform handler 

activities on an agricultural 

establishment. A labor contractor who 

does not provide pesticide application 

services or supervise the performance of 

handler activities, but merely employs 

laborers who perform handler activities 

at the direction of an agricultural or 

handler employer, is not a commercial 

pesticide handler employer. 

Commercial pesticide handling 

establishment means any enterprise, 

other than an agricultural establishment, 

that provides pesticide handler or crop 

advising services to agricultural 

establishments. 

Crop advisor means any person who 

is assessing pest numbers, damage, 

pesticide distribution, or the status or 

requirements of agricultural plants. 

Designated representative means any 

persons designated in writing by a 

worker or handler to exercise a right of 

access on behalf of the worker or 

handler to request and obtain a copy of 

the pesticide application and hazard 

information required by § 170.309(h) in 

accordance with § 170.311(b) of this 

part. 

Early entry means entry by a worker 

into a treated area on the agricultural 

establishment after a pesticide 

application is complete, but before any 

restricted-entry interval for the pesticide 

has expired. 

Employ means to obtain, directly or 

through a labor contractor, the services 

of a person in exchange for a salary or 

wages, including piece-rate wages, 

without regard to who may pay or who 

may receive the salary or wages. It 

includes obtaining the services of a selfemployed person, an independent 

contractor, or a person compensated by 

a third party, except that it does not 

include an agricultural employer 

obtaining the services of a handler 

through a commercial pesticide handler 

employer or a commercial pesticide 

handling establishment. 

Enclosed cab means a cab with a 

nonporous barrier that totally surrounds 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the occupant(s) of the cab and prevents 

dermal contact with pesticides that are 

being applied outside of the cab. 

Enclosed space production means 

production of an agricultural plant 

indoors or in a structure or space that 

is covered in whole or in part by any 

nonporous covering and that is large 

enough to permit a person to enter. 

Fumigant means any pesticide 

product that is a vapor or gas, or forms 

a vapor or gas upon application, and 

whose pesticidal action is achieved 

through the gaseous or vapor state. 

Hand labor means any agricultural 

activity performed by hand or with 

hand tools that causes a worker to have 

substantial contact with plants, plant 

parts, or soil and other surfaces that may 

contain pesticide residues, except that 

hand labor does not include operating, 

moving, or repairing irrigation or 

watering equipment or performing crop 

advisor tasks. 

Handler means any person, including 

a self-employed person, who is 

employed by an agricultural employer 

or commercial pesticide handler 

employer and performs any of the 

following activities: 

(1) Mixing, loading, or applying 

pesticides. 

(2) Disposing of pesticides. 

(3) Handling opened containers of 

pesticides, emptying, triple-rinsing, or 

cleaning pesticide containers according 

to pesticide product labeling 

instructions, or disposing of pesticide 

containers that have not been cleaned. 

The term does not include any person 

who is only handling unopened 

pesticide containers or pesticide 

containers that have been emptied or 

cleaned according to pesticide product 

labeling instructions. 

(4) Acting as a flagger. 

(5) Cleaning, adjusting, handling, or 

repairing the parts of mixing, loading, or 

application equipment that may contain 

pesticide residues. 

(6) Assisting with the application of 

pesticides. 

(7) Entering an enclosed space after 

the application of a pesticide and before 

the inhalation exposure level listed in 

the labeling has been reached or one of 

the ventilation criteria established by 

§ 170.405(b)(3) or the labeling has been 

met to operate ventilation equipment, 

monitor air levels, or adjust or remove 

coverings used in fumigation. 

(8) Entering a treated area outdoors 

after application of any soil fumigant 

during the labeling-specified entryrestricted period to adjust or remove 

coverings used in fumigation. 

(9) Performing tasks as a crop advisor 

during any pesticide application or 

restricted-entry interval, or before the 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or one of the ventilation criteria 

established by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling has been met. 

Handler employer means any person 

who is self-employed as a handler or 

who employs any handler. 

Immediate family is limited to the 

spouse, parents, stepparents, foster 

parents, father-in-law, mother-in-law, 

children, stepchildren, foster children, 

sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, 

grandparents, grandchildren, brothers, 

sisters, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, 

aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and first 

cousins. ‘‘First cousin’’ means the child 

of a parent’s sibling, i.e., the child of an 

aunt or uncle. 

Labor contractor means a person, 

other than a commercial pesticide 

handler employer, who employs 

workers or handlers to perform tasks on 

an agricultural establishment for an 

agricultural employer or a commercial 

pesticide handler employer. 

Outdoor production means 

production of an agricultural plant in an 

outside area that is not enclosed or 

covered in any way that would obstruct 

the natural air flow. 

Owner means any person who has a 

present possessory interest (e.g., fee, 

leasehold, rental, or other) in an 

agricultural establishment. A person 

who has both leased such agricultural 

establishment to another person and 

granted that same person the right and 

full authority to manage and govern the 

use of such agricultural establishment is 

not an owner for purposes of this part. 

Personal protective equipment means 

devices and apparel that are worn to 

protect the body from contact with 

pesticides or pesticide residues, 

including, but not limited to, coveralls, 

chemical-resistant suits, chemicalresistant gloves, chemical-resistant 

footwear, respirators, chemical-resistant 

aprons, chemical-resistant headgear, 

and protective eyewear. 

Restricted-entry interval means the 

time after the end of a pesticide 

application during which entry into the 

treated area is restricted. 

Safety data sheet has the same 

meaning as the definition at 29 CFR 

1900.1200(c). 

Treated area means any area to which 

a pesticide is being directed or has been 

directed. 

Use, as in ‘‘to use a pesticide’’ means 

any of the following: 

(1) Pre-application activities, 

including, but not limited to: 

(i) Arranging for the application of the 

pesticide. 

(ii) Mixing and loading the pesticide. 

(iii) Making necessary preparations 

for the application of the pesticide, 

including responsibilities related to 

worker notification, training of workers 

or handlers, providing decontamination 

supplies, providing pesticide safety 

information and pesticide application 

and hazard information, use and care of 

personal protective equipment, 

providing emergency assistance, and 

heat stress management. 

(2) Application of the pesticide. 

(3) Post-application activities 

intended to reduce the risks of illness 

and injury resulting from handlers’ and 

workers’ occupational exposures to 

pesticide residues during and after the 

restricted-entry interval, including 

responsibilities related to worker 

notification, training of workers or 

early-entry workers, providing 

decontamination supplies, providing 

pesticide safety information and 

pesticide application and hazard 

information, use and care of personal 

protective equipment, providing 

emergency assistance, and heat stress 

management. 

(4) Other pesticide-related activities, 

including, but not limited to, 

transporting or storing pesticides that 

have been opened, cleaning equipment, 

and disposing of excess pesticides, 

spray mix, equipment wash waters, 

pesticide containers, and other 

pesticide-containing materials. 

Worker means any person, including 

a self-employed person, who is 

employed and performs activities 

directly relating to the production of 

agricultural plants on an agricultural 

establishment. 

Worker housing area means any place 

or area of land on or near an agricultural 

establishment where housing or space 

for housing is provided for workers or 

handlers by an agricultural employer, 

owner, labor contractor, or any other 

person responsible for the recruitment 

or employment of agricultural workers. 

§ 170.309 Agricultural employer duties. 

Agricultural employers must: 

(a) Ensure that any pesticide is used 

in a manner consistent with the 

pesticide product labeling, including 

the requirements of this part, when 

applied on the agricultural 

establishment. 

(b) Ensure that each worker and 

handler subject to this part receives the 

protections required by this part. 

(c) Ensure that any handler and any 

early entry worker is at least 18 years 

old. 

(d) Provide to each person, including 

labor contractors, who supervises any 

workers or handlers information and 

directions sufficient to ensure that each 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67559 

worker and handler receives the 

protections required by this part. Such 

information and directions must specify 

the tasks for which the supervisor is 

responsible in order to comply with the 

provisions of this part. 

(e) Require each person, including 

labor contractors, who supervises any 

workers or handlers to provide 

sufficient information and directions to 

each worker and handler to ensure that 

they can comply with the provisions of 

this part. 

(f) Provide emergency assistance in 

accordance with this paragraph. If there 

is reason to believe that a worker or 

handler has experienced a potential 

pesticide exposure during his or her 

employment on the agricultural 

establishment or shows symptoms 

similar to those associated with acute 

exposure to pesticides during or within 

72 hours after his or her employment on 

the agricultural establishment, and 

needs emergency medical treatment, the 

agricultural employer must do all of the 

following promptly after learning of the 

possible poisoning or injury: 

(1) Make available to that person 

transportation from the agricultural 

establishment, including any worker 

housing area on the establishment, to an 

operating medical care facility capable 

of providing emergency medical 

treatment to a person exposed to 

pesticides. 

(2) Provide all of the following 

information to the treating medical 

personnel: 

(i) Copies of the applicable safety data 

sheet(s) and the product name(s), EPA 

registration number(s) and active 

ingredient(s) for each pesticide product 

to which the person may have been 

exposed. 

(ii) The circumstances of application 

or use of the pesticide on the 

agricultural establishment. 

(iii) The circumstances that could 

have resulted in exposure to the 

pesticide. 

(g) Ensure that workers or other 

persons employed by the agricultural 

establishment do not clean, repair, or 

adjust pesticide application equipment, 

unless trained as a handler under 

§ 170.501. Before allowing any person 

not directly employed by the 

agricultural establishment to clean, 

repair, or adjust equipment that has 

been used to mix, load, transfer, or 

apply pesticides, the agricultural 

employer must provide all of the 

following information to such person: 

(1) Pesticide application equipment 

may be contaminated with pesticides. 

(2) The potentially harmful effects of 

exposure to pesticides. 

(3) Procedures for handling pesticide 

application equipment and for limiting 

exposure to pesticide residues. 

(4) Personal hygiene practices and 

decontamination procedures for 

preventing pesticide exposures and 

removing pesticide residues. 

(h) Display, maintain, and provide 

access to pesticide safety information 

and pesticide application and hazard 

information in accordance with 

§ 170.311 if workers or handlers are on 

the establishment and within the last 30 

days a pesticide product has been used 

or a restricted-entry interval for such 

pesticide has been in effect on the 

establishment. 

(i) Ensure that before a handler uses 

any equipment for mixing, loading, 

transferring, or applying pesticides, the 

handler is instructed in the safe 

operation of such equipment. 

(j) Ensure that before each day of use, 

equipment used for mixing, loading, 

transferring, or applying pesticides is 

inspected for leaks, clogging, and worn 

or damaged parts, and any damaged 

equipment is repaired or replaced. 

(k) Ensure that whenever handlers 

employed by a commercial pesticide 

handling establishment will be on an 

agricultural establishment, the handler 

employer is provided information about, 

or is aware of, the specific location and 

description of any treated areas on the 

agricultural establishment where a 

restricted-entry interval is in effect that 

the handler may be in (or may walk 

within 1⁄4 mile of), and any restrictions 

on entering those areas. 

(l) Ensure that workers do not enter 

any area on the agricultural 

establishment where a pesticide has 

been applied until the applicable 

pesticide application and hazard 

information for each pesticide product 

applied to that area is displayed in 

accordance with § 170.311(b), and until 

after the restricted-entry interval has 

expired and all treated area warning 

signs have been removed or covered, 

except for entry permitted by § 170.603 

of this part. 

(m) Provide any records or other 

information required by this part for 

inspection and copying upon request by 

an employee of EPA or any duly 

authorized representative of a Federal, 

State or Tribal government agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

§ 170.311 Display requirements for 

pesticide safety information and pesticide 

application and hazard information. 

(a) Display of Pesticide Safety 

Information. Whenever pesticide safety 

information and pesticide application 

and hazard information are required to 

be provided under § 170.309(h), 

pesticide safety information must be 

displayed in accordance with this 

paragraph. 

(1) General. The pesticide safety 

information must be conveyed in a 

manner that workers and handlers can 

understand. 

(2) Content prior to January 1, 2018. 

Prior to January 1, 2018, the safety 

information must include all of the 

following points: 

(i) Help keep pesticides from entering 

your body. Avoid getting on your skin 

or into your body any pesticides that 

may be on plants and soil, in irrigation 

water, or drifting from nearby 

applications. 

(ii) Wash before eating, drinking, 

using chewing gum or tobacco, or using 

the toilet. 

(iii) Wear work clothing that protects 

the body from pesticide residues (longsleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and 

socks, and a hat or scarf). 

(iv) Wash or shower with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and put on clean 

clothes after work. 

(v) Wash work clothes separately from 

other clothes before wearing them again. 

(vi) Wash immediately in the nearest 

clean water if pesticides are spilled or 

sprayed on the body. As soon as 

possible, shower, shampoo, and change 

into clean clothes. 

(vii) Follow directions about keeping 

out of treated or restricted areas. 

(viii) The name, address, and 

telephone number of a nearby operating 

medical care facility capable of 

providing emergency medical treatment. 

This information must be clearly 

identified as emergency medical contact 

information on the display. 

(ix) There are Federal rules to protect 

workers and handlers, including a 

requirement for safety training. 

(3) Content after January 1, 2018. 

After January 1, 2018, the pesticide 

safety information must include all of 

the points in § 170.311(a)(3)(i)–(x) 

instead of the points listed in 

§ 170.311(a)(2)(i)–(ix). 

(i) Avoid getting on the skin or into 

the body any pesticides that may be on 

or in plants, soil, irrigation water, 

tractors, and other equipment, on used 

personal protective equipment, or 

drifting from nearby applications. 

(ii) Wash before eating, drinking, 

using chewing gum or tobacco, or using 

the toilet. 

(iii) Wear work clothing that protects 

the body from pesticide residues (longsleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and 

socks, and a hat or scarf). 

(iv) Wash or shower with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and put on clean 

clothes after work. 

(v) Wash work clothes separately from 

other clothes before wearing them again. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67560 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(vi) If pesticides are spilled or sprayed 

on the body use decontamination 

supplies to wash immediately, or rinse 

off in the nearest clean water, including 

springs, streams, lakes or other sources 

if more readily available than 

decontamination supplies, and as soon 

as possible, wash or shower with soap 

and water, shampoo hair, and change 

into clean clothes. 

(vii) Follow directions about keeping 

out of treated areas and application 

exclusion zones. 

(viii) Instructions to employees to 

seek medical attention as soon as 

possible if they believe they have been 

poisoned, injured or made ill by 

pesticides. 

(ix) The name, address, and telephone 

number of a nearby operating medical 

care facility capable of providing 

emergency medical treatment. This 

information must be clearly identified 

as emergency medical contact 

information on the display. 

(x) The name, address and telephone 

number of the State or Tribal pesticide 

regulatory agency. 

(4) Changes to pesticide safety 

information. The agricultural employer 

must update the pesticide safety 

information display within 24 hours of 

notice of any changes to the information 

required in §§ 170.311(a)(2)(viii) or 

170.311(a)(3)(ix). 

(5) Location. The pesticide safety 

information must be displayed at each 

of the following sites on the agricultural 

establishment: 

(i) The site selected pursuant to 

§ 170.311(b)(2) for display of pesticide 

application and hazard information. 

(ii) Anywhere that decontamination 

supplies must be provided on the 

agricultural establishment pursuant to 

§§ 170.411, 170.509 or 170.605, but only 

when the decontamination supplies are 

located at permanent sites or being 

provided at locations and in quantities 

to meet the requirements for 11 or more 

workers or handlers. 

(6) Accessibility. When pesticide 

safety information is required to be 

displayed, workers and handlers must 

be allowed access to the pesticide safety 

information at all times during normal 

work hours. 

(7) Legibility. The pesticide safety 

information must remain legible at all 

times when the information is required 

to be displayed. 

(b) Keeping and displaying pesticide 

application and hazard information. 

Whenever pesticide safety information 

and pesticide application and hazard 

information is required to be provided 

under § 170.309(h), pesticide 

application and hazard information for 

any pesticides that are used on the 

agricultural establishment must be 

displayed, retained, and made 

accessible in accordance with this 

paragraph. 

(1) Content. The pesticide application 

and hazard information must include all 

of the following information for each 

pesticide product applied: 

(i) A copy of the safety data sheet. 

(ii) The name, EPA registration 

number, and active ingredient(s) of the 

pesticide product. 

(iii) The crop or site treated and the 

location and description of the treated 

area. 

(iv) The date(s) and times the 

application started and ended. 

(v) The duration of the applicable 

labeling-specified restricted-entry 

interval for that application. 

(2) Location. The pesticide 

application and hazard information 

must be displayed at a place on the 

agricultural establishment where 

workers and handlers are likely to pass 

by or congregate and where it can be 

readily seen and read. 

(3) Accessibility. When the pesticide 

application and hazard information is 

required to be displayed, workers and 

handlers must be allowed access to the 

location of the information at all times 

during normal work hours. 

(4) Legibility. The pesticide 

application and hazard information 

must remain legible at all times when 

the information is required to be 

displayed. 

(5) Timing. The pesticide application 

and hazard information for each 

pesticide product applied must be 

displayed no later than 24 hours after 

the end of the application of the 

pesticide. The pesticide application and 

hazard information must be displayed 

continuously from the beginning of the 

display period until at least 30 days 

after the end of the last applicable 

restricted-entry interval, or until 

workers or handlers are no longer on the 

establishment, whichever is earlier. 

(6) Record retention. Whenever 

pesticide safety information and 

pesticide application and hazard 

information is required to be displayed 

in accordance with this paragraph (b), 

the agricultural employer must retain 

the pesticide application and hazard 

information described in § 170.311(b)(1) 

on the agricultural establishment for 

two years after the date of expiration of 

the restricted-entry interval applicable 

to the pesticide application conducted. 

(7) Access to pesticide application 

and hazard information by a worker or 

handler. 

(i) If a person is or was employed as 

a worker or handler by an establishment 

during the period that particular 

pesticide application and hazard 

information was required to be 

displayed and retained for two years in 

accordance with §§ 170.311(b)(5) and 

170.311(b)(6), and the person requests a 

copy of such application and/or hazard 

information, or requests access to such 

application and/or hazard information 

after it is no longer required to be 

displayed, the agricultural employer 

must provide the worker or handler 

with a copy of or access to all of the 

requested information within 15 days of 

the receipt of any such request. The 

worker or handler may make the request 

orally or in writing. 

(ii) Whenever a record has been 

previously provided without cost to a 

worker or handler or their designated 

representative, the agricultural 

employer may charge reasonable, nondiscriminatory administrative costs (i.e., 

search and copying expenses but not 

including overhead expenses) for a 

request by the worker or handler for 

additional copies of the record. 

(8) Access to pesticide application 

and hazard information by treating 

medical personnel. Any treating 

medical personnel, or any person acting 

under the supervision of treating 

medical personnel, may request, orally 

or in writing, access to or a copy of any 

information required to be retained for 

two years by § 170.311(b)(6) in order to 

inform diagnosis or treatment of a 

worker or handler who was employed 

on the establishment during the period 

that the information was required to be 

displayed. The agricultural employer 

must promptly provide a copy of or 

access to all of the requested 

information applicable to the worker’s 

or handler’s time of employment on the 

establishment after receipt of the 

request. 

(9) Access to pesticide application 

and hazard information by a designated 

representative. 

(i) Any worker’s or handler’s 

designated representative may request 

access to or a copy of any information 

required to be retained for two years by 

§ 170.311(b)(6) on behalf of a worker or 

handler employed on the establishment 

during the period that the information 

was required to be displayed. The 

agricultural employer must provide 

access to or a copy of the requested 

information applicable to the worker’s 

or handler’s time of employment on the 

establishment within 15 days after 

receiving any such request, provided the 

request meets the requirements 

specified in § 170.311(b)(9)(ii). 

(ii) A request by a designated 

representative for access to or a copy of 

any pesticide application and/or hazard 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67561 

information must be in writing and 

must contain all of the following: 

(A) The name of the worker or 

handler being represented. 

(B) A description of the specific 

information being requested. The 

description should include the dates of 

employment of the worker or handler, 

the date or dates for which the records 

are requested, type of work conducted 

by the worker or handler (e.g., planting, 

harvesting, applying pesticides, mixing 

or loading pesticides) during the period 

for which the records are requested, and 

the specific application and/or hazard 

information requested. 

(C) A written statement clearly 

designating the representative to request 

pesticide application and hazard 

information on the worker’s or handler’s 

behalf, bearing the worker’s or handler’s 

printed name and signature, the date of 

the designation, and the printed name 

and contact information for the 

designated representative. 

(D) If the worker or handler requests 

that the pesticide application and/or the 

hazard information be sent, direction for 

where to send the information (e.g., 

mailing address or email address). 

(iii) If the written request from a 

designated representative contains all of 

the necessary information specified in 

§ 170.313(b)(9)(ii), the employer must 

provide a copy of or access to all of the 

requested information applicable to the 

worker’s or handler’s time of 

employment on the establishment to the 

designated representative within 15 

days of receiving the request. 

(iv) Whenever a record has been 

previously provided without cost to a 

worker or handler or their designated 

representative, the agricultural 

employer may charge reasonable, nondiscriminatory administrative costs (i.e., 

search and copying expenses but not 

including overhead expenses) for a 

request by the designated representative 

for additional copies of the record. 

§ 170.313 Commercial pesticide handler 

employer duties. 

Commercial pesticide handler 

employers must: 

(a) Ensure that any pesticide is used 

in a manner consistent with the 

pesticide product labeling, including 

the requirements of this part, when 

applied on an agricultural establishment 

by a handler employed by the 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment. 

(b) Ensure each handler employed by 

the commercial pesticide handling 

establishment and subject to this part 

receives the protections required by this 

part. 

(c) Ensure that any handler employed 

by the commercial pesticide handling 

establishment is at least 18 years old. 

(d) Provide to each person, including 

labor contractors, who supervises any 

handlers employed by the commercial 

pesticide handling establishment, 

information and directions sufficient to 

ensure that each handler receives the 

protections required by this part. Such 

information and directions must specify 

the tasks for which the supervisor is 

responsible in order to comply with the 

provisions of this part. 

(e) Require each person, including 

labor contractors, who supervises any 

handlers employed by the commercial 

pesticide handling establishment, to 

provide sufficient information and 

directions to each handler to ensure that 

the handler can comply with the 

provisions of this part. 

(f) Ensure that before any handler 

employed by the commercial pesticide 

handling establishment uses any 

equipment for mixing, loading, 

transferring, or applying pesticides, the 

handler is instructed in the safe 

operation of such equipment. 

(g) Ensure that, before each day of use, 

equipment used by their employees for 

mixing, loading, transferring, or 

applying pesticides is inspected for 

leaks, obstructions, and worn or 

damaged parts, and any damaged 

equipment is repaired or is replaced. 

(h) Ensure that whenever a handler 

who is employed by a commercial 

pesticide handling establishment will be 

on an agricultural establishment, the 

handler is provided information about, 

or is aware of, the specific location and 

description of any treated areas where a 

restricted-entry interval is in effect, and 

the restrictions on entering those areas. 

(i) Provide the agricultural employer 

all of the following information before 

the application of any pesticide on an 

agricultural establishment: 

(1) Specific location(s) and 

description of the area(s) to be treated. 

(2) The date(s) and start and estimated 

end times of application. 

(3) Product name, EPA registration 

number, and active ingredient(s). 

(4) The labeling-specified restrictedentry interval applicable for the 

application. 

(5) Whether posting, oral notification 

or both are required under § 170.409. 

(6) Any restrictions or use directions 

on the pesticide product labeling that 

must be followed for protection of 

workers, handlers, or other persons 

during or after application. 

(j) If there are any changes to the 

information provided in § 170.313(i)(1), 

§ 170.313(i)(4), § 170.313(i)(5), 

§ 170.313(i)(6) or if the start time for the 

application will be earlier than 

originally forecasted or scheduled, 

ensure that the agricultural employer is 

provided updated information prior to 

the application. If there are any changes 

to any other information provided 

pursuant to § 170.313(i), the commercial 

pesticide handler employer must 

provide updated information to the 

agricultural employer within two hours 

after completing the application. 

Changes to the estimated application 

end time of less than one hour need not 

be reported to the agricultural employer. 

(k) Provide emergency assistance in 

accordance with this paragraph. If there 

is reason to believe that a handler 

employed by the commercial pesticide 

handling establishment has experienced 

a potential pesticide exposure during 

his or her employment by the 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment or shows symptoms 

similar to those associated with acute 

exposure to pesticides during or within 

72 hours after his or her employment by 

the commercial pesticide handling 

establishment, and needs emergency 

medical treatment, the commercial 

pesticide handler employer must do all 

of the following promptly after learning 

of the possible poisoning or injury: 

(1) Make available to that person 

transportation from the commercial 

pesticide handling establishment, or any 

agricultural establishment on which that 

handler may be working on behalf of the 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment, to an operating medical 

care facility capable of providing 

emergency medical treatment to a 

person exposed to pesticides. 

(2) Provide all of the following 

information to the treating medical 

personnel: 

(i) Copies of the applicable safety data 

sheet(s) and the product name(s), EPA 

registration number(s) and active 

ingredient(s) for each pesticide product 

to which the person may have been 

exposed. 

(ii) The circumstances of application 

or use of the pesticide. 

(iii) The circumstances that could 

have resulted in exposure to the 

pesticide. 

(l) Ensure that persons directly 

employed by the commercial pesticide 

handling establishment do not clean, 

repair, or adjust pesticide application 

equipment, unless trained as a handler 

under § 170.501. Before allowing any 

person not directly employed by the 

commercial pesticide handling 

establishment to clean, repair, or adjust 

equipment that has been used to mix, 

load, transfer, or apply pesticides, the 

commercial pesticide handler employer 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67562 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

must provide all of the following 

information to such persons: 

(1) Notice that the pesticide 

application equipment may be 

contaminated with pesticides. 

(2) The potentially harmful effects of 

exposure to pesticides. 

(3) Procedures for handling pesticide 

application equipment and for limiting 

exposure to pesticide residues. 

(4) Personal hygiene practices and 

decontamination procedures for 

preventing pesticide exposures and 

removing pesticide residues. 

(m) Provide any records or other 

information required by this part for 

inspection and copying upon request by 

an employee of EPA or any duly 

authorized representative of a Federal, 

State or Tribal government agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

§ 170.315 Prohibited actions. 

No agricultural employer, commercial 

pesticide handler employer, or other 

person involved in the use of a pesticide 

to which this part applies, shall 

intimidate, threaten, coerce, or 

discriminate against any worker or 

handler for complying with or 

attempting to comply with this part, or 

because the worker or handler provided, 

caused to be provided or is about to 

provide information to the employer or 

the EPA or any duly authorized 

representative of a Federal, State or 

Tribal government regarding conduct 

that the worker or handler reasonably 

believes violates this part, has made a 

complaint, testified, assisted, or 

participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing 

concerning compliance with this part, 

or has objected to, or refused to 

participate in, any activity, policy, 

practice, or assigned task that the 

worker or handler reasonably believed 

to be in violation of this part. Any such 

intimidation, threat, coercion, or 

discrimination violates FIFRA section 

12(a)(2)(G), 7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(2)(G). 

§ 170.317 Violations of this part. 

(a) Under FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), it 

is unlawful for any person ‘‘to use any 

registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling.’’ When 

this part is referenced on a label, users 

must comply with all of its 

requirements, except those that are 

inconsistent with product-specific 

instructions on the pesticide product 

labeling, except as provided for in 

§§ 170.601, 170.603 and 170.607. 

(b) A person who has a duty under 

this part, as referenced on the pesticide 

product labeling, and who fails to 

perform that duty, violates FIFRA 

section 12(a)(2)(G) and is subject to a 

civil penalty under section 14. A person 

who knowingly violates section 

12(a)(2)(G) is subject to section 14 

criminal sanctions. 

(c) FIFRA section 14(b)(4) provides 

that a person is liable for a penalty 

under FIFRA if another person 

employed by or acting for that person 

violates any provision of FIFRA. The 

term ‘‘acting for’’ includes both 

employment and contractual 

relationships, including, but not limited 

to, labor contractors. 

(d) The requirements of this part, 

including the decontamination 

requirements, must not, for the purposes 

of section 653(b)(1) of Title 29 of the 

U.S. Code, be deemed to be the exercise 

of statutory authority to prescribe or 

enforce standards or regulations 

affecting the general sanitary hazards 

addressed by the OSHA Field Sanitation 

Standard, 29 CFR 1928.110, or other 

agricultural non-pesticide hazards. 

■ 6. Subpart E is added to part 170 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart E—Requirements for 

Protection of Agricultural Workers 

Sec. 

§ 170.401 Training requirements for 

workers. 

§ 170.403 Establishment-specific 

information for workers. 

§ 170.405 Entry restrictions associated with 

pesticide applications. 

§ 170.407 Worker entry restrictions after 

pesticide applications. 

§ 170.409 Oral and posted notification of 

worker entry restrictions. 

§ 170.411 Decontamination supplies for 

workers. 

§ 170.401 Training requirements for 

workers. 

(a) General requirement. Before any 

worker performs any task in a treated 

area on an agricultural establishment 

where within the last 30 days a 

pesticide product has been used or a 

restricted-entry interval for such 

pesticide has been in effect, the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

each worker has been trained in 

accordance with this section within the 

last 12 months, except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) Exceptions. The following workers 

need not be trained under this section: 

(1) A worker who is currently 

certified as an applicator of restricted 

use pesticides under part 171 of this 

chapter. 

(2) A worker who has satisfied the 

handler training requirements in 

§ 170.501. 

(3) A worker who is certified or 

licensed as a crop advisor by a program 

acknowledged as appropriate in writing 

by EPA or the State or Tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement, 

provided that such certification or 

licensing requires pesticide safety 

training that includes all the topics in 

§ 170.501(c)(2) or § 170.501(c)(3) as 

applicable depending on the date of 

training. 

(c) Training programs. (1) Pesticide 

safety training must be presented to 

workers either orally from written 

materials or audio-visually, at a location 

that is reasonably free from distraction 

and conducive to training. All training 

materials must be EPA-approved. The 

training must be presented in a manner 

that the workers can understand, such 

as through a translator. The training 

must be conducted by a person who 

meets the worker trainer requirements 

of paragraph (c)(4) of this section, and 

who must be present during the entire 

training program and must respond to 

workers’ questions. 

(2) The training must include, at a 

minimum, all of the following topics: 

(i) Where and in what form pesticides 

may be encountered during work 

activities. 

(ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting 

from toxicity and exposure, including 

acute and chronic effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

(iii) Routes through which pesticides 

can enter the body. 

(iv) Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

(v) Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

(vi) How to obtain emergency medical 

care. 

(vii) Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures, including 

emergency eye flushing techniques. 

(viii) Hazards from chemigation and 

drift. 

(ix) Hazards from pesticide residues 

on clothing. 

(x) Warnings about taking pesticides 

or pesticide containers home. 

(xi) Requirements of this subpart 

designed to reduce the risks of illness or 

injury resulting from workers’ 

occupational exposure to pesticides, 

including application and entry 

restrictions, the design of the warning 

sign, posting of warning signs, oral 

warnings, the availability of specific 

information about applications, and the 

protection against retaliatory acts. 

(3) EPA intends to make available to 

the public training materials that may be 

used to conduct training conforming to 

the requirements of this section. Within 

180 days after a notice of availability of 

such training materials appears in the 

Federal Register, but no earlier than 

January 1, 2018, training programs 

required under this section must 

include, at a minimum, all of the topics 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67563 

listed in § 170.401(c)(3)(i)–(xxiii) 

instead of the topics listed in 

§ 170.401(c)(2)(i)–(xi). 

(i) The responsibility of agricultural 

employers to provide workers and 

handlers with information and 

protections designed to reduce workrelated pesticide exposures and 

illnesses. This includes ensuring 

workers and handlers have been trained 

on pesticide safety, providing pesticide 

safety and application and hazard 

information, decontamination supplies 

and emergency medical assistance, and 

notifying workers of restrictions during 

applications and on entering pesticide 

treated areas. A worker or handler may 

designate in writing a representative to 

request access to pesticide application 

and hazard information. 

(ii) How to recognize and understand 

the meaning of the posted warning signs 

used for notifying workers of 

restrictions on entering pesticide treated 

areas on the establishment. 

(iii) How to follow directions and/or 

signs about keeping out of pesticide 

treated areas subject to a restricted-entry 

interval and application exclusion 

zones. 

(iv) Where and in what forms 

pesticides may be encountered during 

work activities, and potential sources of 

pesticide exposure on the agricultural 

establishment. This includes exposure 

to pesticide residues that may be on or 

in plants, soil, tractors, application and 

chemigation equipment, or used 

personal protective equipment, and that 

pesticides may drift through the air from 

nearby applications or be in irrigation 

water. 

(v) Potential hazards from toxicity and 

exposure that pesticides present to 

workers and their families, including 

acute and chronic effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

(vi) Routes through which pesticides 

can enter the body. 

(vii) Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

(viii) Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

(ix) Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures, including 

emergency eye flushing techniques, and 

if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on 

the body to use decontamination 

supplies to wash immediately or rinse 

off in the nearest clean water, including 

springs, streams, lakes or other sources 

if more readily available than 

decontamination supplies, and as soon 

as possible, wash or shower with soap 

and water, shampoo hair, and change 

into clean clothes. 

(x) How and when to obtain 

emergency medical care. 

(xi) When working in pesticide 

treated areas, wear work clothing that 

protects the body from pesticide 

residues and wash hands before eating, 

drinking, using chewing gum or 

tobacco, or using the toilet. 

(xii) Wash or shower with soap and 

water, shampoo hair, and change into 

clean clothes as soon as possible after 

working in pesticide treated areas. 

(xiii) Potential hazards from pesticide 

residues on clothing. 

(xiv) Wash work clothes before 

wearing them again and wash them 

separately from other clothes. 

(xv) Do not take pesticides or 

pesticide containers used at work to 

your home. 

(xvi) Safety data sheets provide 

hazard, emergency medical treatment 

and other information about the 

pesticides used on the establishment 

they may come in contact with. The 

responsibility of agricultural employers 

to do all of the following: 

(A) Display safety data sheets for all 

pesticides used on the establishment. 

(B) Provide workers and handlers 

information about the location of the 

safety data sheets on the establishment. 

(C) Provide workers and handlers 

unimpeded access to safety data sheets 

during normal work hours. 

(xvii) The rule prohibits agricultural 

employers from allowing or directing 

any worker to mix, load or apply 

pesticides or assist in the application of 

pesticides unless the worker has been 

trained as a handler. 

(xviii) The responsibility of 

agricultural employers to provide 

specific information to workers before 

directing them to perform early-entry 

activities. Workers must be 18 years old 

to perform early-entry activities. 

(xix) Potential hazards to children and 

pregnant women from pesticide 

exposure. 

(xx) Keep children and nonworking 

family members away from pesticide 

treated areas. 

(xxi) After working in pesticide 

treated areas, remove work boots or 

shoes before entering your home, and 

remove work clothes and wash or 

shower before physical contact with 

children or family members. 

(xxii) How to report suspected 

pesticide use violations to the State or 

Tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

(xxiii) The rule prohibits agricultural 

employers from intimidating, 

threatening, coercing, or discriminating 

against any worker or handler for 

complying with or attempting to comply 

with the requirements of this rule, or 

because the worker or handler provided, 

caused to be provided or is about to 

provide information to the employer or 

the EPA or its agents regarding conduct 

that the employee reasonably believes 

violates this part, and/or made a 

complaint, testified, assisted, or 

participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing 

concerning compliance with this rule. 

(4) The person who conducts the 

training must meet one of the following 

criteria: 

(i) Be designated as a trainer of 

certified applicators, handlers or 

workers by EPA or the State or Tribal 

agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

(ii) Have completed an EPA-approved 

pesticide safety train-the-trainer 

program for trainers of workers. 

(iii) Be currently certified as an 

applicator of restricted use pesticides 

under part 171 of this chapter. 

(d) Recordkeeping. (1) For each 

worker required to be trained under 

paragraph (a), the agricultural employer 

must maintain on the agricultural 

establishment, for two years from the 

date of the training, a record 

documenting each worker’s training 

including all of the following: 

(i) The trained worker’s printed name 

and signature. 

(ii) The date of the training. 

(iii) Information identifying which 

EPA-approved training materials were 

used. 

(iv) The trainer’s name and 

documentation showing that the trainer 

met the requirements of § 170.401(c)(4) 

at the time of training. 

(v) The agricultural employer’s name. 

(2) An agricultural employer who 

provides, directly or indirectly, training 

required under paragraph (a) must 

provide to the worker upon request a 

copy of the record of the training that 

contains the information required under 

§ 170.401(d)(1). 

§ 170.403 Establishment-specific 

information for workers. 

Before any worker performs any 

activity in a treated area on an 

agricultural establishment where within 

the last 30 days a pesticide product has 

been used, or a restricted-entry interval 

for such pesticide has been in effect, the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

the worker has been informed of, in a 

manner the worker can understand, all 

of the following establishment-specific 

information: 

(a) The location of pesticide safety 

information required by § 170.311(a). 

(b) The location of pesticide 

application and hazard information 

required by § 170.311(b). 

(c) The location of decontamination 

supplies required by § 170.411. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67564 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 170.405 Entry restrictions associated 

with pesticide applications. 

(a) Outdoor production pesticide 

applications. (1) The application 

exclusion zone is defined as follows: 

(i) The application exclusion zone is 

the area that extends 100 feet 

horizontally from the application 

equipment in all directions during 

application when the pesticide is 

applied by any of the following 

methods: 

(A) Aerially. 

(B) Air blast application. 

(C) As a spray using a spray quality 

(droplet spectrum) of smaller than 

medium (volume median diameter of 

less than 294 microns). 

(D) As a fumigant, smoke, mist, or fog. 

(ii) The application exclusion zone is 

the area that extends 25 feet 

horizontally from the application 

equipment in all directions during 

application when the pesticide is 

applied not as in § 170.405(a)(1)(i)(A)– 

(D) and is sprayed from a height of 

greater than 12 inches from the planting 

medium using a spray quality (droplet 

spectrum) of medium or larger (volume 

median diameter of 294 microns or 

greater). 

(iii) There is no application exclusion 

zone when the pesticide is applied in a 

manner other than those covered in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(2) During any outdoor production 

pesticide application, the agricultural 

employer must not allow or direct any 

worker or other person, other than an 

appropriately trained and equipped 

handler involved in the application, to 

enter or to remain in the treated area or 

an application exclusion zone that is 

within the boundaries of the 

establishment until the application is 

complete. 

(3) After the application is complete, 

the area subject to the labeling-specified 

restricted-entry interval and the postapplication entry restrictions specified 

in § 170.407 is the treated area. 

(b) Enclosed space production 

pesticide applications. (1) During any 

enclosed space production pesticide 

application described in column A of 

the Table under paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section, the agricultural employer must 

not allow or direct any worker or other 

person, other than an appropriately 

trained and equipped handler involved 

in the application, to enter or to remain 

in the area specified in column B of the 

Table under paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section during the application and until 

the time specified in column C of the 

Table under paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section has expired. 

(2) After the time specified in column 

C of the Table under paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section has expired, the area subject 

to the labeling-specified restricted-entry 

interval and the post-application entry 

restrictions specified in § 170.407 is the 

area specified in column D of the Table 

under paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

(3) When column C of the Table under 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section specifies 

that ventilation criteria must be met, 

ventilation must continue until the air 

concentration is measured to be equal to 

or less than the inhalation exposure 

level required by the labeling. If no 

inhalation exposure level is listed on 

the labeling, ventilation must continue 

until after one of the following 

conditions is met: 

(i) Ten air exchanges are completed. 

(ii) Two hours of ventilation using 

fans or other mechanical ventilating 

systems. 

(iii) Four hours of ventilation using 

vents, windows, or other passive 

ventilation. 

(iv) Eleven hours with no ventilation 

followed by one hour of mechanical 

ventilation. 

(v) Eleven hours with no ventilation 

followed by two hours of passive 

ventilation. 

(vi) Twenty-four hours with no 

ventilation. 

(4) The following Table applies to 

paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this 

section. 

TABLE—ENTRY RESTRICTIONS DURING ENCLOSED SPACE PRODUCTION PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS

A. When a pesticide is applied: 

B. Workers and other persons, 

other than appropriately trained 

and equipped handlers, are 

prohibited in: 

C. Until: 

D. After the expiration 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67565 

§ 170.407 Worker entry restrictions after 

pesticide applications. 

(a) After the application of any 

pesticide to an area of outdoor 

production, the agricultural employer 

must not allow or direct any worker to 

enter or to remain in the treated area 

before the restricted-entry interval 

specified on the pesticide product 

labeling has expired and all treated area 

warning signs have been removed or 

covered, except for early-entry activities 

permitted by § 170.603. 

(b) After the application of any 

pesticide to an area of enclosed space 

production, the agricultural employer 

must not allow or direct any worker to 

enter or to remain in the areas specified 

in column D of the Table in 

§ 170.405(b)(4), before the restrictedentry interval specified on the pesticide 

product labeling has expired and all 

treated area warning signs have been 

removed or covered, except for earlyentry activities permitted by § 170.603. 

(c) When two or more pesticides are 

applied to a treated area at the same 

time, the applicable restricted-entry 

interval is the longest of all applicable 

restricted-entry intervals. 

§ 170.409 Oral and posted notification of 

worker entry restrictions. 

(a) General Requirement. The 

agricultural employer must notify 

workers of all entry restrictions required 

by §§ 170.405 and 170.407 in 

accordance with this section. 

(1) Type of notification required—(i) 

Double notification. If the pesticide 

product labeling has a statement 

requiring both the posting of treated 

areas and oral notification to workers, 

the agricultural employer must post 

signs in accordance with paragraph (b) 

of this section and must also provide 

oral notification of the application to 

workers in accordance with paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

(ii) Outdoor production areas subject 

to restricted-entry intervals greater than 

48 hours. If a pesticide with product 

labeling that requires a restricted-entry 

interval greater than 48 hours is applied 

to an outdoor production area, the 

agricultural employer must notify 

workers of the application by posting 

warning signs in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(iii) Outdoor production areas subject 

to restricted-entry intervals equal to or 

less than 48 hours. If a pesticide with 

product labeling that requires a 

restricted-entry interval equal to or less 

than 48 hours is applied to an outdoor 

production area, the agricultural 

employer must notify workers of the 

application either by posting warning 

signs in accordance with paragraph (b) 

of this section or by providing workers 

with an oral warning in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(iv) Enclosed space production areas 

subject to restricted-entry intervals 

greater than four hours. If a pesticide 

with product labeling that requires a 

restricted-entry interval greater than 

four hours is applied to an enclosed 

space production area, the agricultural 

employer must notify workers of the 

application by posting warning signs in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(v) Enclosed space production areas 

subject to restricted-entry intervals 

equal to or less than four hours. If a 

pesticide with product labeling that 

requires a restricted-entry interval equal 

to or less than four hours is applied to 

an enclosed space production area, the 

agricultural employer must notify 

workers of the application either by 

posting warning signs in accordance 

with paragraph (b) of this section or by 

providing workers with an oral warning 

in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(2) Exceptions. Notification does not 

need to be given to a worker if the 

agricultural employer can ensure that 

one of the following is met: 

(i) From the start of the application in 

an enclosed space production area until 

the end of any restricted-entry interval, 

the worker will not enter any part of the 

entire enclosed structure or space. 

(ii) From the start of the application 

to an outdoor production area until the 

end of any restricted-entry interval, the 

worker will not enter, work in, remain 

in, or pass on foot through the treated 

area or any area within 1⁄4 mile of the 

treated area on the agricultural 

establishment. 

(iii) The worker was involved in the 

application of the pesticide as a handler, 

and is aware of all information required 

by paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(b) Requirements for posted warning 

signs. If notification by posted warning 

signs is required pursuant to paragraph 

(a) of this section, the agricultural 

employer must, unless otherwise 

prescribed by the label, ensure that all 

warning signs meet the requirements of 

this paragraph. When several 

contiguous areas are to be treated with 

pesticides on a rotating or sequential 

basis, the entire area may be posted. 

Worker entry is prohibited for the entire 

area while the signs are posted, except 

for entry permitted by § 170.603 of this 

part. 

(1) General. The warning signs must 

meet all of the following requirements: 

(i) Be one of the three sizes specified 

in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and 

comply with the posting placement and 

spacing requirements applicable to that 

sign size. 

(ii) Be posted prior to but no earlier 

than 24 hours before the scheduled 

application of the pesticide. 

(iii) Remain posted throughout the 

application and any restricted-entry 

interval. 

(iv) Be removed or covered within 

three days after the end of the 

application or any restricted-entry 

interval, whichever is later, except that 

signs may remain posted after the 

restricted-entry interval has expired as 

long as all of the following conditions 

are met: 

(A) The agricultural employer 

instructs any workers on the 

establishment that may come within 1⁄4

mile of the treated area not to enter that 

treated area while the signs are posted. 

(B) The agricultural employer ensures 

that workers do not enter the treated 

area while the signs remain posted, 

other than entry permitted by § 170.603 

of this part. 

(v) Remain visible and legible during 

the time they are required to be posted. 

(2) Content. (i) The warning sign must 

have a white background. The words 

‘‘DANGER’’ and ‘‘PELIGRO,’’ plus 

‘‘PESTICIDES’’ and ‘‘PESTICIDAS,’’ 

must be at the top of the sign, and the 

words ‘‘KEEP OUT’’ and ‘‘NO ENTRE’’ 

must be at the bottom of the sign. Letters 

for all words must be clearly legible. A 

circle containing an upraised hand on 

the left and a stern face on the right 

must be near the center of the sign. The 

inside of the circle must be red, except 

that the hand and a large portion of the 

face must be in white. The length of the 

hand must be at least twice the height 

of the smallest letters. The length of the 

face must be only slightly smaller than 

the hand. Additional information such 

as the name of the pesticide and the 

date of application may appear on the 

warning sign if it does not detract from 

the size and appearance of the sign or 

change the meaning of the required 

information. An example of a warning 

sign meeting these requirements, other 

than the size and color requirements, 

follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67566 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) The agricultural employer may 

replace the Spanish language portion of 

the warning sign with equivalent terms 

in an alternative non-English language if 

that alternative language is the language 

read by the largest group of workers at 

that agricultural establishment who do 

not read English. The alternative 

language sign must be in the same 

format as the original sign and conform 

to all other requirements of paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) of this section. 

(3) Size and posting. (i) The standard 

sign must be at least 14 inches by 16 

inches with letters at least one inch in 

height. 

(ii) When posting an outdoor 

production area using the standard sign, 

the signs must be visible from all 

reasonably expected points of worker 

entry to the treated area, including at 

least each access road, each border with 

any worker housing area within 100 feet 

of the treated area and each footpath 

and other walking route that enters the 

treated area. Where there are no 

reasonably expected points of worker 

entry, signs must be posted in the 

corners of the treated area or in any 

other location affording maximum 

visibility. 

(iii) When posting an enclosed space 

production area using the standard sign 

and the entire structure or space is 

subject to the labeling-specified 

restricted-entry interval and the postapplication entry restrictions specified 

in § 170.407, the signs must be posted 

so they are visible from all reasonably 

expected points of worker entry to the 

structure or space. When posting treated 

areas in enclosed space production 

using the standard sign and the treated 

area only comprises a subsection of the 

structure or space, the signs must be 

posted so they are visible from all 

reasonably expected points of worker 

entry to the treated area including each 

aisle or other walking route that enters 

the treated area. Where there are no 

reasonably expected points of worker 

entry to the treated area, signs must be 

posted in the corners of the treated area 

or in any other location affording 

maximum visibility. 

(iv) If a smaller warning sign is used 

with ‘‘DANGER’’ and ‘‘PELIGRO’’ in 

letters at least 7/8 inch in height and the 

remaining letters at least 1/2 inch in 

height and a red circle at least three 

inches in diameter containing an 

upraised hand and a stern face, the signs 

must be posted no farther than 50 feet 

apart around the perimeter of the treated 

area in addition to the locations 

specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) or 

(b)(3)(iii) of this section. 

(v) If a smaller sign is used with 

‘‘DANGER’’ and ‘‘PELIGRO’’ in letters at 

least 7/16 inch in height and the 

remaining letters at least 1/4 inch in 

height and a red circle at least one and 

a half inches in diameter containing an 

upraised hand and a stern face, the signs 

must be posted no farther than 25 feet 

apart around the perimeter of the treated 

area in addition to the locations 

specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) or 

(b)(3)(iii) of this section. 

(vi) A sign with ‘‘DANGER’’ and 

‘‘PELIGRO’’ in letters less than 7/16 

inch in height or with any words in 

letters less than 1/4 inch in height or a 

red circle smaller than one and a half 

inches in diameter containing an 

upraised hand and a stern face will not 

satisfy the requirements of the rule. 

(c) Oral warnings—Requirement. If 

oral notification is required pursuant to 

paragraph (a) of this section, the 

agricultural employer must provide oral 

warnings to workers in a manner that 

the workers can understand. If a worker 

will be on the establishment when an 

application begins, the warning must be 

given before the application begins. If a 

worker arrives on the establishment 

while an application is taking place or 

a restricted-entry interval for a pesticide 

application is in effect, the warning 

must be given at the beginning of the 

worker’s work period. The warning 

must include all of the following: 

(1) The location(s) and description of 

any treated area(s) subject to the entry 

restrictions during and after application 

specified in §§ 170.405 and 170.407. 

(2) The dates and times during which 

entry is restricted in any treated area(s) 

subject to the entry restrictions during 

and after application specified in 

§§ 170.405 and 170.407. 

(3) Instructions not to enter the 

treated area or an application exclusion 

zone during application, and that entry 

to the treated area is not allowed until 

the restricted-entry interval has expired 

and all treated area warning signs have 

been removed or covered, except for 

entry permitted by § 170.603 of this 

part. 

§ 170.411 Decontamination supplies for 

workers. 

(a) Requirement. The agricultural 

employer must provide 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER02NO15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67567 

decontamination supplies for routine 

washing and emergency 

decontamination in accordance with 

this section for any worker on an 

agricultural establishment who is 

performing an activity in an area where 

a pesticide was applied and who 

contacts anything that has been treated 

with the pesticide, including, but not 

limited to, soil, water, and plants. (b) Materials and quantities. The 

decontamination supplies required in 

paragraph (a) of this section must 

include at least 1 gallon of water per 

worker at the beginning of each worker’s 

work period for routine washing and 

emergency decontamination, soap, and 

single-use towels. The supplies must 

meet all of the following requirements: (1) Water. At all times when this part 

requires agricultural employers to make 

water available to workers, the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

it is of a quality and temperature that 

will not cause illness or injury when it 

contacts the skin or eyes or if it is 

swallowed. If a water source is used for 

mixing pesticides, it must not be used 

for decontamination, unless equipped 

with properly functioning valves or 

other mechanisms that prevent 

contamination of the water with 

pesticides, such as anti-backflow 

siphons, one-way or check valves, or an 

air gap sufficient to prevent 

contamination. 

(2) Soap and single-use towels. The 

agricultural employer must provide 

soap and single-use towels for drying in 

quantities sufficient to meet the 

workers’ reasonable needs. Hand 

sanitizing gels and liquids or wet 

towelettes do not meet the requirement 

for soap. Wet towelettes do not meet the 

requirement for single-use towels. (c) Timing. (1) If any pesticide with a 

restricted-entry interval greater than 

four hours was applied, the 

decontamination supplies must be 

provided from the time workers first 

enter the treated area until at least 30 

days after the restricted-entry interval 

expires. (2) If the only pesticides applied in 

the treated area are products with 

restricted-entry intervals of four hours 

or less, the decontamination supplies 

must be provided from the time workers 

first enter the treated area until at least 

seven days after the restricted-entry 

interval expires. (d) Location. The decontamination 

supplies must be located together 

outside any treated area or area subject 

to a restricted-entry interval, and must 

be reasonably accessible to the workers. 

The decontamination supplies must not 

be more than 1/4 mile from where 

workers are working, except that where 

workers are working more than 1/4 mile 

from the nearest place of vehicular 

access or more than 1/4 mile from any 

non-treated area, the decontamination 

supplies may be at the nearest place of 

vehicular access outside any treated 

area or area subject to a restricted-entry 

interval. 

■ 7. Subpart F is added to part 170 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart F—Requirements for 

Protection of Agricultural Pesticide 

Handlers 

Sec. 

§ 170.501 Training requirements for 

handlers. 

§ 170.503 Knowledge of labeling, 

application-specific, and establishmentspecific information for handlers. 

§ 170.505 Requirements during applications 

to protect handlers, workers, and other 

persons. 

§ 170.507 Personal protective equipment. 

§ 170.509 Decontamination and eye 

flushing supplies for handlers. 

§ 170.501 Training requirements for 

handlers. 

(a) General requirement. Before any 

handler performs any handler activity 

involving a pesticide product, the 

handler employer must ensure that the 

handler has been trained in accordance 

with this section within the last 12 

months, except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) Exceptions. The following 

handlers need not be trained under this 

section: 

(1) A handler who is currently 

certified as an applicator of restricted 

use pesticides under part 171 of this 

chapter. 

(2) A handler who is certified or 

licensed as a crop advisor by a program 

acknowledged as appropriate in writing 

by EPA or the State or Tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement, 

provided that a requirement for such 

certification or licensing is pesticide 

safety training that includes all the 

topics set out in § 170.501(c)(2) or 

§ 170.501(c)(3) as applicable depending 

on the date of training. 

(c) Training programs. (1) Pesticide 

safety training must be presented to 

handlers either orally from written 

materials or audio-visually, at a location 

that is reasonably free from distraction 

and conducive to training. All training 

materials must be EPA-approved. The 

training must be presented in a manner 

that the handlers can understand, such 

as through a translator. The training 

must be conducted by a person who 

meets the handler trainer requirements 

of paragraph (c)(4) of this section, and 

who must be present during the entire 

training program and must respond to 

handlers’ questions. 

(2) The pesticide safety training 

materials must include, at a minimum, 

all of the following topics: 

(i) Format and meaning of information 

contained on pesticide labels and in 

labeling, including safety information 

such as precautionary statements about 

human health hazards. 

(ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting 

from toxicity and exposure, including 

acute and chronic effects, delayed 

effects, and sensitization. 

(iii) Routes by which pesticides can 

enter the body. 

(iv) Signs and symptoms of common 

types of pesticide poisoning. 

(v) Emergency first aid for pesticide 

injuries or poisonings. 

(vi) How to obtain emergency medical 

care. 

(vii) Routine and emergency 

decontamination procedures. 

(viii) Need for and appropriate use of 

personal protective equipment. 

(ix) Prevention, recognition, and first 

aid treatment of heat-related illness. 

(x) Safety requirements for handling, 

transporting, storing, and disposing of 

pesticides, including general procedures 

for spill cleanup. 

(xi) Environmental concerns such as 

drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

(xii) Warnings about taking pesticides 

or pesticide containers home. 

(xiii) Requirements of this subpart 

that must be followed by handler 

employers for the protection of handlers 

and other persons, including the 

prohibition against applying pesticides 

in a manner that will cause contact with 

workers or other persons, the 

requirement to use personal protective 

equipment, the provisions for training 

and decontamination, and the 

protection against retaliatory acts. 

(3) EPA intends to make available to 

the public training materials that may be 

used to conduct training conforming to 

the requirements of this section. Within 

180 days after a notice of availability of 

such training materials appears in the 

Federal Register, but no earlier than 

January 1, 2018, training programs 

required under this section must 

include, at a minimum, all of the topics 

listed in § 170.501(c)(3)(i)–(xiv) instead 

of the points listed in § 170.501(c)(2)(i)– 

(xiii). 

(i) All the topics required by 

§ 170.401(c)(3). 

(ii) Information on proper application 

and use of pesticides. 

(iii) Handlers must follow the 

portions of the labeling applicable to the 

safe use of the pesticide. 

(iv) Format and meaning of 

information contained on pesticide 

labels and in labeling applicable to the 

safe use of the pesticide. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67568 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(v) Need for and appropriate use and 

removal of all personal protective 

equipment. 

(vi) How to recognize, prevent, and 

provide first aid treatment for heatrelated illness. 

(vii) Safety requirements for handling, 

transporting, storing, and disposing of 

pesticides, including general procedures 

for spill cleanup. 

(viii) Environmental concerns, such as 

drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. 

(ix) Handlers must not apply 

pesticides in a manner that results in 

contact with workers or other persons. 

(x) The responsibility of handler 

employers to provide handlers with 

information and protections designed to 

reduce work-related pesticide exposures 

and illnesses. This includes providing, 

cleaning, maintaining, storing, and 

ensuring proper use of all required 

personal protective equipment; 

providing decontamination supplies; 

and providing specific information 

about pesticide use and labeling 

information. 

(xi) Handlers must suspend a 

pesticide application if workers or other 

persons are in the application exclusion 

zone. 

(xii) Handlers must be at least 18 

years old. 

(xiii) The responsibility of handler 

employers to ensure handlers have 

received respirator fit-testing, training 

and medical evaluation if they are 

required to wear a respirator by the 

product labeling. 

(xiv) The responsibility of agricultural 

employers to post treated areas as 

required by this rule. 

(4) The person who conducts the 

training must have one of the following 

qualifications: 

(i) Be designated as a trainer of 

certified applicators or pesticide 

handlers by EPA or the State or Tribal 

agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

(ii) Have completed an EPA-approved 

pesticide safety train-the-trainer 

program for trainers of handlers. 

(iii) Be currently certified as an 

applicator of restricted use pesticides 

under part 171 of this chapter. 

(d) Recordkeeping. (1) Handler 

employers must maintain records of 

training for handlers employed by their 

establishment for two years after the 

date of the training. The records must be 

maintained on the establishment and 

must include all of the following 

information: 

(i) The trained handler’s printed name 

and signature. 

(ii) The date of the training. 

(iii) Information identifying which 

EPA-approved training materials were 

used. 

(iv) The trainer’s name and 

documentation showing that the trainer 

met the requirements of § 170.501(c)(4) 

at the time of training. 

(v) The handler employer’s name. 

(2) The handler employer must, upon 

request by a handler trained on the 

establishment, provide to the handler a 

copy of the record of the training that 

contains the information required under 

§ 170.501(d)(1). 

§ 170.503 Knowledge of labeling, 

application-specific, and establishmentspecific information for handlers. 

(a) Knowledge of labeling and 

application-specific information. (1) 

The handler employer must ensure that 

before any handler performs any 

handler activity involving a pesticide 

product, the handler either has read the 

portions of the labeling applicable to the 

safe use of the pesticide or has been 

informed in a manner the handler can 

understand of all labeling requirements 

and use directions applicable to the safe 

use of the pesticide. 

(2) The handler employer must ensure 

that the handler has access to the 

applicable product labeling at all times 

during handler activities. 

(3) The handler employer must ensure 

that the handler is aware of 

requirements for any entry restrictions, 

application exclusion zones and 

restricted-entry intervals as described in 

§§ 170.405 and 170.407 that may apply 

based on the handler’s activity. 

(b) Knowledge of establishmentspecific information. Before any handler 

performs any handler activity on an 

agricultural establishment where within 

the last 30 days a pesticide product has 

been used, or a restricted-entry interval 

for such pesticide has been in effect, the 

handler employer must ensure that the 

handler has been informed, in a manner 

the handler can understand, all of the 

following establishment-specific 

information: 

(1) The location of pesticide safety 

information required by § 170.311(a). 

(2) The location of pesticide 

application and hazard information 

required by § 170.311(b). 

(3) The location of decontamination 

supplies required by § 170.509. 

§ 170.505 Requirements during 

applications to protect handlers, workers, 

and other persons. 

(a) Prohibition from contacting 

workers and other persons with 

pesticides during application. The 

handler employer and the handler must 

ensure that no pesticide is applied so as 

to contact, directly or through drift, any 

worker or other person, other than an 

appropriately trained and equipped 

handler involved in the application. 

(b) Suspending applications. After 

January 1, 2018, the handler performing 

the application must immediately 

suspend a pesticide application if any 

worker or other person, other than an 

appropriately trained and equipped 

handler involved in the application, is 

in the application exclusion zone 

described in § 170.405(a)(1) or the area 

specified in column B of the Table in 

§ 170.405(b)(4). 

(c) Handlers using highly toxic 

pesticides. The handler employer must 

ensure that any handler who is 

performing any handler activity with a 

pesticide product that has the skull-andcrossbones symbol on the front panel of 

the pesticide product label is monitored 

visually or by voice communication at 

least every two hours. 

(d) Fumigant applications in enclosed 

space production. The handler 

employer must ensure all of the 

following: 

(1) Any handler in an enclosed space 

production area during a fumigant 

application maintains continuous visual 

or voice contact with another handler 

stationed immediately outside of the 

enclosed space. 

(2) The handler stationed outside the 

enclosed space has immediate access to 

and uses the personal protective 

equipment required by the fumigant 

labeling for applicators in the event that 

entry becomes necessary for rescue. 

§ 170.507 Personal protective equipment. 

(a) Handler responsibilities. Any 

person who performs handler activities 

involving a pesticide product must use 

the clothing and personal protective 

equipment specified on the pesticide 

product labeling for use of the product, 

except as provided in § 170.607 of this 

part. 

(b) Employer responsibilities for 

providing personal protective 

equipment. The handler employer must 

provide to the handler the personal 

protective equipment required by the 

pesticide product labeling in accordance 

with this section. The handler employer 

must ensure that the personal protective 

equipment is clean and in proper 

operating condition. For the purposes of 

this section, long-sleeved shirts, shortsleeved shirts, long pants, short pants, 

shoes, and socks are not considered 

personal protective equipment, although 

such work clothing must be worn if 

required by the pesticide product 

labeling. 

(1) If the pesticide product labeling 

requires that ‘‘chemical-resistant’’ 

personal protective equipment be worn, 

it must be made of material that allows 

no measurable movement of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67569 

pesticide being used through the 

material during use. 

(2) If the pesticide product labeling 

requires that ‘‘waterproof’’ personal 

protective equipment be worn, it must 

be made of material that allows no 

measurable movement of water or 

aqueous solutions through the material 

during use. 

(3) If the pesticide product labeling 

requires that a ‘‘chemical-resistant suit’’ 

be worn, it must be a loose-fitting, oneor two-piece chemical-resistant garment 

that covers, at a minimum, the entire 

body except head, hands, and feet. 

(4) If the pesticide product labeling 

requires that ‘‘coveralls’’ be worn, they 

must be loose-fitting, one- or two-piece 

garments that cover, at a minimum, the 

entire body except head, hands, and 

feet. 

(5) Gloves must be the type specified 

on the pesticide product labeling. 

(i) Gloves made of leather, cotton, or 

other absorbent materials may not be 

worn while performing handler 

activities unless gloves made of these 

materials are listed as acceptable for 

such use on the pesticide product 

labeling. 

(ii) Separable glove liners may be 

worn beneath chemical-resistant gloves, 

unless the pesticide product labeling 

specifically prohibits their use. 

Separable glove liners are defined as 

separate glove-like hand coverings, 

made of lightweight material, with or 

without fingers. Work gloves made from 

lightweight cotton or poly-type material 

are considered to be glove liners if worn 

beneath chemical-resistant gloves. 

Separable glove liners may not extend 

outside the chemical-resistant gloves 

under which they are worn. Chemicalresistant gloves with non-separable 

absorbent lining materials are 

prohibited. 

(iii) If used, separable glove liners 

must be discarded immediately after a 

total of no more than 10 hours of use or 

within 24 hours of when first put on, 

whichever comes first. The liners must 

be replaced immediately if directly 

contacted by pesticide. Used glove 

liners must not be reused. Contaminated 

liners must be disposed of in 

accordance with any Federal, State, or 

local regulations. 

(6) If the pesticide product labeling 

requires that ‘‘chemical-resistant 

footwear’’ be worn, one of the following 

types of footwear must be worn: 

(i) Chemical-resistant shoes. 

(ii) Chemical-resistant boots. 

(iii) Chemical-resistant shoe coverings 

worn over shoes or boots. 

(7) If the pesticide product labeling 

requires that ‘‘protective eyewear’’ be 

worn, one of the following types of 

eyewear must be worn: 

(i) Goggles. 

(ii) Face shield. 

(iii) Safety glasses with front, brow, 

and temple protection. 

(iv) Full-face respirator. 

(8) If the pesticide product labeling 

requires that a ‘‘chemical-resistant 

apron’’ be worn, a chemical-resistant 

apron that covers the front of the body 

from mid-chest to the knees must be 

worn. 

(9) If the pesticide product labeling 

requires that ‘‘chemical-resistant 

headgear’’ be worn, it must be either a 

chemical-resistant hood or a chemicalresistant hat with a wide brim. 

(10) The respirator specified by the 

pesticide product labeling must be used. 

Whenever a respirator is required by the 

pesticide product labeling, the handler 

employer must ensure that the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(10)(i) 

through (iii) of this section are met 

before the handler performs any handler 

activity where the respirator is required 

to be worn. The handler employer must 

maintain for two years, on the 

establishment, records documenting the 

completion of the requirements of 

paragraphs (b)(10)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) Handler employers must provide 

handlers with fit testing using the 

respirator specified on the pesticide 

product labeling in a manner that 

conforms to the provisions of 29 CFR 

1910.134. 

(ii) Handler employers must provide 

handlers with training in the use of the 

respirator specified on the pesticide 

product labeling in a manner that 

conforms to the provisions of 29 CFR 

1910.134(k)(1)(i) through(vi). 

(iii) Handler employers must provide 

handlers with a medical evaluation by 

a physician or other licensed health care 

professional that conforms to the 

provisions of 29 CFR 1910.134 to ensure 

the handler’s physical ability to safely 

wear the respirator specified on the 

pesticide product labeling. 

(c) Use of personal protective 

equipment. (1) The handler employer 

must ensure that personal protective 

equipment is used correctly for its 

intended purpose and is used according 

to the manufacturer’s instructions. 

(2) The handler employer must ensure 

that, before each day of use, all personal 

protective equipment is inspected for 

leaks, holes, tears, or worn places, and 

any damaged equipment is repaired or 

discarded. 

(d) Cleaning and maintenance. (1) 

The handler employer must ensure that 

all personal protective equipment is 

cleaned according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions or pesticide product 

labeling instructions before each day of 

reuse. In the absence of any such 

instructions, it must be washed 

thoroughly in detergent and hot water. 

(2) If any personal protective 

equipment cannot or will not be cleaned 

properly, the handler employer must 

ensure the contaminated personal 

protective equipment is made unusable 

as apparel or is made unavailable for 

further use by employees or third 

parties. The contaminated personal 

protective equipment must be disposed 

of in accordance with any applicable 

laws or regulations. Coveralls or other 

absorbent materials that have been 

drenched or heavily contaminated with 

a pesticide that has the signal word 

‘‘DANGER’’ or ‘‘WARNING’’ on the 

label must not be reused and must be 

disposed of as specified in this 

paragraph. Handler employers must 

ensure that any person who handles 

contaminated personal protective 

equipment described in this paragraph 

wears the gloves specified on the 

pesticide product labeling for mixing 

and loading the product(s) comprising 

the contaminant(s) on the equipment. If 

two or more pesticides are included in 

the contaminants, the gloves worn must 

meet the requirements for mixing and 

loading all of the pesticide products. 

(3) The handler employer must ensure 

that contaminated personal protective 

equipment is kept separate from noncontaminated personal protective 

equipment, other clothing or laundry 

and washed separately from any other 

clothing or laundry. 

(4) The handler employer must ensure 

that all washed personal protective 

equipment is dried thoroughly before 

being stored or reused. 

(5) The handler employer must ensure 

that all clean personal protective 

equipment is stored separately from 

personal clothing and apart from 

pesticide-contaminated areas. 

(6) The handler employer must ensure 

that when filtering facepiece respirators 

are used, they are replaced when one of 

the following conditions is met: 

(i) When breathing resistance becomes 

excessive. 

(ii) When the filter element has 

physical damage or tears. 

(iii) According to manufacturer’s 

recommendations or pesticide product 

labeling, whichever is more frequent. 

(iv) In the absence of any other 

instructions or indications of service 

life, at the end of eight hours of 

cumulative use. 

(7) The handler employer must ensure 

that when gas- or vapor-removing 

respirators are used, the gas- or vaporremoving canisters or cartridges are 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67570 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

replaced before further respirator use 

when one of the following conditions is 

met: 

(i) At the first indication of odor, 

taste, or irritation. 

(ii) When the maximum use time is 

reached as determined by a change 

schedule conforming to the provisions 

of 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 

(iii) When breathing resistance 

becomes excessive. 

(iv) When required according to 

manufacturer’s recommendations or 

pesticide product labeling instructions, 

whichever is more frequent. 

(v) In the absence of any other 

instructions or indications of service 

life, at the end of eight hours of 

cumulative use. 

(8) The handler employer must inform 

any person who cleans or launders 

personal protective equipment of all the 

following: 

(i) That such equipment may be 

contaminated with pesticides and there 

are potentially harmful effects from 

exposure to pesticides. 

(ii) The correct way(s) to clean 

personal protective equipment and how 

to protect themselves when handling 

such equipment. 

(iii) Proper decontamination 

procedures that should be followed after 

handling contaminated personal 

protective equipment. 

(9) The handler employer must ensure 

that handlers have a place(s) away from 

pesticide storage and pesticide use areas 

where they may do all of the following: 

(i) Store personal clothing not worn 

during handling activities. 

(ii) Put on personal protective 

equipment at the start of any exposure 

period. 

(iii) Remove personal protective 

equipment at the end of any exposure 

period. 

(10) The handler employer must not 

allow or direct any handler to wear 

home or to take home employerprovided personal protective equipment 

contaminated with pesticides. 

(e) Heat-related illness. Where a 

pesticide’s labeling requires the use of 

personal protective equipment for a 

handler activity, the handler employer 

must take appropriate measures to 

prevent heat-related illness. 

§ 170.509 Decontamination and eye 

flushing supplies for handlers. 

(a) Requirement. The handler 

employer must provide 

decontamination and eye flushing 

supplies in accordance with this section 

for any handler that is performing any 

handler activity or removing personal 

protective equipment at the place for 

changing required by § 170.507(d)(9). 

(b) General conditions. The 

decontamination supplies required in 

paragraph (a) of this section must 

include: at least three gallons of water 

per handler at the beginning of each 

handler’s work period for routine 

washing and potential emergency 

decontamination; soap; single-use 

towels; and clean clothing for use in an 

emergency. The decontamination and 

eye flushing supplies required in 

paragraph (a) of this section must meet 

all of the following requirements: 

(1) Water. At all times when this 

section requires handler employers to 

make water available to handlers for 

routine washing, emergency 

decontamination or eye flushing, the 

handler employer must ensure that it is 

of a quality and temperature that will 

not cause illness or injury when it 

contacts the skin or eyes or if it is 

swallowed. If a water source is used for 

mixing pesticides, it must not be used 

for decontamination or eye flushing 

supplies, unless equipped with properly 

functioning valves or other mechanisms 

that prevent contamination of the water 

with pesticides, such as anti-backflow 

siphons, one-way or check valves, or an 

air gap sufficient to prevent 

contamination. 

(2) Soap and single-use towels. The 

handler employer must provide soap 

and single-use towels for drying in 

quantities sufficient to meet the 

handlers’ needs. Hand sanitizing gels 

and liquids or wet towelettes do not 

meet the requirement for soap. Wet 

towelettes do not meet the requirement 

for single-use towels. 

(3) Clean change of clothing. The 

handler employer must provide one 

clean change of clothing, such as 

coveralls, for use in an emergency. 

(c) Location. The decontamination 

supplies must be located together 

outside any treated area or area subject 

to a restricted-entry interval, and must 

be reasonably accessible to each handler 

during the handler activity. The 

decontamination supplies must not be 

more than 1/4 mile from the handler, 

except that where the handler activity is 

more than 1/4 mile from the nearest 

place of vehicular access or more than 

1/4 mile from any non-treated area, the 

decontamination supplies may be at the 

nearest place of vehicular access outside 

any treated area or area subject to a 

restricted-entry interval. 

(1) Mixing sites. Decontamination 

supplies must be provided at any 

mixing site. 

(2) Exception for pilots. 

Decontamination supplies for a pilot 

who is applying pesticides aerially must 

be in the aircraft or at the aircraft 

loading site. 

(3) Exception for treated areas. The 

decontamination supplies must be 

outside any treated area or area subject 

to a restricted-entry interval, unless the 

soap, single-use towels, water and clean 

change of clothing are protected from 

pesticide contamination in closed 

containers. 

(d) Emergency eye-flushing. (1) 

Whenever a handler is mixing or 

loading a pesticide product whose 

labeling requires protective eyewear for 

handlers, or is mixing or loading any 

pesticide using a closed system 

operating under pressure, the handler 

employer must provide at each mixing/ 

loading site immediately available to the 

handler, at least one system that is 

capable of delivering gently running 

water at a rate of least 0.4 gallons per 

minute for at least 15 minutes, or at 

least six gallons of water in containers 

suitable for providing a gentle eye-flush 

for about 15 minutes. 

(2) Whenever a handler is applying a 

pesticide product whose labeling 

requires protective eyewear for 

handlers, the handler employer must 

provide at least one pint of water per 

handler in portable containers that are 

immediately available to each handler. 

■ 8. Subpart G is added to part 170 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart G—Exemptions, Exceptions 

and Equivalency 

Sec. 

§ 170.601 Exemptions. 

§ 170.603 Exceptions for entry by workers 

during restricted-entry intervals. 

§ 170.605 Agricultural employer 

responsibilities to protect workers 

entering treated areas during a restrictedentry interval. 

§ 170.607 Exceptions to personal protective 

equipment requirements specified on 

pesticide product labeling. 

§ 170.609 Equivalency requests. 

§ 170.601 Exemptions. 

(a) Exemption for owners of 

agricultural establishments and their 

immediate families. (1) On any 

agricultural establishment where a 

majority of the establishment is owned 

by one or more members of the same 

immediate family, the owner(s) of the 

establishment are not required to 

provide the protections of the following 

provisions to themselves or members of 

their immediate family when they are 

performing handling activities or tasks 

related to the production of agricultural 

plants that would otherwise be covered 

by this part on their own agricultural 

establishment. 

(i) Section 170.309(c). 

(ii) Section 170.309(f) through (j). 

(iii) Section 170.311. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67571 

(iv) Section 170.401. 

(v) Section 170.403. 

(vi) Section 170.409. 

(vii) Sections 170.411 and 170.509. 

(viii) Section 170.501. 

(ix) Section 170.503. 

(x) Section 170.505(c) and (d). 

(xi) Section 170.507(c) through (e). 

(xii) Section 170.605(a) through (c) 

and (e) through (j). 

(2) The owners of agricultural 

establishments must provide all of the 

applicable protections required by this 

part for any employees or other persons 

on the establishment that are not 

members of their immediate family. 

(b) Exemption for certified crop 

advisors. Certified crop advisors may 

make their own determination for the 

appropriate personal protective 

equipment for entry into a treated area 

during a restricted-entry interval and 

substitute their self-determined set of 

personal protective equipment for the 

labeling-required personal protective 

equipment, and the requirements of 

§§ 170.309(e), 170.309(f), 170.313(k), 

170.503(a), 170.507 and 170.509 of this 

part do not apply to certified crop 

advisors provided the application is 

complete and all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) The crop advisor is certified or 

licensed as a crop advisor by a program 

acknowledged as appropriate in writing 

by EPA or a State or Tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

(2) The certification or licensing 

program requires pesticide safety 

training that includes all the 

information in § 170.501(c)(2) or 

§ 170.501(c)(3) as applicable depending 

on the date of training. 

(3) The crop advisor who enters a 

treated area during a restricted-entry 

interval only performs crop advising 

tasks while in the treated area. 

§ 170.603 Exceptions for entry by workers 

during restricted-entry intervals. 

An agricultural employer may direct 

workers to enter treated areas where a 

restricted-entry interval is in effect to 

perform certain activities as provided in 

this section, provided that the 

agricultural employer ensures all of the 

applicable conditions of this section and 

§ 170.605 of this part are met. 

(a) Exception for activities with no 

contact. A worker may enter a treated 

area during a restricted-entry interval if 

the agricultural employer ensures that 

all of the following conditions are met: 

(1) The worker will have no contact 

with anything that has been treated with 

the pesticide to which the restrictedentry interval applies, including, but not 

limited to, soil, water, air, or surfaces of 

plants. This exception does not allow 

workers to perform any activities that 

involve contact with treated surfaces 

even if workers are wearing personal 

protective equipment. 

(2) No such entry is allowed until any 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or any ventilation criteria 

required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been 

met. 

(b) Exception for short-term activities. 

A worker may enter a treated area 

during a restricted-entry interval for 

short-term activities, if the agricultural 

employer ensures that all of the 

following requirements are met: 

(1) No hand labor activity is 

performed. 

(2) The time in treated areas where a 

restricted-entry interval is in effect does 

not exceed one hour in any 24-hour 

period for any worker. 

(3) No such entry is allowed during 

the first 4 hours after the application 

ends. 

(4) No such entry is allowed until any 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or any ventilation criteria 

required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been 

met. 

(c) Exception for an agricultural 

emergency. (1) An agricultural 

emergency means a sudden occurrence 

or set of circumstances that the 

agricultural employer could not have 

anticipated and over which the 

agricultural employer has no control, 

that requires entry into a treated area 

during a restricted-entry interval, and 

when no alternative practices would 

prevent or mitigate a substantial 

economic loss. A substantial economic 

loss means a loss in profitability greater 

than that which would be expected 

based on the experience and 

fluctuations of crop yields in previous 

years. Only losses caused by the 

agricultural emergency specific to the 

affected site and geographic area are 

considered. Losses resulting from 

mismanagement cannot be included 

when determining whether a loss is 

substantial. 

(2) A worker may enter a treated area 

where a restricted-entry interval is in 

effect in an agricultural emergency to 

perform tasks necessary to mitigate the 

effects of the agricultural emergency, 

including hand labor tasks, if the 

agricultural employer ensures that all 

the following criteria are met: 

(i) The State department of 

agriculture, or the State or Tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement 

declares an agricultural emergency that 

applies to the treated area, or 

agricultural employer has determined 

that the circumstances within the 

treated area are the same as 

circumstances the State department of 

agriculture, or the State or Tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement 

has previously determined would 

constitute an agricultural emergency. 

(ii) The agricultural employer 

determines that the agricultural 

establishment is subject to the 

circumstances that result in an 

agricultural emergency meeting the 

criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. 

(iii) If the labeling of any pesticide 

product applied to the treated area 

requires workers to be notified of the 

location of treated areas by both posting 

and oral notification, then the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

no individual worker spends more than 

four hours out of any 24-hour period in 

treated areas where such a restrictedentry interval is in effect. 

(iv) No such entry is allowed during 

the first 4 hours after the application 

ends. 

(v) No such entry is allowed until any 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or any ventilation criteria 

required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been 

met. 

(d) Exceptions for limited contact and 

irrigation activities. A worker may enter 

a treated area during a restricted-entry 

interval for limited contact or irrigation 

activities, if the agricultural employer 

ensures that all of the following 

requirements are met: 

(1) No hand labor activity is 

performed. 

(2) No worker is allowed in the 

treated area for more than eight hours in 

a 24-hour period. 

(3) No such entry is allowed during 

the first 4 hours after the application 

ends. 

(4) No such entry is allowed until any 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or any ventilation criteria 

required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been 

met. 

(5) The task is one that, if not 

performed before the restricted-entry 

interval expires, would cause 

substantial economic loss, and there are 

no alternative tasks that would prevent 

substantial loss. 

(6) With the exception of irrigation 

tasks, the need for the task could not 

have been foreseen. 

(7) The worker has no contact with 

pesticide-treated surfaces other than 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67572 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

minimal contact with feet, lower legs, 

hands, and forearms. 

(8) The labeling of the pesticide 

product that was applied does not 

require that workers be notified of the 

location of treated areas by both posting 

and oral notification. 

§ 170.605 Agricultural employer 

responsibilities to protect workers entering 

treated areas during a restricted-entry 

interval. 

If an agricultural employer directs a 

worker to perform activities in a treated 

area where a restricted-entry interval is 

in effect, all of the following 

requirements must be met: 

(a) The agricultural employer must 

ensure that the worker is at least 18 

years old. 

(b) Prior to early entry, the 

agricultural employer must provide to 

each early-entry worker the information 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(8) of this section. The information must 

be provided orally in a manner that the 

worker can understand. 

(1) Location of early-entry area where 

work activities are to be performed. 

(2) Pesticide(s) applied. 

(3) Dates and times that the restrictedentry interval begins and ends. 

(4) Which exception in § 170.603 is 

the basis for the early entry, and a 

description of tasks that may be 

performed under the exception. 

(5) Whether contact with treated 

surfaces is permitted under the 

exception. 

(6) Amount of time the worker is 

allowed to remain in the treated area. 

(7) Personal protective equipment 

required by the pesticide product 

labeling for early entry. 

(8) Location of the pesticide safety 

information required by § 170.311(a) 

and the location of the decontamination 

supplies required by § 170.605(h). 

(c) Prior to early entry, the 

agricultural employer must ensure that 

each worker either has read the 

applicable pesticide product labeling or 

has been informed, in a manner that the 

worker can understand, of all labeling 

requirements and statements related to 

human hazards or precautions, first aid, 

and user safety. 

(d) The agricultural employer must 

ensure that each worker who enters a 

treated area during a restricted-entry 

interval is provided the personal 

protective equipment specified in the 

pesticide product labeling for early 

entry. The agricultural employer must 

ensure that the worker uses the personal 

protective equipment as intended 

according to manufacturer’s instructions 

and follows any other applicable 

requirements on the pesticide product 

labeling. Personal protective equipment 

must conform to the standards in 

§ 170.507(b)(1) through (9). 

(e) The agricultural employer must 

maintain the personal protective 

equipment in accordance with 

§ 170.507(c) and (d). 

(f) The agricultural employer must 

ensure that no worker is allowed or 

directed to wear personal protective 

equipment without implementing 

measures sufficient to prevent heatrelated illness and that each worker is 

instructed in the prevention, 

recognition, and first aid treatment of 

heat-related illness. 

(g) The agricultural employer must 

instruct each worker on the proper use 

and removal of the personal protective 

equipment, and as appropriate, on its 

cleaning, maintenance and disposal. 

The agricultural employer must not 

allow or direct any worker to wear home 

or to take home employer-provided 

personal protective equipment 

contaminated with pesticides. 

(h) During any early-entry activity, the 

agricultural employer must provide 

decontamination supplies in accordance 

with § 170.509, except the 

decontamination supplies must be 

outside any area being treated with 

pesticides or subject to a restricted-entry 

interval, unless the decontamination 

supplies would otherwise not be 

reasonably accessible to workers 

performing early-entry tasks. 

(i) If the pesticide product labeling of 

the product applied requires protective 

eyewear, the agricultural employer must 

provide at least one pint of water per 

worker in portable containers for 

eyeflushing that is immediately 

available to each worker who is 

performing early-entry activities. 

(j) At the end of any early-entry 

activities the agricultural employer must 

provide, at the site where the workers 

remove personal protective equipment, 

soap, single-use towels and at least three 

gallons of water per worker so that the 

workers may wash thoroughly. 

§ 170.607 Exceptions to personal 

protective equipment requirements 

specified on pesticide product labeling. 

(a) Body protection. (1) A chemicalresistant suit may be substituted for 

coveralls. If a chemical-resistant suit is 

substituted for coveralls, any labeling 

requirement for an additional layer of 

clothing beneath the coveralls is 

waived. 

(2) A chemical-resistant suit may be 

substituted for coveralls and a chemicalresistant apron. 

(b) Boots. If chemical-resistant 

footwear with sufficient durability and 

a tread appropriate for wear in rough 

terrain is not obtainable, then leather 

boots may be worn in such terrain. 

(c) Gloves. If chemical-resistant gloves 

with sufficient durability and 

suppleness are not obtainable, then 

during activities with plants with sharp 

thorns, leather gloves may be worn over 

chemical-resistant glove liners. 

However, once leather gloves are worn 

for this use, thereafter they must be 

worn only with chemical-resistant liners 

and they must not be worn for any other 

use. 

(d) Closed systems.(1) When 

pesticides are being mixed or loaded 

using a closed system that meets all of 

the requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section, and the handler employer 

meets the requirements of paragraph 

(d)(3) of this section, the following 

exceptions to labeling-specified 

personal protective equipment are 

permitted: 

(i) Handlers using a closed system to 

mix or load pesticides with a signal 

word of ‘‘DANGER’’ or ‘‘WARNING’’ 

may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long 

pants, shoes and socks, chemicalresistant apron, protective eyewear, and 

any protective gloves specified on the 

labeling for handlers for the labelingspecified personal protective 

equipment. 

(ii) Handlers using a closed system to 

mix or load pesticides other than those 

specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this 

section may substitute protective 

eyewear, long-sleeved shirt, long pants, 

and shoes and socks for the labelingspecified personal protective 

equipment. 

(2) The exceptions of paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section apply only in the 

following situations: 

(i) Where the closed system removes 

the pesticide from its original container 

and transfers the pesticide product 

through connecting hoses, pipes and 

couplings that are sufficiently tight to 

prevent exposure of handlers to the 

pesticide product, except for the 

negligible escape associated with 

normal operation of the system. 

(ii) When loading intact, sealed, water 

soluble packaging into a mixing tank or 

system. If the integrity of a water soluble 

packaging is compromised (for example, 

if the packaging is dissolved, broken, 

punctured, torn, or in any way allows 

its contents to escape), it is no longer a 

closed system and the labeling-specified 

personal protective equipment must be 

worn. 

(3) The exceptions of paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section apply only where the 

handler employer has satisfied the 

requirements of § 170.313 and all of the 

following conditions: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67573 

(i) Each closed system must have 

written operating instructions that are 

clearly legible and include: Operating 

procedures for use, including the safe 

removal of a probe; maintenance, 

cleaning and repair; known restrictions 

or limitations relating to the system, 

such as incompatible pesticides, sizes 

(or types) of containers or closures that 

cannot be handled by the system; any 

limits on the ability to measure a 

pesticide; and special procedures or 

limitations regarding partially-filled 

containers. 

(ii) The written operating instructions 

for the closed system must be available 

at the mixing or loading site and must 

be made available to any handlers who 

use the system. 

(iii) Any handler operating the closed 

system must be trained in its use and 

operate the closed system in accordance 

with its written operating instructions. 

(iv) The closed system must be 

cleaned and maintained as specified in 

the written operating instructions and as 

needed to make sure the system 

functions properly. 

(v) All personal protective equipment 

specified in the pesticide product 

labeling is immediately available to the 

handler for use in an emergency. 

(vi) Protective eyewear must be worn 

when using closed systems operating 

under pressure. 

(e) Enclosed cabs. (1) If a handler 

applies a pesticide from inside a 

vehicle’s enclosed cab, and if the 

conditions listed in paragraph (e)(2) of 

this section are met, exceptions to the 

personal protective equipment 

requirements specified on the product 

labeling for applicators are permitted as 

provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section. 

(2) All of the personal protective 

equipment required by the pesticide 

product labeling for applicators must be 

immediately available and stored in a 

sealed container to prevent 

contamination. Handlers must wear the 

applicator personal protective 

equipment required by the pesticide 

product labeling if they exit the cab 

within a treated area during application 

or when a restricted-entry interval is in 

effect. Once personal protective 

equipment is worn in a treated area, it 

must be removed before reentering the 

cab to prevent contamination of the cab. 

(3) Handlers may substitute a longsleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and 

socks for the labeling-specified personal 

protective equipment for skin and eye 

protection. If a filtering facepiece 

respirator (NIOSH approval number 

prefix TC–84A) or dust/mist filtering 

respirator is required by the pesticide 

product labeling for applicators, then 

that respirator need not be worn inside 

the enclosed cab if the enclosed cab has 

a properly functioning air ventilation 

system which is used and maintained in 

accordance with the manufacture’s 

written operating instructions. If any 

other type of respirator is required by 

the pesticide labeling for applicators, 

then that respirator must be worn. 

(f) Aerial applications—(1) Use of 

gloves. The wearing of chemicalresistant gloves when entering or 

leaving an aircraft used to apply 

pesticides is optional, unless such 

gloves are required on the pesticide 

product labeling. If gloves are brought 

into the cockpit of an aircraft that has 

been used to apply pesticides, the 

gloves shall be kept in an enclosed 

container to prevent contamination of 

the inside of the cockpit. 

(2) Open cockpit. Handlers applying 

pesticides from an open cockpit aircraft 

must use the personal protective 

equipment specified in the pesticide 

product labeling for use during 

application, except that chemicalresistant footwear need not be worn. A 

helmet may be substituted for chemicalresistant headgear. A helmet with a face 

shield lowered to cover the face may be 

substituted for protective eyewear. 

(3) Enclosed cockpit. Persons 

occupying an enclosed cockpit may 

substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long 

pants, shoes, and socks for labelingspecified personal protective 

equipment. 

(g) Crop advisors. (1) Provided the 

conditions of paragraphs (g)(2) through 

(g)(4) of this section are met, crop 

advisors and their employees entering 

treated areas to perform crop advising 

tasks while a restricted-entry interval is 

in effect may substitute either of the 

following sets of personal protective 

equipment for the personal protective 

equipment specified on the pesticide 

labeling for handler activities: 

(i) The personal protective equipment 

specified on the pesticide product 

labeling for early entry. 

(ii) Coveralls, shoes plus socks and 

chemical-resistant gloves made of any 

waterproof material, and eye protection 

if the pesticide product labeling applied 

requires protective eyewear for 

handlers. 

(2) The application has been complete 

for at least four hours. 

(3) No such entry is allowed until any 

inhalation exposure level listed in the 

pesticide product labeling has been 

reached or any ventilation criteria 

required by § 170.405(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been 

met. 

(4) The crop advisor or crop advisor 

employee who enters a treated area 

during a restricted-entry interval only 

performs crop advising tasks while in 

the treated area. 

§ 170.609 Equivalency requests. 

(a) States and Tribes that have 

promulgated worker protection 

regulations to protect agricultural 

workers and pesticide handlers from 

occupational pesticide exposure 

effective prior to January 1, 2016, have 

the option of requesting authority to 

continue implementing any provision(s) 

of the State’s or Tribe’s existing 

regulations that provides equivalent or 

greater protection in lieu of 

implementing any similar provision(s) 

in this part. 

(b) States or Tribes must submit 

requests for the authority to continue 

implementing State or Tribal regulation 

provision(s) in lieu of any similar 

provision(s) in this part by June 29, 

2016. The request must be in the form 

of a letter from the State or Tribe to EPA 

that includes all of the following: 

(1) Identification of the provision(s) of 

this part for which the State or Tribe is 

requesting regulatory equivalency. 

(2) Appropriate documentation 

establishing that the pertinent State or 

Tribal worker protection provision(s) 

provides environmental and human 

health protection that meets or exceeds 

the protections provided by the 

identified provision(s) in this part. 

(3) Identification of any additional 

modifications to existing State or Tribal 

regulations that would be necessary in 

order to provide environmental and 

human health protection that meets or 

exceeds the similar provisions of this 

part, and an estimated timetable for the 

State or Tribe to effect these changes. 

(4) The expected economic impact of 

requiring compliance with the 

requirement(s) of this part in 

comparison with compliance with the 

State or Tribal requirement(s), and an 

explanation of why it is important that 

employers subject to the State or Tribal 

authority comply with the State or 

Tribal requirement(s) in lieu of similar 

provision(s) in this part. 

(5) The signature of the designated 

representative of the State or Tribal 

agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. 

(c) EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs 

will review the State’s or Tribe’s letter 

and supporting materials and determine 

whether the State or Tribal provision(s) 

provide environmental and human 

health protection that meets or exceeds 

the comparable provision(s) of this part. 

(d) EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs 

will inform the State or Tribe of its 

determination through a letter. The 

letter will either: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
67574 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 211 / Monday, November 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Authorize the State or Tribe to 

continue implementing its worker 

protection regulatory provision(s) in 

lieu of the comparable provision(s) of 

this part; or 

(2) Deny the State or Tribe 

authorization to continue implementing 

its worker protection regulatory 

provision(s) in lieu of the comparable 

provision(s) of this part and detail any 

reasons for declining authorization. 

(e) Subsequent revisions. Any State or 

Tribe that has received authorization 

from EPA through the process outlined 

in this section to continue 

implementing its State or Tribal worker 

protection regulatory provision(s) must 

inform EPA by letter within six months 

of any revision to the State or Tribal 

worker protection laws or regulations. 

The letter must contain the same 

information outlined in paragraph (b) of 

this section. The State or Tribe may 

continue implementing provisions of its 

worker protection regulations identified 

under paragraph (b) of this section 

unless and until EPA informs the State 

or Tribe through a letter that EPA has 

determined that the State’s or Tribe’s 

worker protection regulations no longer 

provide environmental and human 

health protection that meets or exceeds 

the comparable provision(s) of this part 

based on the revisions. 

[FR Doc. 2015–25970 Filed 10–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES