RIN2070-AJ22_EO12866_AgWPS_NPRM_FinalRedline_AllRevisions_2014-02-19.docx 

Revised to address Interagency Comments received under EO 12866 Review.

13P-0940 

Page 1 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 170 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184; FRL–9395–8] 

RIN 2070–AJ22

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

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

regulation for pesticides. The proposed changes are in response to extensive stakeholder review 

of the regulation and its implementation since 1992, and reflect current research on how to 

mitigate occupational pesticide exposure to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. EPA is 

proposing to strengthen the protections provided to agricultural workers and handlers under the 

worker protection standard by improving elements of the existing regulation, such as training, 

notification, communication materials, use of personal protective equipment, and 

decontamination supplies. EPA expects the revisions, once final, to prevent unreasonable adverse 

affectseffects 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 the general public. EPA recognizes the importance and independence 

of family farms and is proposing to expand the immediate family exemption to the WPS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 90 days after date of publication 

in the Federal Register]. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 2 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPAHQ-OPP-2011-0184, by one of the following methods: 

 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider 

to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 

by statute. 

 • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail 

code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a 

copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th 

St., NW, Washington, DC 20503. 

 • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed 

information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

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

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

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

(703) 308-2962; e-mail address: davis.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 3 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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

in 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), 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 Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders (NAICS code 115115), e.g., establishments 

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

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

Page 4 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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 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. 

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

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

 • • Administration of Conservation Programs (NAICS code 924120), e.g., 

government establishments primarily engaged in the administration, regulation, supervision and 

control of land use, including recreational areas; conservation and preservation of natural 

resources; erosion control; geological survey program administration; weather forecasting 

program administration; and the administration and protection of publicly and privately owned 

forest lands. Government establishments responsible for planning, management, regulation and 

conservation of game, fish, and wildlife populations, including wildlife management areas and 

Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 0.38" + 0.75"

+ 1.13" + 1.5"
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 5 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

field stations; and other administrative matters relating to the protection of fish, game, and 

wildlife are included in this industry. 

 • 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. 

 • 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 Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CDROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to: 

 i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject 

heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

 ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 6 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 

your requested changes. 

 iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you 

used. 

 v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 

sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

 vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. 

 vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 

threats. 

 viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. Executive Summary

 1. Purpose of the regulatory action. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the 

Agency) proposes to revise the existing Worker Protection Standard (WPS) at 40 CFR part 170 

to reduce the incidence of occupational pesticide exposure and related illness among agricultural 

workers (workers) and pesticide handlers (handlers) covered by the rule. This regulation, in 

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

prevent unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides among pesticide applicators, workers, 

handlers, the general public, and vulnerable groups, such as minority and low-income 

populations. 

 2. Summary of the major provisions. This proposal revises the existing WPS in several 

areas: Training, notification, hazard communication, minimum age, and personal protective 

equipment. The key changes are described below. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 7 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

For training, the proposal requires employers to ensure that workers and handlers receive 

pesticide safety training every year. The content of the training is expanded to include how to 

reduce take-home exposure to pesticides, as well as other topics. Employers are required to retain 

records of the training provided to workers and handlers for 2 years from the date of training. 

 For notification, the proposal requires employers to post treated areas when the product 

used has a restricted-entry interval (REI) greater than 48 hours. It also requires that workers 

performing early-entry tasks, i.e., entering a treated area when an REI is in effect, receive 

information about the pesticide used in the area where they will work, the specific task(s) to be 

performed, and the amount of time the worker may remain in the treated area. Finally, the 

proposal requires employers to keep a record of the information provided to workers performing 

early-entry tasks. 

 For hazard communication, the proposal eliminates the requirement for a central display 

of pesticide application-specific information. The proposal requires the employer to maintain and 

make available upon request the pesticide application-specific information, as well as the 

labeling and safety data sheets for pesticides used on the establishment for 2 years. 

 For minimum age, the proposal requires that handlers and workers performing early-entry 

tasks be at least 16 years old. This minimum age does not apply to immediate family members 

working on an establishment owned by another immediate family member. 

 For personal protective equipment (PPE), the proposal adopts the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act requirements for respirator use by handlers, i.e., fit test, medical evaluation, and 

training. In addition, the proposal adopts the existing California standard for closed systems. 

 3. Costs and impacts. Under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; 

October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action" because it may raise novel legal 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 8 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth 

in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this proposed rulemaking to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 

3821; January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have 

been documented in the public docket for this action. 

 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and impacts associated with this 

rulemaking. This analysis is summarized in greater detail in Unit II.G. of this proposal. The 

following chart provides a brief outline of the costs and impacts of this proposal: 

Category Description Source 

Monetized Benefits $75 – 80 million/year

 Monetized Benefits 

Avoided acute pesticide 

incidents 

$10 – 155 – 14 million/year after 

adjustment for underreporting of pesticide 

incidents 

EA Chapter 6.5 

 Reduced effects of chronic 

pesticide exposure

at least $64.8 million/year EA Chapter 6.8

Qualitative Benefits 

 Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects 

of pesticide exposure beyond cost of 

treatment and loss of productivity.

 Reduced latent effect of avoided acute 

pesticide exposure.

 Reduced chronic effects from lower 

chronic pesticide exposure to workers, 

handlers, and farmworker families, 

including a range of illnesses such as 

Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate 

cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, 

chronic bronchitis, and asthma.

EA Chapter 6 

Monetized Costs $62 – 7273 million/year EA Chapter 5.2 

Small Business Impacts 

No significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

 The rule will affect over 300,000 small 

farms, nurseries, and greenhouses and 

EA Chapter 5.4 

Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 9 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

several hundred small 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. Highest anticipated impact less 

than 1% of annual sales.

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 $60 per year, but this is less than 0.3 

percent of the cost of a part-time 

employee. 

EA Chapter 5.3 

B. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

 The WPS is a regulation 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 does not cover persons working directly with livestock. The existing 

regulation has provisions for employers to provide workers and handlers with pesticide safety 

training, posting and notification of treated areas, entry restrictions, and PPE for workers who 

enter treated areas after pesticide application to perform crop-related tasks, as well as for 

handlers who mix, load, and apply pesticides. The rule was promulgated in 1992 and 

implementation was delayed until 1995. 

 The changes in this proposed revision of the WPS are intended to address shortcomings 

in the current regulations, such as: 

 • Absence of a minimum age for handlers of pesticides and agricultural workers engaged 

in early-entry activities, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 10 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Inadequate hazard communication provisions, 

 • Insufficient training of agricultural workers before they face potential pesticide 

exposure, 

 • Unclear requirements regarding the decontamination supplies the WPS requires 

employers to provide, and 

 • Insufficient recordkeeping to verify compliance with regulations. 

EPA believes that the proposed changes offer targeted improvements that would reduce 

risk through protective requirements and improve operational efficiencies. EPA expects the 

proposed changes to: 

 • Improve effectiveness of worker and handler training, 

 • Improve protections to workers during restricted-entry intervals (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, thus improving 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 experience pesticide exposures, 

 • Improve the organization of the WPS, thus improving employers’ ability to understand 

and comply with the provisions, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 11 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Clarify the coverage of the WPS to those employed and receiving a salary or wage to 

ensure protection for occupational pesticide workers, 

• Protect children by establishing a minimum age for handlers and for workers who enter 

a treated area during an REI while maintaining an exemption to the minimum age requirement 

for children working on the establishment of an immediately family member, and 

 • 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 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). 

D. Related Rulemaking 

EPA is also considering a proposed rule to amend 40 CFR part 171, titled “Certification 

of Pesticide Applicators.” Since parts 170 and 171, along with other components of the pesticide 

program, work together to reduce and prevent unreasonable adverse effects to pesticides, EPA 

may use any comments received on the proposed amendments to part 171 when formulating a 

final rule to amend the current WPS at part 170. 

E. Benefits of the Proposal 

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

Page 12 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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 proposed 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 proposal 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 proposed rule would reduce pesticide exposures and the associated risks. 

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

pesticides total about $11.4 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 25% 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 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 proposed WPS changes that would reduce chronic exposure to pesticides. However, 

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

Page 13 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

are well documented in the peer-reviewed 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 the incidence of chronic disease resulting from pesticide exposure. Therefore, 

EPA conducted a “break even” analysis to consider the plausibility of the proposed 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 0.08% and the incidence of the other chronic diseases by 0.8% 

per year (about 53 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 $62.1 million to $72.9 million cost of 

the proposed rule. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed requirements 

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

Page 14 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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 proposing several interrelated exposure-reduction measures, the revised rule is expected 

to mitigate approximately 56% of reported acute WPS-related pesticide incidents. EPA believes 

the proposed rule would substantially mitigate 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 

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

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

 • Reducing exposure to pesticides – among other things, the proposed 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 proposed rule to 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 Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard” which is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 15 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 1). The following briefly highlights the 

anticipated benefits: 

 1. Reduce incidents of exposure and illness through: 

 a. Expanded and more frequent training for workers and handlers. EPA’s current 

requirement for training workers and handlers fails to address or to highlight the importance of 

some self-protective practices, such as reducing pesticide exposure to workers, handlers, and 

their families by avoiding bringing pesticide residues home on clothing, shoes, or skin. The 

existing regulation requires employers to provide training every 5 years. Today’s proposalThe 

proposed rule, if finalized, would expand the content of the training, increase the frequency of 

training to every year, and set higher standards for trainers. Providing workers and handlers with 

information on reducing pesticide exposure in a manner they understand, e.g., in a language they 

speak and at an appropriate education level, and at intervals more likely to result in retention of 

the information, would benefit workers and handlers. Thus, EPA believes today’s proposalthe 

proposed rule would reduce overall pesticide exposure among workers, handlers, and their 

families. 

b. Improved posting of pesticide-treated areas. The current WPS allows growers to 

provide either an oral or posted warning to workers about which areas have been treated with a 

pesticide and are under an REI unless the pesticide label requires both an oral and posted 

warning. Many of the occupational pesticide illnesses reported to state health agencies have 

occurred when workers entered a treated area before the REI expired. The proposed regulation 

would require posting of all treated areas with an REI of greater than 48 hours, providing a visual 

reminder to workers not to enter the specific pesticide-treated area without proper protection. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 16 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

c. Additional information before entering a pesticide-treated area under an REI. As 

mentioned above, many incidents of pesticide exposure among workers result from entering an 

area while an REI is in effect. The proposed rule would require that worker training include 

information about the limited circumstances in which workers may enter a treated area under an 

REI, the hazards workers may face, and that the employer must provide the proper PPE. 

Employers would also have to inform workers entering a treated area under an REI about the 

conditions under which they enter the treated area and the maximum time they are permitted to 

stay in the treated area. Providing workers with general information about working in a treated 

area under an REI as well as with specific information about the circumstances of each instance 

should make them aware of the elevated risks and the steps necessary to protect themselves. 

d. Access to more information about chemical hazards in the workplace. The current 

WPS requires the employer to maintain records of what pesticides have been used or have had an 

REI in effect on the establishment in the last 30 days. The employer must provide the name of 

the pesticide, EPA registration number, and other general information at a central location on the 

establishment. Today’s proposalThe proposed rule would require employers to maintain a copy 

of pesticide labelslabeling, the application records, and the Safety Data Sheet (SDS, formerly 

known as Material Safety Data Sheet, or MSDS), as well as the information currently required 

under the WPS, for 2 years after the product was applied on the establishment. The employer 

would be required to provide this information upon request and to ensure that health care 

providers treating a worker or handler who was exposed on the establishment receive a copy of 

this information. The more specific information required, longer retention period, and provision 

to provide additional information to health care providers should assist the health care provider 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 17 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

in determining the specific types of pesticides to which a worker or handler may have been 

exposed and in more effectively treating the injured person. 

e. Strengthened requirements for handlers during applications. The risk of illness 

resulting from exposure to pesticides through drift is largely borne by agricultural workers. A 

recent study estimates that 37% to 68% of acute pesticide-related illnesses in agricultural 

workers are caused by spray drift (Ref. 2). The proposed rule would require handlers to 

immediately stop an application if, during the application, anyone other than a properly equipped 

handler enters the entry-restricted area or the area treated with pesticides. This, together with the 

proposal to create entry-restricted areas around the treated area for farms, forests and nurseries, is 

expected to result in reduced incidents of worker exposure through unintentional contact during 

application or through drift. 

 2. Strengthen protection for children through: 

a. Implementing a minimum age of 16 for handlers and early-entry workers. The current 

WPS does not have a minimum age for handlers or early-entry workers. These tasks involve 

contact with concentrated forms of pesticides, applying pesticides, or entering pesticide-treated 

areas before the REI has expired. Children may be more susceptible to the effects of pesticide 

exposure because their systems are developing, and research shows that adolescents have not 

fully developed informed decision-making skills. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 

establishes a minimum age of 16 for youth engaged in occupations deemed hazardous by the 

Secretary of Labor (29 U.S.C. 213(c)(2)). This includes persons handling toxicity category I and 

II pesticides (29 U.S.C. 213(c)(2)).in agriculture 29 C.F.R. 570.71(a)(9). The FLSA prohibits 

youth under the age of 16 engaged in nonagricultural employment from any work involving 

pesticides. Implementing a requirement for handlers and early-entry workers to be at least 16 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 18 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

years old would ensure that all persons handling pesticides, regardless of the toxicity level, are 

protected, thereby reducing their overall risk of pesticide exposure and illness. Persons under the 

age of 16 working on the establishment ofowned by an immediate family member would be 

exempt from boththe proposed minimum age requirements. 

b. Improving training for workers and handlers on reducing take-home pesticide 

exposure. The current WPS training does not provide specific information on how workers and 

handlers can minimize the possibility for transferring pesticide residues from their clothing, 

bodies, and shoes to their homes, vehicles, and family members. Although studies documenting 

the effects of take-home pesticide exposure are not conclusive, EPA has a reasonable concern 

about the potential for unreasonable adverse effects caused by exposure to workers, handlers, 

and their families. The proposed modest addition to training would educate workers and handlers 

on how to protect themselves and their families from take-home pesticide exposure. 

 3. Reduce some burdens on growers by: 

a. Eliminating duplicative respirator requirements. Agricultural worker and handler 

employers may also be subject to regulations issued by other federal agencies, such as the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The current WPS standard for proper 

use and maintenance of a respirator differs from the standard established by OSHA. Today’s 

proposalThe proposed rule harmonizes the requirements for agricultural employers that may be 

required to provide a respirator for their employees using pesticides under the WPS with those 

issued by OSHA for respirator use in agriculture beyond pesticide use in order to reduce the 

burden on employers to comply with two separate standards. 

b. Providing a national mechanism to verify worker and handler training. Under the 

current WPS employers may be uncertain about what measures they must take to verify whether 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 19 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

a worker or handler has already received the required pesticide safety training on another 

establishment. EPA administers a voluntary training verification system, but it is not used nationwide or consistently. As a result, many employers provide pesticide safety training to all new 

employees. The proposed revisions include a provision for the employer to provide the worker or 

handler with a copy of the record of the training, including worker or handler name, employer, 

trainer name, and date of training. Workers and handlers can provide this record to their next 

employer as proof of valid training and for the new employer to maintain a copy in his or her 

records. EPA believes a reliable training verification system will reduce overall burden on 

agricultural and handler employers. 

c. Streamlining notification requirements between handler employers and agricultural 

establishment employers. Under the current WPS, handler employers are required to notify the 

owner of the agricultural establishment about the start and end time of applications, as well as 

changes to the application start time and end time or application duration, before the application 

begins. The proposed changes would require handlers or their employers to provide changes to 

pesticide application plans to the agricultural employer within 2 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. 

d. Improving clarity of the regulation. The Agency proposes to revise and reorganize the 

WPS to enhance the ability of employers to understand their responsibilities under the regulation, 

which could lead to increased compliance with the rule. Today’s proposalThe proposed rule, if 

finalized, would reorganize the rule into four sections: (1) general requirements, (2) 

responsibilities of agricultural employers, (3) responsibilities of handler employers, and (4) 

exceptions. Employers’ greater understanding and compliance with the WPS would ensure that 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 20 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

workers and handlers are provided with the information and equipment they need to protect 

themselves. In turn, this should contribute to reduced incidents of unreasonable adverse effects 

from pesticide exposure. 

F. Request for Comments 

 The Agency invites the public to provide its views and suggestions for changes on all of 

the proposals in this document. Specifically, the Agency requests the public to consider and 

provide input on the following when providing comments: 

 • The need for, value of, and any alternatives to the requirements described in this 

document. 

 • The studies and scientific articles used as the basis of this proposed rule. 

 • The clarity of the proposed revisions. 

 • The ability to effectively enforce the proposed regulation. 

 • The economic analysis of the proposed rule, including its underlying assumptions, 

economic data, high- and low-cost options and alternatives, and benefits. 

 Additionally, in other parts of this proposed rule, EPA is specifically requesting 

comments on certain issues. EPA welcomes comments on these topics of particular interest to 

the Agency. 

Commenters are encouraged to present any data or information that should be considered 

by EPA during the development of the final rule. Describe any assumptions and provide any 

technical information and data used in preparing your comments. Explain evaluations or 

estimates in sufficient detail to allow for them to be reproduced for validation. Commenters are 

reminded that the submission of data derived from human research should include information 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 21 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

concerning the ethical conduct of such research, in compliance with the requirements at 40 CFR 

26.1303. 

G. Reasons for Today’sThe Proposed Action

 The WPS is more than 20 years old and EPA believes it can be improved. Since the late 

1990s, EPA has engaged a wide range of stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of the WPS 

and to determine if improvements are necessary. EPA met with groups including, but not limited 

to, farmworker organizations, health care providers, state regulators, pesticide manufacturers, 

farmers, organizations representing agricultural commodity producers, and crop advisors. 

Through public meetings and federal advisory committees, and as individuals and small groups, 

a broad spectrum of stakeholders provided recommendations to EPA. Many of the proposed 

changes address their recommendations and concerns. 

 EPA has also reviewed available information about occupational pesticide exposure in 

agriculture. The Agency’s review of these reports indicates that many incidents might have been 

avoided if workers and handlers had better training, were better notified of treated areas, and 

used PPE properly when required. For example, workers became ill after entering a treated area 

before the REI expired or without wearing the proper equipment, and through drift from a nearby 

pesticide application. EPA believes these types of incidents could be significantly reduced by 

enhancing the training for workers and handlers and strengthening provisions of the regulation 

designed to keep workers and handlers out of pesticide-treated areas unless they have the proper 

information and PPE. 

 The great majority of agricultural workers and handlers are disadvantaged. The National 

Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) data indicate the median family income range was $12,500 

- $14,999, many do not speak English and are not literate in their native language, and workers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 22 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

face challenges accessing health care and housing (Ref. 3). Workers and handlers experience 

risks from occupational pesticide exposure that are greater than those faced by the general 

population because workers and handlers work with and around pesticides on a daily basis, and 

language and literacy barriers make effective hazard communication a challenge. EPA is paying 

special attention to the disproportionate burden or risk carried by this disadvantaged community. 

Today’s proposalThe proposed rule as a whole addresses many worker safety concerns; 

throughout this document the environmental justice concerns relative to specific changes will be 

highlighted. 

In conjunction with various non-regulatory programs, the WPS requirements are 

intended, among other things, to reduce the risks of illness or injury to workers and handlers 

resulting from occupational exposure to pesticides on agricultural establishments. Broadly 

speaking, the WPS provisions are meant to (1) inform workers and handlers about the hazards 

and risks from pesticides they use or to which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) 

protect workers and handlers from occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse 

effects of pesticides, and (3) mitigate the potential adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide 

exposure, including accidents. Within these categories, EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of 

alternative requirements and is proposing a set of requirements that, in combination, is expected 

to achieve substantial benefits at minimum cost. 

The overall costs of the proposal range from $62.1 to $72.9 million annually. These costs 

would be borne almost entirely by agricultural establishments, those who employ workers and 

handlers and use pesticides. Although the cost per establishment will vary by the number and 

type of employees, EPA estimates that the annual cost to large establishments would be $350340

to $400 per year. Small establishments would incur a lower cost of $130 to $150 per year, which 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 23 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

amounts to less than 0.1 percent of their annual revenue. Presented differently, the additional 

cost of employing a worker is estimated at less than $5 per year and the additional cost of 

employing a handler is estimated at about $60 per year. EPA does not believe the cost of the 

regulation will have a negative impact on employment. 

The proposal, if finalized, would reduce the disproportionate risks associated with 

occupational pesticide exposure that currently fall on workers, handlers, and their families. 

Agricultural and handler employers are the group responsible for, and that benefit from, pesticide 

application on their establishments. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate for these employers 

to bear the cost of the protections for their employees, rather than to impose the costs on workers 

and handlers themselves. Through the WPS and these proposals, EPA seeks to have those 

responsible for making pesticide use decisions and applying pesticides internalize the effects of 

their decisions. This would minimize the externalities, i.e., undesirable or unintended 

consequences of decisions that result in negative consequences for other parties, to workers and 

handlers. 

The benefits of the proposed rule primarily accrue to workers, handlers and, indirectly, to 

their families. EPA estimates the quantitative value of avoided acute incidents as a result of the 

proposed rule to be between $1.2 million to $2.8 million annually (Ref. 1). However, EPA 

recognizes that this estimate is biased downward by an unknown degree. First, pesticide 

incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may not seek 

medical care, cases may not be correctly diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may not be 

filed with the central reporting database. Also, many symptoms of pesticide poisoning, such as a 

fatigue, nausea, rash, dizziness, and diarrhea, may be confused with other illnesses and may not 

be reported by the workers as related to their occupational exposure. Studies estimate that 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 24 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

underreporting of pesticide exposure by workers and handlers ranges from 20 to 90 percent. 

Adjusting the estimate based on a reasonable assumption that only 25% of acute incidents are 

reported brings the estimated benefits from reducing acute pesticide incidents to $11.4 million 

annually (Ref. 1). 

Second, EPA’s approach to estimating the quantitative benefits of the proposal only 

measures avoided medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible 

symptoms due to pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. It also does not take 

into account the disenfranchised nature of this population and the relative impact that lost work 

time would have on their incomes and family health. An increase in protections across the entire 

worker population would be more beneficial and likely to effect positive change than requiring 

individuals to value and pay for their own increase in safety. Workers and handlers may not be 

able to pay for the improvements to their own safety, necessitating intervention by the 

government to ensure these populations are adequately protected. 

Well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and noncancer chronic health effects exist in peer-reviewed literature; however, the wide range of 

employment histories and pesticide exposures characteristic of the agricultural workforce 

generally prevents reliable estimates of the full impact of chronic pesticide exposure. In order to 

account for the reduction in chronic diseases expected as a result of the proposed WPS changes, 

OPP used a “break-even” analysis. Based on a literature review, EPA evaluated the costs 

associated with six chronic illnesses that have well-documented association with agricultural 

pesticide exposure: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, 

bronchitis, and asthma. Owing to the high costs associated with these chronic illnesses, 

improvements to the WPS that could reduce the frequency of these illnesses among workers and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 25 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

handlers by less than 1% (53 total cases per year) would result in sufficient benefits to bridge the 

gap between the estimated costs of the revisions and the anticipated benefits associated with 

reducing acute pesticide exposures. For the reasons identified below, it is reasonable to expect 

that the proposed changes to the WPS will reduce chronic pesticide exposures enough to reduce 

the frequency of chronic illnesses by at least 0.08% for lung cancer and at least 0.8% for the 

other illnesses considered. 

EPA believes the qualitative benefits of the proposed rule are substantial. The proposals 

for more frequent, expanded training, better identification of treated areas, strengthened 

requirements for PPE, and clarifying the responses and information required in the event of an 

emergency exposure all provide workers and handlers with more information and a better ability 

to protect themselves from risks associated with pesticide exposure. The proposals complement 

each other and the resulting benefits are derived from implementation of the whole package. 

Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed requirements will result in both shortand long-term health benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. 

In addition, many of the proposed changes to current WPS requirements would 

specifically mitigate risks to children. The proposal would implement a minimum age of 16 for 

most handlers and early-entry workers; the minimum age would not apply to handlers and earlyentry workers on an establishment owned by an immediate family member. EPA believes that 

these two tasks present a higher risk of exposure than do the general tasks assigned to a worker. 

Since children’s bodies are still developing, they may be more susceptible to these elevated risks 

and therefore would benefit from strengthened protections. In addition, the proposal seeks 

through additional training to reduce the potential for workers to transport pesticide residues 

home to their families. Although studies are inconclusive about the effects of pesticides 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 26 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

transferred from the treated area to the home, EPA believes that providing additional general 

information to workers and handlers about steps that may mitigate any potential risk would be 

prudent. Thus, the proposed changes are expected to reduce children’s exposure to pesticides. 

In the almost two decades since the 1992 WPS was implemented, EPA has learned from 

the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety 

Program process, meetings with state regulators, and other stakeholder interaction, that the 1992 

rule needs improvements. EPA believes that the data available to the Agency supports this 

conclusion. Today’s proposalThe proposed rule reflects the Agency’s commitment to pay 

particular attention to the health of children and environmental justice concerns. The proposal 

also aligns with the President’s January 18, 2011 Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821), 

requesting that agencies review existing regulations to improve the efficacy of their protection, to 

balance costs and benefits, and to maximize their efficiency. 

In proposing this revision, the Agency is mindful of the effects on small business, family 

farms, and other affected parties. The Agency has attempted to keep the costs to the regulated 

community as low as practicable, so that they are reasonably balanced against the anticipated 

risk reduction benefits of the measures proposed below. 

GH. Summary of Proposed Changes 

EPA proposes to revise the WPS by: 

 • ChangingAmending the existing pesticide safety training content, retraining interval,

(frequency), and eligibilityqualifications of trainers, 

 • Ensuring workers receive safety information before entering any pesticide treated area,

by amending the existing “grace period” and expanding the training required during the “grace 

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

Page 27 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Establishing a minimum age of 16 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 areas adjacent to a treated area during an application, 

 • Enhancing the requirement for employers to post warning signs around treated areas, 

 • Modifying the content of the warning sign, 

 • Adding information employers must keep under the requirement to maintain 

application-specific information, 

 • Requiring recordkeeping for pesticide safety training and worker entry into areas under 

an REI, 

 • Ensuring the immediate family exemption includes an exemption from the proposed 

minimum age requirements for handlers and early-entry 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, and 

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

III. Statutory Authority and Framework 

This unit discusses the legal framework within which EPA regulates the safety of those who 

work with and around pesticides in agriculture. 

A. FIFRA

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 established a 

framework for the regulation of pesticide products. Major amendments in 1972 by the Federal 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 28 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq.) broadened federal pesticide 

regulatory authority to make it “unlawful for any person to use any registered product in a 

manner inconsistent with its labeling” (7 U.S.C. 136i (a)(2)(G)). The 1972 amendments provided 

civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Act (7 USC 136l) and authorized the 

Administrator to provide regulations to carry out the Act (7 U.S.C. 136w (a)). The new and 

revised provisions directed EPA to protect humans and the environment from unreasonable 

adverse effects of pesticides. 

The legislative history of the 1972 amendments to FIFRA reflects the clear intent of 

Congress that farmers and agricultural workers were among those intended to be afforded 

protection under FIFRA. In discussing the 1972 amendments, the Senate Committee on 

Agriculture noted its intent of FIFRA to protect farmworkers and others from contacting 

pesticides or their residues. (Ref. 4) 

EPA has implemented many protections for workers through use instructions on pesticide 

labeling, which have been legally binding on pesticide users since the 1972 amendments. See 

FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), which makes it unlawful “to use any registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling”. In order to expand these protective measures without making 

individual product labelslabeling inordinately complex, the Agency decided to consolidate 

common requirements in a single, uniform standard that could be incorporated into agricultural 

pesticide labels by reference, the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). In 1992, the Agency issued 

the WPS, which, where mandated on a pesticide label, provides a uniform system of protections 

to workers and handlers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses from occupational 

exposure to the pesticide product. The WPS establishes uniform requirements for practices that 

minimize exposure, regardless of the risks of specific pesticides, and the individual pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 29 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

labels provideproduct labeling provides the specific requirements appropriate to each pesticide 

product. The WPS sets basic requirements for notification of a treated area, limited entry into a 

treated area, supplies related to decontamination and maintenance of PPE, and access to 

information about pesticides used on the agricultural establishment. It also requires that workers 

and handlers receive basic safety training to inform them about ways to minimize their exposure 

and risk. 

B. EPA Regulation of Pesticides

In order to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects 

that might be caused by pesticides, the Agency has developed and implemented a rigorous 

process for registering and re-evaluating 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. The Agency also requires a 

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

Once an application for registration of 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. The Agency considers the risk assessments and 

results of any peer review and evaluates potential risk management measures that could mitigate 

risks above the Agency’s level of concern. Risk management measures could include, among 

other things, extending the restricted-entry interval (REI), the period during which people are 

prohibited from entering the treated area, to allow the pesticide residues to reach an acceptable 

level before worker reentry is permitted. They could also require certain engineering controls, 

such as use of closed mixing systems to reduce potential exposure to those who mix and load 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 30 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pesticides, or specific PPE, such as respirators, to protect users against risks associated with 

inhalation of the product. 

In the decision-making process, EPA evaluates the application to determine whether the 

proposed use(s) meets the Agency’s standards for registration. FIFRA is a risk-benefit statute. In 

evaluating the impact of a pesticide on occupational health and safety, EPA weighs the risks 

associated with use of the pesticide (occupational, environmental) and the benefits associated 

with use of the pesticide (economic, public health, environmental). FIFRA does not require EPA 

to balance the risks and benefits for each audience. For example, a product may pose risks to 

workers, but risks may nevertheless be reasonable in comparison to the economic benefit of 

continued use of the product to society at large. 

If the application does not contain enough evidence to prove that the pesticide meets all 

of these standards, 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 statutory standards, and, if the pesticide is intended to be used on 

food, a tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act can be established, EPA will approve the registration, subject to any risk 

mitigation measures necessary to achieve that approval. 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 label reflects the risk mitigation measures required 

by the Agency. Since 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 people and the environment from pesticide exposure. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 31 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

As discussed in Unit III.A., above, the labeling for agricultural pesticides requires compliance 

with the WPS, in order that workers, handlers, and their employers have a single, uniform set of 

specific requirements for the protection of workers and handlers that complement the productspecific labeling requirements. 

C. EPA’s Pesticide Reregistration and Registration Review Programs

FIFRA requires EPA to review periodically the registration of pesticides currently 

registered in the U.S. 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 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 required 

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 and published in August 2006. The purpose of both re-evaluation programs is to review 

all pesticides registered in the U.S. to ensure that they continue to meet current safety standards 

based on up-to-date scientific approaches and 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,” certain 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 

labelslabeling. To address occupational risk concerns, REDs include mitigation measures such as 

voluntary cancellation; limiting the amount, frequency or timing of applications; other 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 32 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

application restrictions; classification of a product or specific use as a "Restricted Use Pesticide" 

(RUP); PPE; specific REIs; user safety requirements; and improved use directions. 

Rigorous education and enforcement are needed to ensure that these 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, including worker risk mitigation 

measures, are realized. The rule changes being proposed in this notice are designed to enhance 

the effectiveness of the existing structure. 

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 the risks. EPA implements the risk reduction and 

mitigation measures that result from the pesticide reregistration and registration review programs 

through individual pesticide product labelslabeling. 

D. Existing Worker Protection Standard 

The WPS currently covers pesticide use at establishments engaged in the production of 

agricultural commodities: Farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. The WPS does not cover 

persons working directly with livestock. WPS regulations are directed toward the working 

conditions of two types of employees: Workers and handlers. 

 • Workers perform tasks related to the cultivation and harvesting of agricultural products 

on agricultural establishments. Typical tasks include thinning, pruning, and harvesting 

commodities. 

 • Handlers mix, load, and apply pesticides, and do other activities linked to pesticide 

application on agricultural establishments. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 33 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The WPS defines general protections that cover all workers or handlers employed on an 

establishment that uses a pesticide that references the WPS on the label and complements the 

specific risk mitigation measures implemented through individual pesticide labels.product 

labeling. The existing WPS requires agricultural employers to provide certain protections to their 

employees. Agricultural employers are required to notify workers of areas treated with pesticides 

so workers may avoid inadvertent exposures. Employers also must provide to all workers that 

may enter a treated area pesticide safety training that covers common routes of exposure, how to 

protect oneself from pesticide exposure, information on decontamination, and what to do in an 

emergency. Handlers receive more detailed training on using PPE, conducting pesticide 

application, and following safety principles. A central location on the establishment must have a 

pesticide safety poster and information on recent pesticide applications. Handlers and workers 

must be informed of specific requirements on the pesticide label related to the WPS. 

The labelslabeling of agricultural pesticides generally specifyspecifies REIs (a time 

during which entry into a treated area is strictly limited) for areas treated with pesticides. The 

existing WPS regulation provides detailed requirements regarding identifying areas under an REI 

and notifying workers about them, excluding workers and others from the treated areas, and the 

limited circumstances under which early entry may occur. The WPS provides detailed 

information concerning the types of PPE necessary for handlers and early-entry workers, if not 

specified on the label, and instruction that employers must provide to workers entering under an 

REI exception. The existing WPS also prohibits applicators from applying a pesticide in a way 

that will expose workers or other persons and excludes workers from areas while pesticides are 

being applied. These general requirements serve as a counterpart to the product-specific risk 

reduction measures implemented through the pesticide label. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 34 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The WPS also mitigates the risks associated with pesticide exposure by requiring 

agricultural employers to provide workers and handlers with water, soap, and towels for routine 

washing after working in or around areas where pesticides have been applied. There are also 

provisions for decontamination in the event of an emergency. The employer must provide 

transportation to a medical care facility for a worker or handler who may have been poisoned or 

injured, and provide information to the worker, handler, or medical personnel about the pesticide 

to which the person may have exposed. 

A detailed history of the development of the 1992 WPS and the process leading to 

today’s proposalthe proposed rule appears in Unit V. 

IV. Overview of EPA’s Protection of Pesticide Workers 

A. Demographics of Agricultural Workers and Handlers

The task of protecting workers and handlers from occupational exposure to pesticides 

presents a challenge, given the complexity of the science issues involving pesticide use, 

variability of pesticide use patterns, and the diversity of the labor population being served and 

the tasks they perform. 

According to information published by the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural 

Workers Survey (NAWS)(DOL) NAWS in 2001-2002, 75% of agricultural workers in the 

United States were born in Mexico and 2% in Central America (Ref. 3 p. 3). A majority (81%) of 

this group speaks Spanish as a native language, but a growing percentage speaks languages such 

as Creole, Mixteco, and indigenous languages (Ref. 3 p. 17). Approximately 44% could not 

speak English at all, and 53% could not read any English (Ref. 3 p. 21). Many have received 

minimal formal education; the foreign born workers, on average, completed no more than a sixth 

grade education (Ref. 3 p. 18). 

Formatted: Font: Italic
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 35 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Approximately 43% 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. 3 p. 7). Over 20% of 

respondents lived in housing provided by their employer and 58% rented housing from someone 

other than their employer (Ref. 3 p. 43). In general, agricultural workers surveyed by NAWS do 

not use health care facilities. Estimates of agricultural workers lacking health insurance range 

from 77% to 85% and estimates from the late 1990s indicate only 20% of those surveyed had 

visited a health care facility in the preceding 2 years (Ref. 5 pp. 12-13). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) research, based on NAWS data, also reports that workers have difficulty 

entering the health care system to receive treatment. Cost was a significant barrier for two-thirds 

of farmworkers, while about a third listed language barriers as an impediment to receiving care. 

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

will lead to deportation or other adverse legal action (Ref. 6). 

USDA issued a report indicating that the factors mentioned above contribute to the 

disadvantaged status of hired workers in agriculture (Ref. 6). Unemployment rates, counting both 

crop and livestock workers (livestock workers are outside the scope of the WPS), are twice that 

of all salary and wage workers. The NAWS found crop workers’ average annual income was 

between $10,000 and $12,499, with total family income averaging between $15,000 and $17,499 

(Ref. 3 p. 47). 

B. Incident Data Sources and General Information

Incident monitoring programs have provided the Agency with a better understanding of 

common types of pesticide exposures and their outcomes. In 2007, EPA released a report 

detailing the coverage of all pesticide exposure incident reporting databases considered by the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 36 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Agency (Ref. 7). EPA consults two major databases for information on occupational pesticide 

exposure incidents. 

The first database, the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk 

(SENSOR), is maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) /National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). SENSOR covers all occupational injuries 

and has a specific component for pesticides (SENSOR-Pesticides). EPA uses SENSORPesticides to monitor trends in occupational health related to acute exposures to pesticides, to 

identify emerging pesticide problems, and to build and maintain state surveillance capacity. 

SENSOR-Pesticides is a state-based surveillance system with eleven state participants. The 

program collects most poisoning incident cases from: 

 • Department of Labor workers’ compensation claims when reported by physicians, 

 • State Departments of Agriculture, and 

 • Poison control centers. 

A state SENSOR-Pesticides contact specialist follows up with workers and obtains medical 

records to verify symptoms, circumstances surrounding the exposure, severity, and outcome. 

Using a standardized protocol and case definitions derived from poison center reporting, 

SENSOR-Pesticides coordinators enter the incident interview description provided by the 

worker, medical report, and physician into the SENSOR data system. EPA believes that 

SENSOR-Pesticides provides the most comprehensive information on occupational pesticide 

exposure, but coverage is not nationwide and a majority of the data comes from California and 

Washington State. 

The American Association of Poison Control Centers maintains the National Poison Data 

System (NPDS), formerly the Toxic Effects Surveillance System (TESS). NPDS is a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 37 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

computerized information system with geographically specific and near real-time reporting. 

While the main mission of Poison Control Centers (PCC) is helping callers respond to 

emergencies, not collecting specific information about incidents, NPDS data help identify 

emerging problems in chemical product safety. Hotlines at 61 PCCs nationwide are open 24 

hours every day of the year. There are many bilingual PCCs in predominantly Spanish speaking 

areas. Hotlines are staffed by toxicology specialists to provide poisoning information and clinical 

care recommendations to callers with a focus on triage to give patients appropriate care. Using 

computer assisted data entry, standardized protocols, and strict data entry criteria, local callers 

report incidents that are retained locally and updated in summary form to the national database. 

Since 2000, nearly all calls in the system are submitted in a computer-assisted interview format 

by the 61 certified PCCs, adhering to clinical criteria designed to provide a consistent approach 

to evaluating and managing pesticide and drug related adverse incidents. Information calls are 

tallied separately and not counted as incidents. The NPDS system covers nearly the entire United 

States and its territories, but the system is clinically oriented and not designed to collect detailed 

occupational incident data. 

Three studies showing undercounting of poison control data indicate the magnitude of the 

problem. The studies each focus on a specific region and compare cases reported to poison 

control with those poisonings for which there are hospital records. In all three cases, the studies 

indicate a substantial underreporting of poisoning incidents to poison control, especially related 

to pesticides (Ref. 8) (Ref. 9) (Ref. 10). Underreporting of pesticide incidents is a challenge for 

all available data sources for a number of reasons, as discussed below. 

Symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning are often vague and mimic other causes, leading 

to incorrect diagnoses, and chronic effects are difficult to identify and track. The demographics 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 38 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

of the worker population also contribute to underreporting of incidents. Many incident reports 

lack useful information, such as the exact product that was the source of the exposure, the 

amount of pesticide involved, or the circumstances of the exposure. There may not be enough 

information to determine if the adverse effects noted were in fact the result of pesticide exposure 

and not another contributing factor. A more complete discussion of the underreporting and its 

effect on pesticide incident reporting is located in the Economic Analysis for this proposal (Ref. 

1). 

The data available do provide a snapshot of the illnesses faced by workers and handlers 

in the field and the likely avenues of exposure. Review of these data sources shows that workers 

and handlers continue to face avoidable occupational pesticide exposure. The most common 

types of incidents are related to pesticide drift and unpermitted entry into an area under an REI 

(Ref. 11). Often handler exposure occurs when handlers are using PPE and do not wear the PPE 

properly or the PPE malfunctions. Generally, reports on the data note that many of the incidents 

could be prevented with strengthened training for handlers and workers and improved 

notification when an application is occurring or a treated area is under an REI (Ref. 11). 

C. Other Worker Protection Programs 

EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program is comprised of three major components: 

protections for agricultural labor through the WPS (40 CFR part 170), described in Unit III.D.; 

certification of RUP applicators; and the National Strategies for Health Care Providers: 

Pesticides Initiative (Health Care Providers Initiative). EPA uses its field programs and 

cooperative agreements to distribute information on the risks associated with pesticides, 

developing technology, and self-protection to avoid pesticide exposure. All three field programs 

solicit feedback from the regulated and affected communities to EPA about the effect of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 39 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pesticide labelslabeling and mitigation measures. To implement these programs, the Office of 

Pesticide Programs works with an extensive network of partners, including state and tribal 

pesticide regulatory agencies; USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 

(formerly the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)); 

university cooperative extension services; farmworker groups; and the regulated community. 

EPA funds collaborative field projects and activities through grants with governmental and nongovernmental organizations with the goal of improving the health of workers, handlers, 

applicators, the public, and the environment. 

Under the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule, 40 CFR 171, EPA establishes 

standards for the competency of applicators who use RUPs. The rule requires applicators to 

demonstrate competency to become certified to apply RUPs. Part 171 also has a section outlining 

the requirements for states, federal agencies, and tribes to administer a program to certify 

applicators in their jurisdictions. All states and several tribes, territories, and federal agencies 

administer their own applicator certification programs. EPA provides funding through an 

interagency agreement with USDA to support the training of applicators using RUPs through the 

cooperative extension services in each state. 

The third prong of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program is the Health Care Providers 

Initiative, aimed at improving the training of health care providers in the recognition, diagnosis, 

and treatment of occupational pesticide poisonings. EPA collaborated in the development of a 

manual for health care providers called “Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings” 

(Ref. 12). This resource outlines the health effects associated with different classes of pesticides 

and suggests treatments based on the suspected exposure. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 40 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Under this initiative, EPA also works closely with the Migrant Clinicians Network, an 

organization of health care providers serving the migrant community, on a project to improve 

pesticide education and awareness and to train health care providers to recognize and treat 

pesticide-related conditions. This project also includes the development of relevant resources and 

tools that health care providers can use to deal effectively with pesticide-related health 

conditions, and the distribution of these products through training sessions, the Internet, and 

continuing education opportunities. 

D. EPA-OSHA Relationship 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et. seq., grants the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) authority to promulgate regulations to mitigate 

significant risks that may occur in the occupational setting. Under its statutory authority, OSHA 

promulgated a Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) to protect 

employees from general chemical hazards in the workplace. OSHA also establishes industry, 

chemical, and process-specific standards to address workplace hazards that warrant additional 

regulatory measures to ensure employees’ occupational safety and health. 

Except as limited by section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which 

prohibits OSHA from regulating working conditions or hazards where other federal agencies 

exercise statutory authority to prescribe or to enforce standards for occupational safety and 

health, OSHA’s HCS covers all industries in which an employee may be exposed to a chemical 

hazard in the workplace. OSHA based the HCS on employees’ right to know about chemical 

hazards in the workplace in order to make informed decisions about their work practices, to 

better protect themselves, and to reduce their chances of illness or injury from a workplace 

accident. OSHA determined that employees are at a significant risk of experiencing adverse 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 41 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

health effects in the absence of knowledge of workplace hazards. Among other things, the HCS 

requires employers to provide the following protections in the workplace: 

 • Develop, implement, and maintain a written hazard communication program; 

 • Maintain a written list of all hazardous chemical products and substances known to be 

present; 

 • Ensure labeling of all chemical containers; 

 • Provide employees with effective information and training on chemical hazards; and 

 • Maintain a copy of the safety data sheet (SDS, formerly known as Material Safety Data 

sheet, or MSDS) containing the chemical and physical hazard information for each hazardous 

chemical, and ensure that SDSs are readily accessible to employees when they are at the 

workplace. 

To address the statutory limitation in section 4(b)(1) and to ensure workplace protections 

of agricultural workers and handlers, OSHA and EPA formed a working group to discuss the 

jurisdictional overlap between OSHA’s authority over workplace safety and health and EPA’s 

mandate to protect those who work with and around pesticides from the risks associated with 

exposure. OSHA and EPA sought to coordinate regulations related to workplace safety and 

health and to ensure that they were within the scope of each agency’s statutes. EPA and OSHA 

agreed that OSHA’s Field Sanitation Standard addresses general sanitary standards, while EPA’s 

WPS decontamination requirements are specific to pesticide hazards. EPA stated that the 

intended reach of the WPS was limited to occupational safety for pesticides and that OSHA was 

not preempted from regulating any non-pesticide chemical or other workplace hazards in 

agriculture. OSHA established a policy not to cite employers covered under the WPS for 

pesticide-related HCS standards. The policy also defers to EPA’s regulatory authorities for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 42 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pesticide labeling and use, certification of pesticide applicators, and protection of handlers and 

workers on establishments covered by the WPS (Ref. 13). 

V. Sources of Information for Improvement of Worker Protection 

A. History of the WPS Regulation 

In 1974, EPA promulgated the first version of the WPS (39 FR 16888; May 10, 1974). 

The regulation provided health protections for workers exposed to pesticides from hand labor 

activities during and after applications. The 1974 regulations contained four basic elements: 

 • A prohibition against spraying workers, 

 • Specific reentry intervals for 12 pesticides and a general reentry interval for all other 

agricultural pesticides, prohibiting entry until sprays had dried or dusts had settled; 

 • A requirement for protective clothing for any worker who had to reenter treated areas 

before the specific reentry interval had expired; and 

 • A requirement for “appropriate and timely” warnings. 

A 1983 review of the WPS concluded that the 1974 regulation did not adequately protect 

workers (49 FR 32605; August 15, 1984). New information was becoming available about the 

use of pesticides and the impact on occupational safety and health. OSHA had promulgated 

occupational health standards for workers in non-agricultural industries that provided greater 

protections than those contained in the WPS. The OSHA Standards included requirements for 

notifying workers of workplace chemicals to which they are exposed, personal protective 

equipment to mitigate risks of exposure, hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, worker training 

programs, and recordkeeping. EPA considered the addition of similar protections to the WPS. 

In addition to the shortcomings of the protections in the 1974 rule, there were legal issues 

with respect to the enforcement of the protections. EPA realized that the four existing 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 43 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

requirements of the WPS were not typically included on the pesticide labelslabeling. Without a 

reference to the regulation on the labeling, the requirements were not legally enforceable. 

Moreover, the regulation itself did not clearly assign responsibility for compliance with the 

requirements; for example, workers were prohibited from entering treated areas, but nobody was 

charged with communicating the prohibition to the workers or ensuring that they did not enter. 

The Agency also wanted to expand the scope of the regulation to cover sites that had 

been exempted but were similar to farms, i.e., forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and to add 

another group of people facing occupational pesticide exposure in agriculture - handlers who 

mix, load, or apply pesticides. TheirHandlers’ occupational exposure profile is distinct from that 

of workers protected by the initial WPS. When mixing, handlers may face exposure while 

pouring the concentrated pesticide or stirring the diluted mix. Loaders and applicators handle 

many gallons of the diluted pesticide and may experience exposure while transferring the 

pesticide mixture into the application equipment or making the application. The Agency believed 

that expanding the WPS to include the additional sites and adding specific protections for 

handlers was necessary. 

In 1984, the Agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (49 FR 

32605; August 15, 1984), announcing its intention to revise the 1974 rule for the reasons 

outlined above and soliciting public comment. EPA also initiated a process of regulatory 

negotiation with parties interested in or affected by the WPS. Stakeholders with competing 

interests worked to resolve issues through collaboration and compromise. EPA convened a 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) workgroup, “The Advisory Committee on WPS for 

Agricultural Pesticides,” that had members representing a spectrum of stakeholder perspectives 

from 25 entities. Certain labor representatives discontinued their participation early in the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 44 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

process. As a result, the full committee did not participate in decision making; therefore, a 

consensus on proposed changes to the regulation could not be reached. 

The public comments helped the Agency refine the areas for proposed change. In 1988, 

EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988) that 

proposed significant changes to the then existing WPS, including the following: 

 • Expansion of the scope of establishments covered; 

 • Revision of reentry intervals to correlate with risks posed by each pesticide; 

 • Revision to the PPE requirements; 

 • Improvement to worker notification provisions; and 

 • Strengthening compliance with the regulation by designating specific responsibilities of 

agricultural employers. 

Following the publication of the NPRM, EPA held public meetings across the country, primarily 

in major agricultural areas, to explain the proposed rule and to respond to questions. EPA 

received 380 written comments from the public on the proposed rule. 

After review and careful analysis of the public comments, the Agency promulgated the 

final rule, revising the WPS and adding Subpart K (Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and 

Devices) to 40 CFR part 156 in August 1992 (57 FR 38101; August 21, 1992). Shortly after 

publication of the final rule, agricultural groups raised concerns related to the availability of 

materials necessary to implement the rule and insufficient numbers of qualified trainers. Based 

on these concerns, Congress enacted legislation delaying implementation of the final rule. In 

response to the concerns raised, EPA worked with stakeholders to develop training materials that 

were tested with focus groups to ensure that they were appropriate for the language and literacy 

level of the target training audiences. In response to identified training needs, EPA has developed 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 45 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

training materials in many languages, including Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin), Tagalog, Haitian 

Creole, Hmong, Ilocano, Khmer, Laotian, Polish, Portuguese, and Vietnamese. EPA’s revisions 

to the WPS were fully implemented in 1995. The expanded regulation provided protections for 

agricultural workers from pesticide exposure on farms and in forests, nurseries, and greenhouses; 

included agricultural handlers; and held agricultural employers and pesticide applicators 

responsible for complying with specific portions of the regulation. 

Since promulgating the WPS in 1992, EPA has made several minor amendments. In 

1995, EPA published a series of Federal Register notices: (1) reducing the grace period for 

agricultural employers to provide pesticide safety training to workers from 15 days to 5 days (60 

FR 21943; May 3, 1995), (2) establishing a 5-year retraining interval for workers and handlers 

(60 FR 21943; May 3, 1995), (3) exempting certain persons performing crop advisor tasks from 

WPS provisions except for pesticide safety training, (60 FR 21948; May 1995), and (4) creating 

exceptions to the WPS to allow workers to enter pesticide-treated areas during an REI under 

specified conditions to perform irrigation tasks (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995) and tasks that 

involve limited contact with pesticide-treated surfaces (60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995). 

In 1996, EPA amended the regulation to: (1) reduce the number of days employers must 

provide to workers decontamination supplies (soap, water, paper towels) after application of 

pesticides that are low risk and have REIs of four hours or less (61 FR 33207; June 26, 1996), (2) 

allow substitution of the language commonly spoken and read by workers for the Spanish portion 

of the warning sign (61 FR 33202; June 26, 1996), and (3) allow the use of smaller signs in 

nurseries and greenhouses (61 FR 33202; June 26, 1996). 

Lastly, in 2004, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register revising the WPS glove 

requirements. This notice allowed all early-entry workers and handlers to wear disposable glove 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 46 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

liners under chemical-resistant gloves and eliminated the requirement for aerial applicators to 

wear chemical-resistant gloves when entering and exiting aircraft that have been used to apply 

pesticides unless required by the labeling (69 FR 53341; September 1, 2004). 

During the course of the states' implementation of the 1992 WPS regulation, regulatory 

partners, the regulated community, and other stakeholders raised numerous policy and 

enforcement questions. EPA addressed most of these questions through reference to the official 

rule text or the Agency’s responses to public comments on the proposed rule. Some questions, 

however, raised interpretive issues that required the Agency to develop and issue interim 

guidance. EPA coordinated the development of guidance through an interpretive guidance 

workgroup (IGW) using a collaborative process that included all relevant and affected EPA 

offices, and state regulatory partners from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services and the New Mexico Department of Agriculture. The State FIFRA Issues Research and 

Evaluation Group nominated the state participants on the IGW. 

The IGW addressed the questions raised by stakeholders. The final IGW guidance 

clarified definitions for terms used in the rule, the scope of the WPS exceptions, and the intended 

scope and/or limits of provisions. The final IGW guidance has been compiled into a document 

available to the public (Ref. 14). 

Although the IGW document provided answers to many of the issues raised by 

stakeholders to EPA, it is only guidance. Therefore, the IGW document is not legally binding on 

EPA, workers, handlers, agricultural establishments, and others. EPA proposes to codify certain 

of the elements in the IGW guidance document, as discussed in Units VII through XVIII. 

At the same time EPA published the 1992 WPS, the Agency also published an NPRM on 

a Hazard Communication/Right-to-Know program for agricultural workers (57 FR 38167; 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 47 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

August 21, 1992). This NPRM responded to comments received in response to the 1992 

proposed rule noting that protections for agricultural workers could not be considered complete 

until workers were provided with specific hazard information. Many comments called for EPA to 

adopt requirements parallel to those imposed by OSHA rules. In the 1992 proposed rule, EPA 

proposed options for providing written information about the specific hazards posed by 

pesticides in the workplace, for alleviating confusion about possible conflict and duplication 

between EPA and OSHA regulation of occupational safety and health in pesticides, and for 

supporting states in developing their own hazard communication programs. EPA never 

promulgated a rule finalizing a Hazard Communication/Right-to-Know program for agricultural 

workers because Agency resources were diverted to develop training and compliance assistance 

materials to implement the WPS as mandated by Congress. The Agency also wanted to solicit 

more stakeholder feedback about states’ experiences implementing different approaches to 

hazard communication before moving forward with a final regulation. 

B. Stakeholder Engagement 

Over the last 20 years, the Agency has repeatedly engaged the public and particularly 

affected stakeholders in the assessment of the 1992 WPS and its implementation. This 

stakeholder engagement process has provided EPA with a deep appreciation of the complex 

challenges facing federal, state and tribal authorities, agricultural employers, and workers and 

handlers in the ongoing effort to ensure pesticide use is safe. 

Immediately following full implementation of the 1992 WPS, EPA began the Pesticide 

Dialogue Process. From 1996 to 2000, EPA held public meetings across the country for open 

dialogue on rule implementation, challenges in compliance, and perceived effectiveness. The 

meetings were open to the general public. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 48 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The Agency initiated the National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety 

Program (National Assessment) in 2000. Through this process, EPA convened stakeholder 

meetings in Texas, California, and Florida. Participants included representatives from 

farmworker organizations, cooperative extension services, commodity organizations, state 

regulatory agencies, federal agencies, pesticide manufacturers and distributors, and individual 

workers, handlers, and growers. Stakeholders provided information about the strengths and 

weaknesses of the WPS’s protections and implementation. EPA established three workgroups: 

general training (Ref. 15), train-the-trainer (Ref. 16), and hazard communication. Each of the 

workgroups met apart from the public meetings to assess specific aspects of the WPS and to 

recommend improvements. EPA held a final meeting in Washington, DC at which the 

workgroups presented their findings to EPA. 

The assessment concluded in 2005 with the presentation of the “Report on the National 

Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program” (Ref. 17). The opinions and suggestions 

made during the course of the assessment centered on a few broad improvement areas: the 

expansion and upgrade of applicator competency and worker safety and promotion of safer work 

practices, improved training of and communication with all pesticide workers, increased 

enforcement efforts and improved training of inspectors, training of health care providers and 

monitoring of pesticide incidents, and finally, program operation, efficiency, and funding (Ref. 

17 p. 1). While EPA addressed some of the recommendations through grants, program guidance, 

and other outreach, others required regulatory change (Ref. 17 p. 26). 

During the initial stages of the framing of this proposal, EPA’s Federal Advisory 

Committee, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), formed a workgroup in 2006 to 

provide feedback to EPA on different areas for change. The workgroup had over 70 members 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 49 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

representing a wide range of stakeholders. EPA shared with the workgroup suggestions for 

regulatory change identified through the National Assessment and solicited comments. The 

workgroup convened for a series of meetings and conference calls to get more information on 

specific parts of the regulation and provided its thoughts to the Agency. The workgroup never 

reached consensus; it focused on evaluating possible changes under consideration by EPA 

providing feedback from each member’s or organization’s perspective. Comments from the 

PPDC workgroup members have been compiled into a single document and posted in the docket. 

EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel on potential revisions 

to the WPS in 2008. The SBAR Panel was convened under section 609(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act 

(SBREFA). As part of the SBAR Panel’s activities, EPA consulted with a group of Small Entity 

Representatives (SERs) from small businesses and organizations that could be affected by the 

potential revisions. EPA provided the SERs with information on the WPS and potential revisions 

and requested feedback on the proposals under consideration. EPA asked the SERs to offer 

alternate solutions to the potential proposals presented to provide flexibility or to decrease 

economic impact for small entities while still accomplishing the goal of improved safety. 

The SERs provided feedback on the following areas: Requiring all treated areas to be 

posted, requiring pesticide safety training more frequently than every 5 years, eliminating the 

grace period between hiring a worker and providing pesticide safety training, and requiring 

showers on establishments that employ handlers. EPA compiled the responses from the SERs in 

an Appendix to the final Panel Report and posted the full report and appendix in the docket (Ref. 

18). EPA considered the input from the SERs as part of the evaluation of available options for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 50 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

this rulemaking, and where appropriate, feedback from the SERs is discussed in various 

descriptions of proposed changes in this preamble. 

In addition to formal stakeholder outreach, EPA met with numerous individual 

stakeholders when requested to discuss concerns and suggestions in detail. Stakeholders included 

farmworker organizations (Farmworker Justice, Migrant Clinicians Network, and El Comité de 

Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agrícolas [Farmworker Support Committee]); the National 

Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA); the Association of American 

Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO); Crop Life America (CLA); and others. 

C. GAO Audits

In 1992, prior to the promulgation of the amended WPS, the General Accounting Office 

(now the Government Accountability Office; GAO) published “Hired Farmworkers: Health and 

Well-Being at Risk” (Ref. 19). The report discussed a number of services, such as social 

security, housing, field sanitation, job training and employment programs, children’s education, 

and other issues that the government would need to address to provide better conditions for 

farmworkers. 

The 1992 report noted that at that time, EPA lacked an understanding of the health risks 

for many older pesticides, placing workers at risk from potentially unsafe exposure. The report 

also noted that the 1974 rule requirement to limit worker entry into treated areas was difficult for 

workers to follow. It prohibited reentry until “sprays have dried or dusts have settled,” language 

that involved subjective judgments. The 1992 amendments to the WPS partially addressed these 

issues by requiring interim protective intervals for worker entry into treated areas based on the 

acute toxicity of the product. Since that time, EPA’s reregistration program, through which EPA 

reviewed and assessed older pesticides to ensure they continue to meet the FIFRA regulatory 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 51 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

standard, has been completed. See Unit III.C. Through that process, chemical-specific protective 

reentry intervals have replaced the interim intervals. 

In 2000, GAO issued another report, “Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure the 

Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children,” (Ref. 20). In this report, GAO focused more 

specifically on the potential risks to children of entering a pesticide-treated area. It noted that 

children under 12 years old may have a higher risk of adverse effects related to pesticide 

exposure and should be protected adequately. It also cited EPA data on WPS enforcement, 

noting the lack of consistency and involvement by EPA in monitoring the inspections and the 

need to have target numbers of inspections. The report recommended that EPA “mitigate the 

potential adverse effects of pesticide exposure on children below the age of 12 who work in 

agriculture or are otherwise present in pesticide-treated fields” (Ref. 20 p. 24). It also suggested 

that EPA improve oversight of state-level WPS enforcement and set standard guidance for 

inspections. 

D. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) established federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. It directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their missions by identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United States. 

The Executive Order establishes four areas for action: 

 • promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority 

populations and low-income populations; 

 • ensure greater public participation; 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 52 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • improve research and data collection relating to the health and environment of minority 

populations and low-income populations; and 

 • identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority 

populations and low-income populations. In addition, the environmental justice strategy shall 

include, where appropriate, a timetable for undertaking identified revisions and consideration of 

economic and social implications of the revisions. 

EPA’s goal is to promote environmental justice for all communities and persons across 

the United States, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Ensuring environmental 

justice means not only protecting health and the environment for everyone, but also ensuring that 

all people are treated fairly and are given the opportunity to participate fully in the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Consistent 

with the Executive Order, the Agency’s environmental justice policies promote environmental 

protection by focusing EPA’s attention and efforts on addressing environmental risks among 

minority populations. 

As discussed above in Unit IV.A., most workers and handlers intended to be protected by 

the WPS face significant disadvantages. Most agricultural workers and handlers belong to 

minority groups. Agricultural workers tend to have low literacy in any language and very limited 

skills in English. Very often workers do not have permanent housing and generally reside close 

to agricultural areas where pesticides are applied. Many workers and handlers are not residents 

or legal aliens in the United States. The low literacy rates, range of non-English languages 

spoken by workers and handlers, economic situation, geographic isolation, difficulty accessing 

health care, and immigration status of workers and handlers pose challenges for communicating 

risk management information and ensuring that these groups are adequately protected. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 53 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Occupational tasks performed by workers and handlers create a significant risk of 

pesticide exposure, which is increased by the communication barriers discussed above. In 

addition to potential exposure through work duties, studies show that workers and handlers face 

a greater risk of exposure to pesticide drift from neighboring areas than does the general 

population (Ref. 21). Pesticide exposure can also come through residues transferred by workers 

and handlers on their clothing and body from the treated areas to their cars and homes, and from 

the proximity of the housing to agricultural areas treated with pesticides (Ref. 21) (Ref. 22) (Ref. 

23) (Ref. 24). Finally, pesticide exposure may occur from the consumption of treated foods in the 

treated area or washing hands in pesticide contaminated water (Ref. 25) (Ref. 26) (Ref. 27 p. 25). 

Throughout the development of this proposed rule, the Agency has continued to use 

research on the demographic characteristics, work habits, and culture of the worker and handler 

populations to revise the WPS to ensure it provides effective protection. Information for the 

assessment and development of the rule was gathered through field research and interaction with 

workers, handlers, worker and handler representatives, and stakeholders. EPA extensively 

engaged farmworker representatives, and when possible, worked directly with workers and 

handlers, to solicit their feedback on the current regulation and ideas for improvement. 

With this stakeholder input, the Agency identified areas where the existing WPS does not 

provide an appropriate level of protection and evaluated the potential impact of various options 

for strengthening the WPS for the worker and handler populations. That analysis identified areas 

for improvement to the rule, such as expanding training to provide information on how to 

minimize worker and handler exposure and that of their families from pesticide residues carried 

from the treated area to the home. The Agency’s efforts to address environmental justice through 

this rulemaking were reviewed repeatedly during the development of the rule and its supporting 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 54 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

documents. EPA believes that the proposed changes would improve the health of workers and 

handlers by, for example, 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. 

E. Children’s Protection

An Executive Order issued in 1997 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) and modified in 2003 

(68 FR 19931; April 23, 2003) requires federal agencies to identify and assess environmental 

health risks that may disproportionately affect children. In response to this mandate, EPA 

established the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) to advise and make 

recommendations to EPA on issues related to children’s environmental health. The CHPAC 

recommended that EPA “re-evaluate the worker protection standard in order to determine 

whether it adequately protects children's health” (Ref. 28). In a Federal Register Notice issued on 

February 3, 1999, EPA committed to conducting an assessment of the implementation and 

enforcement of the WPS (64 FR 5277; February 3, 1999). 

Children face risks from exposure to agricultural pesticides mainly through work in 

pesticide-treated areas. A 2003 study by Calvert, et al. identified 531 children under 18 years old 

with acute occupational pesticide-related illnesses over a ten-year period (Ref. 29). The same 

study raised concerns for chronic impacts: “because [the] acute illnesses affect young people at a 

time before they have reached full developmental maturation, there is also concern about unique 

and persistent chronic effects” (Ref. 29). 

Although no conclusive data exist, studies have been conducted to evaluate whether 

children of agricultural workers and handlers may face elevated potential for exposure from 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 55 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pesticide residues brought to the home by their parents (Ref. 30) (Ref. 31). Studies have also 

been conducted to evaluate whether this exposure scenario may have contributed to negative 

health or developmental effects (Ref. 32). Higher concentrations of pesticide residues combined 

with the susceptibility of children to the effects of pesticide exposure may increase the likelihood 

that children will be adversely impacted. EPA recognizes the need for more conclusive data on 

exposure to children from pesticide residues brought into the home by agricultural workers. 

However, given EPA’s commitment to protecting children and to the principles of environmental 

justice, EPA believes the cost of adding a few minutes to pesticide safety training is reasonable 

when compared to the benefit of reducing the potential risk. 

UnderThe FLSA’s child labor provisions, which are administered by the Department of 

Labor’s Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,, permit children mayto work at younger ages and in 

more hazardous tasks in agricultural employment than in non-agricultural employment. Persons 

12 and 13 years old may work in agriculture than is permitted in other industries. For 

example,outside of school hours in nonhazardous jobs if they are either working on the current 

law permits childrensame farm as young as 10 years old to work in agriculture under limited 

circumstances (a parent or person standing in the place of a parent, or working with parental 

permission. 29 CFR 575U.S.C. § 213(c)(1)(B). Children under 16 years old are prohibited from 

doing hazardous tasks, including handling or applying pesticides that are classified as toxicity 

category I or II but can apply pesticides that are classified with a lower acute toxicity. (29 CFR 

570.71(a)(9)) 

In summary, children working in agriculture and children of agricultural workers and 

handlers may be at a higher risk of pesticide exposure and illness; EPA believes these potential 

risks warrant careful consideration in light of the provisions of the Executive Order on children’s 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 56 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

health (EO 13296). EPA believes that the proposed changes could protect children from many of 

the risks they may face. 

F. Retrospective Regulatory Review

On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821-23), 

requiring agencies to, among other things, engage in a retrospective analysis of existing rules.

The purpose of the review is to promote consideration of “rules that may be outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 

them in accordance with what has been learned.” The order directs agencies to engage with the 

public, especially all potentially affected stakeholders, in reviewing the impact of the rule and 

considering flexible options to promote compliance.

In 2005, EPA reviewed the WPS pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 USC 610). The purpose of the review was to determine whether the rule should be 

continued without change, amended, or rescinded to minimize economic impacts on small 

entities while still complying with the provisions of FIFRA. EPA solicited comment on the 

continued need for the WPS; the complexity of the WPS; the extent to which it overlaps, 

duplicates, or conflicts with other federal, state, or local government rules; and the degree to 

which technology, economic conditions or other relevant factors have changed since the WPS 

was promulgated. See EPA Docket ID number OPP-2003-0115 at www.regulations.gov. The 

Agency received no comment on the action and concluded that the rule needs no revisions to 

minimize impacts on small entities while still complying with FIFRA. 

While EPA found that no changes were necessary to minimize the impacts on small 

entities, EPA believes that the WPS should be updated for the reasons discussed in the previous 

sections. EPA believes this proposal is consistent with Executive Order 13563 because it is the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 57 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

product of a review of the WPS that includes extensive stakeholder participation. Through the 

assessment process, EPA reviewed the 1992 WPS to determine whether the requirements were 

effective, sufficiently protective, and unduly burdensome on employers. As discussed in Unit 

V.B., EPA engaged in a substantial stakeholder engagement process, apart from the 2005 review 

mentioned in the previous paragraph, to review the effectiveness of the current regulatory 

requirements, to identify gaps in protection, and to determine flexible approaches to compliance 

for the regulated community. EPA engaged with small business representatives to explore 

flexible options for compliance. EPA believes the proposed changes reflect the current 

understanding of the risks faced by workers and handlers, thereby substantially improving the 

protections afforded to workers and handlers under the WPS and decreasing the overall burden 

associated with compliance for employers. 

VI. Overview of Proposed Revisions to Part 170 

Earlier Units of this preamble describe the various ways that workers, handlers, and their 

families can be exposed to pesticides. The stakeholder engagement described in Unit V.B. 

resulted in many recommendations for EPA to revise the regulation. Through the SBAR panel, 

SERs raised the need for EPA to be mindful of the burden the WPS imposes on small business 

and to reduce it wherever possible (Ref. 18). 

As discussed earlier in this document, EPA has imposed requirements on the use of 

pesticides with the intent of averting unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the 

environment. These requirements include the WPS and pesticide-specific use restrictions found 

on product labeling. In spite of these protections, worker and handler illnesses resulting from 

pesticide exposure are documented, and the Agency believes they are underreported. Peerreviewed studies, based on pesticide illness reporting and surveillance initiatives show evidence 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 58 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

of illnesses to workers and handlers. For example, one study finds that acute pesticide poisoning 

incidents in the agriculture industry “continues to be an important problem” (Ref. 11). This study 

examined pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers from 1998-2005, and 

analyzed 3,271 cases. Illness rates varied by category, but across agricultural worker categories, 

risks of poisoning were an order of magnitude higher than for almost all non-agricultural 

workers, which include farmers, processing/packing plant workers, and other miscellaneous 

agricultural workers. A study conducted by Das, et al., identified 486 pesticide illness cases 

among California farmworkers for 1998-1999, based on a surveillance program with mandatory 

reporting by physicians. The study found that about half of all acute pesticide-related illness 

cases in the California surveillance system affected agricultural workers (Ref. 33). Over a quarter 

of the poisonings were to those mixing, loading or applying pesticides. The most common 

symptoms were dermatological (about 44%), neurological (about 39%), and gastrointestinal 

(about 38%), and the most common route of exposure was skin contact, followed by inhalation 

and eye contact. 

A 2008 report indicates that from 1998 to 2005 the major causes of occupational 

pesticide exposure were off-target drift, early reentry into a treated area, and pesticide use in 

conflict with the labeling (Ref. 11). Studies have been conducted to evaluate whether worker and 

handler families are exposed to pesticides because workers and handlers bring pesticide residues 

home on their body, shoes, and clothing (Ref. 23) (Ref. 24) (Ref. 34). These studies recommend 

that workers and handlers receive more specific information on how to protect their families and 

avoid exposure in the workplace (Ref. 23) (Ref. 24) (Ref. 34). 

EPA believes the proposed changes address the specific avenues of occupational 

exposure and recognize the specific needs of the worker and handler population. Units VII. to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 59 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

XX. describe the proposed changes and alternative options considered by EPA. The presentation 

is generally structured to provide, where appropriate: 

 • A concise statement of the proposed change; 

 • The current WPS requirements; 

 • Stakeholder feedback and research supporting the proposed change; 

 • A detailed description of the proposed change and the rationale for the change; 

 • An estimated cost; 

 • A description of significant alternatives considered by EPA and the reasons for not 

proposing them; and 

 • Specific questions on which the Agency seeks feedback. 

 For purposes of discussion, EPA groups the proposed changes and considered 

alternatives as follows: 

 • Unit VII: Changes to the training for workers and handlers, including new 

recordkeeping requirements, multiple changes to the content of the training, and trainer 

qualifications. 

 • Unit VIII: Changes to the worker and handler notifications including posted and oral 

notifications and revisions to the warning sign content. 

 • Unit IX: Hazard communication materials. 

 • Unit X: Information that handlers and agricultural employers must exchange. 

 • Unit XI: Handler restrictions including minimum age requirements for handlers. 

 • Unit XII: Expansion of entry-restricted areas, minimum age requirements for workers 

entering a treated area under an REI, and clarification of the REI exceptions. 

 • Unit XIII: Pesticide safety information display, including location and content required. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 60 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Unit XIV: Decontamination requirements for handlers and early entry workers. 

 • Unit XV: Emergency assistance. 

 • Unit XVI: Personal protective equipment, including the use of closed systems. 

 • Unit XVII: Monitoring handler exposure to cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. 

 • Unit XVIII: Exemptions for immediate family and crop advisors and exception to 

requirement for workers to be fully trained before entering a pesticide-treated area. 

 • Unit XIX: General revisions to the WPS. 

 • Unit XX: Implementation. 

VII. Training for Workers and Handlers

The current WPS allows employers to utilize a “grace period” to provide workers with 

basic training before entering the treated area and before the 6th day that workers begin working 

in an area covered by the WPS to provide the full pesticide safety training discussed below. This 

provision is considered an exception to the training requirements; therefore, the current “grace 

period” and proposed amendments are discussed in Unit XVIII.C. 

A. Shorten Retraining Interval for Workers and Handlers 

1. Overview. The WPS currently requires employers to ensure that workers and handlers 

are trained once every five years. EPA proposes 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. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural and handler employers to 

ensure that handlers and workers receive pesticide safety training once every five years (40 CFR 

170.130(a) and 170.230(a)). This retraining time period was initially implemented to minimize 

burden on employers when pesticide safety training was first introduced, due to the limited 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 61 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

number of trainers available at the time. Worker and handler trainings, as discussed in Unit 

VII.E., provide information on protecting oneself and family from pesticide exposure, 

recognizing and avoiding dangers in the workplace, and steps to take in the event of pesticide 

exposure. 

3. Summary of the issues. Many stakeholders have commented that a 5-year retraining 

interval is too long for workers and handlers to retain the safety information (Ref. 17) (Ref. 28) 

(Ref. 35) (Ref. 15) (Ref. 36) (Ref. 37). Through the National Assessment, letters to the Agency, 

and feedback from PPDC on proposed options, various stakeholders have recommended 

shortening the current interval in order to improve workers’ and handlers’ understanding and 

recall of the material covered. The General Training Issues Workgroup, with representatives 

from across the agricultural community, recommended shortening the retraining interval for 

workers and for the Agency to base the standard on retraining intervals for other similar 

professions (Ref. 16). 

Research has indicated the importance of repetition in an individual’s retention of 

information (Ref. 38). Stakeholders, particularly pesticide safety educators, have noted that 

“repeating basic safety messages increases adoption of improved safety practices.” (Ref. 39) 

Providing training more frequently than the current requirement of every five years may be 

especially beneficial for workers and handlers with limited knowledge of English or another 

widely used language, e.g., Spanish, or who have recently started working in an agricultural job, 

who may need additional review to fully understand the material. Worker advocacy groups and 

educators have repeatedly noted that more frequent training is important for the worker 

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

Page 62 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Additionally, a 2007 report for the EPA by JBS International titled “Hazard 

Communications for Agricultural Workers” reported that workers who were interviewed wanted 

more frequent training on pesticide safety (Ref. 40). Workers requested training to occur at least 

at least once a year. 

The DOL’s NAWS provides information on the nature of worker employment and turnover rate. The most recent report available notes that “[i]n 2001-2002, crop workers, including 

foreign-born newcomers, had been employed with their current farm employer an average of 

four and a half years. Thirty-five percent had been working for their current employer for one 

year or less, and 12 percent had been employed at their current farm job for ten or more years 

(Ref. 3).

Agricultural employers that provided information to EPA during the SBAR panel process 

on the WPS stated that they already provide annual pesticide training, since verification of 

previous training can be difficult to achieve and the employers want to ensure they comply with 

the WPS. to avoid liability. EPA has heard similar statements in discussions with farmers in 

other venues, but recognizes that all employers may not provide annual training. The Panel 

recommendations recognized the value of retraining, and specifically its ability to emphasize and 

remind the worker of important safety principles (Ref. 18). State and federal enforcement agents 

have also noted the difficulty in determining if a worker or handler has been trained, when 

relying on his recall of the training material over a long time period, e.g., 5 years. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to establish an annual 

retraining interval for workers and handlers. Accordingly, this would reduce the maximum time 

between trainings for workers and handlers from 5 years to 1 year. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 63 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA believes that more frequent repetition of the protective principles outlined in the 

pesticide safety training is particularly important given the demographics of the worker 

population. As data cited earlier show, workers generally have low literacy and limited 

understanding of English. Therefore, it is important for workers and handlers to receive the 

information in a manner they understand and with sufficient frequency to ensure they retain the 

information. 

Research shows that adults remember only about 10% of what they hear and 50% of 

information that they see and hear (Ref. 41). EPA expects the more frequent review of pesticide 

safety information, in combination with the proposal for expanded display of pesticide safety 

information at decontamination sites [see Unit XIII.A.], would improve retention of safety 

principles and hygiene practices critical to self-protection, reinforce the importance of protecting 

families from pesticide exposure, encourage handlers’ adherence to label requirements, and 

remind workers and handlers of the obligations of their employers under the rule. 

This proposed rule reflects previously established training requirements for similar 

occupational hazards. Federal agencies already require annual training when hazardous 

substances may be encountered in the workplace in many other industries. OSHA regulations 

require employers to provide annual training to protect employees from chemical hazards in the 

workplace including lead (29 CFR 1962.62(l)(1)), asbestos (1926.1101(k)(9)), and cadmium (29 

CFR 1926.1127(m)(4)). Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA 

requires personnel at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to have annual 

training as well (40 CFR parts 264 and 265). The risks from pesticide exposure through 

agricultural work are similar to the threats posed by hazardous chemicals in other industries, and 

the Agency believes training requirements to protect agricultural workers and handlers should be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 64 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

comparable to those required by OSHA. In addition, agricultural and handler employers may 

already be required to keep records of annual training required by other regulations, such as 

those listed above. EPA believes that agricultural and handler employers would track an annual 

requirement for WPS training along with required OSHA trainings and employment records, 

such as those required by the Department of Labor. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning shorter retraining intervals for workers and 

handlers appears in §§170.101(a) and 170.201(a), respectively, of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits.EPA estimates the cost of the requiring employers to provide 

pesticide safety to training workers annually would be $8.87 million per year. Training its 

workers would cost each agricultural establishment about $22 per year. EPA estimates the cost to 

employers to provide pesticide safety training to handlers annually would be $3.5 million per 

year. The average cost of training handlers would be about $17 per year for agricultural 

establishments and $66 per year for commercial pesticide handling establishments. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

While EPA can estimate the costs of this proposed change, quantifying the benefits is 

more difficult. Nonetheless, based on the information and expert views described in this section, 

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, reduced take-home exposure, and better protection of children. The 

Agency concludes that the estimated costs are reasonable when compared to the anticipated 

benefits resulting from the additional training. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 65 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. The Agency considered three 

alternative approaches to the retraining interval for workers and handlers. The first alternative 

was recommended by the SBAR panel, based on a comment from one of the SERs. This option 

would require annual retraining and offer small establishments, those with fewer than 10 

employees, the option to provide training less frequently for workers (Ref. 18). A small 

establishment requesting flexibility would be required to maintain documentation to show that 

(1) no additional workers were hired within the retraining interval, (2) no new or different 

pesticide applications were made from the previous year, and (3) they provided training for the 

specific workers on the establishment previously. If the establishment added any new employees, 

it would not be eligible to provide less frequent training. The estimated cost for this option would 

be about $7.95 million annually, or $60 for large agricultural establishments and $1412 for small 

agricultural establishments. The Agency agrees that this option could reduce the burden on small 

entities of providing annual training, but it would also reduce the benefit workers would receive 

from annual retraining. Moreover, EPA notes that implementation of such an exception would 

increase recordkeeping burdens on all small establishments that would offset, to some degree, 

the savings for some establishments from not having to provide training. The additional 

recordkeeping costs were not quantified. Under this exception, those small entities that added a 

new employee or applied a different pesticide during the year would actually have higher costs, 

even though the overall burden on small entities might be somewhat smaller. Based on the 

marginal cost reduction, increased recordkeeping burden, and potential risk to workers who 

would not receive training annually, the Agency thinks that requiring all establishments to 

provide annual training is more appropriate. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 66 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA also considered a 2-year retraining interval for all establishments. EPA estimates 

that biennial training for workers would cost about $3.2 million per year, or about $8 per 

agricultural establishment per year. Biennial training for handlers would cost about $1.6 million 

per year, or $8 per agricultural establishment and $27 per commercial pesticide handling 

establishment per year. While biennial training would provide more protection to workers and 

handlers than the current 5-year retraining interval, EPA believes the longer timeframe would not 

improve retention to the extent expected from annual training. Employers are already required to 

provide and track OSHA trainings and to maintain employment records, such as those required 

by the Department of Labor, on an annual basis; requiring pesticide safety training every 2 years 

could increase the burden on agricultural and handler employers to track the WPS training on a 

different schedule. Representatives on the SBAR panel indicated that many employers already 

provide training on an annual basis as part of their hiring process (Ref. 42 p. 2). EPA believes 

that even with a biennial training requirement, many employers would continue to provide 

training annually. Therefore, the burden on employers would not be significantly reduced by a 

biennial training requirement. EPA believes the costs of more frequent annual training are 

reasonable when compared to the anticipated benefits, particularly when combined with the 

stakeholder reports that annual training is already provided in many cases. 

Finally, EPA considered requiring a written test to gauge the workers’ or handlers’ 

knowledge about the topics covered in training to ensure that they have the information needed 

for self-protection. The Agency, however, was dissuaded from this alternative due to concerns 

for the ability of workers and handlers to successfully complete an exam, even when they have 

been adequately trained, on account of literacy and language challenges among workers and 

handlers. Some stakeholders have indicated that noncertified applicators, who have similar 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 67 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

demographic profiles to workers and handlers, may find it difficult to pass a written examination 

due to literacy and language barriers; the Agency believes workers and handlers may have 

similar difficulty (Ref. 36) (Ref. 37). Concerns exist for the perceived burden on employers for 

providing the time for needed training and exam-taking, and for the potential reduction in 

workforce when workers or handlers cannot pass the exam, despite being aware of the training 

content (Ref. 36) (Ref. 37). While testing might be a useful approach in some situations, the 

Agency believes that in this context a testing requirement is less likely than annual retraining to 

produce the desired improvements in workers’ and handlers’ understanding of pesticide safety. 

Therefore, EPA is not proposing testing as an alternative to annual training. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Should EPA consider different pesticide safety training timing? If so, what timeframe 

and why? 

 • Do you have information concerning the relationship between the frequency of training 

of workers and handlers and the frequency of incidents of pesticide exposure or illness? If so, 

please provide. 

 • Are there other ways EPA could ensure that workers and handlers retain the information 

presented in pesticide safety training so the retraining interval can be longer than one year? 

 • Are there other burdens or benefits associated with a 2-year retraining interval that EPA 

has not considered? 

 • What would be the impact of a 1- or 2-year retraining interval on states and tribes? 

 • Should EPA consider retaining the current 5 year retraining interval for workers and 

handlers and adding a requirement for annual refresher training? Please provide information on 

the relative benefits to and burdens on employers, workers, and handlers. EPA currently 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 68 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

envisions that, if adopted, the annual refresher training for workers would include the topics 

proposed at 170.309(e), the grace period training (see Unit XVIII for a full discussion of the 

proposed points for training workers under the grace period). The annual refresher training for 

handlers would include a review of information necessary for handlers to protect themselves, 

their families, workers, and the environment from pesticide exposure. EPA anticipates that the 

refresher training would be slightly shorter in duration than the proposed full pesticide safety 

training, but seeks comment on the duration of such refresher training. Retaining the current 5 

year retraining interval and adding a requirement for annual refresher training would necessitate 

additional recordkeeping by the employer. The employer would maintain training records for 

workers and handlers as discussed in Unit VII.B. below, as well as records containing the same 

information for the refresher training.

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

1. Overview. The existing WPS does not establish any mandatory mechanism for 

verifying that a worker or handler has received pesticide safety training. To improve compliance 

with the WPS training requirements and to address the absence of documentation of worker and 

handler training, the Agency proposes to eliminate the voluntary training verification card 

system and to require employers to maintain records of WPS worker and handler training for two 

years. In addition, the employer would be responsible for providing a copy of the record to each 

worker or handler upon completion of the training. EPA believes a requirement for employers to 

maintain the training roster, an official record, of employees’ training would address current 

enforcement difficulties in verifying whether a worker or handler has received training. The 

requirement to provide workers and handlers with a copy of the training record would allow a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 69 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

subsequent employer to verify that the worker or handler had received training and to copy the 

training verification record for the subsequent employer’s own files. 

2. Existing WPS requirements. Presently, the WPS does not require agricultural 

employers to document that they provided the training required under the WPS for workers or 

handlers. The WPS also does not require trainers or employers to record who they trained, what 

training they provided, or when they provided pesticide safety training. However, a voluntary 

program was established that allowed states, tribes, and agricultural employers to use verification 

cards to identify workers and handlers trained in accordance with the WPS. Participating states, 

territories, and tribes have opted to distribute cards printed by EPA or to generate agencyspecific cards. States, territories, and tribes allow distribution of the cards by trainers qualified 

under the WPS or under stricter requirements. A few entities require trainers of workers or 

handlers to submit the names of those trained to the state regulatory agency; however, EPA does 

not maintain such a list. Under the current voluntary training verification card program, an 

agricultural or handler employer who hires workers and handlers with valid training verification 

cards does not need to provide training until the expiration date listed on the card. At least 20 

states, territories, or tribes continue to use the voluntary training card system (Ref. 43). 

3. Summary of the issues. Since 1998, EPA has received considerable feedback from 

stakeholders, including state regulatory partners, regarding the difficulty of enforcing the training 

provisions of the WPS rule, primarily due to a lack of recordkeeping (Ref. 17) (Ref. 18). 

Inspectors have noted that they cannot consult a record to determine if the workers and handlers 

on the establishment have been trained. Their primary method for evaluating compliance with 

training requirements is to interview workers and handlers regarding the content of training 

received or whether any training has occurred. Stakeholders, including state inspectors and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 70 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

farmworker organizations, have indicated that interview results may be compromised as workers 

and handlers may not recall the training they received, may not connect the questions with the 

training information, and may not be able to communicate with the inspector in a language that 

both are comfortable speaking. Some workers and handlers may feel intimidated and provide 

inaccurate responses due to a lack of anonymity. Some states and territories, including AZ, CA, 

HI, NV, NH, NJ, PA, and PR, have addressed the issue through requiring a form of 

recordkeeping for worker and/or handler training, such as training records maintained by the 

employer, training records submitted to the state, or making mandatory the voluntary training 

verification card system. California has implemented a requirement for employers to maintain 

records of handler training for 2 years (3 CCR 6724(e)). 

Some stakeholders voiced strong support for improved recordkeeping as discussed in 

reports from the National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program (Ref. 44). The 

General Training Issues Workgroup, convened as part of the National Assessment, 

recommended that all trainers be required to maintain records of trained workers for the duration 

of the retraining interval, and suggested that EPA offer a variety of methods for employers to 

demonstrate compliance (Ref. 15). Farmworker organizations as well as other stakeholders have 

repeatedly emphasized the need to improve enforcement and compliance verification capabilities 

in order to assure greater protection for workers (Ref. 17) (Ref. 35). 

States, territories, and tribes have noted that the voluntary training verification card 

system is undermined by fraudulent cards. They cite instances of workers, handlers, and labor 

contractors illegally exchanging cards and altering the expiration date. Without an expiration 

year printed on each card and annual reprinting of current verification cards, it is difficult to 

assess the validity of the card. Without any requirement for creating and maintaining records of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 71 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

training, it is virtually impossible to verify who has been trained. States have informed the 

Agency that workers perceive the card as a credential that potential employers may use to 

determine their employability. As a result, state agencies have reported that falsified cards are 

common because workers and handlers want to show that they are employable. The Agency 

believes, based on information gathered since the implementation of the training verification 

card system, that the current system of voluntary training verification cards has proven to be an 

unreliable method of tracking and identifying trained workers (Ref. 37) (Ref. 45) (Ref. 46).

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to require agricultural and 

handler employers to keep records of all workers and handlers who receive pesticide safety 

training for 2 years on the agricultural establishment. Required information for the record of 

worker and handler training would include the trained worker’s or handler’s name, signature, 

date of birth, the date of training, the trainer’s name, proof of trainer’s qualification to train, the 

employer’s name, employer’s phone number or phone number of the establishment, and which 

EPA-approved training materials were used. EPA also proposes to require employers to provide 

a copy of the training record to each worker and handler upon completion of the training. 

EPA believes these new recordkeeping requirements would address some of the 

difficulties in effectively enforcing the existing rule raised by regulatory and farmworker 

advocacy stakeholders. This proposal would allow inspectors to verify training through records 

retained by the employer and maintained by the workers and handlers themselves rather than 

solely through interviews with workers and handlers. The Agency’s proposal is flexible in that it 

would allow paper or electronic recordkeeping, so an employer could scan the training records 

with employees’ signatures and maintain electronic files. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 72 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The recorded date of birth would be used to verify that the minimum age for handlers and 

early-entry workers has been met. [See Units XI.B. and XII.A.] Retaining the trainer’s proof of 

qualification to train would allow the inspector to determine if the trainer met the criteria to be a 

trainer. [See Unit VII.D] 

EPA recognizes the importance of maintaining some mechanism for workers and 

handlers to change employers without repeating pesticide safety training each time they enter an 

establishment. EPA believes that the proposed option would meet the need for employers to 

verify that workers and handlers have received appropriate training by providing an official 

record rather than the voluntary training verification card. The proposal to require employers to 

maintain specific records of worker and handler training and to provide a copy of the training 

record to each trained worker and handler would make the voluntary training verification card 

program obsolete, redundant, and unnecessary. An employer could consider a worker or handler 

trained if either the employee or prior employer presents a copy of the training record. EPA 

believes requiring employers to provide a record of the training to workers and handlers would 

allow workers and handlers to show future employers they have received WPS training. In 

addition, future employers could maintain a copy of the workers’ or handlers’ record in their files 

to comply with the requirement to ensure the employees have received the appropriate training. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the recordkeeping requirements to verify 

training for workers and handlers appears in §§170.101(d) and 170.201(d), respectively, of 

today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to maintain records 

of worker training for 2 years would be $1.6 million annually and about $4 per agricultural 

establishment per year. The cost for employers to maintain records for handler training for 2 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 73 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

years would be $160,000 annually, or less than $1 per agricultural establishment and about $3 

per commercial pesticide handling establishment per year. For a complete discussion of the costs 

of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).

Although EPA cannot quantify the benefits of this specific proposed option, EPA 

believes that requiring records of worker and handler training would improve employers’ 

compliance with the training requirements. Improved compliance would increase the likelihood 

that workers and handlers perform WPS tasks with the information necessary to mitigate 

exposure to pesticides for themselves and their family members. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. First, EPA considered an option to 

require the employer or trainer to provide every trained worker and handler with a wallet-sized 

verification record (similar to the current voluntary training verification card) that contains the 

proposed recordkeeping information, instead of the proposal to provide a photocopy of the 

training recordkeeping form. Distribution of the training verification cards would be limited to 

trainers who meet the proposed qualifications. [See Unit VII.D.] The cards would be issued by 

EPA on an annual basis and would indicate a date after which the card would no longer be valid, 

i.e., a 2015 card would state that it would not be considered a valid verification of training after 

12/31/2016. The annual card issuance by EPA and clear statement of the card’s longest potential 

validity could help cut down the issues of fraudulent use raised by states and other stakeholders. 

This alternative would increase the burden on trainers, employers, and EPA and states, 

territories, and tribes. Instead of providing a copy of the training record, the trainer would be 

required to copy the information onto each individual training verification card. Subsequent 

employers would need to verify the information on the card with the original trainer or employer 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 74 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

and to obtain a copy of the original training record for their files. EPA would be responsible for 

printing cards annually. EPA and states, territories, and tribes would be responsible for 

distributing cards to approved trainers and tracking who received the cards. EPA estimates that a 

mandatory training verification card program for workers would add about $640,000 to the cost 

of training records, increasing the total cost to about $2.2 million. Based on the increased burden 

to trainers, employers, and states, territories, and tribes without significantly different anticipated 

benefits to workers, handlers, trainers, and employers, EPA decided not to propose this option. 

Second, EPA also considered requiring agricultural and handler employers to submit 

worker and handler training records to EPA or to the state, territory, or tribal regulatory 

authority. The agency responsible at the federal or state, territory, or tribal level would then 

maintain a database of trained workers and handlers. The Agency believes that it is adequate for 

employers to maintain the records, making them available to inspectors upon request. The 

submission of training records to a central repository might benefit EPA and others wishing to 

verify a worker’s or handler’s status. However, employers would still bear the cost of either 

creating a record of the training in the central repository or verifying a worker’s or handler’s 

eligibility in the system. Since most workers and handlers have one or two employers per year, 

the burden on employers to report to and check with a central repository of information may not 

be justified. The proposed rule would require that the employer maintain records on-site for 

inspection purposes. 

Third, EPA also considered an option to require trainers, rather than or in addition to 

employers, to retain records of those trained. EPA is not pursuing this option because the WPS 

focuses on the responsibilities of agricultural and handler employers. Trainers are not responsible 

for the use of the pesticide on the establishment and therefore cannot be legally responsible for 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 75 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

following the labeling and complying with the WPS requirements. Ultimately, the agricultural or 

handler employer is responsible for ensuring that workers and handlers receive training and for 

tracking that training. Inspections focus on compliance of the agricultural or handler employer 

with the provisions of the WPS, not the trainer. The WPS would not prohibit the creation of 

training records by the trainer; however, the agricultural or handler employer would have to 

maintain a copy of the records. 

Finally, the Agency considered establishing a 5-year interval for the record retention 

cycle, which would coincide with the statute of limitations for civil violations (28 U.S.C. § 

2462). The estimated cost of this requirement would be $1.92 million for worker training records 

and $290,000 for handler training records. The incremental cost between record retention for two 

or five years would be negligible. However, EPA believes based on state programs (e.g., 

California and Florida) and stakeholder feedback that a requirement to keep records for 2 years is 

sufficient. Therefore, EPA decided not to propose a 5-year interval for record retention. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Would a requirement for employers to report worker and handler training information to 

the state or federal government for compilation in a central repository have benefits? If so, please 

detail the potential benefits and cost. 

 • Should the Agency reconsider any of the alternate options presented in developing a 

final rule? If so, why? Please provide data to support your position. 

 • Are there changes that would make the training verification card program more 

effective and less prone to falsified cards? If so, please provide detailed suggestions for 

improving the system. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 76 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Should EPA consider a performance standard to evaluate worker and handler training 

(asking questions based on the training content) rather than recordkeeping? Are there benefits or 

drawbacks to this approach that the Agency has not considered? 

 • Would employers rely on training records provided by the worker or handler as 

verification that the worker or handler had received pesticide safety training? 

C. Require Employers to Provide Establishment-Specific Information for Workers and Handlers 

1. Overview. The existing WPS does not require employers to provide to workers and 

handlers establishment-specific information on the location of decontamination supplies as part 

of their pesticide safety training. In order to allow workers and handlers to adequately protect 

themselves in the event of an unexpected exposure that could occur through spills, being 

sprayed, or other unusually high exposure situations, the Agency proposes that in addition to 

required general training employers must provide establishment-specific information about the 

location of decontamination supplies and pesticide safety and hazard information, as well as how 

to obtain medical assistance. 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. The Agency expects this change will equip workers and handlers 

with the knowledge and capability to assist in better protecting themselves from adverse effects 

of pesticide exposure. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Sections 170.135(e) and 170.235(e) require the employer to 

notify workers and handlers respectively about the location of the pesticide safety poster and the 

emergency medical information. Presently, part 170 has no requirement for employers to provide 

information on the location of decontamination supplies or hazard information to workers and 

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

Page 77 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations have raised to EPA the need for 

workers and handlers to receive establishment-specific information even if the employer can 

verify that the workers and handlers have already received pesticide safety training. The 

pesticide safety training covers general self-protection principles. Establishment-specific 

information on where to find, among other things, decontamination supplies, emergency contact 

information, and pesticide application information, is not consistent across establishments. While 

the workers and handlers may have received general information on how to protect themselves, 

without knowledge of where the necessary supplies are located or how to obtain emergency 

medical assistance they would not be able to use the knowledge to protect themselves. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to require employers to 

provide establishment-specific pesticide safety training for workers and handlers when they enter 

the establishment and before beginning WPS tasks. Content for the establishment-specific 

information would include the location of pesticide safety information, the location of pesticide 

application and hazard information, the location of decontamination supplies, and how to obtain 

emergency medical assistance. Employers would be required to provide this training prior to the 

handler performing handler activities or the worker performing worker activities orally in a 

manner that the handler or worker can understand, such as through a translator. Lastly, this 

training would be required even if the employer can verify that the worker or handler has already 

received pesticide safety training on another establishment. 

EPA acknowledges that some of this information is already required under the current 

rule. However, EPA believes that consolidating the requirements for establishment-specific 

training would make them easier for employers to find and comply with, resulting in a higher 

likelihood that workers and handlers would receive the necessary information. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 78 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the requirement for employers to provide 

location-specific information to workers and handlers appears in §§170.103 and 170.203(b) of 

today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. The estimated cost of this proposal is included in the cost of 

expanded training discussed in Unit VII.E. EPA assumes that employers cover this information 

as part of routine pesticide safety training and therefore including the establishment-specific 

information would add negligible time and cost. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA did not consider any significant 

alternatives to the proposed option.

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

 • To what extent do employers already provide this information to all workers and 

handlers when they first arrive at the establishment, for example, during the hiring process? 

 • The current rule requires employers to ensure that the workers and handlers receive 

information in a manner they understand. Are there any issues with the current requirement for 

employers? If so, please describe and provide data to support this position. 

D. Establish Trainer Qualifications 

1. Overview. The current rule allows workers and handlers to be trained by a variety of 

persons, including certified applicators and handlers. In order to ensure that the pesticide safety 

training received by workers and handlers is provided in a manner conducive to adult learning 

and provided in a language and manner in which they can understand, the Agency proposes to 

require trainers of workers to have completed an EPA-approved train-the-trainer program or be 

designated by EPA or an appropriate state or tribal agency as trainers of certified applicators. 

Certified applicators would no longer be automatically considered qualified to train workers. The 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 79 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Agency proposes to retain the existing qualifications for handler trainers, namely that in order to 

be a trainer of handlers, one must be a certified applicator under 40 CFR part 171 at the time of 

the training, to have completed train-the-trainer program, or be designated by EPA or an 

appropriate state or tribal agency as a trainer of certified applicators and to limit approval of 

train-the-trainer programs to EPA. In addition, EPA proposes to require trainers to be present 

throughout the training and to ensure that there are no distractions, e.g., background videos, loud 

machinery, or other instructions, competing for the worker’s or handler’s attention. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS designates the following groups as 

qualified to be pesticide safety trainers for workers: 

 • Applicators certified according to 40 CFR part 171 (private and commercial applicators 

of RUPs); 

 • Persons designated as trainers of certified applicators, or pesticide handlers by the 

appropriate state, federal, or tribal agency; 

 • Individuals who have completed an approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer program; 

or 

 • Persons who have completed WPS handler training. 

The existing WPS designates the following groups as qualified to be pesticide safety trainers for 

handlers: 

 • Applicators certified according to 40 CFR part 171; 

 • Persons designated as trainers of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by the 

appropriate state, federal, or tribal agency; and 

 • Individuals who have completed an approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer program. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 80 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The current WPS also requires trainers to be present to answer questions but does not 

require that they be present for the entire length of the training. 

3. Summary of the issues. When EPA proposed what would become the 1992 WPS (53 

FR 25970; July 8, 1988), stakeholders, specifically USDA and farmer organizations, raised 

concerns about the need for adequate numbers of qualified WPS trainers. To ease the burden of 

transition for agricultural employers during the implementation of the rule, EPA made approved 

criteria for trainers in the final rule (57 FR 38102, 38128-29; Aug 21, 1992) intentionally broad. 

Since that time, the pool of qualified trainers has expanded due to the increase and availability of 

train-the-trainer programs. EPA has supported the Association of Farmworker Opportunity 

Programs (AFOP) “Serving America’s Farmworkers Everywhere” AmeriCorps project for over 

ten years. This project connects trainers with farmworker communities to build training capacity 

and to provide free training services to agricultural and handler employers. In addition, EPA has 

developed a train-the-trainer handbook for worker training (Ref. 47). Many states have also 

increased the number of qualified trainers through train-the-trainer programs and other 

mechanisms. 

Farmworker organizations and pesticide safety educators have raised to EPA the 

importance of pesticide safety trainers having expertise both in the subject matter covered and in 

adult education for low-literacy audiences. The Hazard Communications for Agricultural 

Workers Report by JBS International found that workers want to receive pesticide safety training 

from trainers who are knowledgeable and certified (Ref. 40). In order to convey information 

about routes of pesticide exposure, potential accidents and how to mitigate pesticide exposure, 

and avoiding exposure through basic hygiene, the trainer must have a strong knowledge of the 

subject matter. A person can obtain this knowledge in several ways. First, a person who has gone 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 81 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

through a train-the-trainer program would become versed in the specific information to be 

conveyed to the training audience. Second, a person who is qualified, as a university professor or 

cooperative extension agent, to conduct training for a broad range of pesticide users, would have 

a working knowledge of the potential pesticide risks faced by workers and handlers. Lastly, 

handlers and applicators learn the subject matter in the training and certification programs, which 

cover the concepts presented in pesticide safety training in more detail. 

Research and stakeholder input have highlighted the need for trainers to have specific 

skills to reach this type of audience. Farmworker organizations and pesticide educators expressed 

concern about the ability of individuals without knowledge of adult education practices to 

conduct effective pesticide safety training (Ref. 39) (Ref. 46) (Ref. 48). Stakeholders have also 

informed EPA that training may be presented simultaneously with other information, preventing 

workers and handlers from focusing completely on the safety information presented. 

Stakeholders have raised concerns that trainers lacking skills in adult education may be 

ineffective in communicating necessary pesticide safety information to workers (Ref. 35) (Ref. 

36) (Ref. 48) (Ref. 46) (Ref. 39). Farmworker organizations have supported limiting eligibility of 

trainers of workers and handlers to those completing a train-the-trainer program “covering 

methods of conducting an informal adult participatory education session for low literacy 

learners, with limited English proficiency” (Ref. 35). A pilot train-the-trainer program in 

Washington State showed that participants who learned training techniques applicable to the 

worker population were more successful in communicating with their target audience than they 

had been prior to training, indicated by improved performance of the audience on a post-training 

evaluation of knowledge (Ref. 17). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 82 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require trainers of workers to 

complete a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program approved by EPA or to be designated as a 

trainer of certified applicators by EPA or a state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide 

enforcement. The proposal would delete the option for certification under 40 CFR part 171 or 

training as a WPS handler to serve as sufficient qualifications for a person to be a trainer for 

workers. 

Additionally, the Agency proposes to require trainers of workers and trainers of handlers 

to be present during the entirety of a training session and to answer questions. Trainers must also 

ensure that the training is presented in a manner free of distractions. 

EPA proposes to retain the existing categories for trainers of handlers and to add a 

requirement that the train-the-trainer program be approved by EPA. 

Under a cooperative agreement with the NASDA Research Foundation, EPA has 

developed the National Worker Safety Trainer Handbook (Ref. 47). This manual outlines the 

necessary pesticide safety information for workers, as well as describing adult education 

principles and how to communicate across languages and cultures. In addition to the National 

Worker Safety Trainer Handbook, EPA also supports the training of pesticide safety trainers of 

workers by AFOP. Both of these programs would serve as models for an EPA-approved trainthe-trainer program. Using these models, EPA would develop guidance to describe the necessary 

elements of a train-the-trainer program and the process for seeking EPA approval. EPA 

anticipates that any interested organizations, including non-profit organizations, universities, 

state regulatory agencies, and the pesticide industry, could seek approval for and administer a 

train-the-trainer course that meets EPA’s standards. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 83 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA proposes to retain the options for persons designated as trainers of certified 

applicators or handlers by EPA or a state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement 

because either EPA or the state or tribe has recognized that they have the subject matter expertise 

and qualifications necessary to convey the pesticide safety information to workers or handlers. 

Many cooperative extension services (part of land grant universities) have experts on pesticide 

safety that work with agricultural employers to provide information on safe pesticide use. EPA 

believes that in their role as educators and with knowledge of adult education, pesticide 

application, and safety principles, these persons are qualified to provide the information to 

workers and handlers. State regulatory agencies also hire or contract with adult educators to 

provide pesticide safety training to workers or handlers. Rather than increase the burden on the 

state or tribal lead agency by requiring that all persons complete a pesticide safety train-thetrainer course, EPA believes that state and tribal lead agencies would ensure that persons they 

designate as trainers can appropriately convey the information required under the proposed 

regulation to workers and handlers. 

EPA proposes to eliminate the automatic authorization of certified applicators and WPS 

handlers to train workers. Although certified applicators have demonstrated competency in 

pesticide application and safety, they may not possess skills as trainers, particularly for lowliteracy, non-English speaking, adult audiences. Handlers may possess pesticide safety 

knowledge and may have cultural and language abilities in common with workers, but they may 

lack teaching skills or sufficient technical knowledge needed to effectively convey the 

information. For training to make the most impact, trainers need to be competent not only in their 

knowledge of pesticide risks but also in communicating with adult learners with educational 

challenges. Trainers may have difficulty conveying the abstract concept of pesticide risk, due to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 84 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

barriers such as the limited English language skills, cultural differences, and low educational 

levels of many workers and handlers. EPA believes that there are sufficient qualified trainers to 

meet the proposed requirements now, as opposed to when the 1992 WPS was implemented, 

based on trainers qualified by AFOP initiatives and the publication and dissemination of an EPA 

train-the-trainer handbook. 

EPA proposes to retain the option for certified applicators to train handlers. While the 

Agency has some concern regarding the ability of certified applicators to provide effective 

training for workers because worker trainers need to have specific capability to deliver basic 

information to an audience that may have a low education level and limited literacy and English 

skills, EPA thinks this group can be successful as trainers for handlers. There is a large overlap 

between the roles of applicators and handlers, which allows applicators to draw on their personal 

knowledge and skills needed to correctly and safely perform handler tasks. In addition, in the 

revisions to part 171, EPA is proposing to require certified applicators to provide training that 

mirrors the WPS handler training to noncertified applicators applying RUPs under their direct 

supervision. EPA believes that the certified applicators are appropriately qualified to convey the 

proper pesticide application techniques and importance of protecting oneself from pesticide 

exposure to handlers that will be performing similar tasks in areas that have been treated with 

pesticides. 

EPA believes that increasing the qualifications of trainers will increase the value of 

training sessions by improving the quality of the training. Workers will benefit by improved 

understanding of the learning objectives and an increased ability to protect themselves and their 

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

Page 85 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

To ease implementation and ensure a sufficient cadre of qualified trainers is available, 

EPA proposes to continue allowing certified applicators to conduct worker training until two 

years following the effective date of the final rule. This transition period would allow time for 

applicators and other persons that do not meet the current requirements and who wish to conduct 

worker training to qualify as trainers under the proposed requirements, either by attending an 

EPA-approved train-the-trainer program or seeking designation as an approved trainer of 

workers from EPA or the state or tribe, and for all trainers to become familiar with new training 

materials developed as a result of the finalized rule. 

EPA plans to support the development of training materials for workers and handlers that 

reflect the new training requirements such as manuals and videos. EPA will work with 

stakeholders to develop these materials when the amendments to the rule are finalized and plans 

to have them ready for distribution when the revised training requirements go into effect. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning trainer qualifications for workers and handlers 

appears in §§170.101(c)(4) and 170.201(c)(4) respectively of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of revising the standards for worker trainers would be 

$1.1 million annually, or about $3 per agricultural establishment. For a complete discussion of 

the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to 

the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the precise benefits associated with this proposal; however, EPA 

believes requiring trainers to have the ability to convey the pesticide safety information, along 

with knowledge of adult education principles and how to communicate with low-literacy 

audiences, would increase overall understanding and retention of the pesticide safety training by 

workers. This improvement would increase the likelihood that workers and handlers adopt the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 86 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

principles outlined in the pesticide safety training and reduce the potential for exposure to 

themselves and their family members. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered several options 

regarding categories of qualified trainers. One option considered by the Agency was to continue 

to consider applicators certified under 40 CFR part 171 and handlers as qualified to train 

workers. EPA does not think, however, that a certified applicator’s knowledge of pesticide safety 

and application principles alone is sufficient to qualify the certified applicator as an educator for 

basic safety principles for workers. As discussed above, teaching an adult population, especially 

individuals with low-literacy skills, differing cultural norms, and a variety of primary languages, 

requires trainers with skills in reaching this type of audience. After considering this alternative in 

light of the demographics of workers and the importance of providing safety information in 

manner workers can understand, EPA does not consider it reasonable to assume that certified 

applicators and handlers necessarily have the adult education skills to adequately perform WPS 

training for workers. Certified applicators and handlers may become trainers if they complete a 

train-the-trainer course or are designated as trainers by the EPA or a state or tribal agency. 

EPA also considered an option to restrict trainer eligibility to only trainers who have 

completed a train-the-trainer program. The Agency believes that allowing trainers of applicators 

and those having completed a train-the-trainer course to train workers, as well as allowing 

certified applicators to train handlers, will offer continued flexibility for agriculture and result in 

less burden than restricting the qualifications to a single type of trainer. EPA has confidence that 

trainers designated as qualified by EPA or the states or tribes would have knowledge of adult 

education and the safety principles that workers need to know. Requiring all worker and handler 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 87 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

trainers to complete a train-the-trainer program would limit the number of eligible trainers and as 

a result there might not be sufficient numbers to meet employers’ training needs. 

EPA also considered implementing a test to determine the eligibility of trainers. Though 

examination would provide a method of evaluating knowledge, safety educators and advocate 

groups maintained that trainers need skills that cannot readily be assessed by an examination. For 

example, it would be difficult to assess, through an exam, whether a person has skills in 

communicating with low-literacy, adult audiences. EPA believes that train-the-trainer courses in 

which trainers learn and practice interactive and engaging training techniques, in addition to the 

necessary pesticide safety information, would be more effective than a written exam to prepare 

educators for an audience of workers and handlers. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Are there other programs that would prepare trainers to convey pesticide safety 

information to workers and handlers? Please describe the program and the feasibility of its 

implementation for affected establishments. 

 • Should EPA consider requiring trainers of workers and handlers to refresh their 

qualifications periodically, such as requiring attending a train-the-trainer program every 5 years? 

Please provide data in support or opposition. 

 • The current rule requires employers to ensure that the workers and handlers receive 

information in a manner they understand. Are there any issues with the current requirement for 

trainers? If so, please describe and provide data to support this position. 

E. Expand the Content of Worker and Handler Pesticide Safety Training 

1. Overview. The WPS currently requires employers to provide pesticide safety training 

covering specific content to workers and handlers. EPA proposes to expand the information 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 88 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

required to be covered in worker and handler pesticide safety training so that workers and 

handlers can better protect themselves from adverse effects of pesticide exposures. 

Additional content in worker pesticide safety training would include, among other things, 

information on: Howhow to reduce pesticide take-home exposure, the requirements for earlyentry notification, the requirement for emergency assistance for workers, and the availability of 

hazard communication materials for workers, and informing workers of the obligations of 

agricultural employers and what workers can expect. 

Additional content in handler pesticide safety training would include the handlers’ 

requirement to cease application if he or she observes a person other than another trained and 

properly equipped handler in the area under treatment or entry restricted area, and a requirement 

for OSHA-equivalent training on respirator use, fit-testing of respirators, and medical evaluation 

for respirator users. 

EPA expects this additional information provided in the proposed expansions to worker 

and handler pesticide safety training to better protect workers and handlers from risks associated 

with pesticides. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.130(d)(4), worker pesticide safety 

training must include, at a minimum, the following 11 basic safety training 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. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 89 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • 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 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4), handler pesticide safety training must include, at a 

minimum, the following 13 basic safety training points: 

 • Format and meaning of information on the product label, including safety information. 

 • Hazards of pesticides from toxicity and exposure. 

 • Routes through which pesticides can enter the body. 

 • Signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning. 

 • Emergency first aid for pesticide poisoning. 

 • How to get emergency medical care. 

 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures. 

 • Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). 

 • Heat-related illness issues. 

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

 • Environmental concerns. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 90 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home. 

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

3. Summary of the issues. The stakeholder engagement process produced many comments 

on the content of pesticide safety training for workers and handlers. [See Unit V.B.] 

Recommendations to improve worker pesticide safety training in the “Report on the National 

Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program” included adding elements to training on 

potential sources of pesticide exposure and preventing family exposure, such as specific 

information on the need to wash work clothes separately from other clothing (Ref. 17) (Ref. 15). 

Additionally, farmworker organizations support expansion of the worker pesticide safety training 

to include general information about pesticide hazards, ways to reduce take-home exposure, and 

worker rights. In contrast, other stakeholders raised concerns for extending the length of training, 

increasing the burden on employers, or making the training tedious for workers who may not be 

paid for time spent in training. Many stakeholders also requested that EPA be mindful when 

revising the WPS of the burdens faced by workers and some handlers, due to their low income, 

low literacy, and limited English language skills. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA is proposing a number of new provisions to be 

included in the content for worker and handler safety training. Each of these is discussed in 

greater detail in this section. Where some proposed changes only clarify or enhance an existing 

training topic, rather than substantially altering the content of the topic, EPA does not discuss the 

proposed modifications in as great detail as the proposed modifications to existing language that 

substantially alter the content of the training topic. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 91 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA proposes to add the following topics to both worker and handler training: protection 

from pesticide take-home exposure, enhanced emergency assistance provisions in the WPS, and 

the availability of hazard communication materials. 

Additional worker safety training topics would add about 15 minutes to the training and 

would include, in addition to the points in the current WPS: Handler tasks that employers must 

not direct or allow workers to do, early-entry notification requirements including age restrictions, 

hazards of pesticide exposure to children and pregnant women, how to report suspected 

violations, and the prohibition of employer retaliation for reporting suspected violations or 

attempting to comply with 40 CFR part 170. 

The proposed revised regulation for worker training at §170.101(c)(2) through (3) would 

require the following training content: 

 • Agricultural employers’ obligation to provide workers with information and protections 

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

pesticide safety training, pesticide safety and application information, decontamination supplies, 

and emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of restrictions during applications and 

on entering pesticide treated areas. 

 • 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 entry restricted or pesticide 

treated areas. 

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

potential sources of pesticide exposure on the agricultural establishment. This includes pesticides 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 92 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

drifting from nearby applications, and that pesticide residues may be on or in plants, soil, 

irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or used personal protective equipment. 

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

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

 • Potential hazards from chemigation and drift. 

 • 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. 

 • Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the 

body and as soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes. 

 • How and when to obtain emergency medical care. 

 • When working near pesticides or 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. 

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

soon as possible after working near or in pesticide treated areas. 

 • Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing. 

 • Wash work clothes before wearing again. 

 • Wash work clothes separately from other clothes. 

 • Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at work to your home. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 93 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with pesticide hazard 

information. 

 • Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load or apply 

pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

handler. 

 • There are minimum age restrictions and notification requirements for early-entry 

activities. 

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

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

 • Remove work boots or shoes before entering home. 

 • After working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, 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. 

 • Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

discriminating against any worker for the purposes of interfering with any attempt to comply 

with the requirements of this part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, 

assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this 

part. 

Additional handler training topics would add about 15 minutes to the existing training 

and would include: proper removal of PPE; the requirement for handlers to cease application if 

persons are in the treated area or entry restricted area; the requirement that handler employers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 94 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

must ensure handlers have received respirator fit-testing, training, and medical evaluation if 

required to wear a respirator; and the minimum age requirement for handlers. 

The proposed revised regulation for handler training at §170.201(c)(2) through (3) would 

require the following training content: 

 • Employers’ obligation to provide handlers with information and protections designed to 

reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes providing pesticide safety 

training, pesticide safety and application information, decontamination supplies, and emergency 

medical assistance, and notifying handlers of restrictions during applications and on entering 

pesticide treated areas. 

 • 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 entry restricted or pesticide 

treated areas. 

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

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

drifting from nearby applications, and that pesticide residues may be on or in plants, soil, 

irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or used personal protective equipment. 

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

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

 • Potential hazards from chemigation and drift. 

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

Page 95 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye flushing 

techniques. 

 • Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the 

body and as soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes. 

 • How and when to obtain emergency medical care. 

 • When working near pesticides or 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. 

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

soon as possible after working near or in pesticide treated areas. 

 • Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing. 

 • Wash work clothes before wearing again. 

 • Wash work clothes separately from other clothes. 

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

 • Agricultural employers are required to provide handlers with pesticide hazard 

information. 

 • Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load or apply 

pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

handler. 

 • Early-entry workers must be at least 16 years of age to perform early-entry activities 

and workers must receive notification prior to conducting early-entry activities. 

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

 • Keep children and nonworking family members away from pesticide treated areas. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 96 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Remove work boots or shoes before entering home. 

 • After working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, 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. 

 • Employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating 

against any handler for the purposes of interfering with any attempt to comply with the 

requirements of this part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or 

participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this part. 

 • Information on proper application and use of pesticides. 

 • Requirement for handlers to follow all pesticide label directions. 

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

 • Need for and appropriate use and removal of all personal protective equipment. 

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

 • Handler employers are required 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 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 97 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

equipment; providing decontamination supplies; and providing specific information about 

pesticide use and labeling information. 

 • Handlers must cease or suspend a pesticide application if workers or other persons are 

in the treated area or the entry-restricted area. 

 • Handlers must be at least 16 years of age. 

 • Handler employers must ensure handlers have received respirator fit-testing, training, 

and medical evaluation if they are required to wear a respirator. 

 • Handler employers must post treated areas as required by this rule. 

 i. Protection from Pesticide Take-Home Exposure. Although the current training instructs 

workers and handlers not to take home pesticide containers and that clothing can carry pesticide 

residue, the Agency proposes to expand the existing sections to include more specific 

information in the worker and handler pesticide safety training on ways to reduce take-home 

pesticide exposure. Specifically, the expanded training content would include the following: 

instructions on washing before touching family members, removing soiled work boots or shoes 

before entering the home, washing clothes that may have pesticide residues on them before 

wearing them again and separately from other family clothes, and keeping family members away 

from treated areas, as well as information on the potential risks to children and pregnant women 

from pesticide exposure. 

Workers and handlers may be exposed to pesticides at work; additionally, they and their 

families may be exposed to pesticide residues brought into their homes from the workplace. 

“Take-home” exposure is the movement of agricultural pesticides from the workplace to the 

home via contact with pesticide-contaminated clothing, dirt tracked into the home, or other 

pathways. This type of exposure has generated concern among health care professionals and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 98 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

worker advocates. A 1995 study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on worker’s home 

contamination found, in multiple industries, that hazardous chemical contamination of workers’ 

homes is a worldwide problem, resulting in injury and at times, death (Ref. 49 pp. vii, 17-19). 

Although EPA does not have conclusive data about the impact of pesticide residue 

transfer from a worker or handler to his or her home, car, and family members, the Agency 

recognizes that workers and handlers are exposed to chemicals in the workplace and should be 

educated on minimizing the transfer of these chemicals to non-work locations. Some studies 

have been conducted to evaluate whether non-working children in agricultural families may have 

greater exposure to agricultural chemicals than children of non-agricultural families from the 

presence of pesticide residue in their home (Ref. 50). Contamination of the home from 

agricultural pesticides can come from numerous sources, including soil, dust, or other residue on 

clothing and vehicles and contaminated storage containers(Ref. 49) (Ref. 51). Additionally, 

agricultural pesticides introduced into the home may persist longer than in outdoor areas, due to 

the lack of degradative environmental processes, such as those furthered by rain and sun. Peerreviewed studies have concluded that “farmworker and all rural families must be educated about 

drift and how to reduce exposure” (Ref. 52 p. 1259) (Ref. 53) and that “pregnant farmworkers 

and those living with farmworkers need to be educated to reduce potential take-home pesticide 

exposure” (Ref. 34 p. 491). 

Studies have focused on the presence of agricultural pesticides in the homes of workers. 

Centers for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research were established 

to explore ways to reduce children's health risks from environmental factors. The program is 

jointly funded by EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and 

also collaborates with the Centers for Disease Control (Ref. 54). Two of the centers, the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 99 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) and the University of Washington, have a 

number of studies which focus on agricultural pesticides and children, some with a primary 

outcome of pesticide exposure reduction strategies. The Center for the Health Assessment of 

Mother and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) Study, a longitudinal birth cohort study of 

children in the Salinas Valley, California, is the largest study administered by UC Berkeley’s 

Children’s Center (Ref. 55). California Department of Health Services tested dust in worker and 

non-worker homes and concluded that there is a greater presence of pesticide residue in the 

homes of workers (Ref. 56). Additional studies apart from the UC Berkeley activities have also 

examined the transfer of pesticide residues from pesticide-treated areas to the home and 

automobiles, i.e., the take-home pathway (Ref. 23) (Ref. 50) (Ref. 51) (Ref. 57) (Ref. 58). 

Effective methods of reducing take-home exposure exist. CDC’s 1995 study identified 

worksite behaviors, such as minimizing workplace exposures, storing clean clothes in 

uncontaminated areas of the worksite, changing work clothes prior to returning home, and 

showering before leaving the workplace, that are effective means to reduce take-home exposure 

(Ref. 49). The report also identified methods in the home to reduce contamination, such as 

laundering work clothes separately from family laundry, preventing family members from 

visiting the workplace, and informing the workers of risks to family members and how to 

minimize their exposure. Workers and their families should be familiar with how behaviors such 

as hand washing, proper laundering, and removing work clothes before entering the home can 

reduce risk of exposure (Ref. 34). 

 ii. Training on Reporting Violations and Employer Retaliation Prohibition

EPA proposes to require that worker and handler pesticide safety training include 

information on how to report suspected pesticide use violations. EPA also proposes to include a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 100 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

training point explaining that agricultural employers are prohibited from retaliation against 

workers and handlers for attempting to comply with the WPS or reporting suspected violation of 

the WPS. Including this information in the worker and handler training would increase the 

effectiveness of the existing WPS protections against retaliations. 

Under the current 40 CFR 170.7(b) employers are prohibited from taking “any retaliatory 

action for attempts to comply with this part or any action having the effect of preventing or 

discouraging any worker or handler from complying or attempting to comply with any 

requirement of this part.” The existing §170.130(d)(4)(xi) requires employers to provide training 

on protections against retaliatory acts. Similar protection against retaliation for handlers is 

covered in §170.230(c)(4)(xiii). 

Farmworker advocacy organizations recommend including in the worker and handler 

pesticide safety training information on the rights of workers and handlers under the WPS (Ref. 

36). The Agency agrees that workers and handlers should be aware of WPS provisions on how to 

report violations and the prohibition on retaliation by the agricultural employer. Farmworker 

advocacy organizations indicate that workers and handlers informed of their employers’ 

requirements and the process to report violations and pesticide exposure incidents are more 

likely to report them. This can lead to a clearer understanding of circumstances leading to WPS 

violations and pesticide exposure issues by enforcement. 

EPA believes it is important for workers and handlers to understand that the WPS 

provides protections for their safety and that if their employers do not provide the required 

protections, the government can assist them. By incorporating this information into the WPS 

training, it is more likely that workers and handlers will understand the information and be aware 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 101 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

of the resources available to them in the event of a suspected act of retaliation or noncompliance 

with the WPS. 

Farmworker organizations requested that WPS worker and handler training include 

contact information for legal representation (Ref. 35). EPA, however, does not agree. EPA does 

not consider it appropriate to recommend particular attorneys or legal representatives. Moreover, 

while legal representation may be helpful for a worker or handler who experiences retaliation or 

a serious pesticide exposure, it is not clear that requiring the requested notification would 

significantly contribute to the goals of FIFRA. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning training in regard to reporting suspected 

violations and employer prohibition against retaliation appears in §§170.101(c)(3)(viii) through 

(ix) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

iii. Training on Hazard Communications Materials for Workers and Handlers. EPA 

proposes to require agricultural and handler employers to provide workers and handlers with 

access to the expanded pesticide application information, the SDS, and the pesticide product 

labeling upon request for up to two years. [See Unit IX.] EPA proposes to include an overview 

of the new hazard communication requirements and materials (expanded application 

information, SDS, and product labeling) in the pesticide safety trainings for workers and 

handlers. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning hazard communication content of worker and 

handler pesticide safety training appears in §§170.101(c)(3)(i) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) of today’sthe

proposed rule.

iv. Training on Early-Entry Notification for Workers. EPA is proposing to add to the 

worker pesticide safety training points about the minimum age restriction and notification 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Space After:

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

Page 102 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

requirements for early-entry work. Workers would learn that entry into a treated area under an 

REI would be limited to workers 16 years of age or older and what notification requirements 

must be provided prior to being directed to perform early-entry tasks. EPA expects that 

providing this information to workers during training would make workers aware of their 

agricultural employer’s obligation to provide information on the protections required when asked 

to perform early-entry work. EPA believes that workers should be made aware of employer 

obligations in their training so they will understand the significance of (and, if they fail to receive 

it, notice the absence of) the information employers would be required to provide. For a 

complete discussion of the proposed amendments to the early-entry requirements, see Unit XII. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning early-entry notification and minimum age content of 

worker and handler pesticide safety training appears in §§170.101(c)(3)(iii) and 170.201(c)(3)(v) 

of today’sthe proposed rule. 

v. Handler Responsibilities. EPA proposes that a handler be required to cease application 

if the handler observes a person other than another trained and properly equipped handler in the 

area under treatment or associated entry-restricted area. EPA believes that either the handler 

would have prior knowledge that another handler would be in the area during treatment, or 

would cease application until he or she could verify whether the person(s) in the treated area met 

the standard as a trained and properly equipped handler. This new requirement would impose 

additional responsibility on handlers. [See Unit XI.] Therefore, EPA proposes to add to the 

handler training requirements a point on this specific handler responsibility. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the cessation of application content of handler 

pesticide safety training appears in §170.201(c)(3)(i) of today’sthe proposed rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 103 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

vi. Respirator Fit-Testing and Medical Evaluation for Handlers. Unit XVI.E. discusses 

EPA’s proposal to adopt the OSHA standard (29 CFR part 1910) for respirator use. The OSHA 

standard requires employers and users to take steps to ensure respirators are used safely, 

including fit testing the handler’s respirator, conducting medical evaluation, and training 

handlers on proper respirator use. 

EPA proposes to require that handler training inform handlers of the new obligations of 

handler employers regarding proper respirator use. Handler training content is proposed to 

inform handlers that their employer must ensure they have received respirator fit-testing, training 

and medical evaluation if they are required to wear a respirator; only those handlers who would 

use a respirator would need to receive the full OSHA training on respirators. EPA expects this 

change would inform handlers of the new requirements for respirator use and their importance. 

 The proposed regulatory text concerning adding to the training the employer’s 

responsibility to provide handlers using respirators with respirator training, fit-testing, and 

medical evaluation appears in §170.201(c)(3)(iii) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs. The proposed expansions to training content would expand worker training from 

approximately 30 minutes to 45 minutes, and handler training from 45 minutes to 60 minutes. 

The Agency believes that the expanded training is necessary for workers and handlers to better 

protect themselves. 

EPA estimates the cost of expanding pesticide safety training for workers would be $4.3 

million annually or about $11 per agricultural establishment per year. The cost to expand 

pesticide safety training for handlers would be $660,000 annually, or about $3 per agricultural 

establishment and $15 per commercial pesticide handling establishment per year. For a complete 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 104 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the specific benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA 

believes that adding information to worker and handler training would assist workers and 

handlers to mitigate pesticide exposure to themselves and their families. EPA believes this would 

result in a lower number of occupation-related pesticide exposures and reduce chronic and 

developmental effects from pesticide exposure. 

6. Alternate options considered but not proposed. EPA considered various combinations 

of the additional training content discussed above. For example, EPA considered simply 

clarifying the training required under the current rule to be more specific about the information 

to be covered. EPA also considered not adding the information about employers’ responsibilities 

to provide training to early-entry workers and to handlers using respirators in order to shorten the 

total duration of a training program; however, given the importance of communicating the 

additional information to workers and handlers to ensure they have the information necessary to 

protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure and the relatively low burden 

associated with extending the training to cover the content, EPA believes that all of the 

aforementioned points should be added to the training. 

While a shorter training program with fewer points would reduce the cost of the proposal 

slightly, EPA believes the benefits of providing the proposed additional training topics to 

workers and handlers are reasonably balanced against the cost. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Are there any training points listed above that EPA should consider not including in the 

final proposal? If so, which points and why? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 105 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Are there points that EPA should consider adding to the training content? If so, what 

points should be added? Please provide a rationale for why the additional content would benefit 

workers and/or handlers. 

F. Retain Audiovisual Presentations as Permissible Methods for Pesticide Safety Training 

1. Overview. The existing WPS allows trainers to train workers and handlers using a 

variety of methods, including an EPA-approved video or DVD. EPA recognizes concerns raised 

by stakeholders that the video/DVD may not be an adequate training tool when used as a standalone training, but EPA has decided to retain the video as a training method and to add 

requirements for the trainer to be present throughout the presentation, to answer all questions 

from those participating in the training, and to ensure that the training is reasonably free of 

distractions.

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires trainers to present the pesticide safety 

information “either orally from written materials or audiovisually” (40 CFR 170.130(d)(1) and 

170.230(c)(1)). EPA developed a variety of training materials, including training videos covering 

the pesticide safety points specified in 40 CFR 170.130 and 170.230. A worker training video, 

“Chasing the Sun Pesticide Safety Training” runs for approximately 30 minutes, and a handler 

training video, “Pesticide Handlers and the WPS” runs for approximately 50 minutes. Each video 

covers the current training points and both are available in English and Spanish. 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations have voiced opposition to 

maintaining a video as the training device (Ref. 35), instead recommending that EPA require 

employers to provide training using methods with greater interaction to better communicate with 

workers (Ref. 36). A report from EPA’s National Assessment of the Worker Protection Program 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 106 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

recommended that training materials encourage interaction and participation, and be both 

culturally and linguistically appropriate (Ref. 15). 

The Agency recognizes the passive nature of video training and understands that some 

stakeholders believe that a lack of worker or handler engagement during video training may 

prevent effective transmission of pesticide safety information. Focus-group research, however, 

indicates that workers prefer to receive training information in a video or provided orally along 

with simple drawings on paper as visual aids rather than an oral presentation without any visual 

aids (Ref. 40). Additionally, research has shown that comprehension of pictorials for safetyrelated information is significantly enhanced when accompanied by even brief trainer 

involvement (Ref. 59). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to continue to allow audiovisual 

training tools, and to add requirements for the trainer to be present during the training, to answer 

questions from trainees, and to ensure that the training is reasonably free from distractions. [See 

Unit VII.D.] Combined with more qualified trainers familiar with the principles of adult 

education, EPA expects that use of EPA-approved video would enhance, rather than diminish, 

comprehension of training objectives. 

Based on feedback received directly from the affected community of workers, EPA 

decided to retain the option for trainers to use audiovisual materials, including but not limited to 

videos, DVDs, and PowerPoint presentations, as part of the training program. EPA believes that 

allowing use of audiovisual training tools provides flexibility to trainers and employers by 

allowing them to be present to monitor the audience, to stimulate discussion, and to answer 

questions, while the video presents the major concepts of the training. This would help small 

establishments that conduct infrequent trainings to ensure that the training covers all of the major 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 107 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

points. In addition, EPA recognizes that some employers and trainers are more comfortable 

utilizing audiovisual materials as part of training because widely used videos employ actors 

portraying workers to communicate the messages, which can be more convincing to the training 

audience. 

The proposed regulatory text requiring the trainer to be present throughout the training 

for workers and handlers appears in §§170.101(c)(1) and 170.201(c)(1), respectively, of 

today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA does not estimate any costs associated with this proposal 

because it retains an existing provision of the rule. 

6. Alternate options considered but not proposed. EPA considered eliminating the option 

for trainers to present material audio visually. Based on the rationales discussed above, EPA 

believes that allowing trainers to use audiovisual training materials and adding a requirement for 

the trainer to be present and answer workers and handlers’ questions would adequately address 

the concerns raised by farmworker groups while allowing trainer’s flexibility in how they 

communicate with workers and handlers. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

 • Please provide any additional information on the efficacy of different methods used to 

conduct worker and handler training. 

G. Eliminate Exception to Handler Training Requirements 

1. Overview. Currently, an employer does not have to provide handler training to a person 

performing handler tasks if the handler has satisfied the training requirements under the 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators Regulation (40 CFR part 171). In order to ensure handlers 

receive the information necessary to understand WPS protections, EPA proposes to eliminate 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 108 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

this exception. EPA expects removal of this exception would ensure all handlers receive 

complete information to protect themselves in situations specific to WPS establishments. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.230, pesticide handlers currently are 

required to be trained on pesticide safety. Under 40 CFR 170.230(b)(2), employers may be 

excepted from the requirement to provide handler training when their handlers have satisfied the 

training requirements in 40 CFR 171. Part 171, however, does not include specific training 

requirements relevant to WPS; therefore, the exception allows handlers to qualify without 

learning about part 170 requirements, such as REIs and the prohibition against spraying when 

anyone is in the treated area. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to eliminate the exception for handler 

training for a handler who has been trained in accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR part 

171. In essence, this change would require persons who apply pesticides under the direct 

supervision of a certified applicator to receive handler training under the WPS. As explained in 

Unit II, the Agency is considering separate revisions to 40 CFR part 171 that could include 

specific training requirements for persons applying RUPs under the supervision of a certified 

applicator. Although the training requirements in these two proposed rules overlap substantially 

(e.g., safe application techniques, understanding label requirements, safe storage and disposal), 

the training EPA is considering to require under 40 CFR part 171 does not include specific 

information on WPS requirements, handler responsibilities, and reducing take-home exposure 

specifically in agriculture. WPS information is critical for handlers so they can protect 

themselves, their families, workers, the environment, and bystanders. 

4. Alternative options considered but not proposed. While EPA considered proposing 

identical training requirements for both §170.201 and part 171, many RUP users never apply 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 109 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

agricultural pesticides, and would not need to know all the detailed requirements related to the 

WPS protections, such as warning sign postings and specific handler responsibilities. EPA 

believes the WPS-specific information is critical to equip a handler to avoid risk of exposure and 

illness in agricultural situations. Therefore, the Agency does not intend to impose the same 

training requirements for noncertified applicators under 40 CFR part 171. 

5. Cost. EPA believes the cost for this requirement would be negligible. Those employers 

that intend to provide training under 40 CFR part 171 for their handler employees would be able 

provide the proposed WPS handler training and satisfy the requirements of both regulations. The 

estimated training burden for the two requirements is substantially similar. 

6. Request for comment. EPA requests feedback on the following: 

 • Should the proposed training under 40 CFR part 171 include a requirement for 

expanded training on the WPS? 

 • How would the benefits to employers from giving a single training that would apply to 

both WPS handlers and applicators using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified 

applicator compare to the costs of requiring agricultural applicator training for all applicators 

using RUPs under the direct supervision of a certified applicator? 

VIII. Notifications to Workers and Handlers 

A. Posted Notification Timing & Oral Notification 

1. Overview. The current rule allows employers to provide to workers either oral or 

posted warnings about areas where an REI (regardless of its length) has been in effect within the 

last 30 days unless required to provide both oral and posted warnings by the specific pesticide 

label. For farms, forests, and non-enclosed nurseries (what EPA is proposing to define as 

“outdoor production”), EPA proposes to require that agricultural employers post warning signs 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 110 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

regarding the application of a pesticide that has an REI greater than 48 hours, and proposes to 

allow the option of oral warning or posted notification for products with REIs of 48 hours or less. 

For greenhouses and indoor nurseries (what EPA is proposing to define as “enclosed space 

production”), EPA proposes to require that agricultural employers post warning signs according 

to the current posted warning requirements when the product applied has an REI greater than 4 

hours, and proposes to allow the option for oral or posted notification where the product applied 

has an REI of 4 hours or less. EPA expects the changes to improve worker protection by 

increasing workers’ awareness of treated areas and reminding them to take required precautions 

and to avoid pesticide exposure, leading to an overall reduction in occupational pesticide-related 

illnesses. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.120, agricultural employers are required 

to notify workers about pesticide applications and areas on the agricultural establishment subject 

to an REI. Notification is required when workers or handlers are on the establishment during 

application or the REI and will pass within one quarter (1/4) mile of the treated area. In 

greenhouses and some enclosed nurseries, the agricultural employer must post warning signs. On 

farms, and in forests and non-enclosed nurseries, 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. Both posted and oral worker 

notification must inform workers about the location of the application and treated areas under 

REIs so workers do not enter. In cases where the product labeling requires both written and oral 

notification of workers, the WPS also requires this “double notification.” Part 170 does not 

currently require the agricultural employer to keep a record of oral warnings. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 111 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3. Summary of the issues. In 2006, Farmworker Justice sent a letter to the EPA 

Administrator, signed by more than 50 different farmworker groups, suggesting revisions for 

making the WPS more protective. The letter states, “Restricted-entry intervals (REIs) are... 

intended to provide a physical barrier, reducing worker exposure to pesticides when and where 

the risk is greatest. But workers are not effectively warned to keep out of recently treated areas.” 

(Ref. 35) Farmworker organizations noted three problems with the current requirement: Workers 

may not remember REI details that span multiple days, oral warnings may not be adequately 

provided by the employer in the appropriate language or understood and retained by the worker, 

and compliance with the oral warning requirement is difficult to verify. Farmworker Justice 

recommended posting areas treated with a pesticide with an REI longer than 72 hours and 

requiring recordkeeping of oral notifications to workers. 

The Farmworker Justice comments are consistent with research showing that oral 

instruction alone may not be an effective method of safety instruction. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. For “outdoor production,” EPA proposes to require 

that agricultural employers 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 proposes to require 

posting of warning signs where the product applied has an REI greater than 4 hours, and to allow 

the option of oral warning or posted notification for products with an REI of 4 hours or less. 

EPA believes that under the current rule agricultural employers most commonly opt to 

provide oral notification to their workers because this is less costly and less burdensome than 

physically posting treated areas. However, workers may not recall oral notifications when REIs 

are longer than a few days. Adults remember only about 10% of what they hear, but when the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 112 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

information is seen and heard retention improves to about 50% (Ref. 41). Entry into a treated 

area during an REI presents an elevated risk of pesticide exposure and EPA believes that 

ensuring that workers are adequately notified of treated areas in a manner they can recall and 

understand would result in fewer entries into treated areas during the REI without appropriate 

protection. 

A 2008 SENSOR-Pesticides/California Department of Pesticide Regulation publication 

cites reentry into pesticide-treated areas prior to the end of the REI as the second leading factor 

contributing to reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in agricultural workers 

(Ref. 11). One reason workers may be entering pesticide-treated areas is their lack of awareness 

that the area has been treated with a pesticide and is under an REI, which EPA believes can be 

addressed by more robust posting of treated areas. 

Because workers face challenges with literacy and understanding English, EPA believes 

that reducing the reliance on spoken messages to protect workers and increasing reliance on a 

clear, graphic, posted warning would better protect workers from the risks of entering a treated 

area before the REI expires without proper protection. The posted warning signs will serve as 

physical reminders for workers to avoid areas in which the REI has not expired. During pesticide 

safety training, workers would be informed of the requirement for agricultural employers to 

provide oral or posted notification for treated areas, in addition to the current requirement to 

describe the warning signs, which would increase workers’ likelihood of noticing and complying 

with entry restriction signs. [See Unit VII.E.] Treated areas under an REI pose elevated risk of 

exposure; thus, by keeping workers out, negative health effects of pesticide exposure may be 

avoided. EPA expects the proposed requirement to increase the number of areas posted on 

agricultural establishments across the nation, thereby increasing the number of workers who are 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 113 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

aware of the REI and avoid entering, and ultimately leading to a reduction of incidence of 

pesticide illnesses related to unintentional entry into treated areas under an REI. 

The protective effect of increased posting requirements through subsequent reduction of 

pesticide illnesses has been shown in Monterey County, California. In response to a series of 

worker exposure incidents, Monterey County required agricultural employers to post areas 

treated with a pesticide with an REI of 24 hours or longer. Since its implementation, this countyspecific requirement has led to a significant reduction in pesticide-related illnesses caused by 

entering a treated area before the expiration of an REI (Ref. 60). California cannot provide 

specific data on the percent reduction, but a 2001 report from the California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation noted stakeholder consensus on and support for the requirement, stating: 

“All participants strongly believe that field posting prevents workers from early reentry. 

Monterey County participants support their 24-hour posting regulations, even though compliance 

is costly, because field posting prevents both application and reentry errors” (Ref. 60). 

EPA believes the proposed posting requirement may also foster compliance and facilitate 

enforcement because WPS inspectors could readily view posted warning signs. Inspectors who 

see workers in a treated area while the posted warning signs were displayed could investigate 

whether the workers received proper early entry protections. 

EPA believes posting all treated areas would be a very effective method for ensuring that 

workers are notified about what areas are under an REI. However, the burden on employers to 

post all treated areas subject to an REI would be substantial. To treat an area with an REI of 24 

hours, the employer would have to post the area, make the treatment, and retrieve the signs the 

following day. EPA believes that it is reasonable to expect workers to remember oral warnings 

related to treated areas under REIs for at most 2 work days, or about 48 hours. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 114 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA is proposing to allow oral or posted warnings for areas in greenhouses treated with 

an REI of 4 hours or less. Greenhouse production is much more compact than outdoor 

production. In a row of planting tables, there could be many applications. EPA recognizes the 

need for workers to have information about the different risks they face; however, EPA also 

believes that products with an REI of 4 hours or less generally pose lower risks than products 

with longer REIs. 

As noted, EPA believes that workers can retain warning information provided orally for 

up to 48 hours. However, greenhouses and other enclosed space production establishments have 

significantly more applications in a smaller space. EPA believes it is unreasonable to expect 

workers to remember all of the information provided orally about treated areas when each 

different planting tray could have different requirements, therefore EPA is proposing a lower 

threshold for posting notification of treated areas on establishments where multiple applications 

may be conducted in a small area. EPA believes allowing employers the option to provide oral or 

posted notification of treated areas for a small subset of pesticides provides employers with 

flexibility while ensuring workers receive the information necessary to protect themselves. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning notification appears in the following sections of 

today’sthe proposed rule: outdoor production – §170.109(a)(1)(i) and enclosed space production 

– §170.109(a)(1)(ii). 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to post all treated 

areas with an REI longer than 48 hours would be $10.511.1 million annually, or about $2728 per 

establishment per year. EPA estimates that the proposed changes to notification in greenhouses 

would save about $10,000 per year, or $14 per small greenhouse. For a complete discussion of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 115 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to 

the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this specific proposal; however, EPA 

believes requiring employers to post treated areas under an REI of greater than 48 hours would 

provide workers with more reliable information on treated areas and when to stay out. EPA 

expects this would result in fewer workers entering treated areas under an REI and therefore 

reduce the number of pesticide-related illnesses attributable to this cause. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed.-- i. Alternatives to Posting 

Timeframe. EPA considered the Farmworker Justice recommendation for EPA to require posted 

warning signs in treated areas with REIs greater than 72 hours. This option would provide more 

protection than the current regulation, but not as much as the proposed option which would 

require the same posting, but for REIs greater than 48 hours. Given the importance to the worker 

of understanding which areas are under an REI, EPA believes that posted notification for 

products with REIs over 72 hours would not adequately warn workers to take precautions. EPA 

believes that it would be unreasonable to expect a worker to retain the information about what 

areas were treated and when REIs expire for longer than a two day period. EPA estimates the 

cost of this proposal would be about $7.49 million, or $1920 per establishment. 

EPA also considered requiring agricultural employers to post warning signs in treated 

areas with an REI of 24 hours or longer, similar to the requirement in Monterey County, 

California. EPA recognizes the impact of Monterey’s posting requirement in reducing exposure 

to workers. However, EPA also recognizes the need to balance the protection of workers and 

burden on agricultural employers and applicators. Monterey County represents a small 

geographical area. EPA believes that while posting of treated areas with an REI of 24 hours or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 116 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

longer may have been practical in this limited region, it would not be practical as a national 

requirement. Agricultural employers would have a much higher burden to post every treated area 

with an REI of 24 hours or longer. EPA believes that workers could retain information on treated 

areas and REIs for up to two days. 

Lastly, EPA considered a requirement to post warning signs in all treated areas under 

REIs for enclosed space and outdoor production. This option would ensure that workers are 

aware of the status of every treated area and every area without posting would be safe for 

workers to enter. Posting of all treated areas where an REI is in effect would send a clear 

message to workers; however, it would be very difficult for agricultural employers to comply 

with this requirement. Some products have an REI of 4 hours. In essence, an employer would 

post signs after application and almost immediately take them down. While this task may be easy 

in enclosed space production, it may be substantially more burdensome for an agricultural 

employer engaged in outdoor production. 

EPA believes that the proposed option to require posting of all areas of outdoor 

production treated with a product with an REI greater than 48 hours strikes a balance between 

the three alternatives considered. EPA recognizes the value of allowing oral warning for worker 

notification of treated areas with REIs less than 48 hours because this option would provide 

regulatory flexibility (Ref. 18). EPA believes that workers informed orally can remember that an 

area has been restricted for entry for up to two days. Posting areas treated with a pesticide 

product with an REI greater than 48 hours would provide workers visual reminders when the 

REI is sufficiently long that a worker could have difficulty remembering the specific area treated 

or length of the REI. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 117 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

ii. Recordkeeping of Oral Notification. To address concerns that workers may not receive 

oral notifications of treated areas with REIs shorter than or equal to 48 hours, EPA considered 

adding a requirement for agricultural employers to retain records of the oral warning provided, 

signed by the workers who received the notification, for 2 years. The required record would 

contain: 

 • Location and description of the entry-restricted area and the treated area; 

 • Date and time the REI starts and ends; 

 • Date and time the agricultural employer provided the oral warning; 

 • Name and signature of the person providing the warning; and 

 • Name and signature of each employee that received notification. 

Requiring the employee’s signature on the record would provide incentive to the 

employer to provide the notification in a manner the worker understands in order to obtain the 

signature. This requirement would impose significant burden on employers. The time required to 

comply with the recordkeeping would substantially increase the time currently required to 

provide the oral notification, based on the additional requirement to explain the notification 

record and secure the signatures of all workers entering or working within 1/4 mile of the treated 

area. 

In addition, workers may have difficulty reading and understanding the record of the 

notification because many are not literate in English. Workers may sign the notification record 

because instructed to do so by the employer, not because they understand the information 

provided and intent of the record of the oral notification, undermining the intent of the record as 

confirmation of transfer of information to workers. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 118 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA estimates the cost to collect and retain records for 2 years would be about $20 

million, or about $51 per establishment. This cost is substantially higher than the cost for 

recordkeeping of pesticide safety training because pesticide safety training would only occur 

once annually per worker whereas records of oral notification could be required almost every 

time an application occurs. EPA has insufficient data to support a claim that the potential 

benefits of this alternative, i.e., increased enforceability of the WPS, would outweigh the 

potential burden on agricultural employers to record and maintain the information. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • For outdoor production, EPA proposes to allow the option of oral warning or posted 

notification for products with an REI of 48 hours or less. Is there a different time period that 

would better balance the costs of compliance with the expected risk reduction? 

 • Will the proposed requirements for posting instead of oral warnings provide sufficient 

benefit for workers to warrant the additional burden placed on agricultural employers?

 • Should EPA require recordkeeping for oral notification? If so, why? 

B. Locations of Warning Sign 

1. Overview. Where the existing WPS requires a warning sign to be posted, the signs 

must be placed where they are visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, 

the corners of the treated area, or an area affording maximum visibility. EPA proposes to revise 

the required posting locations to include locations visible from a worker housing area if the 

housing area is within 100 feet of a treated area for outdoor production. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires employers to post warning signs (40 

CFR 170.120(c)). For applications in farms, forests, and non-enclosed nurseries (what EPA is 

proposing to define as “outdoor production”), the warning signs must be visible from all usual 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 119 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

points of worker entry into the treated area, including, at a minimum, each access road, each 

border with a labor camp (what EPA is proposing be referred to as a “worker housing area”) 

adjacent to the treated area, and each footpath or other walking route that enters the treated area. 

For applications in greenhouses and indoor nurseries (what EPA is proposing to define as 

“enclosed space production”), the warning signs must be visible from all usual points of worker 

entry to the treated area, including, each aisle or other walking route that enters the treated area. 

When there are no usual points of worker entry to the treated area (farm, forest, nursery or 

greenhouse), the employer must post signs in the corners of the treated area or in any other 

location offering maximum visibility. 

3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment process, stakeholders, 

including farmworker groups and healthcare organizations, raised concerns about providing 

notice to worker housing inhabitants when their location is not directly adjacent to the treated 

area (Ref. 17). Workers and their families housed near treated areas may have a higher likelihood 

of exposure to pesticides from inadvertently entering a treated area; the increased detection of 

pesticides in the body has been found to be associated with housing adjacent to treated areas 

(Ref. 51) (Ref. 57). In order to mitigate the risk associated with walking into a treated area 

without adequate notification, stakeholders suggested increasing the posting of areas near worker 

housing areas (Ref. 35). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. To prevent inadvertent entry into treated areas from 

onsite worker housing areas, EPA proposes to require a posted warning sign visible from a 

worker housing area if the housing area is within 100 feet of a treated area for outdoor 

production in addition to the required current locations. EPA expects this requirement would 

improve notification of workers and their families in worker housing areas, mitigating exposure 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 120 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

resulting from entry into a treated area under an REI. This additional posting location should also 

improve safety of families living on or near agricultural establishments. Individuals in worker 

housing areas would be able to see the posted warning signs and avoid entry into the area. 

EPA considered the demographics of the worker population when developing this 

proposal. In recognition of their low literacy and limited English language skills, EPA proposes 

to use the widely recognized warning sign indicating to stay out of a particular area with text in 

at least two languages. In addition, workers and their families generally live near agricultural 

areas but may not be aware of when a nearby area has been treated. Children may play around 

the home in a treated area, increasing the likelihood of exposure to pesticides. By posting 

information warning of pesticide applications near worker housing for workers and their families 

to see, EPA believes that they will be less likely to inadvertently enter a treated area and thereby 

will reduce overall risk of exposure to pesticides. This proposal supports EPA’s commitments to 

keeping children safe and to take specific measures to protect vulnerable or disadvantaged 

communities and populations. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the warning sign appears in §170.109(b)(3)(ii) 

of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Cost. EPA believes the cost of this proposed expansion of the areas that must be posted 

would be negligible. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see 

the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 

Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered a recommendation 

offered by Farmworker Justice to require signs to be posted at the usual points of entry and every 

100 feet along the perimeter of the treated area (Ref. 35). Many members of the PPDC 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 121 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

workgroup, including state regulatory agencies, cooperative extension services, and the 

agricultural industry, said that posting warning signs every 100 feet around treated areas under 

an REI would impose unnecessary burdens on the agricultural employer without resulting in 

additional protections for workers (Ref. 36). Based on anticipated high burden without 

demonstrable benefits for this option, EPA decided not to propose increasing posting to every 

hundred feet around the perimeter. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Are there preferable alternatives to the proposed option for posting locations that EPA 

has not considered? If so, please describe and provide data to support the alternative. 

C. Warning Sign Content 

1. Overview. The current WPS warning sign says “Keep Out” and has a picture of a sternfaced man with an upraised hand in a red circle. EPA proposes to require the phrase “Entry 

Restricted” instead of “Keep Out” on warning signs. EPA also proposes to change the red shape 

on the sign from a circle to an octagon. EPA believes the text change would more accurately 

reflect the intended message for workers to be adequately prepared and informed before entering 

a posted area, and the octagonal shape will provide an effective signal that entry is restricted that 

does not depend on literacy or language spoken. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.120(c)(1), posted warning signs must 

state “Danger, Pesticides” and “Keep Out” in English and Spanish or another language the 

workers understand and contain the “stern-faced man with the upraised hand” in a red circle as 

pictured (in black and white) below. 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 122 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholders, including state regulators, educators, and 

farmworker groups, have noted that the message on the sign can be confusing. Under the WPS, 

workers can be trained and equipped to enter a treated area during an REI to conduct certain 

early-entry tasks, such as repairing a clogged irrigation hose. [See Unit XII.B.] Due to these 

exceptions, including the “Keep Out” text on the warning sign may lead to worker confusion, 

since workers have been trained to stay out of a treated area posted with the warning sign and 

also may be directed by their employer to enter the treated area to conduct an appropriate earlyentry task. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to revise the required text on the 

warning sign to convey more accurate information to workers. While warning signs would retain 

the phrase “Danger, Pesticides” text at the top, the message at the bottom of the sign would read 

“Entry Restricted” instead of “Keep Out”. EPA believes this revision to the text more accurately 

reflects that the sign is a warning to those entering a treated area. “Entry restricted” provides a 

bold warning for anyone entering a treated area but also allows that some entry may be 

permitted. 

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 123 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Additionally, EPA plans to replace the current shape of the red circle that contains the 

stern-faced man with the upraised hand with an octagon. A red octagon is a widely-recognized 

symbol to stop, and this will provide a stronger signal to workers to be cautious when they 

encounter the posted warning sign, even if they are unable to comprehend the text. Workers will 

receive pesticide safety training to reinforce the meaning of the warning signs and help them in 

determining how to proceed. [See Unit VII.E.] The proposed warning sign is pictured below (in 

black and white). 

EPA specifically considered input received directly from workers in developing this 

proposal. Workers have indicated that they prefer to get information in simple language and 

images that communicate the message (Ref. 40). EPA expects that these modifications to the 

warning sign will provide a clearer, simpler warning to workers. EPA is aware of the importance 

of conveying clear and simple safety information to worker populations, particularly for workers 

who may have a low literacy level in English or their native language (Ref. 61, p. 16). NAWS 

data show that 85% of workers would have difficulty obtaining information from printed 

materials in any language (Ref. 3, p. 17). The proposed modifications to the warning sign would 

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 124 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

make it clearer and simpler, which should enhance comprehension by low-literacy adults, and by 

children of farm workers (Ref. 62). 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the content of the warning sign appears in 

§170.109(b)(2) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to use the revised 

warning sign would be $9799,000 annually, or an average of $0.25 per establishment per year. 

EPA estimates that employers currently purchase new signs every 2 years because weather and 

outdoor exposure renders the signs unusable after this period. For a complete discussion of the 

costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify specific benefits for this proposal. EPA believes that requiring the 

use of signs that more accurately convey the intended message would lead to better 

understanding of the sign and its message by workers. This would result in less confusion about 

what the sign means, which should mean less potential for workers to disregard the sign out of 

confusion, and thus, fewer workers entering treated areas under an REI which should decrease 

the number of occupational pesticide-related illnesses. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. Farmworker Justice recommended 

that EPA replace the “stern-faced man with the upraised hand” with the skull and crossbones. 

They noted that the skull and crossbones is a universally recognized symbol that communicates 

high risk of danger or death, and suggest that workers would better recognize the risks associated 

with entering an area posted with the warning sign if it bore this symbol. 

EPA considered Farmworker Justice’s recommendation to change the warning sign 

graphic to the skull and crossbones, but decided against this option. The skull and crossbones 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 125 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

symbol is currently used on Toxicity I and II pesticide product labeling and for designation of 

treated areas for certain extremely hazardous pesticides, for example, fumigants, and using the 

same symbol in less hazardous conditions would weaken its impact where it is needed most. The 

skull and crossbones symbol is associated with extreme toxicity or death, which is not always 

appropriate for every pesticide that has an REI. In contrast, the proposed sign indicates to 

workers that they should use caution in entering the treated area, but that entry may be 

permissible with the proper safety equipment. EPA does not want to send workers a mixed 

message by using the skull and crossbones on the sign. In addition, workers have been trained to 

recognize the current sign since the rule went into effect. The Agency believes that the “sternfaced man with the upraised hand” is still the most appropriate and well-recognized symbol for 

workers. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Should EPA consider replacing the current or proposed general field posting sign with 

risk-based reentry signs? What would be the costs and benefits of using risk-based signs? 

IX. Hazard Communication 

A. Pesticide-Specific Hazard Communication Materials – General 

1. Overview. The existing WPS does not require employers to provide workers and 

handlers with pesticide-specific hazard information on the products they may be exposed to in 

the workplace. In contrast, OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which covers most 

workplaces, requires employers to provide chemical-specific hazard information (i.e., the safety 

data sheets or SDSs) to workers before they enter an area where they could be exposed and to 

make the same material available to workers upon request. EPA proposes to require that 

agricultural and handler employers provide workers and handlers with access to copies of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 126 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

SDS and pesticide labeling for products that have been applied on the establishment and to 

which workers and handlers may be exposed. EPA believes making this information available to 

workers and handlers may assist them and possibly health care providers in the event of an 

emergency situation involving pesticide exposure. EPA also believes that providing access to 

specific hazard information would assist workers and handlers in better protecting themselves 

and others from pesticide hazards in the workplace. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS contains several provisions designed to 

communicate pesticide hazard information to workers and handlers. By providing workers and 

handlers with relevant information, these provisions minimize workplace risks associated with 

pesticide use and mitigate the potential for occupational pesticide exposure. First, the WPS 

requires employers to train workers and handlers on basic pesticide safety and the general 

hazards associated with pesticides (40 CFR 170.130 and 170.230). Second, the WPS requires 

employers to display basic pesticide safety information at a central location on the establishment 

to remind workers and handlers of safe practices when working with or around pesticides and to 

provide information about obtaining emergency medical assistance (40 CFR 170.124 and 

170.224). Third, the WPS requires employers to provide handlers with access to the pesticide 

labeling during pesticide handling activities and to ensure that the handler has read the labeling, 

or been informed in a manner the handler understands, of all labeling requirements related to safe 

pesticide use (40 CFR 170.232(a)). Lastly, employers must display certain information about 

pesticide applications made on the establishment whenever workers or handlers will be on the 

establishment and a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect within the last 30 

days (40 CFR 170.122 and 170.222). Although the existing WPS requirements provide workers 

and handlers with basic safety information on how to protect themselves from general pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 127 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

hazards, and where pesticides have been applied on the establishment, no requirement exists for 

employers to make pesticide-specific hazard communication materials, such as the SDS and the 

pesticide labeling, accessible to both workers and handlers. 

3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment meetings, health care, 

medical, and farmworker organizations urged the Agency to add pesticide-specific hazard 

communication provisions to the rule (Ref. 17). They noted that the WPS-required information 

about pesticide applications that must be displayed at the establishment provides a limited set of 

information about the pesticides used on the establishment. The information does not provide an 

explanation of the specific symptoms associated with exposure to a specific product, nor does it 

provide other use-related information that workers, handlers, and health care providers would 

benefit from reviewing in the event of a pesticide-related illness or an emergency. To support 

their request, they noted the disparity between information about chemical hazards required to be 

provided to workers and handlers covered by the WPS and the information provided to workers 

in all other industries under the OSHA HCS. 

Farmworker organizations suggested that workers and handlers should receive “written 

information, in a pictorial and low-literacy format, concerning the short- and long-term health 

effects associated with each pesticide used at their worksite ” (Ref. 35, p. 2). Farmworker Justice 

recommended that growers provide “crop sheets,” i.e., booklets with information on each 

pesticide used on an establishment, to each worker and handler at the beginning of each work 

period that involves entry into any treated area. (Crop sheets can take various forms but generally 

summarize information about the pesticides used on a particular crop, the timing of application, 

the type of application (for example, air blast or ground boom), and potential symptoms from 

exposure to the pesticide.) Farmworker Justice suggested that the crop sheets be available in 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 128 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

English and Spanish. They believe that information presented in this format would enable 

workers and handlers to recognize adverse effects and seek medical assistance if they 

experienced symptoms related to exposure to a specific pesticide (Ref. 35). Other stakeholders 

have suggested that the detailed health effects information from Safety Data Sheets be provided 

orally to employees. EPA believes that the benefits of reading this detailed and often lengthy

information to workers and handers are uncertain and such information could confuse workers 

with complex pesticide hazard information where the level of hazard is different for every 

situation.

Pesticide safety trainer representatives on the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 

Workgroup suggested that providing simple information on how to prevent potential pesticide 

exposure is the most effective way to enable workers and handlers to protect themselves (Ref. 

36) (Ref. 39); they did not endorse a specific type of hazard communication information. Health 

care organizations noted that requiring employers to maintain pesticide labeling or SDS could 

facilitate quick access to these documents by workers, handlers, or their representatives in the 

event of an accidental exposure requiring medical attention. These groups noted that health care 

practitioners can provide more appropriate medical attention if they can review and reference 

either the label or the SDS. [See Unit XIV.] 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that agricultural and handler 

employers make available to workers and handlers SDS and the labeling for pesticides used on 

the establishment that require WPS compliance. This proposed requirement would be in addition 

to the existing requirements to notify workers and handlers of the date, time, and location of 

application, length of REI, and to identify the pesticide product. Employers would be required to 

maintain the SDSs and the pesticide labelslabeling on the establishment for 2 years from the date 

Formatted: Font color: Black
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 129 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

of the pesticide application. Workers, handlers or their authorized representatives could request 

access to the pesticide-specific hazard information during normal business hours. [See Units 

IX.B. and IX.C. for proposed revisions to employer requirements to provide information about 

pesticide applications.] 

In adopting the Hazard Communication Standard, OSHA said there was evidence to 

indicate potential for chemical exposure in every type of industry, and that lack of knowledge 

about those hazardous chemicals puts employees at significant risk of experiencing material 

impairment of health (52 FR 31852; August 24, 1987) (59 FR 6126; February 9, 1994) (Ref. 63). 

While the WPS pesticide safety training provides general information about risks associated with 

pesticide exposure and how a worker or handler can protect himself or herself, the addition of a 

requirement to provide information about each specific pesticide would provide complete hazard 

information. The addition of a requirement to provide pesticide-specific hazard information 

about each pesticide product requiring WPS compliance that is applied on the establishment 

would provide workers and handlers with more complete information about the chemical hazards 

they may encounter in the workplace. 

Requiring employers to maintain the product labeling and SDSs for products applied on 

their establishment would ensure that workers and handlers have access to detailed types of 

pesticide hazard and emergency response information that would enable them to better protect 

themselves and respond to emergencies. Additionally, as discussed in Unit XVI., medical 

personnel are generally able to provide better treatment in the event of a pesticide exposure 

incident when they have more information about the pesticide product to which the worker or 

handler may have been exposed. Allowing authorized representatives of workers and handlers to 

have access to the product labeling and SDSs upon request would assure that the information can 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 130 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

be accessed if a worker or handler is incapacitated; in addition, it would help assure that access 

to this information is not impeded due to employee fears of retaliation. It also increases the 

likelihood that workers and handlers will receive assistance in reading and understanding these 

documents in cases where they need such assistance. 

EPA believes that imposing this requirement would not be unduly burdensome to 

employers and would provide workers, handlers, and emergency responders with access to 

appropriate pesticide-specific hazard information that should meet their needs. The SDS provides 

succinct information about the known health hazards of the material, providing hazard 

information that typically is not presented on the product labeling, and it is readily available from 

pesticide manufacturers and should be provided with the pesticide container at the point of sale. 

Based on EPA’s review of current state pesticide laws and regulations, and labor laws pertaining 

to agricultural operations using pesticides, 12 states currently require agricultural employers to 

make SDSs available to employees that may potentially be exposed to pesticides as part of their 

occupational duties (Ref. 64). Ten of the states implement this requirement under state labor 

regulations. Florida and California implement it under state pesticide laws. 

 The use of SDS in hazard communication in all other industries, as well as in agriculture 

in several states, leads the Agency to believe that it would be the appropriate vehicle to make 

pesticide-specific hazard information available to workers and handlers. 

EPA recognizes that some employers may maintain electronic copies of their records. 

Under the proposed option, an employer could maintain a copy of the pesticide labeling used for 

the application and the corresponding SDS in either paper or electronic form. The employer 

would need to be able to provide a paper copy of the materials upon request. Employers would 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 131 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

not need to update the pesticide labeling on file each time a new version is released; the labeling 

on file must correspond with the labeling used at the time of application. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the provision of SDSs and pesticide product 

labelslabeling appears in §170.11(b) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to maintain 

application information, SDS, and labeling for 2 years would be $3 million annually, or about $8 

per WPS establishment per year. The cost to obtain the SDS and labeling, as well as the 

additional information described in unit IX.B., and to make it available would be about $5.3 

million annually, or about $14 per establishment. For a complete discussion of the costs of the 

proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker 

Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the specific benefits associated with this proposal; however, the 

Agency believes that workers and handlers would benefit from having access to more complete 

information about the pesticides to which they may be exposed. The additional information also 

could be used to assist in more accurately diagnosing and treating pesticide-related illnesses. 

EPA believes the costs of making more pesticide application information available to workers 

and handlers are reasonable when compared to the expected benefits associated with the 

requirement. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered three alternatives to 

the proposed option: a requirement to make crop sheets available, a requirement to translate 

SDSs into different languages, and limiting the required pesticide information to the pesticide 

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

Page 132 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

First, the Agency considered requiring employers to provide workers and handlers with a 

crop sheet in English and Spanish for each pesticide they might encounter, each time they enter 

the treated area. The Agency is aware of several attempts by state agencies to pilot this use of 

crop sheets. California and Texas have had requirements for employers to provide crop sheets to 

those working in pesticide-treated areas. Texas funded the initial development and periodic 

updating of the crop sheets, but the process became too expensive and labor intensive for the 

state to continue. The states reported that the crop sheets were left as litter in the treated area. 

Texas reported that the redundancy between the requirements under Texas law and the WPS 

contributed to the decision to discontinue the crop sheet program. 

EPA believes that developing crop sheets as recommended by farmworker organizations 

would be challenging because they suggested simple pictorial descriptions of hazards and 

symptoms, which would not be accomplished easily with the technical information that is 

generally included on an SDS. In addition, many agricultural enterprises produce a variety of 

commodities, increasing the number and complexity of the crop sheets. Agricultural practices 

differ across regions and according to local conditions, making it difficult to develop a standard 

set of crop sheets that could be used nationally; a booklet that would be useful for vegetables 

grown in New England would not be representative of practices in vegetable production in the 

Southwestern United States. As part of its consideration, the Agency assessed the cost of 

developing crop sheets based on the assumption that pesticide registrants would develop the crop 

sheets because they have the most complete knowledge of each pesticide’s properties, hazards, 

and potential health effects. The estimated cost of $13 million annually does not include copying 

and distributing the crop sheets to workers and handlers every time they enter a treated area. 

Copying and distributing the crop sheets would significantly increase the cost of this option. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 133 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Based on the experience of states that have attempted to implement crop sheet 

distribution programs, EPA does not believe that workers and handlers would benefit sufficiently 

to justify the cost of developing, compiling, translating, and distributing specific crop sheets. 

Second, EPA considered requiring pesticide-specific hazard communication materials to 

be made available in a language that workers and handlers can understand. This would mean 

translating a copy of the SDS and labeling into each language understood by a worker or handler 

on the establishment and maintaining copies of the original and translated SDS and labeling, 

rather than providing the information in English and putting the burden of translation on the 

worker or handler. 

The NAWS estimates that the majority of agricultural workers (83%) are non-English 

speakers (Ref. 65). Additionally, NAWS data show that 85% of workers “would have difficulty 

obtaining information from printed materials in any language” (Ref. 61, p. 16). Additionally, 

workers and handlers speak a large number of languages and dialects, and the Agency believes it 

would be impractical to translate and present complex information into so many different 

languages. This requirement would be complicated further by the fact that some indigenous 

worker and handler populations do not have a written language. EPA assumes that a majority of 

requests for the SDS will be made related to a health care incident, which means that either the 

health care practitioner or a worker advocacy support group would likely receive the 

information. These groups are more likely to have staff that speak English and are capable of 

translating the information for the worker or handler if necessary. 

All other industries – including the construction, janitorial, and maintenance industries 

where there are traditionally significant numbers of workers with limited skills reading or 

understanding English – use SDSs in English to meet OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 134 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

requirements to make chemical hazard information available to employees (29 CFR 

1910.120(g)). Most readily available sources of pesticide-specific hazard information, such as 

SDS and pesticide labeling, are in English. EPA did not estimate the cost of translating the SDS 

and labeling into each language spoken by workers and handlers, but expects that the burden 

would be extremely high. The burden of producing SDSs in multiple languages would probably 

fall on registrants, but agricultural and handler employers would bear the burden of obtaining 

and maintaining a copy of this information in every language spoken by their workers and 

handlers. 

Based on this information, EPA does not believe that the risk reductions expected to 

result from providing SDSs to workers in their native languages would justify the significant 

costs of doing so. Medical and legal personnel who would provide assistance to workers in the 

event of a suspected exposure are proficient in English and could use the SDSs as already 

developed by the pesticide registrant. 

Finally, EPA considered requiring the employer to maintain only labeling for pesticides 

that require WPS compliance that are applied on their establishments, rather than both the 

product’s labeling and SDS. Pesticide labeling must accompany the product; therefore, 

employers generally already have a copy of the labeling for products applied on their 

establishment. When a pesticide is applied by a commercial applicator or someone other than the 

agricultural employer, he or she can easily request a copy of the pesticide labeling from the 

person who made the application. The SDS, on the other hand, does not accompany the product 

and may require more time to locate, increasing the burden on the agricultural employer. 

Limiting the requirement to the pesticide labeling could reduce the burden on agricultural 

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

Page 135 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA believes that the burden associated with retrieving a pesticide SDS is, however, not 

substantial because the SDS is readily available online and can be requested from and provided 

by the pesticide manufacturer and sometimes the pesticide dealer. The SDS contains information 

necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of certain pesticide-related illnesses. In some instances 

of pesticide-related illnesses, time is of the essence in determining the course of treatment. In 

these instances, having the SDS readily available for the worker, handler, and/or treating medical 

personnel could be essential to ensuring proper treatment. The cost for requiring the employer to 

collect and make available only the labeling would be about $1.6 million, or about $4 per 

establishment. EPA believes that the additional burden associated with retrieving the SDS for 

each product is justified by the potential benefit to workers and handlers from having the SDS 

available in the event of a pesticide-related illness. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • What would be the burden on employers to maintain the SDS and pesticide label for 2 

vs. 5 years? 

 • Do agricultural employers already collect SDSs? If so, how do they obtain them and 

what burden is associated with retrieving the SDS for one or more products? 

 • What are the benefits and drawbacks of requiring employers to maintain and provide 

access to employees and others the proposed pesticide-specific hazard information? 

 • Are there other approaches tofor providing pesticide-specific information to workers 

and handlers thatwith understandable, readily accessible, and relevant information on the Agency 

should consider?symptoms, short-term health effects, and long-term health effects of exposure 

(including prenatal exposure) to specific pesticides? If so, please describe and these approaches, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 136 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

their implementation, and the advantages they provide rationales for implementing themin 

comparison to the proposed approach. 

 • Are there other data on the benefit to workers and handlers from receiving pesticidespecific information before every entry into a pesticide treated area? 

 • Does opening access to pesticide-specific information to authorized representatives 

raise any problems? If so, please describe the potential issues with particularity and provide 

supporting information where available. 

B. Pesticide Application Information – Content and Timing

1. Overview. The existing WPS contains requirements for agricultural employers to 

record and display information about pesticide applications and to make that information 

accessible to workers and handlers. However, the existing requirements do not include some key 

information about pesticide applications that could help workers and handlers better identify 

treated areas on the establishment and avoid pesticide exposure. EPA proposes to require 

additional information about pesticide applications to be recorded. EPA also proposes to change 

the timing of when employers must record the information. EPA believes the additional 

information would better inform workers and handlers of relevant information about pesticide 

applications. The more flexible timing requirements for recording application information would 

reduce burden on employers. [See Unit IX.C. for proposed revisions to requirements for 

displaying information about pesticide applications.] 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS requires agricultural employers to record 

and display certain information about pesticide applications at a central location on the 

establishment. Employers must comply with this requirement when workers or handlers will be 

on the establishment and an application of a pesticide requiring WPS compliance has been made 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 137 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

or an REI has been effect within the last 30 days (40 CFR 170.122 and 170.222). The purpose of 

this requirement is to communicate information to workers and handlers about the locations of 

potential pesticide hazards on the establishment, for example, entry restricted areas or areas 

under an REI. The WPS requires employers to record and display the following information 

about pesticide applications: 

 • Location and description of the treated area, 

 • Product name, 

 • EPA registration number, 

 • Active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product, 

 • Time and date the pesticide is to be applied, and 

 • REI for the pesticide. 

The existing WPS requires the application information to be accurate and to be displayed before 

application takes place if workers are present on the establishment. If no workers or handlers are 

on the establishment at the time of application, the information must be posted before the first 

work period when workers or handlers are on the establishment. If warning signs are posted for 

the treated area before an application, the specific application information for that application 

must be displayed at the same time or earlier, in accordance with the display requirements. When 

workers or handlers are present on the establishment, the employer must display the application 

information for at least 30 days after the end of the REI. Employers may discontinue the 

information display prior to 30 days after the end of the REI when workers or handlers are no 

longer on the establishment. 

3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment and SBREFA consultation 

process, employers and pesticide applicators noted that they had difficulty recording and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 138 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

displaying application information before the application occurs (Ref. 17) (Ref. 18). They cited 

changes in pesticide application plans, usually to accommodate changing weather conditions, as 

a primary reason for not being able to accurately record the pesticide application information. 

State regulatory agencies noted that the current requirement for providing information 

about pesticide applications lacked specific information necessary to enable state inspectors to 

accurately determine the start and end times of the REIs (Ref. 17). As a result of a high-profile 

pesticide enforcement case and the aforementioned difficulty determining REI start and end 

times, North Carolina informed EPA that it has taken steps to amend the state pesticide laws. The 

amended laws would require the end times of pesticide applications to be recorded as part of 

state pesticide recordkeeping so inspectors could calculate precise REIs (Ref. 66). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In addition to the pesticide application information 

currently required to be recorded, the Agency proposes to require agricultural employers to 

record further specific information about pesticide applications. The proposed information would 

include the specific crop or site treated, the start and end dates and times of the application, and 

the end date and duration for the REI. EPA also proposes to revise the requirement for when 

information must be recorded to allow flexibility for agricultural employers to record the 

pesticide application information no later than the end of the day of the application. 

An agricultural establishment can grow a variety of crops in specific areas. EPA believes 

that adding the type of crop site to the record would help workers, handlers, and pesticide 

inspectors to distinguish the particular treated area to which the information pertains. EPA also 

believes that including the specific start and end times for the pesticide application, in addition to 

the date of application, would assist workers, handlers, and inspectors in accurately calculating 

the date and time the REI ends. The requirement for employers to note the specific date and time 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 139 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

when the REI ends would clarify when workers may enter the treated area. The proposed 

revisions would require agricultural employers to make the pesticide application information (as 

well as the proposed pesticide-specific hazard information [see Unit IX.A.]) available no later 

than the end of the day of the pesticide application when workers are on the agricultural 

establishment that day. By “make available,” the Agency means that the agricultural employer 

must, at a minimum, have the materials in a place where the workers, upon request, can have 

access to view them. If workers are not on the establishment on the day of application, the 

information must be made available at the beginning of the first work period following 

application. Changing when the application information must be made available allows 

flexibility if the application schedule changes. Making these changes would allow more realistic 

timeframes for recording application information and would take into account the realities of 

fluctuations in application timing. The change also would accommodate the requests to record 

the end time of the application and timing of REI. Information would be more accurate and the 

burden of correcting the information would be reduced. 

EPA does not believe that allowing the application information to be made available by 

the end of the day would put workers and handlers at risk because notification of treated areas to 

workers and handlers must occur before the treatment commences by either oral notification or 

by the posting of warning signs. Therefore, EPA believes that workers would be protected during 

application and immediately post-application by the WPS notification provisions. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the timing and content of pesticide application 

information required to be displayed appears in §170.11(b) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs. Because the information required in this proposal is linked to the retention of 

the pesticide labeling and SDS, the costs were calculated together. Therefore, the estimated costs 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 140 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

for this proposal are included in the cost discussed in Unit IX.A. For a complete discussion of the 

costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Would the additional pesticide application information proposed by EPA impose undue 

burden on the applicator or the employer? 

 • Are there benefits or drawbacks to requiring this additional information that EPA has 

not considered? If so, please describe. 

C. Pesticide Application Information – Location and Accessibility 

1. Overview. The WPS contains requirements for agricultural employers to record and 

display information about pesticide applications made on the establishment at a central location 

on the establishment from the time of the application until 30 days after the REI expires. EPA 

proposes to replace the current requirement with a requirement for employers to make pesticide 

application information available on request by a worker, handler, or his or her representative. 

The proposal would also increase the time employers must maintain the application information 

on the establishment from 30 days after the REI expires to 2 years. The employer would 

maintain the pesticide application information in the same location as the SDS and labeling 

(pesticide-specific hazard communication; see Unit IX.A.). EPA believes this proposal would 

reduce the overall burden on agricultural employers while still providing workers and handlers 

with reasonable access to information regarding pesticide applications and pesticide-specific 

hazard information. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. As described in Unit IX.B., the WPS requires agricultural 

employers to record and display certain information about WPS-covered pesticide applications at 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 141 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

a central location on the establishment when workers or handlers will be 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 (40 CFR 170.122 and170.222). 

3. Summary of the issues. During the National Assessment meetings, stakeholders, 

particularly employers, noted the difficulty in maintaining the pesticide application information 

at a central posting site (Ref. 17). Pesticide application plans frequently change, and keeping a 

notice board at a central location, which, in some cases, may be a significant distance from the 

treated area, up to date with those changes presents a challenge to the employer, especially prior 

to the application. 

Agricultural employer stakeholders noted that weathering of the posted information 

quickly impacts legibility, making it difficult to meet the legibility requirements for the 

information (Ref. 67). Some states, including Florida, recognize the difficulty facing employers 

and have developed a portable central location display. Florida’s display includes a laminated 

metal sign and weatherproof box to contain the necessary WPS information. Florida developed 

this display to increase compliance, to increase durability of the poster and information, and to 

provide a solution to the problems noted with maintaining the legibility of information required 

to be displayed at a central location on large establishments (Ref. 67). 

 Keeping the information current at the central location has been problematic for 

agricultural employers, as records of frequent pesticide applications on an establishment with 

multiple crops can be difficult to maintain accurately during the growing season (Ref. 17). 

Employers argued that keeping the application information at a central location essentially 

requires them to maintain two copies of pesticide application records because they cannot rely on 

the WPS central posting site to be the only copy of application records, imposing a double 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 142 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

recordkeeping burden. Keeping two separate sets of application information records with the 

same information on a busy establishment can be difficult. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require the employer to maintain 

pesticide application information and make it accessible to workers, handlers, or authorized 

representatives of workers or handlers upon request, and to eliminate the requirement for 

agricultural employers to display the pesticide application information at a central location. The 

proposed requirement does not specify a particular location on the establishment where the 

employer must store records, but does require that pesticide application records must be 

maintained on the establishment and must be made available upon request to workers, handlers, 

or their representative during normal business hours. The application information must be 

maintained in addition to the pesticide-specific hazard information. [See Unit IX.A.] 

The requirement for display of pesticide application information at a central posting site 

has been the most frequently cited area for non-compliance and violations. Between 2006 and 

2008, there was an annual average of 770 WPS violations related to central posting reported by 

states to EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (Ref. 68) (Ref. 69) (Ref. 70). 

EPA has concerns about the difficulties expressed by stakeholders such as regulators and 

agricultural employers in maintaining this information at the central posting area, and it is 

reflected in the violation records. EPA has concerns about the usefulness of the central display to 

workers and handlers, especially on large establishments, because the worker or handler may be 

assigned to work miles from the central display and would not encounter it on a routine basis. 

Moreover, if the information is not accurate or correctly maintained, workers and handlers could 

be deprived of receiving accurate information about pesticide applications on the establishments. 

Rather than continue a requirement that burdens employers without clear benefits to workers and 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 143 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

handlers, EPA has decided to revise the requirement related to displaying information about 

pesticide applications. 

The proposed requirement for maintaining and making pesticide application information 

(and the related pesticide-specific hazard communication information as discussed in Unit IX.A) 

available to workers and handlers upon request parallels OSHA’s requirement for employers to 

provide hazard information. EPA recognizes that OSHA’s HCS has been successfully 

implemented in all other industries, and that employers covered by the WPS struggle with 

maintaining the central display according to current requirements. The intent of the requirement 

is to give the workers and handlers access to accurate and legible pesticide application and 

hazard information. EPA believes that a requirement that allows employers to keep records in a 

location other than on display at a central location will significantly reduce burden on the 

employers without sacrificing the amount or type of information to which workers or handlers 

have access. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the accessibility of application information 

appears in §170.11(b) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to make pesticide 

application information available upon request and eliminating the requirement for central 

posting would be $1.1 million annually, or about $3 per WPS establishment. This estimated cost 

does not include any additional copies of the pesticide application information necessary because 

time and weather render the display illegible. The cost estimate includes an assumption that 25% 

of workers and handlers would request access to the materials, which EPA recognizes is a 

conservative estimate and drives the cost of the requirement higher. The anticipated benefits of 

this proposal were discussed in the section above. For a complete discussion of the costs of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 144 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker 

Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA believes that this proposal would reduce the burden on employers by allowing them 

to maintain the records in a location that is not subject to weathering and would not substantially 

increase the burden on workers and handlers seeking this information. EPA believes that most 

workers do not routinely pass the central posting area because their workplace is at a different 

part of the establishment. The proposed change would continue to make available at a designated 

location pesticide application information for workers and handlers. 

 6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered requiring that 

employers post specific pesticide application information on the signs used to post each treated 

area. Under this option, specific information about the pesticide used, date of application, and 

REI would be included on the bottom of each warning sign posted around a treated area. [See 

Unit VIII.C. for a discussion of the proposals related to notifications to workers and handlers.] 

This option would allow early-entry workers to access information about the specific pesticides 

used in areas where they may be working at the time they enter the treated area. However, this 

alternative option would substantially increase the burden associated with posting treated areas 

because employers would have to copy the pesticide and application information onto each 

warning sign. In addition, when treated areas are posted for multiple days, the sign could become 

weathered and illegible, imposing the additional burden on the grower to update the legibility of 

the sign or negating the intended protection associated with providing the information at the 

treated area. This option could also reduce information available to workers and handlers 

because pesticide application information would not be available when the treated area does not 

require a posted warning sign. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 145 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 EPA believes that the proposed options to post a general warning sign at pesticide treated 

areas [see Unit VIII] and to require the employer to maintain and make accessible pesticidespecific application information balance the need for workers and handlers to have access to 

pesticide hazard information and the burden on agricultural employers. Therefore, EPA decided 

not to propose this option. 

D. Pesticide Application Information and Pesticide-Specific Hazard Communication Materials 

—Retention of Records 

1. Overview. The current WPS requires employers to maintain information about 

pesticide applications from the time of application until 30 days after the REI expires. The 

Agency proposes to require employers to retain the pesticide application and related pesticidespecific hazard communication information for 2 years from the date of the end of the REI for 

each product applied. EPA believes the extended recordkeeping period would ensure that state, 

tribal and federal agencies, workers, handlers, and health care workers have access to the 

information when necessary to investigate a health-related pesticide incident or potentially 

unlawful pesticide application. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS requires agricultural employers to display 

information about pesticide applications from the time of application until 30 days after the REI 

has expired (40 CFR 170.122(b) and 170.222(b)). 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to require employers to retain 

and make available for 2 years from the date of the end of the last applicable REI pesticide 

application information and related pesticide-specific hazard communication information that 

includes the SDSs and product labeling for pesticides that require WPS compliance. EPA expects 

the extended recordkeeping period would ensure that application information is maintained for a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 146 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

sufficient period of time to allow for follow-up in the event of health problems that might be 

related to pesticide exposure or for investigation of a suspected pesticide misuse. EPA recognizes 

that some employers may maintain electronic copies of their application records and other 

documents such as SDS and pesticide labeling. Under the proposed option, an employer could 

maintain a copy of the application information, the pesticide labeling used for the application, 

and the corresponding SDS in either paper or electronic form. The employer would need to be 

able to provide access to the electronic format of the materials or make available a paper copy of 

the materials upon request. Employers would need to ensure that the copy of the pesticide label 

on file is the same as the label for the pesticide product at the time it was applied on the 

establishment. Employers would not need to update the pesticide labeling or SDS on file each 

time a new version is released; however, if the product used in a subsequent application bears a 

different version of the labeling, the employer would need to keep both versions of the labeling 

on file, in a manner identifying which version was used on which occasion. 

EPA believes the current 30-day timeframe for retention of the application information is 

not adequate for workers or handlers to access the information, especially if there has been a 

delayed health impact from the exposure. It is possible for latent health effects from a pesticide 

exposure to occur after the 30-day window, necessitating access to information about the 

potential source of exposure and the types of pesticides that may have been involved. In 2004 

and 2005, farmworker women who had worked in Florida, North Carolina, and New Jersey gave 

birth to babies with birth defects. In 2006, EPA investigated the incidents and sought information 

about pesticide exposures several months after the women’s employment ended (Ref. 71). The 

ability to perform a full investigation into the serious health effects was hampered by the 30-day 

limit for retention of the WPS-required application information (Ref. 72). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 147 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the 2-year recordkeeping requirement appears in 

§170.11(b)(2) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

4. Costs. The costs of this proposal were discussed in Unit IX.A. in conjunction with the 

requirement to retain and make available the SDS and pesticide labeling. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

5. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered requiring application 

records and hazard information to be maintained for 5 years. The incremental cost between the 2-

year and 5-year period is negligible because the principal costs of recordkeeping occur when the 

record is created. Several states, including California, have required employers to retain WPS 

records for 2 years. Based on their experience, 2 years is a sufficient time to allow the state to 

investigate complaints. Therefore, it is not clear that the increased burden associated with 

requiring employers to maintain records for 5 years would be justified. 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

• Should EPA consider a different timeframe for recordkeeping for this 

requirement? If so, what period and why? 

• What burdens would be imposed on agricultural employers as a consequence of 

the proposed two-year record retention requirement? 

• How would the burden of the proposal to maintain application records compare 

with the current requirement to maintain a central display? 

X. Information Exchange between Handler and Agricultural Employers 

1. Overview. The current WPS requires handler and agricultural employers to exchange 

information about pesticide applications. EPA proposes to add to the existing requirement 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 148 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

information about the location of the “entry-restricted areas” and the start and end times of 

pesticide applications. EPA also proposes to require the handler employer to provide any 

changes to pesticide application plans to the agricultural employer within 2 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. EPA expects these changes to reduce worker 

pesticide exposure by providing accurate, timely information about applications to the 

agricultural employer. 

 2. Existing WPS regulations. 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, including 

specific location and description of any such areas and restrictions on entering those areas (40 

CFR 170.124). 

The WPS requires handler employers to provide agricultural employers with the 

following information prior to the pesticide application: 

 • 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, 

 • Whether posting and/or oral notification are required, and 

 • Any other product-specific requirements on the product labeling concerning protection 

of workers or other persons during or after application. 

Handler employers are currently required to inform agricultural employers when there 

will be changes to scheduled pesticide applications, such as to give notice of changes to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 149 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

scheduled pesticide application times, locations, and subsequent REIs, before the application 

takes place (40 CFR 170.224). 

3. Summary of the issues. State regulatory agencies participating in the IGW raised 

concerns over the regulation’s silence regarding handler employers’ responsibilities in the event 

a scheduled pesticide application changes resulting in the original information no longer being 

accurate (Ref. 14). IGW members questioned field implementation of the provision because the 

agricultural employer could send a worker into an area that is believed not to be treated while the 

handler employer changes the application schedule. As a result, the worker would be at risk of 

being directly or indirectly exposed to pesticides. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes two additions to the information 

currently required to be exchanged between agricultural and handler employers: the location of 

the “entry-restricted area” and the start and end times of the pesticide application. This 

information should help clarify the current rule and assist with field implementation. 

First, EPA proposes to expand the agricultural employer’s required information exchange 

with the handler employer to include the location of the proposed “entry-restricted area,” which 

EPA proposes to define as the area surrounding a treated area during pesticide application from 

which workers or other persons must be excluded during the pesticide application. 

 Second, to clarify and improve handler employer requirements for providing information 

to the agricultural employer, EPA proposes to require the handler employer to include the 

proposed start and estimated end times for the application, which are needed to accurately 

calculate the REI end date and time. EPA proposes to require the handler employer to provide 

changes to pesticide application plans to the agricultural employer within 2 hours of the end of 

the application rather than before the application. Changes to the estimated application end time 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 150 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

of less than one hour would not require notification. These changes would allow more 

flexibility for handler employers by reducing the number of times they would have to 

communicate with the agricultural employer while maintaining communication of important 

application and safety information. Currently, the handler employer or handler must inform the 

agricultural employer of all changes to pesticide application timing before the application takes 

place. For example, if a rain storm delayed the application, this could mean multiple exchanges 

of information before the application takes place. 

EPA expects these changes would make the required information exchange easier for 

agricultural and handler employers to understand and follow. Providing more accurate 

information about the timing of applications and subsequent REI would assist employers in 

ensuring that workers and handlers are kept out of areas being treated or under an REI unless 

properly protected. Overall, the proposal should reduce the number of incidents resulting from 

workers or handlers entering treated areas unaware of an ongoing application or existing REI. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the information exchange between agricultural 

employers and handlers appears in §§170.9(k) and 170.13(i)-(j).

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the proposed revisions to the information exchange 

requirements would have no or negligible cost because they clarify the rule and codify existing 

guidance. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the 

“Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost 

Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Is it reasonable to require the handler employer to notify the agricultural employer of 

changes to scheduled pesticide applications within 2 hours of the end of the application?
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 151 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • What are the benefits to expanding the information to be exchanged between handler 

and agricultural employers? Are there any drawbacks?

 • Would this impose additional burden on employers? If so, what burden and how could 

it be reduced?

XI. Handler Restrictions 

A. Suspend Application

 1. Overview. EPA proposes to add a provision to the WPS stating that the handler or 

applicator must “immediately cease or suspend application if any worker or other person, other 

than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, is in the treated or entry restricted area.” 

This statement would help to ensure that handlers understand their responsibility to protect 

workers from pesticide exposure through direct contact or drift. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The current rule requires 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.” 

3. Stakeholder information considered by EPA. WPS inspectors have informed EPA that 

the current WPS language does not provide sufficient directive for handlers to stop an 

application if a person, other than a trained and properly equipped handler, enters the treated area 

and entry-restricted area during application. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The proposal would require handlers to cease 

application if they observe any person other than a trained and properly equipped handler to be 

present in the treated or entry-restricted area. This clarifies and strengthens the current WPS 

language which does not currently include a “cease application” statement but does require the 

handler to assure no pesticide is applied so as to contact a worker. This additional “cease 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 152 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

application” statement is an important clarification considering the SENSORPesticides/California Department of Pesticide Regulation publication that cites drift as the 

leading factor contributing to reports of acute occupational pesticide poisoning cases in 

agricultural workers (Ref. 11). Further, the Washington State Department of Health’s Pesticide 

Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel 2009 Annual Report details an incident involving 

54 workers exposed to drift from an aerial application where 47 workers sought medical 

treatment for multiple health symptoms. The adverse effects of this incident may have been 

mitigated if the handler acted to cease application when he saw the workers located in the treated 

or entry-restricted area (Ref. 73). 

The regulatory text concerning the suspension of an application appears in §170.205(a) 

through (b) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of this proposal would be negligible 

because it clarifies an existing requirement 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Will this proposal, in combination with the entry-restricted area requirements proposed 

in Unit XIV., effectively reduce worker exposure to spray drift? Please provide rationale and 

data to substantiate your response. 

 • Are there alternatives to this proposal that would better protect workers and others from 

spray drift, while reserving the flexibility to use pesticides in agriculture? Please provide 

rationale and data to support your response. 

B. Establish Minimum Age of 16 for Handling Pesticides

1. Overview. The current WPS does not establish any age restrictions for handlers. EPA 

proposes to prohibit persons younger than 16 years of age from handling pesticides, with an 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 153 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

exception for handlers working on an establishment owned by an immediate family member. See 

Unit XVIII.A., for a complete discussion of the immediate family exception. EPA expects this 

change will result in reduced risks to children and improved competency in handling, resulting in 

reduced exposure to workers, handlers, bystanders, and the environment. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS does not establish a minimum age for handlers. 

3. Summary of the issues. FLSA establishes a minimum age of 16 years for any person 

employed in agriculture to handle a pesticide designated as toxicity category I or II and not 

working. The FLSA’s statutory parental exemption in agricultural employment permits a youth 

under the age of 16 to perform any work if he or she is employed “by his parent or by a person 

standing in the place of his parent on a farm owned by an immediate family member (or operated 

by such parent or person.” 29 U.S.C. 213(c)(2)).). The CHPAC recommended that EPA 

establish a minimum age of 16 for pesticide handlers of any agricultural pesticide, based on a 

recommendation from NIOSH. (Ref. 74). Handlers, compared to workers, face exposure to 

pesticides at higher levels as they mix, load, and apply pesticides (Ref. 75). A report from 

NIOSH compiles studies that demonstrate “[y]outh are at increased risk of injury from lack of 

experience. Inexperienced workers are unfamiliar with the requirements of work, are less likely 

to be trained to recognize hazards, and are commonly unaware of their legal rights on the job. 

Developmental factors – physical, cognitive, and psychological – may also place them at 

increased risk.” (Ref. 76) 

In addition, during the SBREFA consultation described in Unit IV.B., the SERs 

recommended establishing a minimum age of 16 under the certification of pesticide applicators 

rule (40 CFR 171), with an exception to the minimum age on family farms (Ref. 42). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 154 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to prohibit a handler employer from 

allowing persons younger than 16 years old to perform handling tasks. The minimum age would 

not apply to handlers that fall under the WPS immediate family exception, i.e., working on a 

farm owned by an immediate family member. 

As discussed above, the FLSA already establishes 16 as a minimum age for persons using 

toxicity category I and II pesticides. in agricultural employment. This restriction does not extend 

protection to all handlers under the WPS. Handlers may use pesticides in any toxicity category, 

from I to IV. EPA recognizes that some states may have additional requirements, such as 

requiring parental permission for the employment of children ages 16 and 17 in agricultural 

operations. EPA seeks to ensure that all adolescent handlers receive equal protection, regardless 

of the toxicity of the pesticide used. 

OSHA asked NIOSH to evaluate the existing Hazardous Order regulations and to make 

recommendations for strengthening the protections provided by these requirements. Among 

other things, NIOSH responded with rationale for changing the hazardous order related to 

pesticide use in agriculture to establish 16 as the minimum age for using all pesticides, not only 

those pesticides in toxicity categories I and II. The NIOSH report cites data from a study which 

examined pesticide poisoning among working children. A total of 531 children under the age of 

18 years were identified to have acute occupational pesticide-related illness. It was estimated that 

62% of the cases were children employed in agricultural production and services. Of the 81% of 

cases where the EPA acute toxicity category was available, 67% of the illnesses were associated 

with toxicity category III pesticides, which are not currently prohibited under the hazardous 

order (Ref. 76, p. 93). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 155 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Aside from any increased risks that children may suffer from pesticide exposures, the 

Agency recognizes that children generally lack the experience and judgment to avoid or prevent 

unnecessary exposure. A study conducted by the National Institutes of Health also demonstrates 

that because their brains are still developing, adolescents may have trouble balancing risk-reward 

decision-making and goal-oriented decision making (Ref. 77 p. 7). Although adolescents may 

understand the possible consequences of their actions, they are more likely to make decisions 

based upon their initial emotional responses, which will often lead them to make suboptimal 

choices (Ref. 77, p. 7). Additionally, younger persons are less likely to be aware of their rights 

and how to recognize hazards in the workplace (Ref. 76). 

The proposed age restriction would include a requirement for the handler employer to 

record the training and the birth date of all persons trained. It would be possible for someone 

under 16 years old to receive handler training; however, the trained individual would not be 

permitted to perform handling tasks until they turn 16. The proposed age restriction advances the 

Agency’s commitment to protecting children. 

EPA recognizes the independence of the family farm and believes that farm family 

parents are in the best position to make decisions about the types of activities in which their 

children can safely engage. EPA believes that handlers working on an establishment covered by 

the immediate family exception would be adequately prepared and supervised by family 

members. Therefore, the minimum age requirement for handlers would not apply to persons 

performing handling tasks when covered by the immediate family exemption. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the minimum age of 16 for handlers appears in 

§§170.9(c) and 170.13(c) of today’sthe proposed rule. The exception for persons covered by the 

immediate family exemption is found in §170.301(a)(1)(i). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 156 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

5. Costs. EPA estimates the cost of requiring handlers to be at least 16 years old would be 

$466,000 annually, or about $2 per agricultural establishment per year. It would impose no cost 

on commercial pesticide handling establishments. The cost of maintaining records of handlers’ 

birth dates is included in the cost of retaining records for handler training. EPA recognizes that 

the estimated cost of this proposal is conservative because it does not reflect state requirements 

for minimum age that exceed the FLSA. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals 

and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA believes 

this proposal would improve the health of adolescent handlers, as well as other workers and 

handlers on the establishment and the environment. As discussed above, adolescents’ judgment 

is not fully developed. EPA believes that restricting adolescents’ ability to handle pesticides 

would 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. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. As an alternative, EPA considered 

proposing a minimum age of 18 for pesticide handlers, which would also include an exception 

for persons performing handler tasks on a farm owned by an immediate family member. 

Handlers must exercise good judgment and responsible behavior to best protect themselves and 

others as they work with these potentially toxic materials. Research shows the differences in the 

decision-making of adolescents and adults leads to the conclusion that handlers who are 

adolescents may take more risks than those who are adults. The Department of Labor has 

established a general rule, applicable to most industries, except agriculture, that workers must be 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 157 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

at least 18 years old to perform hazardous jobs (29 CFR 570.120) (75 FR 28458; May 20, 2010). 

The use of agricultural pesticides presents demonstrable risks of significant harm to the 

applicator, the public, and the environment, and these risks are significantly influenced by the 

user’s judgment and decision-making skills. Requiring handlers to be 18 years of age or older 

would prevent youth under 18 from being exposed while performing handling activities and 

would reduce risks to other persons and the environment from misapplication owing to users’ 

poor judgment or decision-making skills. This option would harmonize the age requirements for 

pesticide handlers with the minimum age requirements for workers performing hazardous jobs in 

other industries. This alternative would also align with society’s general trend toward increasing 

the ages at which persons are eligible to do certain things that present recognized risks, such as 

consuming alcohol or becoming a licensed driver. 

EPA estimates that requiring handlers to be at least 18 years old would cost about $3.1 

million annually, or $11 per agricultural establishment and $320 per commercial pesticide 

handling establishment per year. EPA proposes to follow the existing framework of the FLSA 

and DOL’s rules to propose a minimum age of 16, based on the existing rules and the higher cost 

of increasing the minimum age for handlers to 18. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Are there alternatives that have not been considered that would improve protections for 

adolescent handlers, either those under 16 or 18 years old, while allowing flexibility for pesticide 

use for agriculture? 

 • What would be the impact on state programs of establishing a minimum age of either 16 

or 18 for handlers? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 158 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Would establishing a minimum age of 16 for handlers have an impact on state 

requirements for certified applicators to be a minimum age? If so, please provide data to support 

this position. 

 • Would establishing a minimum age of 18 for handlers have an impact on state 

requirements for certified applicators to be a minimum age? If so, please provide data to support 

this position. 

 • Are there additional benefits or burdens with establishing a minimum age of 16 or 18 

for handlers? If so, please provide data to support either position. 

XII. Restrictions for Worker Entry into Treated Areas 

A. Establish Minimum Age of 16 for Workers Entering a Treated Area under an REI 

1. Overview. The existing WPS does not establish age restrictions for workers entering a 

treated area under an REI. EPA proposes to prohibit any worker under 16 years old from 

entering a treated area under an REI. This proposal would include an exemption for persons 

entering a treated area under an REI covered by the immediate family exemption [see Unit 

XVIII.A]. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS establishes conditions for when a worker may 

enter into a treated area under an REI (40 CFR 170.112). The conditions are related to the type of 

work performed (often referred to as “early-entry” work) and the length of time the worker may 

be in the treated area. However, the WPS establishes no minimum age for a worker sent into a 

treated area under an REI. 

3. Summary of the issues. In 2009, Earth Justice petitioned EPA to expand the protections 

of children in agriculture (Ref. 78 p. 23). The petition referenced several studies suggesting 

negative health impacts on youth workers less than 18 years of age who had been exposed to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 159 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pesticides (Ref. 78). These references linked pesticide exposure to childhood leukemia and 

delayed neurological development in youth (Ref. 78 p. 8). The CHPAC also recognized that 

“growth and development of many organ systems continues into late adolescence” and 

recommended that EPA enhance protection for workers in the 16-20 year old age group (Ref. 74 

pp. 2-3). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to prohibit employers from directing 

workers under 16 years old to enter a treated area to perform early-entry activities while an REI 

is in effect. This prohibition would not apply to persons entering a treated area to perform earlyentry activities while an REI is in effect on a farm owned by an immediate family member. To 

verify compliance with this requirement, EPA also proposes to require the agricultural employer 

to keep a record of the birth date of each worker trained. [See Unit VII.A.] While EPA believes 

that the proposed protections required for entry into a treated area during an REI would mitigate 

risks to the general worker population, concerns remain for children. Children may be more 

susceptible to pesticides because their systems are developing, so a level of exposure considered 

safe for an adult may not be safe for a child (Ref. 79 p. 51). See discussion in Unit XI.B. 

Due to workers’ low income, farmworker families may face more pressure to have 

children working in pesticide treated areas. While the DOL’s regulations generally permit 

children to perform agricultural tasks in most situations, EPA has particular concern for children 

working in a pesticide-treated area before the REI expires. As discussed earlier, the potential risk 

for pesticide exposure is elevated when a treated area is under an REI. EPA considered this 

elevated risk in combination with children’s potentially greater susceptibility to pesticide 

exposure and developing decision-making capabilities, as well as the demographics of workers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 160 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

when developing this proposal. EPA believes this proposal is necessary to prevent unreasonable 

risks to children, taking into account the economic needs of farm worker families. 

As discussed above, protections already exist under the FLSA for persons under 16 years 

old working with pesticides in agriculture. Extending these protections to those who enter a 

treated area during an REI could mitigate the potential effects of elevated pesticide exposure to 

children under 16 while their systems are still developing. 

EPA recognizes that farm family parents are in the best position to make decisions about 

the types of activities in which their children can safely engage. EPA believes that persons 

performing early-entry tasks who are on an establishment covered by the immediate family 

exception would be adequately prepared and supervised by family members. Therefore, the 

minimum age requirement for early-entry workers would not apply to persons performing earlyentry tasks when covered by the WPS immediate family exemption. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning a minimum age of 16 for entering a treated area 

under an REI appears in §170.303 of today’sthe proposed rule. The exception for persons 

covered by the immediate family exemption is found in §170.301(a)(1)(i). 

5. Costs/Benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring early-entry workers to be at least 

16 years old would be $156,000 annually, or less than $1 per WPS establishment per year. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal; however, EPA is 

committed to protecting the health of children. EPA believes that imposing this requirement 

would reduce the number of children who suffer occupational pesticide-related illnesses, as well 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 161 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

as the chronic and developmental effects that may be associated with children’s exposure to 

pesticides. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. EPA considered a minimum age of 

18 for workers to enter treated areas under an REI, with an exception for persons covered by the 

immediate family exception. Studies show that children’s systems continue developing until they 

reach adulthood, increasing the potential for adverse outcomes from their exposure, as compared 

to adults. Additionally, data show children’s maturity and comprehension are still developing 

(Ref. 77 p. 2). Early entry workers are exposed to pesticides before the REI has expired, meaning 

there may be higher levels of residues and more potential for exposure and negative health 

impacts. Early entry workers must use PPE properly and comply with additional measures to 

ensure they are protected from the higher potential risks. Adolescents may be less likely to 

comply with these measures and more likely to take risks that put their health at risk because 

their maturity and comprehension of risk are still developing. 

EPA estimates the cost of this option would be about $723,000 annually, or about $2 per 

agricultural establishment. EPA does not have data to indicate that the anticipated additional 

protection for children support increased costs of the higher minimum age. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

 • Are there other ways EPA could protect children less than 16 years old from pesticide 

risks associated with entry into a treated area during an REI? If so, please describe. 

 • What would be the impact on state programs of establishing a minimum age for early 

entry workers? 

 • Would establishing a minimum age of 16 or 18 for early entry workers have an adverse 

impact on state requirements for certified applicators to be a minimum age, generally 16 or 18? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 162 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Are there additional benefits or burdens with establishing a minimum age of 16? If so, 

please provide data to support this position. 

 • Are there additional benefits or burdens associated with establishing a minimum age of 

18? If so, please provide data to support this position. 

B. Requirements for Entry During an REI 

1. Overview. The WPS establishes specific exceptions to the prohibition on 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. EPA proposes to require employers (1) to inform workers 

sent into a treated area while the REI is in effect of the specific exception under which they 

would enter, (2) to describe the tasks permitted and any limitations required under that exception, 

and (3) to explain the personal protective equipment required by the labeling. EPA also proposes 

to require the employer to create a record of the oral notification, 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. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers to 

enter a treated area where an REI is in effect except under specific early entry exceptions (40 

CFR 170.112(a)). Recognizing some circumstances in which there may be a need to have work 

performed in a treated area during the REI, EPA established exceptions to the general prohibition 

for “no-contact,” “short-term,” and “agricultural emergency activities” (40 CFR 170.112). EPA 

later established two administrative exceptions that are not in 40 CFR part 170, for “limited 

contact” and irrigation activities (60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995). Each 

exception requires specific protective measures or limitations on work to protect early-entry 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 163 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

workers from unreasonable adverse effects from pesticide exposure. [For a complete discussion 

of the exceptions and proposed revisions, see Unit XII.D.] The WPS requires employers to 

provide workers with PPE, to assure that early-entry workers follow precautions listed on the 

label, and to provide water and decontamination supplies nearby for when the worker exits the 

treated area. 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker Justice suggested that workers may not recognize 

the elevated risk from early entry or understand the requirements of the exceptions, and therefore 

may fail to appreciate the particular importance of complying with the terms of the early-entry 

exception. Farmworker Justice recommended that workers receive information about the health 

effects associated with the pesticides they may encounter while working (Ref. 35 p. 7). 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In addition to what the WPS currently requires, EPA 

proposes to require that agricultural employers: 

 • Provide oral notification to early-entry workers prior to each entry into an area under an 

REI; 

 • Provide information (in addition to the current requirement to follow product labeling 

instruction) about the pesticide application, the specific task to be performed, and the amount of 

time that the worker is allowed to remain in the treated area; 

 • Collect written acknowledgement of receipt of the oral notification, including the date 

of birth, printed name and signature of each worker, prior to his or her entry; and 

 • Retain for 2 years the worker-signed record of this notification. 

When entering a treated area during an REI, the worker faces risk of exposure to 

pesticides at concentrations with the potential for adverse health effects that are of specific 

concern. Evaluation of incident reports has demonstrated that workers who enter a treated area 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 164 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

prior to the expiration of the REI are more adversely affected than those workers who enter the 

treated area after the REI has expired, suffering from respiratory issues, rashes, and other illness 

(Ref. 11). Results from a recent SENSOR-Pesticides/California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation analysis of the most common factors contributing to incidents of pesticide poisoning 

indicate that “early reentry into a recently treated area” was the second most common factor 

(Ref. 11). The report cites early reentry as contributing to 17% (336) of all acute pesticide 

poisoning cases for which a cause was identified in the agricultural industry between 1998 and 

2005 (Ref. 11, p. 891). 

EPA expects the proposed requirements to provide early-entry workers information about 

the pesticide application, the specific task to be performed, and the amount of time that the 

worker is allowed to remain in the treated area, and to obtain the early-entry worker’s signature 

to increase the likelihood of those workers understanding and following the applicable risk 

mitigation measures and assure that workers have information about what early-entry activities 

they performed in the event they suffer a pesticide-related illness. Sending a worker into a treated 

area under an REI to perform specific tasks with the appropriate knowledge and equipment to 

protect him or herself decreases the likelihood that the worker would experience pesticide 

poisoning. Further, the proposed requirement to create and maintain a record to verify the oral 

notification would serve as a tool for inspectors to verify rule compliance. 

This proposal would work in concert with two other proposed changes: requiring posting 

of treated areas [Unit VIII.] and enhancing the content of worker training [Unit VII.]. The 

Agency believes that training early-entry workers on what they should expect if the agricultural 

employer requests that they enter a treated area under an REI, as well as posting all areas treated 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 165 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

with a product that has an REI of 48 hours or longer, would better prepare workers to protect 

themselves while performing early-entry tasks. 

EPA is proposing to require recordkeeping of oral notification to early-entry workers, but 

not recordkeeping of oral notification of treated areas (discussed above in Unit VIII.A.6.ii.) 

based on the elevated risks facing early-entry workers and importance of ensuring they have the 

information necessary to protect themselves during the higher-risk early entry activities. Workers 

receiving general notification of treated areas do not need to know how long they may be in the 

area, types of exposure, or how best to protect themselves; they are instructed to keep out of 

specific treated areas. EPA believes that the burden on employers to create and maintain a record 

of the early-entry worker notification is balanced by the increased flexibility to employers, while 

ensuring sufficient protection for early-entry workers. As discussed above, EPA does not believe 

that the cost of creating and maintaining records of oral notification of pesticide-treated areas is 

outweighed by the potential benefits. 

Additionally, the cost of creating and maintaining a record of oral notification for early 

entry workers is substantially lower than the cost of creating and maintaining a record of oral 

notification when the REI has expired. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning early-entry requirements appears in §170.305 of 

today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to provide earlyentry workers with oral notification would be about $700,000 annually, or about $2 per 

establishment per year. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 166 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA estimates the cost of requiring employers to maintain records of oral notifications 

provided to early-entry workers would be $470,000 annually, or about $1 per establishment per 

year. 

For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the 

“Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost 

Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal; however, EPA recognizes 

that entering a treated area during an REI is one of the primary identified sources of pesticiderelated illness in workers. EPA believes this proposal would provide workers with more 

information about the risks they may face and how to protect themselves from pesticide 

exposure, and would ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of pesticide-related illnesses 

associated with early entry into a pesticide-treated area. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. Many of the alternative options 

considered are more fully discussed in other areas of this preamble. EPA considered the option 

of eliminating early entry for no-contact, limited contact, irrigation and short-term exceptions as 

recommended by worker advocacy organizations. [See Unit XII.D.] EPA also considered 

requiring agricultural employers to distribute pesticide hazard information to each worker upon 

entry into any treated area. [See Unit IX.A.] 

EPA also considered requiring employers to keep records of the conditions of the 

exception claimed and notification to workers for 5 years instead of the proposed requirement of 

2 years. Because most of the costs associated with recordkeeping are incurred upon creating the 

record, the incremental costs of retaining the records for a longer period are minimal. However, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 167 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

as discussed earlier, it is not clear that the potential benefits associated with retaining the records 

for a longer period justify the increased cost and burden on employers. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Is there other information related to entry into a treated area under an REI that EPA 

should require employers to document? If so, what information and why? 

 • Are there other ways EPA could verify that workers received notification and the proper 

equipment to work in a treated area under an REI without the proposed recordkeeping? 

C. Clarify Requirement for Decontamination Supplies for Workers Entering a Treated Area 

under an REI 

1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide early-entry workers with 

“a sufficient amount of water” for decontamination. EPA proposes to clarify the meaning of “a 

sufficient amount of water” for decontamination of workers entering a treated area under an REI. 

EPA expects that the clarification would facilitate compliance and that adequate decontamination 

supplies would reduce the likelihood that workers would suffer an illness from the exposure 

during early-entry work and would protect worker families from take-home exposure. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires the agricultural employers to provide 

“soap, clean towels, and a sufficient amount of water so that the workers may wash thoroughly” 

when workers perform tasks in a treated area while the REI is in effect (40 CFR 170.112(d)).

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker Justice and state regulators have requested that 

EPA clarify what amount of water would be sufficient. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that agricultural employers 

provide at least 3 gallons of water per worker for decontamination after a worker has performed 

tasks in a treated area under an REI. This amount is based on the 1993 EPA guidance document, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 168 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

“How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What 

Employers Need to Know.” (Ref. 80 p. 25) EPA believes this amount of water would be 

sufficient for a worker to wash exposed areas. This is the same amount of water being proposed 

for handler decontamination. [See Unit XIV.A.] 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the required amount of water appears in 

§170.305(j) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs/Benefits. EPA estimates the cost of the proposal to increase the quantity of water 

available for early-entry worker decontamination would be $2,500 annually, or less than $0.01 

per WPS establishment per year. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and 

alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA expects that adequate decontamination supplies would reduce instances where 

workers fail to wash after performing WPS tasks owing to insufficient supplies, thereby reducing 

the likelihood that workers would suffer an illness from the exposure during early-entry work 

and would protect worker families from take-home exposure. EPA also expects that the 

clarification would make it easier for employers to understand and comply with the WPS 

decontamination supply requirements. 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Is 3 gallons for decontamination a reasonable amount of water for an early-entry worker 

who has been exposed to a pesticide? If not, why? 

 • What amount of water would be reasonable, or what other alternative is there? 

D. Exception to the General Prohibition against Sending Workers into a Treated Area under an 

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

Page 169 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1. Overview. The existing WPS includes specific exceptions to the employer prohibition 

against sending workers into a treated area during an REI. EPA proposes to clarify these 

exceptions to make them more understandable and easier for employers to follow. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS prohibits employers from directing workers into a 

treated area while an REI is in effect (40 CFR 170.112(a)). The regulation also provides for 

exceptions to the entry restrictions so that certain activities considered critical to successful 

agricultural production can take place during an REI. The exceptions to the entry restrictions 

allow entry into an area under an REI for activities with no-contact, certain short-term activities, 

and certain activities associated with agricultural emergencies (40 CFR 170.112(b)-(d)). EPA 

added the exception provisions to the 1992 WPS to minimize potential adverse impacts on 

agriculture that could occur because of the restrictions on entering treated areas while an REI is 

in effect. The exceptions allow early-entry activities only under very limited circumstances. The 

exception provisions include specific requirements and limitations intended to ensure that 

workers are adequately protected during any allowed early-entry activities. 

In addition, the WPS includes an administrative process to allow additional exceptions to 

the prohibition on early entry for activities critical to agricultural production that were not 

addressed in the existing exceptions (40 CFR 170.112(e)). In 1995, the Agency granted 

administrative exceptions for irrigation and limited contact activities. The rationale for and terms 

and conditions of these administrative exceptions were included in the final Federal Register

notice announcing the Agency’s approval of the request for the exceptions (60 FR 21955; May 3, 

1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995). 

3. Summary of the issues. In general, USDA has indicated support for revising the 

regulation to clarify the requirements of the exception to enable worker reentry without 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 170 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

compromising human health. USDA said growers need maximum flexibility to direct workers to 

reenter treated areas to perform tasks in a timely manner (Ref. 81). 

EPA received a letter signed by a broad coalition of farmworker organizations that 

opposed the inclusion of any exception to the prohibition on directing workers to enter a treated 

area while an REI is in effect (Ref. 35). They suggested that REIs should protect post-application 

workers by reducing their exposure to pesticides at a time when the residues are hazardous. 

Farmworker advocates noted that creating exceptions to the REIs substantially weakens this 

protection and increases the risk of injury to the workers, even if additional personal protective 

equipment is required and provided. Farmworker organizations asserted that many worker 

injuries occurred because workers were put back in the treated area before the REI had expired. 

They also indicated a belief that required PPE is often not worn because it interferes with 

workers’ ability to perform their tasks in an efficient manner. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA agrees that some of the current exception 

provisions contain vague or unenforceable language that may be confusing to agricultural 

employers and the regulated community. Unclear regulations present compliance challenges for 

employers and, if misunderstood, may place early-entry workers at risk of being sent into treated 

areas to engage in tasks that should not take place during the REI. 

Detailed descriptions of the proposed revisions and specifically related stakeholder input 

are discussed below. 

i. Clarify conditions of “No Contact” exception. 

a. Existing WPS regulations. The no-contact exception permits entry into a treated area 

under an REI for activities for which workers will have no contact with treated surfaces (40 CFR 

170.112(b)). Examples of acceptable “no contact” activities include the following: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 171 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Worker in an open-cab vehicle in a treated area where the plants and other treated 

surfaces cannot brush against the worker and cannot drop or drip pesticides onto the worker; 

 • After a pesticide is correctly incorporated or injected into the soil, the worker is 

performing tasks that do not involve touching or disrupting the soil surface other than walking 

with shoes on the soil surface; and 

 • Worker in an enclosed cab vehicle in a treated area. 

b. Summary of the issues. States and employers requested clarification from EPA on the 

conditions of the no-contact exception and what tasks constituted no-contact activities. 

Specifically, they suggested that wearing PPE to prevent contact with pesticide treated surfaces 

does not constitute no-contact early entry. 

A coalition of farmworker advocate groups requested that EPA impose greater 

restrictions on the no-contact exception (Ref. 35). 

c. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to clarify that activities 

reasonably expected to involve contact with treated surfaces cannot be no-contact activities, even 

if the contact is limited or mediated through the use of personal protective equipment. Wearing 

PPE reduces exposure to pesticide residues, but it cannot be relied upon to reduce exposure to 

the same level expected of a no-contact activity. Even with PPE, workers engaged in activities 

involving treated surfaces still face a risk of greater exposure than they would if they did not 

contact treated surfaces. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the no-contact exception appears in §170.303(a) 

of today’sthe proposed rule. 

d. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates there are no costs associated with this proposal since 

it is merely a clarification of the existing regulations. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 172 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

ii. Limit “agricultural emergency” exception. 

a. Existing WPS regulations. The current WPS permits early entry into a treated area 

during an REI in the event of an agricultural emergency. The emergency exception provision 

applies only where a state, tribal or federal agency having jurisdiction has declared the existence 

of circumstances that could cause an agricultural emergency to exist on the establishment. The 

existing exception allows early entry for an unlimited duration and does not prohibit hand labor 

activities. The agricultural emergency exception requires the employer to provide required PPE 

to all workers who engage in early entry activities. 

b. Summary of the issues. State regulators, farmworker groups, and agricultural 

employers raised several concerns about the exception for agricultural emergencies (Ref. 82, p. 

6). The primary issues concerned what constitutes an agricultural emergency, whether the state 

or tribe’s lead agency for pesticide regulation is the only agency that can declare an agricultural 

emergency, which types of other agencies may be authorized to declare an agricultural 

emergency, and whether the lead agency may declare in advance conditions that would constitute 

an agricultural emergency. 

EPA has provided guidance through the IGW policy document that any federal agency or 

state or tribal government may declare an agricultural emergency (Ref. 14). For example, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may do so indirectly by declaring 

that specific weather conditions could constitute an agricultural emergency. However, there are 

no recordkeeping or reporting requirements, so EPA has no data available regarding the number 

of times agricultural emergencies have been declared by states, tribes, or federal agencies. 

A coalition of farmworker advocate groups requested that EPA impose greater 

restrictions on the agricultural emergency exception (Ref. 35). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 173 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

c. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to limit the organizations that can 

declare an agricultural emergency and to limit the time a worker can be in the treated area in an 

agricultural emergency exception when a product requiring double notification has been used. 

Since issuing the IGW policy document, the Agency has come to doubt that agencies 

other than EPA and state or tribal pesticide regulatory agencies have the background and 

technical expertise to adequately assess the potential risks and benefits of early entry into 

pesticide treated areas during REIs, or that they fully understand FIFRA’s statutory requirements 

to balance risks and benefits when establishing conditions for workers to enter treated areas 

while an REI is in effect. EPA therefore proposes to narrow the agricultural emergency 

exception so that only EPA, a state department of agriculture, or the state or tribal lead agency 

may declare an agricultural emergency under the WPS to allow early entry into pesticide treated 

areas during the REI. The Agency has particular concerns about the potential risks to workers 

entering areas under the agricultural emergency exception when the areas have been treated with 

a pesticide requiring double notification (i.e., products whose labeling requires both oral and 

posted notification of pesticide treatments because it presents a heightened risk to worker health). 

This is especially the case when, as noted above, the current agricultural emergency exception 

provides no time limits for worker entry and permits hand labor. EPA believes that, when such 

high toxicity double-notification products are used, the potential pesticide exposure and risk to 

workers engaging in hand labor activities during an REI is unreasonable. 

EPA therefore proposes to limit the amount of time a worker is permitted to spend in an 

area treated with a double-notification product to no more than 4 hours in any 24-hour period 

during an agricultural emergency exception situation. EPA believes this change would preserve 

the needed flexibility for agriculture to address the conditions of the agricultural emergency 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 174 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

while offering increased protections for workers potentially exposed to the most highly toxic 

pesticides. Even though an individual worker is limited to 4 hours of early entry under such a 

situation, an agricultural employer could rotate workers after each 4-hour interval. 

The revised text for the agricultural emergency exception appears in §170.303(c) of 

today’sthe proposed rule. 

d. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost for limiting the organizations that can 

declare an emergency and establishing a 4-hour time limit (in a 24-hour period) for entry into an 

area treated with a double-notification chemical under an agricultural emergency would be 

negligible. 

e. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Are there reasons EPA should consider eliminating the agricultural emergency 

exception? 

 • What benefits and drawbacks are associated with limiting the agencies that can declare 

an agricultural emergency? 

 • Please share any data on the use of the agricultural emergency exception, establishing a 

time limit, or other restrictions associated with exceptions. 

 • Should EPA develop guidance on the criteria for declaring an agricultural emergency 

and/or how a person or organization could request an eligible agency to declare an agricultural 

emergency? 

iii. Codify “Limited Contact” and “Irrigation” exceptions. 

a. Existing WPS Regulations. EPA established two administrative exceptions to the WPS 

prohibition against entry into treated areas during an REI for “limited contact” and “irrigation” 

activities. (60 FR 21955; May 3, 1995) (60 FR 21960; May 3, 1995) However, these 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 175 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

administrative exceptions, including the terms and conditions of the exceptions, do not appear in 

part 170. The language in the existing administrative exception for irrigation activities states that 

the task must be unforeseen to meet the criteria for early entry. 

b. Summary of the issues. Stakeholders, primarily state regulatory agencies, have raised 

concerns about the use of the term “unforeseen” in the exception (Ref. 36 p. 27). Irrigation is 

rarely an unforeseen event in most agricultural areas and it must take place to ensure crop 

survival. During the National Assessment meetings, state regulatory officials and other 

stakeholders noted that the need to irrigate is almost always foreseen, so the requirement for the 

need for irrigation to be unforeseen limits the legitimate use of the exception. 

A coalition of farmworker organizations recommended that EPA eliminate the irrigation 

and limited contact exceptions (Ref. 35). Their recommendation was based on coalition 

members’ belief that EPA underestimated the level of contact workers would have with treated 

surfaces and the potential for pesticide exposure through contact with treated surfaces. 

EPA’s FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel said that data generated by the Agricultural 

Reentry Task Force and peer-reviewed by EPA have shown which activities may be classified as 

no and low contact activities that do not jeopardize the well-being of workers (Ref. 83). 

c. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to revise part 170 to codify the two 

current administrative exceptions for “limited contact” and “irrigation” activities. In addition, 

EPA proposes to remove the term “unforeseen” from the irrigation exception to make the text 

more accurately reflect field practices. Finally, EPA proposes to prohibit early entry under the 

limited contact and irrigation exceptions into areas treated with a pesticide requiring double 

notification (i.e., products whose labeling requires both oral and posted notification of pesticide 

treatments), owing to the higher potential for risks to workers’ health. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 176 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA believes that incorporating these exceptions into the rule, rather than having them in 

separate Federal Register notices that employers may not be aware of, would increase the 

regulated community’s awareness and understanding of the exceptions. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the “limited contact” and the “irrigation” 

exceptions appear in §170.303(d) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

d. Costs. EPA estimates there would be no costs associated with this proposal. 

iv. Eliminate provision for exceptions requiring Agency approval. 

a. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS permits persons or organizations to request the 

Agency to grant an administrative exception to entry restrictions specific to certain crops and 

activities and pesticide products (40 CFR 170.112(e)). This same type of process was used to 

develop the “limited contact” and “irrigation” exceptions discussed above. 

b. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to eliminate the administrative 

exception process. When the WPS was first promulgated, REIs for most pesticides subject to the 

WPS were established generically through the WPS labeling provision in 40 CFR part 156, and 

the administrative exception process was included in order to provide product-specific REIs. 

However, as a result of the Agency’s pesticide reregistration efforts under section 4 of FIFRA, 

REIs are now established for each individual pesticide product through the registration or reevaluation processes. Through these processes, the specific needs of crop production are 

considered in setting REIs for specific products and cropping practices. Accordingly, the Agency 

believes it is more appropriate that such requests for adjusted REIs be addressed through 

amendments to the registration of each specific pesticide product than as administrative 

exceptions to the WPS. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 177 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Additionally, by proposing to codify the existing administrative exceptions as permanent 

exceptions, the Agency believes that the current suite of available exceptions to the entry 

restrictions would provide agriculture with the needed flexibility to address the range of potential 

agricultural production problems that would warrant the need for an exception to the current 

entry restrictions. The Agency has not received any requests for new administrative exceptions in 

the last 15 years. 

There is no proposed regulatory text associated with the removal of this provision. 

c. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates there would be no costs associated with this 

proposal. 

5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Do you have factual information about the current frequency of use of any of the 

exceptions? If so, please provide it to the Agency. 

 • What are the benefits and challenges of the proposed amendments to each of the 

exceptions? 

 • Are there other reasonable alternatives that EPA did not consider? If so, please describe 

and provide a rationale for their consideration. 

 • Should EPA consider a different time limit for the agricultural emergency exception? 

For other exceptions? 

 • Are there any drawbacks to adding the irrigation and limited contact exceptions into the 

rule? 

 • For all comments, please provide factual information in support of your assertions. 

E. Expansion of Entry-Restricted Areas 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 178 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1. Overview. The existing WPS establishes entry-restricted areas adjacent to the treated 

areas (i.e., adjacent to the areas where pesticides are actually applied) only in nurseries and 

greenhouses. EPA proposes to establish similar entry-restricted areas during applications on 

farms and in forests. EPA expects this change would result in reduced incidents of pesticide 

exposure to workers and other persons from unintentional contact during application. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural employers to restrict nursery 

and greenhouse workers and other persons on those establishments from entry-restricted areas, 

defined as specific areas adjacent to those targeted for pesticide application (40 CFR 170.110). 

The size of the entry-restricted area depends on the type of product applied and the application 

method. For example, if a pesticide is applied as a mist in a nursery, the rule prohibits the 

employer from directing any worker or other person from entering the area being treated and 

within 100 feet of the treated area in all directions from the nursery. The entry-restricted area 

applies only during application and is distinct from the REI, which limits entry into a treated area 

for a specific period of time after the application ceases. 

Entry-restricted areas are also relevant to handlers and handler employers since the WPS 

prohibits handlers from applying pesticides in a manner that results in contact with workers or 

other persons (40 CFR 170.210(a)). The handler and the handler employer are responsible for 

ensuring that the pesticide application does not contact any person, which effectively requires the 

handler to cease or suspend application if any persons are in areas where contact is possible. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to expandapply to farms and forests

the entry-restricted area requirements currently applicable to nurseries to include farms and 

forests so that all production applications are subject to similar requirements. The proposed 

entry-restricted areas for farms and forests would range from the treated area alone to 100 feet 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 179 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

beyond the treated area, depending on the type of product applied and the application method.

Fumigation is one of the application methods covered by the entry-restricted area requirements.

The proposed WPS entry-restricted areas would still be limited by the boundary of the 

establishment owner’s property, as the establishment owner is subject to the current rule. For 

example, if the WPS requires the entry-restricted area to extend 100 feet in all directions from 

the treated area, but there is only 50 feet between the treated areas and the boundary of the 

owner’s property, then the property line would be the extent of the entry-restricted area under the 

WPS. WPS entry-restricted areas are limited by the boundaries of the agricultural establishment 

to limit the employer’s responsibility under the WPS to the people on his or her establishment. 

The Agency believes that the proposed creation of entry-restricted areas for all farm and forest 

applications would reduce risk to workers and other persons from pesticide exposure when they 

may be working in or nearby an area adjacent to an ongoing pesticide application. The proposed 

revisions would also provide more consistent protection across all establishments covered by the 

WPS. 

The existing part 170 does not require entry-restricted areas beyond the actual treated 

area for farms and forests. A worker may be assigned to work in an area immediately adjacent to 

an area being treated with pesticides. Many incidents of drift and off-target application have 

resulted in reported worker illnesses. A recent study cited off-target drift as the leading cause of 

reported agricultural worker exposure incidents, with 1,216 individual worker pesticide 

exposures reported from 1998-2005 (Ref. 11 p. 891). 

The proposed changes do not cover applications of soil fumigants or any other pesticides 

that have buffer zones intended to protect human health included on the product labeling. Where 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 180 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA has established entry-restricted areas for a specific pesticide or group of pesticides through 

labeling, the labeling-specific restrictions supersede the generic requirements of the WPS. 

The proposed entry-restricted areas would complement the existing WPS requirement 

that prohibits handlers from applying pesticides in a way that results in contact with workers or 

other persons and the proposal that would require handlers performing an application to cease or 

suspend the application if workers or any persons are in the entry-restricted areas during 

application. The proposal also works in concert with the prohibition on the agricultural employer 

allowing or directing any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and 

equipped handler, to enter or remain in the treated area or any applicable entry-restricted area 

during application. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning entry-restricted areas during applications on 

farms and in forests and outdoor nurseries appears in §170.105(a) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost for restricting entry to areas adjacent to an 

area being treated would be negligible. There may be instances where worker tasks in these 

adjacent areas must be stopped until the application is complete, but EPA believes employers can 

generally reassign workers to other tasks for the duration of the pesticide application. 

5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Is it reasonable for EPA to assume that workers can be reassigned for the duration of the 

pesticide application? 

 • Are there any burdens to applying an entry-restricted area on farms and in forests? Are 

there any other benefits? 

XIII. Display of Basic Pesticide Safety Information 

A. Location of Basic Pesticide Safety Information Display 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 181 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to post a poster displaying basic 

safety information in a single location on the establishment. EPA proposes to require that the 

pesticide safety information also be displayed at the decontamination site(s). 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural and handler employers to 

display the pesticide safety poster at a central location on the establishment (40 CFR 170.135(d) 

and 170.235(d)). 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations recommended additional posting 

locations with the posted warning signs [see Unit VIII.] or at worker changing areas (Ref. 35) 

(Ref. 74). They noted that having the pesticide safety poster in multiple places where workers are 

likely to see it increases the chances for workers to absorb the messages and to know how to 

contact emergency personnel. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that employers display 

pesticide safety information at decontamination sites in addition to a place on the agricultural 

establishment where workers and handlers are likely to pass by or congregate and can be readily 

seen and read. Adding the display of pesticide safety information to decontamination sites 

improves workers’ and handlers’ access to the self-protective and decontamination information. 

EPA believes that providing the pesticide safety information at the decontamination sites will not 

only remind workers and handlers about self protection but will also ensure that emergency 

contact information is immediately accessible at each decontamination site. It is likely that an 

exposed worker or a colleague providing assistance would visit the nearest decontamination site. 

Agricultural employers have told EPA that they generally have a set of materials, 

sometimes on the back of a truck or on a mobile cart, for decontamination. Displaying the 

pesticide safety information on such an apparatus would not seem to impose significant 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 182 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

additional burden. The current WPS requires employers to move the decontamination supplies to 

locations where workers or handlers are engaged in WPS activities. Once added, the pesticide 

safety information would move along with the decontamination supplies, imposing minimal 

additional burden on the employer. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the locations to display pesticide safety 

information appears in §170.11(a)(3) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of requiring the basic pesticide information 

display at decontamination sites for workers would be $2 million, or about $5 per agricultural 

establishment per year. EPA estimates the cost of requiring the basic pesticide information 

display at decontamination sites for handlers would be $780,000, or about $2 per agricultural 

establishment per year. For a complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, 

see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 

3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA believes 

that providing a reminder of basic hygiene principles at places where workers and handlers wash 

before leaving the treated area to eat and use the bathroom would increase the number of workers 

and handlers following proper decontamination principles. Emergency response information 

would have the maximum benefit if it is immediately available where workers and handlers 

would go for decontamination supplies. EPA believes that displaying pesticide safety 

information at decontamination sites would reduce the number of occupational pesticide-related 

illnesses. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. Farmworker organizations 

recommended two alternate options in addition to the current requirements for posting the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 183 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pesticide safety poster: requiring the pesticide safety poster with all posted warning signs or 

requiring the pesticide safety poster at worker changing sites. Requiring that the pesticide safety 

poster be displayed wherever a warning sign is posted would impose significant burden on 

employers. The pesticide safety poster is much larger than the warning sign, so it would be 

difficult for employers to put up and take down the pesticide safety poster with the same ease as 

they handle the warning sign. In addition, because the poster is much less durable than the 

warning sign, EPA believes that employers would have to replace the poster periodically when 

the treated area has to be posted for more than a few days. EPA expects that employers would 

need to obtain multiple copies of the poster and would have to replace them frequently. 

The WPS does not require employers to provide facilities for workers to change clothes. 

A requirement to place the pesticide safety poster at a site that may not exist at all establishments 

would not be practical or feasible. 

For the reasons described above, EPA decided not to propose requirements for employers 

to display the pesticide safety poster with all posted warning signs or at worker changing sites. 

EPA believes that it is more important and practical for workers to review the pesticide safety 

poster at the site of the decontamination supplies, where they can be reminded of safety and 

hygiene principles while cleaning themselves after working in a treated area. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • What additional burden would employers face if the proposed option to require 

pesticide safety information to be displayed at decontamination sites is implemented? Would 

there be benefits to employers? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 184 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Do data exist that show that access to information such as that on the pesticide safety 

poster at the same location as decontamination supplies leads to more workers adopting hygiene 

practices, thereby reducing the number of workplace illnesses? 

B. Content of Basic Pesticide Safety Information Display 

1. Overview. The existing WPS mandates specific content for the pesticide safety poster. 

EPA proposes to require additional information so workers and handlers can contact the state or 

tribal enforcement agency. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under 40 CFR 170.135(b)(1) through (2) and 170.235(b)(1) 

through (2), the pesticide safety poster must include the following content: 

 • 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 (long-sleeved 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 WPS also requires the employer to provide contact information for the nearest 

emergency medical care facility and to update workers and handlers if the information changes. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 185 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA has developed a poster that complies with the requirements of the regulation (except for the 

site-specific information requirements) and makes it available to agricultural employers free of 

charge. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to amend the basic pesticide 

safety content required to be displayed on an agricultural establishment to clarify the emergency 

medical information section, and to include contact information for contacting the state or tribal 

regulatory agency. The proposal no longer refers to a “pesticide safety poster.” Instead, the 

proposed regulatory text refers to “pesticide safety information” to allow some flexibility in how 

all the required information is displayed. EPA believes that most agricultural establishments will 

choose to use EPA’s free pesticide safety poster to comply with the WPS pesticide safety 

information; EPA would update the poster to include the proposed changes to the information. 

However, 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. 

Finally, the Agency proposes to require that the pesticide safety information display 

contain contact information for the state or tribal regulatory agency for pesticide enforcement. 

EPA believes that workers and handlers should have the opportunity to ask questions about 

protections offered by the WPS and to report pesticide exposure incidents or suspected noncompliance that may endanger them. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the additional required content of the pesticide 

safety information display appears in §170.11(a)(1) of today’sthe proposed rule. The text 

concerning requirements when there are changes to the pesticide safety information appears in 

§170.11(a)(2). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 186 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost to revise the contents of the basic pesticide 

safety information display would be $108,000 annually, or about $0.30 per WPS establishment 

per year. EPA included in this estimate the cost for employers to purchase the poster. However, 

EPA believes that many would obtain the updated poster free of charge from the Agency; as a 

result the actual cost of this requirement may be lower. For a complete discussion of the costs of 

the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker 

Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • What additional burden would employers face if the proposed option to require 

pesticide safety information to be displayed at decontamination sites is implemented? Would 

there be benefits to employers? 

 • Should EPA consider other changes to content of the pesticide safety information 

display? If so, what changes and why? 

XIV. Decontamination

Unit XII discussed proposed decontamination requirements specifically for workers who 

enter a treated area in which an REI is in effect as part of a suite of proposed changes to the 

protections for early entry workers. This Unit discusses routine and emergency decontamination 

for workers and handlers. The proposals in this Unit would cover handlers and workers who are 

not entering a treated area in which an REI is in effect. 

A. Clarify the Quantity of Water Required for Decontamination. 

1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide water for decontamination. 

EPA proposes to clarify the quantity of water required for decontamination from “enough water 

for routine washing and emergency eyeflush” to a specific quantity. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 187 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS requires agricultural employers to provide 

decontamination supplies, including “enough water for routine washing and emergency 

eyeflush,” when workers are performing activities in areas where a pesticide was applied or an 

REI was in effect at any point in the last 30 days and come in contact with anything that has been 

treated with a pesticide (40 CFR 170.150). The WPS also requires handler employers to provide 

decontamination supplies, again including “enough water for routine washing, for emergency 

eyeflushing and for washing the entire body in case of an emergency,” for handlers (40 CFR 

170.250). Part 170 does not specify how much would constitute enough water to meet the 

decontamination supplies requirement. 

3. Summary of the issues. Agricultural employers have reported difficulty in ensuring that 

they provide an adequate amount of water because the amount of water needed for each worker 

or handler is not stated in the current regulation. When EPA implemented the WPS, state 

regulatory agencies requested that the EPA clarify the quantity of water necessary to satisfy the 

decontamination requirement. In guidance published in 1993, “How to Comply with the Worker 

Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What Employers Need to Know,” EPA 

recommended that employers provide 1 gallon of water per worker for routine decontamination 

and 3 gallons per handler for routine washing and emergency decontamination (Ref. 80, p. 25). 

This guidance was developed by experts from EPA’s program and enforcement offices and state 

regulatory agencies. Further discussion about the amount of water required can be found in 

“How to Comply with the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What 

Employers Need to Know.” 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require that employers must 

provide 1 gallon of water per worker for routine decontamination and 3 gallons of water per 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 188 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

handler for routine washing and emergency decontamination. By codifying the guidance 

discussed above, EPA believes that employers would have no difficulty in determining the 

amount of water for routine and emergency decontamination required for their workers and 

handlers. This specificity would assist in providing workers and handlers with the amount of 

water necessary for routine washing and provide handlers with a sufficient amount of water 

should a pesticide emergency occur. Employers could be confident that they are complying with 

the regulation and keeping their workers and handlers safe in the event of an exposure by 

providing adequate supplies. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the required quantities of decontamination water 

appears in today’sthe proposed rule §170.111(b) for workers and §170.209(b) for handlers. 

5. Cost. EPA estimates the cost of this proposal would be negligible because it is a 

codification of existing EPA policy interpretations of the WPS. 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Is 1 gallon for routine washing for workers and 3 gallons for handler emergency 

decontamination, reasonable amounts of water for workers or handlers who have been exposed 

to pesticides? If not, why? 

 • What amount of water would be reasonable, or what other alternative is there? 

• Would waterless cleansing agents used in lieu of soap, water, and towels effectively 

remove pesticide residues from workers’ and handlers’ hands? Should EPA consider allowing 

the employer to substitute waterless cleansing agents for the currently required decontamination 

supplies? If so, why? Please provide data on the efficacy of waterless cleansing agents for 

removing pesticide residues. 

B. Eliminate the Substitution of Natural Waters for Decontamination Supplies. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 189 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1. Overview. The existing WPS permits employers to substitute clean, natural waters 

from springs, streams, lakes or other sources for contained water supplies at decontamination 

sites in specific circumstances. EPA proposes to eliminate the option to substitute clean, natural 

waters for the potable water required for decontamination. The proposal would allow the 

employer to supplement the required water supplies with clean, natural waters if necessary. 

2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS allows employers to substitute clean waters from 

springs, streams, lakes, or other sources for decontamination at remote work sites if such water is 

more accessible than the water located at the nearest place of vehicular access (40 CFR 170.150 

and 170.250). Generally, the WPS requires agricultural and handler employers to provide 

decontamination supplies no farther than one quarter mile away from where workers are working 

or from where handlers are performing handling activities. One exception to this requirement is 

that if worker and handler activities occur more than one quarter mile from the nearest point of 

vehicular access, soap, single-use towels, and water may be located at the nearest point of 

vehicular access, but the employer may allow workers or handlers to use clean water from 

springs, streams, lakes, or other sources if more accessible than the decontamination supplies. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to eliminate the exemption 

that allows agricultural and handler employers to use clean, natural bodies of water in lieu of the 

required decontamination supplies. Employers would need to ensure that workers and handlers 

have access to sufficient quantities of potable water for decontamination; however, employers 

would be permitted to supplement the required quantities of potable water with natural waters in 

the event of an emergency. The Agency believes that vehicular access to worker and handler 

sites is common and not likely more than a quarter mile distance from the worker location. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 190 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Modern agriculture is highly mechanized, and the Agency believes that workers and handlers are 

routinely transported close to their work areas by vehicles. 

EPA believes that workers and handlers would be better protected by ensuring access to 

the required amount of potable water for routine and emergency decontamination, and allowing 

the option to supplement those supplies with clean, natural waters in the event of an emergency. 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA did not estimate the cost for this proposal because EPA 

believes that a negligible number, if any, employers would be impacted by this proposal. 

However, EPA has no data on the number of employers that may use this option and is seeking 

data below. 

5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following: 

 • Please provide information on situations, if any, in which the proposed change would 

significantly increase the burden on agricultural employers and offer alternative proposals. 

 • Please provide any information on the cost associated with the current situation and 

proposed change. 

 • Would using natural waters for decontamination worsen a worker’s or handler’s 

situation after pesticide exposure? 

 • Would it be beneficial to use any water in the event of a pesticide emergency or when 

decontamination supplies cannot be located within one quarter mile because of limited vehicular 

access? 

C. Requirements for Ocular Decontamination in Case of Exposed Pesticide Handlers. 

1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide a specific amount of water 

to handlers that they can carry for use in the event of an ocular pesticide exposure. EPA proposes 

to require employers to provide clean, running water at permanent (i.e., plumbed and not 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 191 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

portable) mixing and loading sites for handlers to use in the event of an ocular pesticide 

exposure. 

2. Current WPS regulations. The WPS requires handlers to carry water for eyewashing to 

use in case of an ocular exposure if the pesticide label mandates the use of eye protection (40 

CFR 170.250). The handler employer must assure that 1 pint of water is available for each 

handler who is performing the tasks for which the pesticide label requires protective eyewear. 

As discussed in Unit XIV.A., the WPS requires employers to provide water sufficient for 

handlers to perform routine decontamination in addition to the requirement discussed in this 

section to provide water for handlers’ eye washing in case of an ocular exposure. 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker Justice provided the Agency with information 

about several incidents of accidental ocular exposure (Ref. 36). They noted that even when 

handlers use the PPE required on the label, they may be accidentally exposed to the pesticide. 

For example, a pesticide may splash into a handler’s eye even if he or she wears proper PPE. The 

eyes can suffer serious damage if exposed to certain pesticides. Farmworker Justice noted that 

the WPS requirement for 1 pint of water would not satisfy EPA’s own current recommendations 

in the Label Review Manual, which calls for a person who suffers ocular pesticide exposure to 

“hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15-20 minutes” (Ref. 84, pp. 7-12). In 

addition, the American National Standards Institute standard for eyeflushing calls for a sufficient 

quantity to rinse eyes continuously for 15 minutes (ANSI Z358.1-2009). Therefore, Farmworker 

Justice recommended that EPA adopt a standard for ocular decontamination more protective than 

the WPS’s current one pint requirement. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. In addition to the 1 pint of water already required to 

be carried by the handler, the Agency proposes to require that at permanent mixing and loading 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 192 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

sites handler employers provide clean, running water sufficient to provide at a minimum of 1.5 

liters (0.4 gallons) per minute for 15 minutes for handlers to use for eye flush purposes in the 

event of an ocular pesticide exposure. EPA expects that adopting this standard would improve 

the ability of handlers to mitigate damage to their eyes from accidental exposure. EPA expects 

that most permanent mixing sites are plumbed to facilitate the dilution of concentrated pesticides 

and to load application equipment and have the potential to provide clean water flowing at the 

appropriate rate to comply with this requirement. For those handlers who may be exposed while 

not working at the permanent mixing loading site, EPA believes the 3 gallons of water required 

for routine decontamination would provide 7.5 minutes of rinsing, sufficient to clear the eyes 

immediately at which point the handler can continue rinsing his or her eyes for the full 15 

minutes at a permanent site. 

The Agency based the proposed requirement on OSHA’s standard for ocular 

decontamination. OSHA’s requirement for general industry states, “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 within the work area for immediate 

emergency use” (29 CFR 1910.151(c)). Based on the OSHA standard, the American National 

Standards Institute developed a water flow standard to address minimum operating requirements 

for an eye flush. These operating standards establish a minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 gallons) per 

minute of flushing fluid, such as water, for 15 minutes (ANSI Z358.1-2009) (Ref. 85). Some 

states have required handler employers to provide ocular decontamination conforming to the 

OSHA standard. For example, Oregon implemented the same requirement proposed here in 2006 

(OSHA 437-004-1305 K(5)). In FY 2007, Oregon reported 23 instances of non-compliance. By 

FY 2010, only 5 establishments were cited for non-compliance (Ref. 86, p. 6).
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 193 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The proposed regulatory text concerning ocular decontamination for handlers appears in 

§170.209(d) of today’sthe proposed rule.

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that the cost of this proposal would be minimal 

because mixing pesticides at a permanent site generally involves substantial quantities of water 

and EPA believes that plumbed water is almost always available at those sites. EPA’s proposal 

would not require employers to purchase a metered eyewash station; any water supply that meets 

the proposed standards would comply. 

6. Alternative options considered. EPA considered requiring portable eyewash stations at 

all mixing or loading sites as an alternative to the proposed option. EPA believes that most 

establishments mix and load at various sites and may move from day to day. The cost of 

equipping each potential mixing or loading site (permanent and non-permanent) with a portable 

eye wash station would be about $14 million per year for agricultural establishments and 

commercial pesticide handling establishments. 

As discussed above and in Unit XIV.A., handler employers are required to provide 3 

gallons of water per handler for decontamination. EPA believes that if necessary, handlers could 

use this decontamination water for about 7 minutes at the recommended rate of 1.5 liter (0.4 

gallons) per minute, which would give them time to get to a location with sufficient water to 

rinse their eyes for the recommended amount of time. EPA does not intend for the routine 

decontamination water to be used for emergency eyeflush on a regular basis. However, the 

Agency believes that it is appropriate to consider the existing availability of clean water where 

the handler may be exposed as well as new requirements when considering alternatives to the 

current eyewash requirement. EPA believes that most handlers will have access to either a 

permanent mixing or loading site or to the routine decontamination water. EPA believes the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 194 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

benefits associated with a requirement to have a portable eyewash station at each mixing or 

loading site is not reasonable in comparison with the cost and alternatives available. Therefore, 

EPA decided not to propose a requirement for portable eyewash stations at all mixing or loading 

sites. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Is it reasonable to require that clean, running water be present and flowing at a 

minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 gallons) per minute for 15 minutes at permanent mixing and loading 

stations? If not, why? 

 • Should EPA consider other ways to provide ocular decontamination for handlers? If so, 

please provide specific details, including rationale and cost.

 • Do data exist on the relative number of mixing and loading activities that occur at 

permanent sites and away from permanent sites? 

 • Are there other ways in which ocular decontamination might reasonably be improved at 

temporary mixing and loading sites? 

D. Showers for Handler Decontamination. 

1. Overview. The existing WPS establishes specific requirements for routine and 

emergency handler decontamination supplies, but these requirements do not include shower 

facilities. EPA considered but is not proposing adding a requirement for handler employers to 

provide shower facilities. 

2. Current WPS regulations. As discussed above in Unit XIV.A., the WPS specifies the 

types and amounts of supplies handler employers must provide. The WPS does not require 

handler employers to provide shower facilities. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 195 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

3. Summary of the issues. Farmworker organizations have requested that EPA require 

employers to provide showers for handlers to facilitate decontamination at the end of the work 

day. They suggest that the use of showers after pesticide handling activities could decrease 

pesticide exposure to handlers. Representatives of agricultural employers, the agricultural 

employers, and others from the SBAR panel process, noted that in their experience even when 

showers are available, handlers do not use them (Ref. 18, p. 21) (Ref. 87). Some stakeholders 

reported that many workers may be reluctant to shower at the workplace because they believe 

that showering immediately after work is detrimental to their health (Ref. 88). 

As an alternative to imposing a requirement to provide showers, the SBREFA SERs 

suggested that EPA expand training for pesticide handlers to include how to minimize take-home 

exposure and how to use additional personal protective equipment (Ref. 18). 

4. Rationale for not proposing. The Agency considered requiring showers but decided to 

not propose it because EPA believes that the additional training content for handlers (Unit 

VII.E.) and clarified decontamination provisions in Unit XIV.A., provide handlers with adequate 

information on how to reduce take-home exposure and sufficient supplies for routine washing. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that installing a shower on a single establishment 

would cost about $105,000. Nationally, this would cost about $22.7 billion dollars for 

construction. This estimate does not include future costs of maintenance. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Is it reasonable to assume a significant percentage of handlers would not use a 

permanent shower facility at a worksite? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 196 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Would increased handler training, clarified amounts of water for routine 

decontamination, and/or the use of additional PPE for handlers be sufficient to protect handlers 

and their families from occupational and take-home pesticide exposure? If not, why? 

 • Are there other preventative measures that would provide comparable protection to 

handlers and their families without incurring the same cost as requiring installation of shower 

facilities? If so, please describe the preventative measures, estimated cost, and implementation. 

 • What other alternatives exist? 

XV. Emergency Assistance

A. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide “prompt” transportation to 

an emergency medical facility to workers or handlers who may have been exposed to pesticides. 

EPA proposes to require employers to make transportation to a medical facility available to 

workers and handlers within thirty (30) minutes of learning of the exposure. EPA also proposes 

to require the employer to provide to the worker or handler or to treating medical personnel the 

SDS and pesticide label, or all of the pertinent information in an alternate form.

B. Existing WPS Regulations. The WPS requires employers to make transportation 

available promptly to workers or handlers that have been “poisoned or injured by exposure to 

pesticides” (40 CFR 170.160 and 170.260). Employers must provide the following information, 

if available, to the exposed person or the treating medical personnel: name of the product, EPA 

registration number, active ingredient, medical information from the label, circumstances of the 

pesticide application (or the handling of the pesticide), and circumstances of the pesticide 

exposure.

C. Summary of the issues. State enforcement agents have reported to EPA that the vague 

timeframe has prevented them from verifying whether a worker was provided transportation to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 197 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

the medical facility in conformance with the WPS, and recommended that EPA adopt a more 

specific timeframe for transportation. They contend that the existing requirement is vague and 

leads to various interpretations of the timeframe. Without a formal definition of “prompt,” 

compliance and enforcement become more difficult for inspectors. In addition, varying 

interpretations of “prompt” could lead to conflict between employers, agricultural workers and 

handlers, and medical personnel about how quickly necessary information and transportation 

must be provided in an emergency situation. 

Farmworker advocacy organizations have noted the difficulty in obtaining proper medical 

treatment for workers and handlers without all of the relevant information from the label and 

circumstances of the incident. Given the difficulty of diagnosing an illness or injury related to a 

pesticide exposure, treating physicians need information related to the pesticide products 

potentially involved and circumstances of the incident to initiate proper treatment. In addition, 

the sooner a person exposed to pesticides is transported for, and thus receives, treatment, the 

more likely the diagnosis and treatment will lead to a successful medical outcome. Farmworker 

advocacy organizations recommended that EPA require the employer to provide the information 

whether requested or not. They also recommended adding an option for the employer to satisfy 

the requirement by providing the information in the current regulations, a copy of the label, or a 

copy of the SDS.

D. Details of the Proposal/Rationale. EPA proposes to require agricultural employers and 

handler employers to provide emergency medical assistance within thirty (30) minutes after 

learning that an employee has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides as a result of 

his or her employment, replacing the current standard of “prompt.” The emergency medical 

assistance includes both providing the required information and making transportation to a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 198 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

medical facility available to the affected worker or handler. Although the intent of the proposal 

is for the injured party to receive medical attention as soon as possible, this requirement does not 

establish a time frame for reaching the medical facility. 

The proposal would require employers to provide to the worker, handler, or treating 

medical personnel information on each pesticide to which the worker or handler might have been 

exposed. The employer could satisfy this requirement by providing copies of both the SDS and 

the pesticide labeling. Alternatively, the employer could provide all of the following information: 

product name, EPA registration number, active ingredient(s), antidote, first aid, and any other 

medical treatment information from the label or the SDS. The employer would also be required 

to provide to the worker, handler, or treating medical personnel the circumstances of the 

pesticide application(s) or use(s) and the circumstances of the pesticide exposure. 

Pesticide workers and handlers are instructed to wash their bodies and clothing 

immediately if they come into contact with a pesticide. The existing regulation requires 

agricultural employers and commercial pesticide handler employers to provide sufficient water 

and soap to workers and handlers for routine and emergency decontamination. In the event of a 

more serious illness or injury that requires immediate medical attention, however, it is critical for 

the worker or handler to be evaluated and treated quickly. When medical treatment is provided 

soon after the illness or injury, the effects of the pesticide exposure can be minimized. The 

longer the illness- or injury-causing exposure persists, the more likely the worker or handler will 

suffer more severe effects. EPA believes that requiring transportation and information about the 

pesticide(s) and circumstances of the exposure to be provided within thirty minutes after learning 

of the exposure would reduce the effects of pesticide exposure and improve the ability of the 

medical personnel to provide appropriate treatment. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 199 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA does not have data on the number of requests for information in the event of an 

accidental pesticide exposure by exposed persons or treating medical personnel. Medical 

personnel need relevant information to treat people who may have been exposed to pesticides. 

Treatment protocol varies by pesticide and type of exposure; for example, the recommended 

treatment for one pesticide may be to induce vomiting immediately, while for another pesticide 

this treatment could do more harm to the exposed person. Many of the recommendations for 

medical care listed in the “Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning” manual depend 

on the time between initial exposure and medical treatment (Ref. 12). Some treatments are not 

effective unless provided within a specific timeframe of exposure (generally 1 hour). In addition, 

recommended treatments for different types of exposure vary and sometimes conflict with each 

other; therefore, it is essential that the medical personnel have as much information as possible 

about the likely pesticide(s) to which the patient may have been exposed in order to provide the 

proper treatment. 

Amending the existing regulation to require provision of information relevant to the 

exposure circumstances and pesticide’s properties would ensure that medical personnel are 

properly informed at the time of beginning treatment or soon afterward. With timely and proper 

treatment, many acute pesticide exposures may be mitigated before they cause more long-lasting 

effects. 

Providing workers transportation to a medical facility in the event of a workplace injury 

is the responsibility of employers in almost all industries. OSHA requires that a worker injured 

on the job receive medical treatment, clarifying the requirement to mean within 3-4 minutes if 

the injury is life-threatening or 15 minutes if it is not life-threatening (29 CFR 1926.50(a)). 

OSHA requires employers in all industries to provide transportation for emergency medical 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 200 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

assistance if it is not possible to use public services, for example, an ambulance (29 CFR 

1926.50(e )). EPA recognizes the differences between agriculture and other industries. WPS 

establishments can be very large compared to the types of locations covered by OSHA standards, 

for example, factories, office buildings, and similar self-contained areas. Whereas the foreman or 

manager at a factory is likely to be on site or nearby at the time of an employee’s injury, an 

agricultural or commercial pesticide handler employer could be significantly farther away. Based 

on the physical differences between a WPS establishment and typical industrial locations 

covered by OSHA, EPA believes it is reasonable to allow agricultural employers and handler 

employers a longer timeframe to reach an exposed worker or handler to provide transportation. 

In developing this proposal, EPA was mindful of the demographics of the worker and 

handler populations. Some do not have their own vehicle and rely on an employer, co-worker, or 

labor contractor to provide transportation to and from the agricultural establishment. Some may 

not be able to secure transportation to a medical facility outside of working hours. The injured 

person may be too compromised to safely drive to the medical facility. Without a requirement for 

the employer to provide transportation, some workers and handlers might be stranded in the 

treated area or might wait longer than necessary or advisable to seek medical attention. 

The regulatory text concerning emergency assistance appears in today’sthe proposed rule 

at §170.9(f) for workers and handlers and at §170.13(k) for handlers employed by a commercial 

pesticide handling establishment. 

E. Costs. When compared to current practices, the Agency estimates the cost of 

complying with the proposed requirements to provide the information and to transport exposed 

workers or handlers within thirty minutes of learning of the exposure would be negligible. The 

Agency believes that many agricultural employers and commercial handler employers already 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 201 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

meet this standard. Under other proposed changes, agricultural employers and commercial 

handler employers would be required to maintain copies of the SDS or pesticide label in an 

office for the workers to review. [See Unit IX.] Agricultural employers and commercial handler 

employers are also required to maintain copies of the application records. Providing these 

documents, copies, or information from them, would impose minimal additional burden on the 

employer. Agricultural employers and commercial handler employers are already required to 

provide transportation to a medical treatment facility for workers or handlers who are exposed to 

pesticides. Changing the timeframe for providing transportation from “prompt” to within 30 

minutes is a technical clarification and EPA believes it would impose minimal burden. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1).

F. Alternative Options Considered but Not Proposed. The Agency considered two 

alternative options to the timeframe for providing transportation. First, the Agency considered 

replacing “prompt” with “immediate.” Using “immediate” might convey the urgency of the 

situation and encourage agricultural employers and commercial handler employers to transport 

exposed workers or handlers as quickly as possible. However, this change would not address the 

vagueness in the regulation or impose a timeframe in which the agricultural employer or 

commercial pesticide handler employer must make available the proposed required information 

and transportation to a medical facility. Second, the Agency considered imposing a timeframe of 

one hour for the agricultural employer or commercial pesticide handler employer to make 

transportation available. Based on the guidance under OSHA for providing medical treatment to 

an injured employee, the Agency believes that an hour would be too long to allow a worker or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 202 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

handler to wait for transportation to a medical treatment facility to be made available to worker 

or handler. 

G. Request for Comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Is 30 minutes a reasonable timeframe for an agricultural employer or commercial 

handler employer to make transportation available to a worker or handler who has been exposed 

to pesticides to a medical treatment facility? If the timeframe is too long or short, please explain 

why. What would be a reasonable alternative? 

 • Do medical personnel treating a worker or handler for occupational pesticide exposure 

need more information than what is proposed to evaluate, diagnose, and treat the patient? If so, 

what additional information would be necessary? 

 • If time is of the essence in determining the proper course of treatment, should EPA 

consider requiring the agricultural employer to report the estimated time of the incident in 

addition to the information proposed above? 

XVI. Personal Protective Equipment 

A. Chemical-Resistant PPE 

1. Overview. The existing WPS requires employers to provide “chemical-resistant” PPE 

in certain circumstances but does not provide a practical method for evaluating whether the 

material meets the standard. EPA proposes to clarify how to determine whether PPE is 

“chemical-resistant.” This clarification would ensure that compliance with the WPS chemicalresistant garment standard can be objectively determined and would provide appropriate 

protection to workers or handlers. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 203 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

2. Existing WPS regulations. Under the WPS, “chemical-resistant” material means a 

“material that allows no measurable movement of the pesticide being used through the material 

during use” (40 CFR 170.240(c)(1)). 

3. Summary of the issues. State agencies have informed the EPA that they cannot enforce 

the current standard. It can be difficult to determine, without significant and costly testing, 

whether a material is permeable to a pesticide. Inspectors noted that they cannot verify 

compliance at the time of a field inspection. Similarly, employers attempting to comply with the 

requirement face difficulty in determining whether a garment meets the criteria. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to redefine “chemicalresistant” to mean that the PPE must be identified by the manufacturer as chemical resistant. 

EPA believes that PPE manufacturers will only identify items as chemical resistant if they 

provide a significant barrier to chemicals. 

Changing from the current standard to one that requires the employer to provide PPE that 

the manufacturer calls “chemical-resistant” would allow employers and enforcement personnel a 

clear standard for determining compliance with the WPS. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning chemical-resistant PPE appears in 

§170.207(b)(1) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs. The estimated cost of this clarification is considered to be negligible. The EPA 

believes most employers currently purchase garments labeled as chemical-resistant for their 

employees. 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

 • Are there alternatives to this proposal for determining chemical resistance of a garment 

that are both cost-effective and protective? Please provide details and any data that may apply. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 204 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

B. Closed Systems 

1. Overview. The existing WPS permits exceptions to the label-specified PPE when using 

a closed system for certain handling activities. A closed system is an apparatus designed for 

mixing and loading pesticides that enables transfer of a pesticide from its original container into 

a new container, mix tank, or application equipment, while limiting the handler’s exposure to the 

pesticide. But the existing WPS fails to provide specific criteria for an acceptable closed system, 

thereby limiting the practical availability and utility of the exception. EPA proposes to establish 

specific criteria for closed systems based on California’s existing standard that would ensure 

protections for handlers, bystanders, and the environment during mixing and loading. EPA 

expects that this change would increase the number of establishments that use closed systems for 

pesticide mixing and loading activities because employers would have a clear description of the 

requirements on which to rely, thereby decreasing the potential for exposure. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The existing WPS provides only a description of a closed 

system as one that “...enclose[s] the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other 

persons.” Use of a properly functioning closed system that meets this description allows handlers 

to substitute the label-required PPE with alternative PPE when the system is used and maintained 

in accordance with the manufacturer's written operating instructions (40 CFR 170.240(d)(4)). 

The existing description does not adequately describe the specific characteristics of a closed 

system. 

3. Summary of the issues. State regulators have reported problems with the ability to 

determine compliance with WPS requirements for closed systems. The current description lacks 

specific criteria for the characteristics necessary for a protective enclosed system, inhibiting the 

ability of inspectors to ensure that the system is in compliance. State regulators have asked EPA 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 205 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

to establish practical, enforceable criteria for closed systems that will enable them to better 

determine which types of systems qualify for the exception. 

California is the only state with specific closed system standards. The California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation requires applicators to use a closed system when handling 

products with a signal word of “Danger” or “Warning” (Ref. 89). The closed system standards 

are required for liquid pesticides and may be used, but are not required, for other pesticide 

formulations. The definition of a “closed system” references a “Director’s Memo,” which 

outlines the standards for closed systems (Ref. 90). The Director’s Memo establishes the 

following criteria: 

1. The liquid pesticide must be removed from its original shipping container and 

transferred through connecting hoses pipes, and/or couplings that are sufficiently tight to prevent 

exposure of any person to the concentrate, use dilution, or rinse solution. 

2. All hoses, piping, tanks, and connections used in conjunction with a closed system 

must be of a type appropriate for the pesticide being used and the pressure and vacuum of the 

system. 

3. All sight gauges must be protected against breakage. Sight gauges must be equipped 

with valves so the pipes to the sight gauge can be shut off in case of breakage or leakage. 

4. The closed system must adequately measure the pesticide being used. Measuring 

devices must be accurately calibrated to the smallest unit in which the material is being weighed 

or measured. Pesticide remaining in the transfer lines may affect the accuracy of measurement 

and must be considered. 

5. The movement of a pesticide concentrate beyond a pump by positive pressure must not 

exceed 25 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 206 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

6. A probe must not be removed from a container except when: 

a. The container is emptied and the inside, as well as the probe, have been rinsed in 

accordance with item 8. 

b. DPR has evaluated the probe and determined that, by the nature of its construction or 

design, it eliminates significant risk of worker exposure to the pesticide when it is withdrawn 

from a partial container. 

c. The pesticide is used without dilution and the container has been emptied. 

7. Shut-off devices must be installed on the exit end of all hoses and at all disconnect 

points to prevent the pesticide from leaking when the transfer is stopped and the hose is removed 

or disconnected. 

a. If the hose carried pesticide concentrate and has not been rinsed in accordance with 

item 8, a dry break coupler that will minimize pesticide loss to not more than two milliliters per 

disconnect must be installed at the disconnect point. 

b. If the hose carried a pesticide use dilution or rinse solution, a reversing action pump or 

a similar system that will empty the hose may be used as an alternative to a shutoff device. 

8. When the pesticide is to be diluted for use, the closed system must provide for 

adequate rinsing of containers that have held less than 60 gallons of a liquid pesticide. Rinsing 

must be done with a medium, such as water, that contains no pesticide. 

a. The system must be capable of spray-rinsing the inner surfaces of the container and the 

rinse solution must go into the pesticide mix tank or applicator vehicle via the closed system. 

The system must be capable of rinsing the probe, if used, and all hoses, measuring devices, etc. 

b. A minimum of 15 psi of pressure must be used for rinsing. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 207 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

c. The rinsing must be continued until a minimum of 10 gallons or one-half of the 

container volume, whichever is less, has been used. 

d. The rinse solution must be removed from the pesticide container concurrently with 

introduction of the rinse medium. 

e. Pesticide containers must be protected against excessive pressure during the container 

rinse operation. The maximum container pressure must not exceed five psi. 

9. Each commercially produced closed system or component to be used with a closed 

system must be sold with: 

a. Complete instructions consisting of a functional operating manual and a decal(s) 

covering the basic operation. The decal(s) must be placed in a prominent location on the system. 

b. Specific directions for cleaning and maintenance of the system on a scheduled basis. 

c. Information on any restrictions or limitations relating to the system, such as pesticides 

that are incompatible with materials used in the construction of the system, types (or sizes) of 

containers or closures that cannot be handled by the system, any limits on ability to correct or 

over measurement of a pesticide, or special procedures or limitations on the ability of the system 

to deal with partial containers. 

Operating Requirements: 

10. The system must be cleaned and maintained according to the manufacturer's 

instructions. If the system is not a commercially produced system it must be maintained on a 

regular basis. A record of cleaning and maintenance must be maintained. 

11. All labeling required personal protective equipment (PPE) must be present at the 

work site. Protective eyewear must be worn while using a closed system that operates under 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 208 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pressure. While using a closed system, PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as 

provided in Title 3 California Code of Regulations, section 6738. 

Information about closed systems which have been evaluated and found to meet these 

criteria is available from DPR (Ref. 91). 

California’s standard also allows for PPE to be modified or substituted when using a 

closed system that meets the established criteria. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to adopt the California closed system 

standards as outlined in the Director’s Memo, except where there are specific references to 

California-specific information. The proposed criteria are based on research by the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation. California has indicated that it is considering changes to the 

Director’s Memo criteria. EPA will consider any changes made to California’s standard and the 

supporting rationale when developing a final standard for closed systems in the WPS. 

In addition to establishing standards for the system, the proposal establishes requirements 

for the use of the closed system. To be eligible for the exceptions to the label-specified PPE 

requirements when a handler uses a closed system, EPA proposes to require that the handler 

employer ensure that the handler receives training on use of the closed system, perform 

maintenance according to the manufacturer’s written instructions, and maintain records of all 

maintenance for 2 years. 

The proposed rule would retain the following current requirements: (1) label-mandated 

PPE must be immediately available for use in an emergency; (2) handlers must use protective 

eyewear for closed systems that operate under pressure; and (3) a respirator must be worn if 

required by the label. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 209 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA believes that the existing WPS standard for closed systems, if applied strictly, may 

be difficult to meet and could limit the exception from being used because it requires that no 

pesticide escape during the transfer. As a result, some agricultural establishments may be 

forgoing the WPS closed system exception, despite the availability of closed systems that can be 

reasonably expected to meet the performance criteria. Additionally, other establishments may be 

employing systems that they believe qualify as closed, yet nevertheless expose handlers to 

elevated risk because the criteria for closed systems have not been adequately described. EPA is 

aware of closed systems currently manufactured and available to agricultural and handler 

employers that meet the California closed system criteria. 

EPA believes a properly designed and functioning closed system provides benefits to the 

pesticide handler, bystanders, and the environment. Studies show that PPE may be discarded if 

uncomfortable, such as when temperatures are high, or may be worn when contaminated or 

damaged, reducing its protective value. Additionally, PPE can only protect the wearer, but 

pesticide exposure to bystanders and the environment can be minimized through the use of a 

closed system. Industrial hygiene principles detail the use of the “hierarchy of controls” to 

manage chemical exposure. The hierarchy includes controlling chemical exposures from the 

source as a preferred approach, through substitution of a safer chemical or process, mechanizing 

the process, or isolating/enclosing the process. The use of closed systems fits this latter category 

by enclosing the chemical and substantially reducing the potential for exposure at the source, 

thereby reducing the potential for subsequent exposure to handlers, other people, and the 

environment. 

Closed systems are considered an important protection against hazards in other industries. 

For example, health care workers working with hazardous drugs can experience exposures to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 210 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

those drugs that can result in illness. In 2004, CDC-NIOSH published an alert to healthcare 

workers, identifying the risks of exposure to these drugs (Ref. 92). The alert recommended a 

closed system drug transfer device (CSTD) to reduce exposure. CDC-NIOSH defines a CSTD as 

a system that "mechanically prohibits the transfer of environmental contaminants into the system 

and the escape of hazardous drug or vapor concentrations outside the system," thereby limiting 

the occupational exposure to a healthcare provider (Ref. 92). 

The proposed rule would replace the current performance standard with a set of specific 

criteria that a closed system would be required to meet. Because it will be easier to demonstrate 

compliance with these criteria, EPA expects this proposed revision to increase the number of 

establishments that use sufficiently protective closed systems for pesticide handling tasks 

involving mixing and loading, thereby reducing the potential for handlers and others to be 

exposed to pesticides during such activities. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning closed systems appears in §170.307(d) of 

today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of the proposed standards for closed 

systems would be $6.9 million annually, or about $25 per agricultural establishment per year and 

about $48 per commercial pesticide handling establishment per year. The cost estimate is based 

on conservative estimates of the number of establishments that currently use closed systems. 

EPA believes that some establishments that currently use closed systems that do not meet the 

proposed standards would upgrade and some would elect not to use a closed system, reverting to 

the label-required PPE. The Agency is not aware of sources of information that provide estimates 

of the number of establishments that use these systems for pesticide handling. Therefore, EPA 

has made assumptions about their numbers. The Agency believes these assumptions are 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 211 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

conservative and that the actual cost of implementing this clarification of the requirements would 

be significantly lower. 

The proposed requirement would not require employers to use closed systems if they 

have not already chosen to use closed systems in their operation, but will allow more flexibility 

for employers to use a broader range of closed systems. EPA believes that more closed systems 

will now be able to meet the criteria for the exception because it is proposing to replace language 

that implies a complete prohibition of exposure with more practical criteria that will enable more 

closed systems to meet the requirements for the exception. For a complete discussion of the costs 

of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the 

Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. The Agency considered eliminating 

the exception for closed systems based on reports of improper uses of the closed system 

exception. However, EPA expects that properly defined and employed closed systems afford 

superior protection for handlers, other individuals, and the environment. In order to support the 

use of properly designed and operated closed system, EPA instead proposes to clarify the WPS 

criteria for closed systems. 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Are the proposed standards for closed systems reasonable and achievable? 

 • Are the proposed standards for closed systems too specific? If so, please describe what 

aspects are too specific, why, and how to achieve sufficient protection while reducing the 

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

Page 212 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Do data exist on the number of establishments that use closed systems, the number that 

do not use closed systems because the current standard is not clear, and/or the number of 

establishments that use closed systems that meet the California criteria? 

 • Would people who currently use closed systems that do not meet the proposed standard 

upgrade their closed system or opt to use the label-required PPE? What information would 

impact this decision? 

 • What would be the cost to convert an existing system that does not meet the proposed 

standard to one that does? 

 • Should EPA consider eliminating any of the criteria listed in the proposal? If so, which 

criteria and why? 

 • What would be the benefits and draw backs of the requirement for the closed system to 

triple rinse the container? Is the technology available to provide this element at a reasonable 

cost? 

 • Would it be possible for agricultural and handler employers, handlers, and inspectors to 

measure the closed system’s PSI while the system is in use? If it would not be possible, should 

EPA consider eliminating this element? 

C. Contaminated PPE 

1. Overview. The current WPS requires employers either to clean or properly dispose of 

contaminated PPE. EPA proposes to require that contaminated PPE be rendered unusable before 

disposal. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires employers either to clean contaminated 

PPE or to dispose of it properly (40 CFR 170.240(f)). PPE can become contaminated with 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 213 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pesticides from routine use or spills, and if re-worn, can expose the wearer to those pesticide 

residues. 

3. Summary of the issues. State agencies have raised concerns that contaminated PPE 

may be reused if not destroyed. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes to require employers to render 

unusable before properly disposing of PPE that cannot be decontaminated according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions. This would protect workers, handlers and others from unnecessary 

exposure resulting from the wearing of contaminated garments. For example, if absorbent 

coveralls contaminated from overuse or soaked in pesticide from a spill are accidentally placed 

in a laundry bin instead of the trash bin, a person in need of protective clothing may find the 

discarded garment and attempt to wear it. Cutting the garment apart would make it less likely 

that a person would attempt to wear it and be exposed to the pesticide residues. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning rendering PPE unusable before disposal appears 

in §170.207(d)(2) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. The cost of this proposal is expected to be negligible, because 

employers are required to dispose of contaminated PPE under the existing requirement. There is 

expected to be minimal additional burden on the employer to render the PPE unusable. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

 • Are there better ways to mitigate the risks associated with reuse of discarded PPE? 

Please provide rationale and data, as applicable, with your response. 

D. Eyewear Protection for Open Cockpits 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 214 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

1. Overview. The existing WPS allows pilots applying pesticides from an open cockpit 

aircraft to substitute a visor for label-required eye protection. The Agency proposes to replace 

the option to use visors in open cockpit aerial applications with the option of using a helmet with 

the face shield lowered as a substitute for the eye protection required on the label. EPA expects 

this proposal would balance the needs for adequate eye protection and suitable visibility among 

handlers that apply pesticides aerially from open cockpit aircraft. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. 40 CFR 170.240(d)(6)(ii) requires that pilots applying 

pesticides from an open cockpit wear PPE in accordance with the label but allows pilots to 

substitute a visor for label-required eye protection. Depending on the particular pesticide 

product, the label-required eye protection might be goggles; a face shield; safety glasses with 

front, brow, and temple protection; or a full-face respirator. 

3. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency intended the existing open cockpit 

exception to relax certain PPE requirements, but EPA nevertheless intended to convey that some 

covering extending over the eyes was necessary. While a face shield might be characterized as a 

visor, the term can also reasonably be interpreted as the brim of a cap that provides the eyes 

shade and protection from rain, but little other protection. Such a visor does not provide 

meaningful protection against pesticide sprays or spills. This protection is especially important 

for pilots applying in an open cockpit because they may be exposed to drift while making aerial 

applications. In order to assure aerial applicators have adequate eye protection, the Agency 

proposes to replace the option to use visors in open cockpit aerial applications with the option to 

use a helmet with the face shield lowered. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning eyewear protection for open cockpits appears in 

§170.307(f)(2) of today’sthe proposed rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 215 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

4. Costs and benefits. EPA expects this proposal to have negligible costs because the 

pesticide label already mandates that employers provide specific PPE. This proposal merely 

changes the option for what PPE can be substituted for the label-mandated PPE. For a complete 

discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following question: 

 • Is the estimate of the cost reasonable? Please provide rationale and data to support your 

information. 

E. Respirators: Fit Testing, Training, and Medical Evaluation 

1. Overview. The existing WPS requires handler employers to ensure that handlers’ 

respirators fit correctly. EPA proposes to clarify this requirement to expressly include medical 

evaluation, fit testing, and training for respirator users. In addition, EPA proposed to require that 

handler employers retain records of compliance with these requirements. EPA expects that these 

changes will result in fewer incidents of exposure and improvements to the health of respiratorwearing handlers covered by the WPS. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS requires handler employers to ensure that each 

handler’s respirator fits correctly (40 CFR 170.240(c)(9)). However, part 170 does not provide 

specific details on how to ensure that a respirator fits properly, conducting medical evaluation, 

periodically refitting the handler for respirator use, training requirements for proper use of 

respirators, or retaining fit test records. 

3. Summary of the issues. The CHPAC, a Federal Advisory Committee, and Farmworker 

Justice noted that OSHA’s standards for respirator fit testing, training, and medical monitoring 

are absent from part 170 and recommended incorporating the OSHA requirements (Ref. 74) 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 216 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(Ref. 35, p. 2). They expressed concern that the level of protection for handlers using respirators 

under the WPS requirements is inadequate. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. EPA proposes 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. 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. The 

adoption of the OSHA standard into part 170 would ensure that handlers understand how to wear 

respirators properly, are medically fit to use respirators, and receive training on respirator use. It 

would also 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 believes this 

proposal would better protect handlers from respiratory hazards. This requirement would be 

limited to products covered by the WPS. 

In order for respirators to provide the intended protection, they must be fitted to the 

specific user. Fit testing ensures that the respirator seals completely on the face. Respirator 

wearers must be able to recognize when the seal is broken so that they may correct the fit or 

remove themselves from the exposure area. 

The respirator wearer’s respiratory system can be stressed because intake of breath is 

more difficult while wearing a respirator. For example, persons with medical limitations may be 

at risk of cardiac problems from the stress of the additional effort to inhale. Other potential 

negative impacts for respirator wearers include stress on the pulmonary system and even 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 217 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

claustrophobia (Ref. 93). These potential negative health impacts can be avoided by doing a fit 

test of the respirator and if necessary, a medical evaluation. 

In other industries where respirators are required for work around hazardous chemicals, 

OSHA requirements ensure that users wear them appropriately. Because pesticide use in 

agriculture is outside of OSHA’s scope [see Unit IV.D.], handlers of pesticides who use 

respirators are not protected to the same degree as workers in other industries although they face 

similar risks. Handlers can be exposed to significant inhalation risks during pesticide mixing, 

loading, and application. 

EPA believes incorporation of the OSHA standard will provide employers and handlers 

with more specific information on what it means to ensure that a respirator fits correctly and 

ensure that respirators are maintained properly to protect handlers. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning respirator use requirements appears in 

§170.207(b)(9) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost to employers of complying with the 

clarification of the WPS respirator requirements to reference the OSHA standard would be $10.6 

million annually, or about $54 for agricultural establishments per year and $3 for commercial 

pesticide handling establishments per year. 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. EPA believes the cost estimates for agricultural 

establishments are very conservative because EPA believes that many establishment owners 

already are required to comply with OSHA requirements related to respirator use for other 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 218 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

reasons. This proposal clarifies the existing requirement, which requires employers to ensure that 

handlers’ PPE fits properly and to perform proper maintenance. 

EPA cannot quantify the benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA believes 

ensuring that handlers can safely use respirators and those respirators fit properly would increase 

effectiveness of the protections offered by respirators. This would ultimately lead to a reduction 

in occupational pesticide-related illnesses. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. The Agency considered amending 40 

CFR part 156, which addresses labeling requirements, to require respirator fit testing, training, 

and medical evaluation requirements in accordance with OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.134 on 

all labeling for pesticide products that require respirators other than filtering face pieces or dust 

masks. This proposal, however, would go beyond the scope of the WPS rule amendments, which 

focuses on agricultural pesticide use. Implementing this option would require changes to all 

pesticide labeling with respirator requirements and would likely take over three years to 

implement, based on necessary rulemaking for all labeling and the process for realizing changes 

on labeling of products in the field. The relabeling process would significantly delay protections 

to handlers. EPA may consider whether to take this action independently from the changes 

proposed in this proposed rule. 

The Agency also considered the option of only establishing these requirements on 

individual WPS product labeling, on a product-by-product basis. Some proportion of the 

products covered by the WPS may already have these requirements on their labeling. For those 

products that lack the requirements, EPA recognized that it may take significantly longer for 

these protections to be added to labeling, and so opted to propose the revisions in part 170, where 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 219 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

adherence to the OSHA standard would have the legal effect of labeling instructions without the 

need for re-labeling. 

XVII. Monitoring Handler Exposure to Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Pesticides 

1. Decision Not to Propose. EPA considered proposing cholinesterase (ChE) monitoring 

of handlers to support mitigation of handlers’ exposure to ChE-inhibiting pesticides. Currently, 

part 170 has no requirement to monitor ChE levels in workers or handlers. EPA believes that its 

product-specific risk assessment and registration process described in Unit III establishes 

adequate protections for handlers from undue risk of pesticide exposure. Additionally, other 

proposed changes proactively address some of the risks to handler health that have been 

identified by state-based ChE monitoring programs. The Agency does not believe that the 

anticipated benefits of a ChE monitoring program would justify the costs to handlers and 

employers and would be reactive, catching incidents after they occur rather than working to stop 

them from happening. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing to add a requirement for 

monitoring ChE inhibition in handlers at this time. 

2. Background. ChE refers to a family of enzymes that are critical to proper nerve 

function in insects and humans. ChE permits the transmission of signals across the space 

between the nerves called the synapse. ChE-inhibiting pesticides block the transmission of these 

signals, resulting in adverse symptoms. Acute poisoning symptoms include nausea, dizziness, 

shortness of breath, fatigue, excessive salivation, and, in extreme cases, death. Except in severe 

cases, the treatment for persons who have been exposed to ChE-inhibiting pesticides usually 

involves removal from the work activities that result in the exposure. 

Organophosphate (OP) and N-methyl carbamate (carbamate) pesticides, which are widely 

used in agriculture, are known inhibitors of ChE levels in humans. The OPs and carbamate 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 220 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pesticides that present the highest acute toxicity are in EPA’s Toxicity Categories I and II, 

indicated by the signal words “DANGER” and “WARNING”, respectively, on the product’s 

label. Tests for ChE depression exist only for these types of pesticides; therefore, the 

development and implementation of a monitoring system would only provide information related 

to the use of a small subset of products, not a general workplace hazard monitoring program. 

An individual’s ChE level can be determined with a blood test. There is no universal 

normal range for ChE levels because baseline levels vary widely between individuals; therefore, 

it is important that an individual’s initial baseline level be established before exposure to ChEinhibiting pesticides. Comparison of this baseline level to the ChE level from the handler postexposure can determine the level of inhibition. 

Stakeholders have recommended ChE monitoring for handlers. In a 2006 letter to the 

Administrator, Farmworker Justice recommended medical monitoring of pesticide handlers who 

mix, load or apply Toxicity Category I or II OPs or carbamates for 30 hours or more in a 30-day 

period (Ref. 35). 

Some states, including California and Washington, have adopted rules to require ChE 

monitoring. EPA reviewed California and Washington State’s ChE monitoring rules when 

considering ChE monitoring on a national level. 

Established in 1974, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation program requires 

monitoring for handlers of OPs and carbamate products with the signal word “DANGER” or 

“WARNING” on their labels (Ref. 94 p. Section 6728). For handlers who work with the types of 

pesticides listed above for more than 6 days in a 30-day period, California’s regulations require 

that employers have the handlers tested to establish baseline ChE levels and to monitor any 

change after handling activities. Employers must retain records of handler activities related to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 221 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

these pesticides as well. To avoid the expense of sending a handler for blood testing, California 

believes that many employers limit handlers’ exposures to these pesticides to less than six days 

in a 30-day period. 

Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries established a voluntary ChE 

monitoring system for handlers in 2004. Employers must offer the option of monitoring to the 

handlers, who may decline after they have received training on the hazards posed by ChE 

inhibition and a consultation with a health care practitioner. In addition, for handlers who use 

Toxicity Category I or II OP or carbamate pesticides, employers must: 

 • Record the number of hours employees spend handling these pesticides. 

 • Implement a medical monitoring program for handlers who could meet or exceed the 

handling threshold of 30 or more hours in any consecutive 30-day period. 

 • Identify a medical provider to provide medical monitoring services. 

 • Make baseline and periodic ChE testing available to employees who could meet or 

exceed the handling threshold. 

 • Investigate work practices when a handler’s red blood cell (RBC) or serum ChE level 

drops more than 20 percent below the employee’s personal baseline. 

 • Remove employees from handling and other exposures to organophosphate and Nmethyl-carbamate pesticides when recommended by the health care provider. 

 • Provide training on ChE monitoring to covered employees. 

 • Report employee handling hours to the medical provider with each periodic test. 

 • Maintain medical monitoring and other records for seven years (Ref. 95). 

For those handlers who opt for monitoring, the rule also requires that handlers with red 

blood cell ChE depressions of greater than 30% or serum depressions greater than 40% from 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 222 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

their personal baseline be removed from handling the listed pesticides until the handler’s ChE 

levels have returned to within 20% of his or her personal baseline and that the employer conduct 

a work practice investigation. 

Washington State provides reimbursement to agricultural employers for testing services 

and related administrative program costs. In 2009, Washington State reimbursed 61 employers 

with $129,000 of costs (Ref. 96 p. 3). The reimbursement costs included baseline testing for 

2,060 handlers and at least one additional test for 249 of the handlers who had a baseline test 

(Ref. 96, p. 3). 

Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries ChE monitoring Cost Benefit 

Determination and Small Business Impact Statement identified the following benefits of ChE 

monitoring: 

 • Prevention of illness after over-exposure. 

 • Increased hazard awareness and improve workplace safety related to pesticide use. 

 • Improved pesticide illness diagnosis and reporting. 

 • Greater certainty about frequency of pesticide over-exposure. 

 • Decreased risk of unintended exposures to handlers’ families. 

3. Details of decision not to propose. After reviewing the experiences of Washington 

State and California, as well as the estimated costs of a national ChE monitoring program, the 

Agency has decided not to propose establishing a ChE monitoring program for handlers. EPA 

believes that the existing risk assessments and label-based risk mitigation measures, in 

combination with the proposed changes to expand handler training and to adopt OSHA respirator 

standards, would be sufficient to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to handlers working with 

OPs and carbamates. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 223 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The Agency believes that Washington State’s efforts have identified the primary reasons 

for ChE inhibition among pesticide handlers. In Washington State, the Department of Labor and 

Industries conducts follow up investigations when monitoring indicates ChE inhibition is greater 

than 20%. Review of pesticide worker protection programs highlighted potential exposure 

scenarios and violations of the WPS requirements including areas such as decontamination, PPE, 

and respiratory protection (Ref. 97). The findings from the follow-up suggest that in many cases 

ChE depression was caused by handlers not following basic safety and hygiene procedures , e.g., 

not wearing the label-required PPE and failing to wash before meals or bathroom breaks (Ref. 

97, pp. 10-11). 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 equipment. Using this information, Washington State 

developed training for handlers specifically on decontamination and proper use of PPE. 

This proposed rule would address Washington State’s findings by requiring expanded 

handler training that covers reducing take-home exposure, proper use and decontamination of 

PPE, and more frequent handler training. [See Unit VII.E.] The Agency is also proposing 

requirements for fit testing and training on proper respirator use for handlers. [See Unit XVI.E.] 

As a result of the reregistration process for the OPs and carbamates, revised labeling with 

increased protections is replacing the older labeling in the field. EPA expects that many of the 

new mitigation measures will result in lowered handler exposure. Key improvements include 

requirements for closed system mixing and loading, additional PPE, and reductions to rates of 

application and number of annual applications permitted. Moreover, the uses of some highly 

acutely toxic OPs are being phased out (Ref. 98). EPA recognizes that some products with the 

most current label language have not yet reached field users. For example, in the first years 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 224 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(2004 and 2005) of the Washington State program, many applicators were not wearing 

respirators when applying the OP pesticide Lorsban via air blast (Ref. 99) (Ref. 100). Inspectors 

learned that applicators were still using old product and the corresponding labeling, which did 

not require respirator use for handlers. This use resulted in higher exposure to the pesticide 

handlers as a result. EPA expects that as product labelslabeling with additional risk mitigation 

measures reachreaches the field handlers complying with the new requirements would have a 

lower potential for exposure. 

EPA believes that product-specific risk mitigation measures combined with increased 

handler protections outlined in this proposal would appropriately address the elevated potential 

for ChE inhibition in handlers. Moreover, the training and PPE elements of the proposed rule are 

expected to have the combined effect of providing important protective benefits to all pesticide 

handlers through increased knowledge of exposure risks and prevention strategies, ultimately 

leading to a reduction of pesticide exposures. EPA favors this approach over ChE monitoring 

because it prevents handler exposure rather than addressing it after it occurs. EPA does not 

believe that the cost and burden of implementing a national ChE monitoring program, which 

would only identify a problem after the exposure has occurred, would be justified by the limited 

benefits achieved by removing a handler from the treated area once pesticide exposure has 

inhibited ChE levels. 

 4. Costs and benefits. In 2003, Washington State developed a Benefit-Cost Determination 

document to estimate the costs of implementing their ChE monitoring program. The central 

estimated compliance cost in year one was $848,490, and $1,272,487 in year two (Ref. 101 p. 

23). The costs for which employers can be reimbursed under Washington’s program include 

medical (consultations, follow-up visits and procedures, and blood draws), recordkeeping to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 225 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

record handling hours for monitored handlers, wages for time spent in training for ChE 

monitoring, and mileage for travel costs associated with evaluations and training. The expenses 

for which employers are reimbursed by Washington State provide insight as to the costs and 

activities of the employers and handlers participating in the ChE program, but do not estimate the 

cost of a national ChE monitoring program. 

In the proposal’s “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard,” the incremental cost of a monitoring program, based primarily on California’s and 

Washington’s programs, is estimated to be $15.2 million annually, or about $53 per agricultural 

establishment per year and $120 per commercial pesticide handling establishment per year. The 

requirements of a national ChE monitoring program have not been developed sufficiently to 

provide a precise cost analysis, but it would likely include program components such as training, 

recordkeeping, clinical testing, and field investigations. 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. 

For more discussion of the costs of the proposal, see the “Economic Analysis of Proposed 

Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

The proposed handler training and PPE requirements are proactive and are expected to 

prevent handler exposure whereas cholinesterase monitoring would only identify a problem after 

the exposure has occurred. As a result, EPA concludes that the cost of implementing a national 

cholinesterase monitoring program is not justified by its limited benefits for a subpopulation of 

the nation’s pesticide handlers. The training and PPE elements of the proposed rule, however, are 

expected to have the combined effect of providing important protective benefits to all pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 226 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

handlers through increased knowledge of exposure risks and prevention strategies, ultimately 

leading to a reduction of pesticide exposures. 

5. Alternative options considered. EPA considered restricting the number of hours 

handlers may work with OPs and carbamates in a given timeframe (for example, no more than 

30 hours of handling these pesticides over a 30-day period). However, EPA is not aware of data 

that would provide a basis for establishing this type of proposal. 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically seeks feedback on its decision not to propose a 

requirement for mandatory ChE monitoring, including comment on the following questions: 

 • Do you believe the costs and burdens of a national ChE monitoring program would be 

justified by the protections to handler health? If so, please provide justification. 

 • Do you agree that it is more protective to prevent handler exposure than to address it 

after it occurs? If so, why? If not, do you have an alternative proposal to address handler 

exposure? 

 • Does other information exist on the benefits or challenges of ChE monitoring that the 

Agency has not presented in this proposal? If so, please provide. 

XVIII. Exemptions and Exceptions 

A. Immediate Family 

1. Decision not to propose. EPA considered eliminating the existing exemption for 

workers and handlers under age 16 employed (receiving a wage or salary) by immediate family 

members; however, the available information may not be sufficient to support this option. 

Accordingly, EPA is not proposing to amend the immediate family exemption to impose any age 

requirements on establishments that qualify for the immediate family exemption to the WPS. 

Although the WPS exempts owners and their immediate family members from many provisions 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 227 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

of the rule, EPA provides the exemption based upon assurances that owners voluntarily provide 

to immediate family members essentially the same protections required for workers and handlers 

covered by the WPS. [Note: EPA is proposing to expand the definition of “immediate family” to 

better reflect the range of familial relationships that could occur. See Unit XIX.A., for a 

discussion of the revised definition.]

2. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS exempts the owners of agricultural establishments 

from providing certain WPS protections to themselves and their immediate family members (40 

CFR 170.104(a) and 170.204(a)). Specifically, the agricultural establishment owner is exempt 

from complying with the following requirements for immediate family members performing 

tasks as workers: Sections of the early-entry restrictions; providing pesticide safety training or 

other safety information; cleaning, storing, and maintaining PPE; maintaining decontamination 

sites and supplies; providing notice of and specific information about applications; and providing 

emergency assistance. Similarly for immediate family members performing handler tasks, the 

agricultural establishment owner is exempt from the following requirements: Providing pesticide 

safety training and other safety information such as restrictions during applications, knowledge 

of labeling and site-specific information, and safe operation of equipment; ensuring proper use, 

cleaning, and maintenance of PPE and avoiding heat-related illness while using PPE; 

maintaining decontamination sites and supplies; and providing emergency assistance. The 

agricultural establishment owner must comply with all other sections of the WPS. The immediate 

family includes only the spouse, parents, stepparents, foster parents, father-in-law, mother-inlaw, children, stepchildren, foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, grandparents, 

grandchildren, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law of the owner of the 

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

Page 228 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

In addition, the definitions of workers and handlers require that they are employed for 

compensation in order to receive protection under the WPS. Therefore, any person performing 

worker or handler tasks who does not receive a wage or salary is not covered by any aspect of 

the WPS. 

3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholder feedback, reports from the GAO, the CHPAC and 

recent research have indicated an increased awareness of the need to protect all children from 

adverse health effects of pesticide exposure (Ref. 20) (Ref. 74) (Ref. 102) (Ref. 103). [See Unit 

V.C. and V.E.] During the National Assessment, EPA did not seek specific stakeholder feedback 

on the existing immediate family exemption and whether it should be amended. 

Input from the agricultural community indicates that emergency assistance and other 

protections are among the reasonable steps an owner of an agricultural establishment would take 

to protect family members. 

4. Options considered and not proposed. The Agency considered narrowing the 

immediate family exemption in two ways: (1) limiting it only to immediate family members of 

an owner of an agricultural establishment who are at least 16 years old, and (2) modifying the 

scope of the requirements that are exempted by eliminating from the list emergency assistance 

for workers and handlers and handler monitoring during fumigant application. 

Limiting the exemption to employed family members who are at least 16 years old would 

not prohibit agricultural establishment owners from allowing their immediate family members 

under 16 years old to perform WPS tasks. The proposed definition of “employ” specifies salary 

or wages; other forms of compensation are not included in the definition. Therefore, immediate 

family members who are compensated in other ways besides salary or wages, but not 

“employed” by the WPS definition, would continue to be exempted from certain specified 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 229 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

provisions of the WPS. As under the current rule, any person, including immediate family 

members under 16 years old, who does not receive a wage or salary would not be covered by any 

provisions of the WPS. See tables 1 and 2. 

Table 1. Considered Changes to the WPS Immediate Family Exemption – Minimum 

Age, Emergency Assistance and Handler Monitoring During Fumigant Applications 

If the immediate family members are: Then under the considered changes, the 

employer: 

 • Under 16 years old AND 

 • Employed on the agricultural 

establishment to perform WPS tasks (receiving 

a wage or salary) 

 • Would have to comply with all 

relevant provisions of the WPS (no immediate 

family exemption) for those immediate family 

members 

 • Would no longer have an exemption 

from providing emergency assistance to 

workers and handlers and monitoring handlers 

during fumigant applications 

EPA acknowledges requests from a range of stakeholders to ensure protection of all 

children working with or around pesticides. Recent findings suggest that working with or around 

pesticides may increase potential risks of harm to children’s developing systems and that 

children’s maturity and decision-making skills are not fully developed. EPA believes that owners 

of agricultural establishments generally protect family members independent of government 

regulation. EPA believes that owners of agricultural establishments who employ only members 

of their immediate families have access to a variety of sources of information, outside the scope 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 230 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

of the WPS, on how to provide adequate protections from pesticide exposure to their family 

members. Programs such as 4-H and Future Farmers of America provide information to youth. 

The USDA’s Cooperative Extension System, based out of land grant universities, operates 

agricultural outreach programs in every state. The Cooperative Extension System offers formal 

outreach, such as county or state farm safety days, and informal outreach and advice to 

individual farmers. The American Farm Bureau Federation and affiliated state farm bureau 

operations also provide outreach on topics including pesticide safety to farmers and their 

families. Finally, some farm owners may be certified as pesticide applicators. Certified pesticide 

applicators must pass an exam or attend a training program at the state level to demonstrate they 

are competent to use and manage pesticides safely. In addition, certified applicators are required 

to complete continuing education, which includes information and reminders about using 

pesticides safely and protecting others from pesticide exposure. It is not clear from the available 

information that the burdens associated with narrowing the existing exemption would produce 

commensurate risk reductions. Although EPA has not proposed changing the existing exemption 

from the requirement to provide certain WPS protections to immediate family members, EPA is 

requesting comment on this issue. 

EPA also considered eliminating the current exemption at §170.204(a)(i) in the case of 

immediate family members who are handling highly toxic pesticides or working in enclosed 

fumigated areas. EPA believes that owners of agricultural establishments generally protect 

family members independent of government regulation. It is not clear from the available 

information that the burdens associated with narrowing the existing exemption would produce 

commensurate risk reductions. Although EPA has not proposed eliminating the current 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 231 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

exemption in the case of immediate family members who are handling highly toxic pesticides or 

working in enclosed fumigated areas, EPA is requesting comment on this issue. 

Lastly, EPA considered eliminating the exemption for establishment owners to provide 

emergency assistance for immediate family members who are workers or handlers. In the event 

of a pesticide poisoning, certain symptoms, such as respiratory distress, need to be addressed 

promptly to avoid more serious problems, such as heart failure or an inability to breathe. Again, 

the Agency recognizes that establishment owners working with immediate family members have 

a vested interest in their family members’ well being. EPA believes that additional regulation is 

not necessary to ensure that immediate family members who are workers or handlers receive 

assistance in the event of a pesticide-related emergency. It is not clear from the available 

information that the burdens associated with narrowing the existing exemption would produce 

commensurate risk reductions. Although EPA has not proposed eliminating the current 

exemption to providing emergency assistance to workers and handlers, EPA is requesting 

comment on this issue. 

5. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the immediate family 

exemptions in the WPS. 

 • Would this requirement have a different impact on small farms than on larger 

establishments? If so, please explain the likely impact. 

 • Does exempting agricultural establishment owners from the requirements to provide 

certain protections to immediate family members present unreasonable risks to family members 

who are under 16 years old? 

 • What would be the impact of limiting the immediate family exemption to family 

members who are at least 16 years old and who are employed by the owner? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 232 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • How many agricultural establishments would be affected if EPA decided to limit the 

exemption to immediate family members at least 16 years old? 

B. Crop Advisors and Employees 

1. Overview. The existing WPS allows exemptions from some requirements for crop 

advisors and their employees. The Agency proposes to eliminate exemptions from protections 

for employees directly supervised by certified or licensed crop advisors. The Agency also 

proposes 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. Existing WPS regulations. The WPS allows crop advisor tasks to be conducted during 

pesticide application and during subsequent REIs. 

As outlined in 40 CFR 170.5, crop advisor tasks include assessing pest numbers or 

damage, pesticide distribution, or the status or requirements of agricultural plants, but not 

performing hand labor tasks. When performing crop advising tasks after the REI has expired or 

performing hand labor tasks, and employed by the agricultural establishment, a crop advisor is 

considered a worker under the WPS. 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 rule. 

The WPS exempts the employer from complying with some handler requirements when 

the employee performs crop advising tasks during an REI and that is a certified or licensed crop 

advisor or directly supervised by a certified or licensed crop advisor. To qualify for this 

exemption, the crop advisor certification or licensing program must include, at a minimum, all 

information listed under handler training, 40 CFR 170.230(c)(4). Under the current WPS, the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 233 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

certified crop advisor must make specific determinations regarding the appropriate PPE, 

decontamination and safe method of conduct for those working under his or her direct 

supervision. This information, as well as information regarding the product, method and time of 

application, REI, tasks, and contact information, must be conveyed by the certified crop advisor 

to each person under his supervision. Currently, the WPS exempts employers from complying 

with worker requirements such as providing decontamination supplies and emergency assistance 

for certified or licensed crop advisors and persons they directly supervise. 

3. Summary of the issues. State regulatory agencies and their representatives have 

expressed concerns with the current crop advisor exemptions, noting that those working under 

the supervision of the crop advisors may be unaware of the risks posed by pesticides. 

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The Agency proposes to limit this exemption to crop 

advisors only, eliminating from the exemption employees directly supervised by certified or 

licensed crop advisors. The Agency believes employees who are not certified or licensed as crop 

advisors but who are performing crop advising tasks may be unable to make appropriate 

judgments regarding personal risk because they are not required to receive information about the 

risks of working around pesticide-treated areas and how to protect themselves from exposure. 

If a person performs crop advising activities under the supervision of a certified crop 

advisor, he or she may not understand the factors influencing the risks well enough to take 

appropriate protective measures or to alert the supervising crop advisor to observations that 

could alter the initial decisions about the protective measures to be taken. 

The Agency also proposes to eliminate the exemption for certified or licensed crop 

advisors employed as workers on agricultural establishments from the worker decontamination 

and emergency assistance provisions. While EPA believes this exemption applies to a small 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 234 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

number of people it is important that all workers on agricultural establishments have access to 

decontamination supplies and emergency assistance. 

The rule would retain the exemption for certified or licensed crop advisors to enter and 

perform crop advising tasks during an REI. 

The Agency has discussed these exemptions with the National Alliance of Independent 

Crop Consultants (NAICC). NAICC representatives indicated that entry to perform crop advising 

tasks during an REI is a rare event, especially for persons who are not certified or licensed crop 

advisors (Ref. 104). Overall, the Agency believes that the proposed revision would not have a 

significant impact on the majority of crop advisors. 

The proposed regulatory text concerning the crop advisor exemption appears in 

§170.301(b) of today’sthe proposed rule. 

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates the cost of amending the exemption for crop 

advisors would be $1,400, or less than $0.01 per establishment. NAICC representatives noted 

that there may be some cost to provide the WPS protections to currently-exempt supervised 

employees. The Agency believes that there are few certified crop advisors retained directly by 

agricultural establishments. For a discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the 

“Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost 

Analysis (Ref. 1). 

6. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • Should EPA consider an alternative to this proposal? If so, what alternative and why? 

• Should EPA require specific training for the employees of crop advisors to ensure that 

they understand the risks of entering and working in areas treated with pesticides? If so, please 

provide specific information on the type of training and anticipated benefit to crop advisor 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 235 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

employees. Also, please comment on whether a crop adviser’s employees, who have received 

such training, should be exempt from the WPS requirements for provisions for decontamination 

supplies and emergency assistance and from following the labeling requirements for PPE for 

early entry.

C. Revise the Exception to the Requirement for Workers to be Fully Trained before Entering 

Pesticide-Treated Areas

1. Overview. For workers who are not performing early-entry activities, the existing WPS 

allows employers to delay training until before work begins on the 6th day of entry into a treated 

area providing the full required pesticide safety training to workers performing WPS-covered 

activities (referred to as the “grace period”). During the grace period, the current WPS requires 

agricultural employers to provide an abbreviated training covering two major points: where 

pesticides may be encountered and how to prevent pesticides from entering a worker’s body. In 

order to balance the need for workers to receive sufficient information to protect themselves and 

the need for agricultural employers to have flexibility in employing workers, EPA proposes to 

shorten the grace period to two days and to require that workers receive training on protecting 

themselves and their families from pesticide exposure prior to entering a pesticide-treated area 

during the grace period. In essence, this exception to the general requirement that all workers be 

fully trained prior to entering a pesticide-treated area to perform WPS tasks would allow 

agricultural employers who have provided workers with certain essential safety information to 

direct those workers to perform WPS tasks for no more than 2 days before providing them with 

the full WPS pesticide safety training, and require the employer to maintain records of the 

information transfer for 2 years. The agricultural employer would be required to provide each 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 236 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

such worker full pesticide safety training before allowing the worker to enter a treated area for a 

third day. This proposal would provide the agricultural employer with the flexibility to choose 

whether to provide workers with full pesticide safety training immediately upon employment or 

to utilize the 2 day grace period, provided they comply with the conditions of the exception. EPA 

expects this change would improve workers’ understanding of the risks they may face and how 

to protect themselves when they work in areas treated with WPS-covered pesticides, while 

maintaining flexibility for agricultural employers. 

2. Existing WPS regulations. When EPA was developing the 1992 WPS, agricultural 

employers argued that they needed a training grace period because qualified trainers were not 

available in sufficient numbers to meet the need for worker training. To accommodate the need 

for flexibility for agricultural employers and in recognition of the high turnover in the workforce 

on some establishments, EPA adopted the grace period. The 1992 rule allowed agricultural 

employers to direct workers to perform work in pesticide-treated areas for up to 15 days before 

the employer was required to provide the full pesticide safety training outlined in §170.130 (57 

FR 38151; August 21, 1992). On January 1, 1996, EPA reduced the grace period to 5 days (60 

FR 21944; May 3, 1995). 

Under 40 CFR 170.130(a)(3)(ii), agricultural employers may direct workers to perform 

work (except for early-entry activities) in areas that, within the last 30 days, have been treated 

with a pesticide bearing a label requiring compliance with the WPS or have been under an REI 

for such pesticide for up to 5 days before the employer must provide the full pesticide safety 

training outlined in 40 CFR 170.130. During the grace period, employers must inform workers of 

the following points: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 237 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • Pesticides may be on or in plants, soil, irrigation water, or drifting from nearby 

applications; 

 • Prevent pesticides from entering your body by: 

 - Following directions and/or signs about keeping out of treated or restricted areas. 

 - Washing before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

 - Wearing work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues. 

 - Washing/showering with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean clothes after 

work. 

 - Washing work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again. 

 - Washing 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. 

 • Further training will be provided within 5 days. 

See 40 CFR 170.130(c). Before the 6th day that workers remain on the establishment working in 

areas that, within the last 30 days, have been treated with a pesticide bearing a label requiring 

compliance with the WPS or have been under an REI for such pesticide, the agricultural 

employer must provide the full pesticide safety training. 

 3. Summary of the issues. Stakeholders, including Farmworker Justice and Migrant 

Clinicians Network, have repeatedly raised concerns for workers entering the pesticide-treated 

treated areas without receiving the full pesticide safety training (Ref. 35). They noted that the 

basic safety information provided prior to entry into a treated area does not describe the hazards 

associated with pesticides, how to recognize pesticide poisoning symptoms, or how to access 

emergency medical care. The lack of information may be of particular concern for workers 

performing tasks in recently treated areas or adjacent to an area being treated because they may 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 238 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

not know what to do if they are sprayed or feel sick. Stakeholders also noted that a worker may 

be employed for fewer than 5 days on each of a series of farms and, as a result, may be at risk of 

significant pesticide exposure without ever receiving the full pesticide safety training. This 

situation is especially likely to occur during harvest periods, as workers may move from one 

farm to another as the harvest is completed, resulting in potentially large numbers of workers 

exposed to pesticides without full safety training. 

 Many of the SERs consulted by the SBAR panel requested that EPA retain the current 5 

day grace period (Ref. 18, p. 21). They noted that employers have many legal obligations related 

to hiring a new employee, and pesticide worker safety training is just one element. In comments 

submitted to EPA, SERs informed EPA that the grace period offered agricultural employers 

flexibility about when to provide full training to workers without negatively impacting the 

performing of WPS tasks essential to agricultural production. 

OSHA requires that employers provide training on potential chemical hazards that 

employees may face in the workplace before allowing employees to enter the area to begin work. 

These standards require employers to provide hazard information to workers before they begin 

any tasks that may expose them to a hazardous material or activity, rather than allowing them to 

work for a period before receiving the hazard information. See, e.g., the training requirements for 

employees that may encounter lead, 29 CFR 1962.62(l)(1), asbestos, 29 CFR 1926.1127(m)(4), 

and cadmium, 29 CFR 1926.1101(k)(9).

4. Details of the proposal/rationale. The exception would allow agricultural employers to 

postpone providing full pesticide training for up to 2 days after the worker begins work in WPScovered areas. In order to qualify for the exception, agricultural employers would be required to 

provide certain safety information, which would incorporate both the information currently 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 239 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

required by the regulation and additional content, to workers in a language and manner they 

understand before workers perform any WPS tasks in a treated area. Agricultural employers 

would also be required to maintain records of the information provided to workers for 2 years. 

Finally, agricultural employers would be required to provide the full pesticide safety training to 

workers before sending them into any treated area for a third day where within the last 30 days a 

pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with the WPS has been used, or an REI 

for such a pesticide has been in effect. 

EPA believes that if the shortened grace period is adopted, it is likely to reduce the 

number of workers that may be exposed to pesticides without having the benefit of the full safety 

training. EPA proposes to re-characterize the grace period as an exception to the requirement that 

employers provide workers the full pesticide safety training before the worker may enter a 

pesticide-treated area. EPA believes that the shortened grace period and the requirement that 

employers provide certain basic safety information to workers before they enter a treated area 

(detailed below), and requiring recordkeeping would balance the need for workers to be 

informed about risks to which they may be exposed and the need for agricultural employers to 

have some flexibility regarding pesticide safety training. EPA believes re-characterizing the 

grace period as an exception would also make the regulation easier to understand. 

 In order to utilize the proposed exception, agricultural employers would need to provide 

certain safety information to the workers in a language and manner they understand before the 

workers enter any pesticide-treated area. The required information would cover four areas: (1) 

employer responsibilities for providing worker protections, (2) information about potential 

hazards in the workplace, (3) how to protect oneself from pesticide exposure and hazards in the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 240 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

workplace, and (4) emergency first aid procedures for pesticide poisonings or injuries. Under the 

four areas, the full list of topics to be conveyed to workers would be: 

 • Employer Responsibilities for Providing Worker Protections 

 - Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with information and 

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

providing pesticide safety information to workers before being directed to work in pesticide 

treated areas if they have not received full pesticide safety training; providing full pesticide 

safety training to workers before their 3rd day of work in pesticide treated areas; providing 

pesticide hazard information for products used on the establishment, decontamination supplies, 

and emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of restrictions during applications and 

on entering pesticide treated areas. 

 - Agricultural employers must inform workers 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. Workers must follow employer directions and/or signs about 

keeping out of entry restricted or pesticide treated areas. 

 - Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker who has not received full 

pesticide safety training and additional early entry worker notification to work in any area that is 

currently under an REI. Employers must comply with minimum age restrictions and notification 

requirements in order to direct workers to perform early-entry activities. 

 - Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load, or apply 

pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

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

Page 241 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 - Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

discriminating against any worker for the purposes of interfering with any attempt to comply 

with the requirements of this part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, 

assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this 

part. 

 • Information about Potential Pesticide Hazards in the Workplace 

 - There are potential sources of pesticide exposure on agricultural establishments and 

pesticides and/or pesticide residues may be encountered during work activities. This includes 

pesticides drifting from nearby applications, and that pesticide residues may be on or in plants, 

soil, irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or used personal protective equipment. 

 - Pesticides can cause illness or injury if they enter your body. Pesticides can enter the 

body by getting them on your skin or in your eyes, by swallowing them, or by breathing in their 

vapors. 

 - There are potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides present to 

workers, including acute and chronic illnesses/effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

 - There are potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure. 

 • How to Protect Yourself from Pesticide Exposure and Hazards in the Workplace 

 - When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas, wear work clothing that 

protects the body from pesticide residues and always 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 near or in pesticide treated areas. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 242 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 - There are potential hazards from the pesticide residues that may be on work clothing. 

Wash work clothes before wearing them again, and always wash work clothes separately from 

other clothes. 

 • Emergency First Aid Procedures for Pesticide Poisonings or Injuries 

 - Pesticides may cause skin rashes or hurt your eyes, nose or throat. Pesticides can make 

you feel sick in different ways, such as headache or dizziness, muscles pain or cramps, nausea or 

vomiting, sweating, drooling, fatigue, or trouble breathing. 

 - Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the 

body and as soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes. If a pesticide 

gets in your eyes, hold them open and rinse with a gentle stream of cool water. Rinse eyes for 15 

minutes if possible. 

 - If you or someone you work with gets sick while working, tell your employer right 

away. If you suspect you have been injured or made ill from pesticides, get medical help as soon 

as possible. If you have been injured from pesticides while working, your employer must provide 

emergency transportation to a nearby medical facility and provide information about the 

pesticide or pesticides that may have made you sick. 

After the employer provides the workers with the safety information in a language and 

manner they understand, the employer must create a record of the information provided and 

provide a copy of the record to the worker. The record would include the safety information 

conveyed to the worker, an affirmation that the worker has been provide a copy of the safety 

information sheet and that the information was communicated to the worker orally in a language 

the worker understands, the worker’s name, signature, date of birth, the date the information was 

provided, the employer’s name, and employer’s phone number or phone number of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 243 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

establishment. The employer can have all workers sign the record and acknowledgement before 

providing copies to each worker. 

Finally, EPA is committed to protecting vulnerable populations. Workers face risk of 

occupational exposure to pesticides. Through this proposed change, EPA seeks to mitigate the 

elevated risk associated with entering a treated area without training on what pesticide risks may 

be encountered in the workplace and how to protect oneself from pesticide exposure. EPA 

believes this proposal is consistent with the principles of environmental justice, providing a 

population that may face disproportionate risks of exposure based on the nature of their tasks, 

limited understanding of English, low literacy, and low education level with information in 

advance of the potential for exposure. 

The proposed regulatory text establishing a 2 day grace period, altering the requirements 

for training under the grace period, and establishing a requirement to maintain records for 2 years 

appears in §170.309 of today’sthe proposed rule.

5. Costs and benefits. EPA estimates that replacing the current 5-day grace period with 

the proposed 2-day exception to the requirement for employers to provide full pesticide safety 

training to workers before directing workers to enter a pesticide treated area would cost $2.3 

million, or about $6 per agricultural establishment. This cost estimate does not include 

recordkeeping; the cost of the recordkeeping for worker training is discussed in Unit VII.B. For a 

complete discussion of the costs of the proposals and alternatives, see the “Economic Analysis of 

Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard,” Chapter 3 Cost Analysis (Ref. 1). 

EPA could not estimate specific benefits associated with this proposal. However, EPA 

believes that providing certain safety information to workers before they perform WPS tasks and 

shortening the interval before they receive full training would decrease the number of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 244 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

occupational pesticide-related illnesses because workers would be better informed on how to 

protect themselves before entering a pesticide-treated area. 

6. Alternative options considered but not proposed. As an alternative, EPA is considering 

eliminating the grace period. Under this option, agricultural employers would be required to 

provide all workers with full pesticide training before sending them into any treated area where 

within the last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with the WPS 

has been used, or an REI for such a pesticide has been in effect. Eliminating the grace period 

would ensure that all workers are fully trained on how to protect both themselves and their 

family members before entering an area covered by the WPS. The estimated cost for eliminating 

the grace period for worker training would be $2.8 million, or about $7 per establishment. The 

increased cost comes from the employer having to provide full pesticide safety training sessions 

every time workers enter the establishment to perform WPS tasks, rather than waiting and 

holding a larger training session for workers hired over a period of a few days. EPA does not 

have sufficient data to compare the benefits of providing the pesticide safety training before 

workers enter the treated area to ensure that workers are fully prepared and aware of the potential 

risks they may encounter in the workplace, and the costs that agricultural employers might incur 

if the grace period were eliminated. 

Information exists that supports the alternative option to eliminate the grace period 

entirely. First, the number of trainers may be sufficient. EPA reduced the grace period from 15 to 

5 days over 10 years ago in recognition that employers had less difficulty finding someone to 

provide pesticide safety training to workers. Based on significant outreach and support provided 

by EPA to training organizations, such as AFOP, sufficient trainers may be available nationally 

to meet the needs of agricultural employers without a grace period. Second, 90% of workers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 245 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

report employment by 1 or 2 establishments a year (Ref. 3, p. 23). Employers now may deal with 

less worker turnover and therefore may not need to provide multiple trainings throughout the 

year. The lower burden on employers makes the call for a grace period less compelling. Lastly, 

small business representatives advised EPA that they generally provide training to workers upon 

employment to comply with other regulations or for general orientation (Ref. 18). Under the 

proposal for worker pesticide safety training, once a worker is trained in a particular year, he or 

she would receive a record of the training to show subsequent employers, thereby eliminating the 

need for subsequent employers to repeat the training. 

EPA notes that OSHA requires employers in almost all industries to notify their workers 

of the hazards that may be encountered in the workplace before the work begins (29 CFR 

1910.1200(h)). This requirement has been in place since 1983. OSHA established the standard 

based on the belief that, without adequate knowledge of the potential dangers in the workplace, 

workers would not be able to take protective measures or avoid hazards (52 FR 31852; August 

24, 1987)(59 FR 6126; February 9, 1994) (Ref. 63). 

7. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following: 

 • Supply of trainers and how quickly they can be available. 

 • Frequency of hiring new workers during the year. 

 • Evidence about the frequency of illness for workers who receive basic vs. full pesticide 

safety training. 

 • Should EPA eliminate the grace period? Why or why not? 

 • What would be the impact of eliminating the grace period on agricultural employers, 

trainers, and/or workers? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 246 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 • What would be the impact of a shorter grace period on agricultural employers and 

trainers? 

 • Would retaining a shorter grace period as proposed negatively impact workers? If so, 

how? 

 • Should EPA retain the current 5 day grace period or reduce the grace period to 3 or 4 

days? If EPA reduces the grace period to 3 or 4 days, what would be the relative impacts on 

agricultural employers and workers as compared to the proposed reduced grace period of 2 days?

XIX. General Revisions to the WPS 

A. Improved Definitions 

The Agency proposes to revise 40 CFR 170.3 by revising certain definitions to provide 

greater clarity, by adding several new definitions, and by eliminating several unnecessary 

definitions. EPA believes that improved definitions would reduce the likelihood of alternative 

interpretations, while improving compliance and enforceability. 

The Agency believes these proposed revisions to the definitions adopt more widely used 

and commonly accepted “plain English” language, and add clarity and consistency to the rule. 

The proposed revisions to the definitions also help address regulatory or policy issues raised by 

state regulatory partners and other program stakeholders. The Agency does not believe the 

proposed revisions to the definitions will add new regulatory requirements on the regulated 

community or substantially increase regulatory burden. 

The following definitions appear in §170.5 of today’sthe proposed rule. 

1. Revised definitions. The Agency proposes to revise the following existing definitions: 

“agricultural employer,” “agricultural establishment,” “agricultural plant,” “commercial pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 247 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

handling establishment,” “crop advisor,” “farm,” “hand labor,” “handler,” “handler employer,” 

“immediate family,” “nursery,” and “worker.” 

The Agency proposes to change the existing definition of “immediate family” as follows: 

“...includes only 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, and sisters-in-law.” The remaining revisions to 

the existing definitions are simply intended to clarify those terms, rather than substantively alter 

them. Substantive changes to the immediate family exemption considered but not proposed are 

discussed in Unit XVIII.A. 

2. New definitions. The Agency also proposes to add the following new definitions: 

“authorized representative,” “closed system,” “commercial pesticide handler employer,” 

“commercial production,” “enclosed space production,” “employ,” “enclosed cab,” “entryrestricted area,” “forest operation,” “labor contractor,” “outdoor production,” “personal 

protective equipment,” “safety data sheet,” “use,” and “worker housing area.” 

As an example of the changes to the definitions, the Agency proposes to define “employ” 

as the receipt of either wages or salary for work. Under the current rule, a person is covered by 

the WPS if he or she receives any type of compensation. Current interpretations of 

compensation include students receiving credits and garden club members receiving benefits 

such as coffee and cake at meetings. The proposed definition would limit WPS coverage to only 

those who receive pay and perform worker or handler tasks when a pesticide has been applied or 

an REI in effect on the establishment within the past 30 days. 

3. Definitions to be deleted. The Agency proposes to delete the definition of 

“greenhouse” because it is no longer necessary as a result of the proposed addition of “enclosed 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 248 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

space production.” The agency also proposes to delete the definition of “forest” because it is 

being replaced with “forest operation.” Additional details regarding significant proposed 

definition changes are discussed above. 

4. Request for comment. EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions: 

 • What impact do you expect on employers, workers, handlers, or other stakeholders as a 

result of replacing the terms “farms,” “forests,” “nurseries,” and “greenhouses” with the terms 

“outdoor production” and “enclosed space production”? 

 • What are the impacts of revising the definition of “immediate family”? 

 • Should EPA consider including cousins in the definition of immediate family? Why or 

why not? 

• What are the impacts of adding a definition of “employ”? 

• What are the impacts of adding a definition of “authorized representative”? 

 • Are there other terms that the Agency should consider clarifying, redefining, or 

eliminating from the rule? If so, please provide detail about the term(s) and rationale for change. 

B. Restructuring of Part 170 

In order to improve clarity and implement the principles of using plain language in 

regulations, EPA proposes to reorganize the structure of part 170 and to rename the rule. EPA 

expects the revised part 170 will be easier to read and understand, thereby improving compliance 

by worker and handler employers. 

1. Existing part 170. Part 170, the Worker Protection Standard, is organized into three 

subparts: “General Provisions,” “Standard for Workers,” and “Standard for Handlers.” Often, 

content that applies to both workers and handlers is repeated in two sections. The exemptions 

and exceptions are listed throughout the rule. EPA has received feedback from states, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 249 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

farmworker groups, employers, trainers, and other stakeholder groups that part 170 is difficult to 

follow (Ref. 44). 

2. Details of today’s proposalthe proposed rule. EPA proposes to rename the regulation 

“Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers and Pesticide Handlers.” The proposal 

would reorganize the rule into four subparts: “General Provisions,” “Requirements for Protection 

of Agricultural Workers,” “Requirements for Protection of Pesticide Handlers,” and 

“Exemptions and Exceptions.” The “General Provisions” subpart would describe certain 

obligations for agricultural employers, handler employers, and those requirements that apply to 

both. The subparts “Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers” and “Requirements 

for Protection of Pesticide Handlers” would provide information that supplements the general 

duties and obligations for employers and outline the content of the training and decontamination 

supplies that the employer must provide for workers and handlers respectively. Finally, EPA 

consolidated most of the exceptions and exemptions into a separate subpart to make them easier 

to find and reference. 

EPA believes that the restructured rule will facilitate better understanding of the rule by 

employers and state and tribal regulatory agencies. EPA specifically requests comment on the 

following questions: 

 • Is the restructuring clearer and easier to read and understand? 

 • Are there other ways that part 170 could be simplified or made clearer? If so, please 

provide suggested language and rationale 

XX. Implementation of this Proposal

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

Page 250 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

safety training content and pesticide safety information and new signs for posting, would not be 

required until 2 years after the publication date of the final rule. The 2 year delay between 

publication of the final rule and the effective date of the changes would give state and tribal 

regulators, employers, trainers, and other stakeholders time to make the necessary changes to 

their daily activities and for materials and signs to be developed and made available. EPA 

expects that employers would need new signs and training materials to transition to new 

requirements. State regulators would need to become familiar with the new regulation and 

conduct outreach to the regulated community. 

Trainers would have to become familiar with the additional training content, to ensure 

that they meet any eligibility requirements, and to obtain new training materials. EPA recognizes 

that training materials that comply with the proposed expanded content must be available before 

the effective date of the new training requirements. Therefore, EPA has linked the effective date 

of the implementation of the proposed additional pesticide safety training requirements for 

workers and handlers to an announcement of availability of materials that satisfy the new 

requirements in the Federal Register. If EPA announces the availability of the materials sooner 

than18 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 announces the availability 

of materials that comply with the proposed requirements more than 18 months after the effective

date of the final rule, then the proposed training requirements would not take effect until 180 

days after the announcement of availability publishes in the Federal Register.

 To facilitate implementation, EPA plans to issue a “how to comply” guidance document 

at the time the final rule is published, to develop and disseminate new training materials, to 

conduct outreach to all potentially affected parties, and to provide assistance to states. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 251 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 EPA specifically requests comment on the following questions:

 • Please provide input on how to measure the efficacy of the revised WPS once 

implemented. Describe specific data elements and how EPA could use them to determine 

whether the revised regulation is effective.

 • What data would help to evaluate the impacts (costs) and benefits of the rule after 

implementation? Describe specific data elements and how EPA could use them to evaluate the 

costs and benefits of the rule.

 • If EPA evaluates the effectiveness and/or the impacts and benefits of the rule, what 

timeframe should be used to conduct the evaluation, e.g., should EPA begin a review after the 

rule is fully implemented or a specific time period after full implementation? For how long 

should EPA conduct the evaluation? Please provide additional information on methodology that 

could be used to conduct any evaluation.

XXI. Reference List 

 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2013. Economic 

Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection Standard. Washington, D.C. 

 2. Lee, S-J, Mehler, L, Beckman, J, Diebolt-Brown, B, Prado, J, Lackovic, M, et al. 

“Acute Pesticide Illnesses Associated with Off-Target Pesticide Drift from Agricultural 

Applications.” Environ Health Perspect 119 (2011):1162-1169. 

 3. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Office of 

Programmatic Policy. 2005. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 

2001-2002: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers. Research 

Report No. 9. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 252 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 4. 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. 

 5. Rosenbaum, S and Shin, P. “Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers: Health Insurance 

Coverage and Access to Care.” The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. May 3, 

2005. Pub no. 7314. 

 6. Kandel, W. 2008. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update. Economic Research 

Report No. 60. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 

 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. OPP 

Report on Incident Information: The Baseline. 

 8. Harchelroad, F, et al. “Treated vs. Reported Toxic Exposures: Discrepancies Between 

a Poison Control Center and a Member Hospital.” Vet Hum Toxicol 32 (1990): 156-159. 

 9. Chafee-Bahamon, C, Caplan, DL and Lovejoy, Jr, FH. “Patterns in Hospitals' Use of a 

Regional Poison Information Center.” Am J Public Health 73 (1983): 396-400. 

 10. Veltri, JC, McElwee, NE and Schumacher, MC. “Interpretation and uses of data 

collection in poison control centers in the United States.” Med Toxicol Adverse Drug Exp 2 no.6 

(1987): 389-397. 

 11. Calvert, G M, et al. “Acute pesticide poisoning among agricultural workers in the 

United States, 1998-2005.” American J Ind Med 51, no. 12 (December 2008): 883-898. 

 12. Reigart, JR and Roberts, JR. 1999. Recognition and Management of Pesticide 

Poisonings. 5th Ed. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA# 

735-R-98-003. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 253 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 13. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Inspection Procedures for the 

Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, 1915.99, 1917.28, 1918.90, 1926.59, and 

1928.21. March 20, 1998. CPL 02-02-038. 

 14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 40 

CFR Parts 156 & 170 Interpretive Policy, Question and Answers Website.” Retrieved August 25, 

2011. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workers/wpsinterpolicy.htm. 

 15. ARI/EPA General Training Issues Workgroup. 2003. Recommendations to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency for Improving Farmworker Pesticide Safety Training from the 

ARI/EPA General Training Issues Workgroup.

 16. Council for Agricultural Sciences and Technology and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2004. Train the Trainer Pilot Project Final Report. 

 17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2005. Report 

on the National Assessment of EPA’s Worker Safety Program.

 18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2008. 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). Washington, DC. 

 19. U.S. Government Accounting Office. 1992. Hired Farmworkers: Health and WellBeing at Risk. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO/HRD-92-46. 

 20. U.S. Government Accounting Office. 2000. Pesticides: Improvements Needed to 

Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and their Families. Report to Congressional Requesters. 

GAO/RCED-00-40. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 254 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 21. Ward, MH, et al. “Proximity to Crops and Residential Exposure to Agricultural 

Herbicides in Iowa.” Environ Health Perspect 114, no. 6 (2006): 893-897. 

 22. McCauley, LA, et al. “Work Characteristics and Pesticide Exposures Among Migrant 

Agricultural Families: a Community-based Research Approach.” Environ Health Perspect 109, 

no. 5 (2001): 533-538. 

 23. McCauley, L A, et al. “Pesticide Exposure and Self Reported Home Hygiene: 

Practices in Agricultural Families.” AAOHN Journal. 51, no. 3 (2003):113-119. 

 24. Rao, P, et al. “Pesticide Safety Behaviors in Latino Farmworker Family Households.” 

Am J Ind Med. 49, no. 4 (2006): 271-280. 

 25. Bradman, A, et al. “Community-Based Intervention to Reduce Pesticide Exposure to 

Farmworkers and Potential Take-home Exposure to their Families.” J Expo Sci Environ 

Epidemiol 19, no.1 (2009):179-189. 

 26. Natural Resources Defense Council. Comments from the Natural Resources Defense 

Council on the Revised Risk Assessment Methods for Workers, Children of Workers in 

Agricultural Fields, and Pesticides with No Food Uses (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0889-0002). April 

2010. 

 27. Human Rights Watch. Fingers to the Bone: United States Failure to Protect Child 

Farmworkers. 2000. Washington, D.C. 

 28. Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. 1998. Report of the Children's 

Health Protection Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding 

the Selection of Five Regulations for Re-Evaluation. 

 29. Calvert, GM, et al. “Acute Pesticide-related Illnesses Among Working Youths, 1988-

1999.” Am J Public Health 93, no. 4 (2003): 605-610. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 255 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 30. Curl, CL, et al. “Evaluation of Take-home Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure 

Among Agricultural Workers and their Children.” Environ Health Perspect 110, no. 12 (2002): 

A787-A792. 

 31. Coronado, GD, et al. “Agricultural Task and Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides 

Among Farmworkers.” Environ Health Perspect 112, no. 2 (2004): 142–147. 

 32. Sánchez Lizardi, P, O'Rourke, MK and Morris, RJ. “The Effects of Organophosphate 

Pesticide Exposure on Hispanic Children's Cognitive and Behavioral Functioning.” J Pediatr 

Psychol 33, no. 1 (2007): 91-101. 

 33. Das, R, et al. “Pesticide-related Illness Among Migrant Farm Workers in the United 

States.” Int J Occup Environ Health 7, no. 4 (2001): 303-312. 

 34. Goldman, L, et al. “Risk Behaviors for Pesticide Exposure Among Pregnant Women 

Living in Farmworker Households in Salinas, California.” Am J Ind Med. 45, no. 6 (2004): 491-

499. 

 35. Davis, S., et. al. Letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator 

Stephen Johnson. On behalf of Farmworker Justice et al. December 15, 2006. 

 36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. Compiled 

Comments of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee on May 2007 Issue Papers. 

Washington, DC.

 37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. Pesticide 

Program Dialogue Committee Worker Safety Regulation Change Subgroup, Summary of PREP 

and PPDC Comments. Washington, DC. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 256 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 38. Calabro, K, Bright, K and Kouzekanani, K. “Long-term Effectiveness of Infection 

Control Training among Fourth Year Medical Students.” Medical Education Online. 5, no. 1, 

(2000): 1-7. http://www.med-ed-online.org 

 39. Spradley, Ples. Correspondence to Kathy Davis, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency on Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement. American Association of Pesticide 

Safety Educators. June 7, 2007. 

 40. Glasnapp, J., Nakamoto, J. 2007. Hazard Communications for Agricultural Workers. 

JBS International, Inc. Aguirre Division. 

 41. Adams, S. “Improving safety instruction and results: Five principles of sound 

training. Professional Safety.” Professional Safety. December 1, 2000. Article available at 

http://www.allbusiness.com/education-training/employee-training-assistanceemployee/11442447-1.html. 

 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2008. 

Summary of Potential SER Written and Oral Comments Received in Response to Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel Outreach Meetings. Washington, DC. 

 43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2010. Worker 

Pesticide Safety Training Verification Card Order Report. Washington, DC. 

 44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2000. The 

National Assessment of the Worker Safety Program, Stakeholder Workshop #1. 

 45. Dubberly, D. Email correspondence to Elizabeth Evans, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. July 18, 2006. 

 46. American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators. 2006. FL SDA Comments on 

EPA’s Plans for Proposed C&T and WPS Rule Changes. Washington, DC. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 257 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 47. NASDAF Workgroup. National Worker Safety Trainer Handbook: Pesticide Safety 

for Agricultural Workers. (Washington, DC: National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture Foundation, 2008). EPA Cooperative agreement no. X8-83235401. 

 48. Wallerstein, N and Rubenstein, H. Teaching about Job Hazards, A Guide for Workers 

and Their Health Providers. (Washington, DC, American Public Health Association, 1993.) 

 49. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Report to Congress on 

Workers’ Home Contamination Study Conducted Under the Workers’ Family Protection Act (29 

U.S.C. 671a). September 1995. Publication No. 95-123. 

 50. Lu, C, et al. “Pesticide Exposure of Children in an Agricultural Community: 

Evidence of Household Proximity to Farmland and Take Home Exposure Pathways.” 

Environmental Research 84, no. 3 (2000):b290-302. 

 51. Lambert, W E, et al. “Variation in Organophosphate Pesticide Metabolites in Urine of 

Children Living in Agricultural Communities.” Environ Health Perspect 113, no. 4 (2005): 504-

508. 

 52. Arcury, T A, et al. “Pesticide Urinary Metabolite Levels of Children in Eastern North 

Carolina Farmworker Households.” Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 8 (2007): 1254–1260. 

 53. Liebman, A K, et al. “A Pilot Program using Promotoras de Salud to Educate 

Farmworker Families About the Risks from Pesticide Exposure.” J Agromedicine 12, no. 2 

(2007):33-43. 

 54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Children's Environmental Health Centers 

(CEHCs) Website.” Retrieved April 21, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/ncer/childrenscenters/. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 258 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Children's Environmental Health Centers 

(CEHCs): University of California at Berkeley Center for Children's Environmental Health 

Research Website” Retrieved August 5, 2011. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncer/childrenscenters/berkeley.html. 

56. Bradman, M A, et al. “Pesticide Exposures to Children from California's Central 

Valley: Results of a Pilot Study.” J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 7, no. 2 (1997): 217-234. 

57. Quandt, S A, et al. “Agricultural and Residential Pesticides in Wipe Samples from 

Farmworker Family Residences in North Carolina and Virginia.” 112, no. 3 (2004): 382-387. 

58. Coronado, G D, et al. “Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure and Work in Pome Fruit: 

Evidence for the Take-home Pesticide Pathway.” Environ Health Perspect 114, no. 7 (2006): 

999-1006. 

59. Wolgalter, S, Sojourner, J and Brelsford, J. “Comprehension and retention of safety 

pictorials.” Ergonomics. 40, no. 5 (1997): 531-542. 

60. Spencer, J R. November 2, 2001. Health and Safety Report: Analysis of the Impact of 

the Federal Worker Protection Standard and Recommendations for Improving California’s 

Worker Protection Program Regarding Field Posting. California Environmental Protection 

Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation. HS-1819. 

61. U.S. Department of Labor. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Office of 

Program Economics. 2000. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 

1997-1998. Research Report No. 8. 

62. Davis, TC, et al. “Low Literacy Impairs Comprehension of Prescription Warning 

Labels.” J Gen Intern Med 21, no. 8 (2006): 847-851. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 259 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

63. U.S. General Accounting Office . 1992. Employers' Experiences in Complying with 

the Hazard Communication Standard. Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO/HRD92-63BR. 

64. U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. “State 

Occupational Safety and Health Plans Website.” Retrieved September 14, 2011. 

http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/index.html. 

65. U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration. “The National 

Agricultural Workers Survey Website.” Retrieved January 11, 2011. 

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

66. North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 2, Chapter 9, Subchapter L, Part 1807. 

2009. 

67. Cotto-Febo, S. “Portable Central Location Project.” (Presentation, Presented 

October,3, 2007 at Worker Safety and Health Symposium, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Arlington VA. October 3, 2007.) 

68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance. 2006. Overview of WPS Violations During 2006 Inspections.

69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance. 2007. Overview of WPS Violations during 2007 Inspections.

 70. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance. 2008. Overview of WPS Violations during 2008 Inspections.

 71. Calvert, G M, et al. “Case Report: Three Farmworkers Who Gave Birth to Infants 

with Birth Defects Closely Grouped in Time and Place—Florida and North Carolina, 2004–

2005.” Environ Health Perspect 115, no. 5 (2007): 787-791. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 260 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 72. Cline, JS. Letter to Jim Jones, Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of North Carolina Department of Health and 

Human Services. February 2007. 

 73. Washington State Department of Health. 2010. 2009 Annual Report: Pesticide 

Incident Reporting and Tracking Review Panel.

 74. Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. Letter to Administrator Stephen J. 

Johnson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Recommendations Regarding 

Protecting Farmworker Children. November 15, 2005.

 75. Krieger, R, et al. “Gauging Pesticide Exposure of Handlers 

(mixers/loaders/applicators) and Harvesters in California Agriculture.” Med Lav 81, no. 6 

(1990): 474-479. 

 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommendations to the U.S. Department 

of Labor for Changes to Hazardous Orders. May 3, 2002. 

 77. Casey, BJ, Jones, RM and Hare, T A. “The Adolescent Brain.” Ann N Y Acad Sci

March (2008): 111-126. 

 78. Farmworker Justice et al. Pesticides In the Air – Kids at Risk: Petition to EPA to 

Protect Children from Pesticide Drift. October 13, 2009. 

 79. Young, M and Rischeitelli, D G. “Occupational Risks and Risk Perception among 

Hispanic Adolescents.” McGill J Med 9, no. 1 (2006): 49-53. 

 80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. How to Comply with the Worker Protection 

Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: What Employers Need To Know. Revised 2005. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 261 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 81. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. USDA Comments for the PPDC 

Worker Safety Regulation Change Subgroup. Washington, D.C. 

 82. Freeman Adcock, R, McAllister, R and Kelly, A. Letter to Kathy Davis, Certification 

and Worker Protection Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Comments on Position 

Papers Relating to Worker Protection Standards (WPS). Pesticide Policy Coalition. August 31, 

2007. 

 83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Transmittal of Meeting minutes of the FIFRA 

Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Held December 2-5, 2008 on the Scientific Issues Associated 

with Worker Reentry Exposure Assessment. February 19, 2009. 

 84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. Updated 

August 2010. Label Review Manual Chapter 7: Precautionary Statements.

 85. American National Standards Institute. American National Standard for Emergency 

Eyewash and Shower Equipment. ANSI Z358.1-1990. 

 86. Cooke, G, et al. 2011. Oregon OSHA Pesticide Emphasis Program Annual Report: 

Federal Fiscal Year 2010. Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services. Information 

Management Division. 

 87. Matoian, R. Letter to Joe Hogue, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Small 

Business Representative comments on WPS. July 14, 2008. 

 88. Arcury, T A, et al. “Farmworker reports of pesticide safety and sanitation in the work 

environment.” Am J Ind Med 39, no. 5 (2001): 487-498. 

 89. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California Code of Regulations. Title 

3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6. Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; Section 6746. 2012. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 262 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 90. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California Code of Regulations. Title 

3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6. Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; Section 6000. 2012. 

 91. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Worker Health and Safety Branch. 

Closed Systems Director’s Memo. January 2, 1998. 

 92. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 2004. NIOSH Alert:

Preventing Occupational Exposures to Antioplastic and other Hazardous Drugs in Health Care 

Settings. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2004−165.

 93. Minnesota Department of Health. “Medical Screening Website: Physiologic effects of 

respirator use.” Retrieved November 17, 2010. Calvert, G M and Higgins, S A. “Using 

Surveillance Data to Promote Occupational Health and Safety Policies and Practices at the State 

Level: a Case Study.” Am J Ind Med 53, no. 2 (2010): 188-193. 

 94. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. California Code of Regulations. Title 

3. Food and Agriculture. Division 6. Pesticides and Pest Control Operations; Section 6720-6746. 

 95. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. “Cholinesterase Monitoring 

Website.” Retrieved March 15, 2011. 

http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/AtoZ/Cholinesterase/. 

 96. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. Division of Occupational 

Safety and Health. 2009. Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in Agriculture: 2009 

Report.

 97. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. Division of Occupational 

Safety and Health. January 2007. Cholinesterase Monitoring of Pesticide Handlers in 

Agriculture: Report to the Legislature.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 263 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 98. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs. “Pesticide 

Reregistration Status for Organophosphates Website.” Retrieved May 10, 2011. 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status_op.htm. 

 99. Washington State Department of Health. Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking 

Review Panel 2005 Annual Report. December 2005.

 100. Washington State Department of Health. Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking 

Review Panel Annual Report. May 2007. 

 101. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. 2003. Benefit-Cost 

Determination: Cholinesterase Monitoring in Agriculture. WAC 296-307-148. 

 102. Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs. 2011. Dangerous Exposure: 

Farmworker Children and Pesticides. Health and Safety Programs Annual Report, Vol. 1. 

 103. Eskenazi, B, Bradman, A and Castorina, R. “Exposures of Children to 

Organophosphate Pesticides and their Potential Adverse Health Effects.” Environ Health 

Perspect Environ Health Perspect 107, Suppl. 3 (1999): 409-419. 

 104. Jones, A and Smith, L. Letter to Kevin Keaney, Branch Chief, Certification & 

Worker Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments regarding Issue 

Paper, "Making the Regulatory Requirements for Certified Crop Advisors, Crop Advisor 

Employees & Aerial Apps.” On behalf of National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants, 

Certified Crop Advisors. 2006. 

 105. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

Training and Notification (Proposed Rule). EPA ICR No. 2491.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-

NEW. 2013. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 264 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 106. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agricultural Worker Protection Standard 

Training and Notification.EPA ICR number 1759.07 and OMB Control No. 2070-0148. 2013. 

XXII. FIFRA Review Requirements 

Under FIFRA section 25(a), EPA has submitted a draft of the proposed rule to the 

Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate Congressional Committees. Their 

comments on this proposed rule and EPA’s responses are located in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

The Science Advisory Panel waived its review of this proposal on February 7, 2013.

XXIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and, Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), 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 the Executive Order. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this proposed rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21, 2011), 

and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

public docket for this action. 

 Each of the WPS provisions is intended to do one of the following: (1) inform farm 

workers and pesticide handlers about the hazards and risks from pesticides they use or with 

which they come into contact in the workplace, (2) protect workers and handlers from 

occupational exposure to pesticides and the potential adverse effects, or (3) mitigate the potential 

adverse effects of unavoidable pesticide exposure, including accidents. Within these categories, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 265 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of alternative requirements and is proposing a set of 

requirements that, in combination, is expected to achieve substantial benefits at minimum cost. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 

proposed action, titled “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revisions to the Worker Protection 

Standard” (Ref. 1). A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and is briefly 

summarized here. 

 EPA estimates the incremental cost of the proposed revisions to be between about $62.1

million and $72.9 million annually. These costs are almost entirely borne by farms that hire labor 

and use pesticides, which account for about 25 percent of all crop farms in the United States. 

Commercial pesticide handling establishments, which contract to apply pesticides on farms, may 

see an incremental cost of $170 to $190 per year per firm. The cost to individual farms will 

depend on the number and type of employees employed. EPA estimates that larger farms will 

incur costs of $350340 to $400 per year. Smaller operations are estimated to incur costs between 

$130 and $150 per year, which amounts to less than 0.1 percent of average annual revenue. 

 The incremental cost to employ a worker is estimated to be less than $5 per year, which 

would not be expected to have an impact on employment. The incremental cost to employ a 

pesticide handler is estimated to be about $60 per year, which represents 0.3 percent of the total 

cost of a part-time employee, a marginal increase that would not be expected to have an impact 

on job availability. 

 The benefits of the proposed rule would accrue to agricultural workers, pesticide handlers 

and, indirectly due to reduced take-home pesticide exposure, to their families. The revised rule is 

expected to substantially mitigate the potential for adverse health effects (both acute and chronic) 

for these workers and handlers from occupational exposures to pesticides. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 266 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 It is difficult to quantify a specific level of risk and project the risk reduction that will 

result from this rule, because workers and handlers are potentially exposed to a wide range of 

pesticides with different toxicities and risks; however, the proposed changes to the WPS are 

designed to reduce occupational exposure to all pesticides. EPA believes there is sufficient 

evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to suggest reducing pesticide exposure would result in a 

benefit to public health through reduced acute and chronic illness. 

 Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed requirements would result in 

long-term health benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. EPA is not able to 

estimate the dollar value of the benefits that accrue from reducing chronic exposure to pesticides 

but there are well-documented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and 

non-cancer chronic health effects in the peer-reviewed literature. The proposed requirements 

provide benefits to the 2.3 million workers and pesticide handlers, 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 healthcare and a healthier society. Many of the changes to current 

WPS requirements specifically mitigate the potential for workers to transport pesticide residues 

home to their families. Thus, the proposed requirements are expected to reduce children’s 

exposure to pesticides. The agency believes the unquantified benefits to children of workers and 

handlers are great, and 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, as well. 

 EPA does estimate a value of avoided acute incidents as a result of the proposed rule, 

although this estimate is biased downward by an unknown degree for several reasons. First, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 267 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

pesticide incidents, like many illnesses and accidents, are underreported because sufferers may 

not seek medical care, cases may not be correctly diagnosed, and correctly diagnosed cases may 

not be filed with the central reporting database. Second, our approach only measures avoided 

medical costs and lost wages, not the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms due to 

pesticide exposure, which could be substantially higher. Just the small amount EPA is able to 

monetize accrues to be between $1.2 million and $2.8 million annually. The effect of 

underreporting can be significant. If only 25% of poisonings are reported (within the range of 

estimates in the literature), the quantified estimated benefits of the rule would be about $11.4 

million annually. This conservative estimate only includes the avoided costs in medical care and 

lost productivity to workers and handlers. 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 workers and handlers, or willingness 

to pay to avoid symptoms of pesticide exposure. 

 Because the proposed changes to the requirements for protection of workers and handlers 

apply to many different pesticides in many different situations, EPA is not able to quantify the 

benefits expected to accrue from reducing chronic exposure to pesticides; however, welldocumented associations between pesticide exposure and certain cancer and non-cancer chronic 

health effects exist in peer-reviewed literature. EPA conducted a “break even” analysis to 

demonstrate the potential benefits that would result from reducing a very small number of 

chronic illnesses that have well-documented associations with pesticide exposure. Under this 

analysis, avoiding only 53 total cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s 

disease, lung cancer, bronchitis, and asthma (under 0.8 % of total cases among workers) would 

bridge the gap between the estimated benefits from reducing acute incidents and the cost of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 268 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

rule, about $63.7 million. Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the proposed 

requirements would result in long term health benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide 

handlers, 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. 

 In addition, changes to the current WPS requirements, namely 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, specifically 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. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document to replace the existing approved ICR. The new ICR 

document, which is titled “Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Training and Notification 

(Proposed Rule)” and is identified by EPA ICR No. 2491.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-NEW, 

has been placed in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 105). Responses to the proposed 

amendments would be mandatory. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 269 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The information activities related to the current WPS requirements are already approved 

by OMB in an ICR entitled, “Worker Protection Standard Training and Notification” (EPA ICR 

No. 1759; OMB Control No. 2070-0148) (Ref 106). The proposed rule replacement ICR 

addresses the information collection requirements contained in the current regulations as well as 

in the amendments identified in this proposed rule. The amendments include: 

 • Increasing the amount of training handlers and workers receive 

 • Establishing a minimum age for pesticide handlers and workers engaged in early-entry 

activities 

 • Increasing record-keeping responsibilities of the agricultural employers and handler 

employers. 

The replacement 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 replacement ICR addresses program changes 

related to the proposed amendments, including modifications to restrictions in field entry 

activities during restricted entry intervals; increased hazard communications; increased training 

(for both workers and handlers); provisions for information during emergency assistance; and 

recordkeeping for respirator requirements and for workers performing early entry activities. The 

estimated annual burden approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0148 is 1,776,131 

hours. The total estimated annual respondent burden being proposed in the replacement ICR is 

8,355,847316,993 hours, a net increase of 6,579,716540,862 hours. 

The estimated burden represents the total to comply with the full WPS, including all 

proposed revisions and those that are unchanged by this proposal. This differs from the estimated 

incremental cost of the proposal, which only considers the net cost of the proposed revisions. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 270 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The burdens of the various activities range from 30 seconds per respondent for workers to 

provide acknowledgements to their employers to an hour per respondent for handler training. 

This estimate includes third-party WPS training and notification requirements. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

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 EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Any comments on the Agency’s need for information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, should be 

directed to the public docket for this proposed rule, under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP2011-0184. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit 

comments to EPA. In addition, please submit a copy of your comments on the ICR directly to 

OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 

725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [insert date of 

publication], a comment to OMB is best assured of having the full effect if OMB receives it by 

[insert 30 days after the date of publication]. The final will address any comments received 

regarding the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA estimates 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 271 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

the rule will affect over 300,000 small farms, nurseries, and greenhouses, and several hundred 

small commercial entities that are contracted to apply pesticides. 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 $4,500 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 over 40,000, 

given the number of small-small establishments. However, this is likely an overestimate of the 

number of farms impacted as it does not account for the nearly 5,000 small-small farms in 

California that would face impacts well below the national average. Please refer to the Economic 

Assessment, Table 5.4-3. “Small Business Impacts, WPS Farms making pesticide applications” 

for further details of the assessment. 

Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’sthe proposed rule on small entities, small entity 

is defined in accordance with the RFA as: 

1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

at 13 CFR 121.201. The SBA’s definitions typically are based upon either a sales or an 

employment level, depending on the nature of the industry. 

2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 

district or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its field. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 272 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 USC 601 et seq., the Agency hereby certifies 

that this action will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The factual basis for the Agency’s determination is presented in the small entity 

impact analysis prepared as part of the economic analysis for this proposed rule and a copy of 

which is available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 18). The following is a brief summary 

of the factual basis for this certification. 

Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review 

(SBAR) Panel for this particular proposed rule because EPA has ultimately determined that this 

proposal would not have a significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small 

entities, EPA convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entities 

representatives potentially subject to the proposed rule’s requirements. EPA’s subsequent small 

business analysis demonstrates that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. Nevertheless, a Panel consisting of the following four individuals was 

convened: 

 • EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson, 

 • Director of the Field and External Affairs Division of EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

Programs, 

 • Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of 

Management and Budget, and 

 • Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 

The Panel was convened to consider revisions to two related rules, which were being revised by 

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides; and 

Certification of Pesticide Applicators. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 273 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The Worker Protection Standard applies to the following agricultural establishments 

engaged in the production of agricultural commodities: farms, forests, nurseries, and 

greenhouses. 

Since many agricultural establishments are small entities, the WPS would potentially 

impact a large number of small entities. After extensive research from several sources, including 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service, state pesticide usage data, the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, and internet research, EPA assembled a list of industries that could be affected by the 

regulation. EPA then reviewed qualifications for small and large entities. The number of entities 

by industry is listed in the Final Report of the SBAR Panel for the two rules (Ref. 18). 

In January 2008, EPA began an informal outreach process to potential Small Entity 

Representatives (SERs, representatives of the small entities who may be subject to the 

requirements of the proposed rule) as part of the pre-SBAR panel planning process. SERs 

participate in the process to ensure that EPA hears the concerns and suggestions of small entities. 

EPA contacted States, agricultural extension agents, and organizations known to represent 

affected small business, such as grower associations, and various pest control industry 

associations to ask them to submit the names of potential SERs. EPA looked for representatives 

from differing types of businesses involved in pesticide application and/or different crops or 

agricultural commodities. EPA also sought to have representatives from a number of geographic 

areas of the nation. 

 In February 2008, EPA sent an e-mail to the 20 potential SERs identified by that point 

and provided background on the proposed changes and a description of the SBAR Panel Process. 

EPA held an informal outreach meeting on June 30, 2008. The SBAR Panel convened on 

September 4, 2008. The Panel decided to add one additional SER, for a total of 21, prior to the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 274 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Panel meeting with the SERs. The Panel held a formal panel outreach meeting/teleconference 

with SERs on September 25, 2008. Two weeks before the panel outreach meeting EPA sent 

materials to each of the SERs via email. A list of all materials shared with the SERs before the 

outreach meeting is contained in the pre-proposed rule portion of the docket for this action. 

The outreach meeting was held to solicit feedback from the SERs on their suggestions for 

the upcoming rulemaking. EPA asked the SERs to provide feedback on ideas under 

consideration for the proposed rulemaking and to respond to questions regarding their experience 

with the implementation of the current WPS. Specifically, the Panel asked the SERs to provide 

any alternate solutions to the potential proposals presented by EPA that would provide flexibility 

or would decrease the economic impact on small entities while still accomplishing the goal of 

improved safety. The Agency received written comments from SERs which are Appendix B to 

the Panel’s Report. 

 The Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small entity comments and prepared a 

report for the Agency’s consideration titled: “Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA’s 

Planned Revision to Two Related Rules: Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides; 

and Certification of Pesticide Applicators.” A copy of the Panel report is included in the docket 

for this proposed rule. 

 The SBAR Panel recommended that as part of the proposal for revising the Worker 

Protection Standard in 40 CFR part 170, EPA specifically request comments on the following 

regulatory flexibility options: 

a. Oral notifications. The Panel recommended that EPA permit oral notifications without 

posted notifications for those pesticide applications with REIs of 48 hours or less. EPA is 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 275 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

proposing and also requesting comments on allowing oral notification for products with REIs of 

48 hours or less, unless the pesticide label specifically requires both oral and posted notification.

b. Annual training. The Panel recommended that EPA consider ways to reduce the 

burden of annual training for workers and handlers on entities with fewer than 10 employees if 

they maintain written documentation that: (1) there has been no worker turnover, (2) no new or 

different pesticides have been applied, and (3) all workers and handlers were previously trained 

on the establishment. EPA is proposing annual training for all workers and handlers regardless of 

the number of employees and requesting comment on this recommendation. 

c. Grace period. The Panel recommended that EPA consider programmatic flexibilities 

for small entities related to the grace period before employers must be trained. For example, 

consider collaboration between the Agency and states to increase the use of training verification 

programs to reduce the need for unnecessary retraining and use of the grace period. EPA is 

proposing a 2 day grace period and training verification records. EPA is also requesting 

comments on making mandatory the current optional training verification program and flexibility 

for small entities. 

d. Shower facilities. The Panel recommended that EPA limit consideration of shower 

facilities to establishments with permanent mixing-loading sites. EPA is not proposing to require 

showers on any establishment. EPA is requesting comments from the public on an alternative 

requirement for employers to provide showers at permanent mixing-loading sites. 

The Agency invites comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 276 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to 

assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector. This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any 1 year. The total estimated cost of the proposed rule is between $65 

million and $75 million per year, with most requirements on agricultural employers, who would 

bear most of the cost. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 

or 205 of UMRA. This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It would 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 

Although this action does not have federalism implications, EPA worked extensively 

with state partners when considering revisions to the existing regulations. As discussed in Unit 

V.B., EPA has solicited feedback from states in a number of ways. The two primary avenues 

through which EPA sought state comments were the National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide 

Worker Safety Program (National Assessment) and the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee 

workgroup on proposed changes to the Worker Protection Standard and Certification Rule. 

The Agency initiated the National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety 

Program (National Assessment) in 2000. Through this process, EPA convened stakeholder 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 277 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

meetings in Texas, California, and Florida. States participated substantially throughout the 

National Assessment. State regulators served on workgroups related to specific areas of change 

(pesticide safety training, hazard communication, and train-the-trainer programs). States 

provided feedback to EPA about the strengths and weaknesses of the rule as implemented and 

made suggestions for improving the protections and enforceability of the WPS. 

Recommendations from States and other stakeholders were included in the “Report on the 

National Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program” (Ref. 17). 

In 2006, during the initial stages of the framing of this proposal, EPA’s Federal Advisory 

Committee, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), formed a workgroup to provide 

feedback to EPA on different areas for change. The workgroup had over 70 members 

representing a wide range of stakeholders, including State representatives. EPA shared with the 

workgroup suggestions for regulatory change identified through the National Assessment and 

solicited comments. The workgroup convened for a series of meetings and conference calls to 

get more information on specific parts of the regulation and provided its thoughts to the Agency. 

States provided comments individually and through the Association of American Pesticide 

Control Officials. Comments from the PPDC workgroup members have been compiled into a 

single document and posted in the docket. 

In the spirit of the Order, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications 

between the Agency and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local officials. 

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

Page 278 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

directly; agricultural employers are the directly affected entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it is not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866. However, EPA 

believes that the environmental health or safety risks addressed in this proposed rule have a 

disproportionate effect on children. 

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 proposed rule is 

intended 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 proposal to reduce risk to children 

is training workers and handlers on the risks presented by take-home pesticide exposure and how 

best to reduce it. 

Like the Department of Labor’s regulations that implement the Fair Labor Standards 

ActFLSA, the proposed rule seeks to regulate the ages at which children can work in agriculture, 

at least for certain activities. Currently, children as young as 10 and occasionally even younger 

can work in agriculture, unnecessarily exposing them to many hazards. The proposed rule would 

establish a minimum age of 16 for pesticide handlers and for early-entry workers, except those 

working on an establishment owned by an immediate family member. Since children in 

agriculture are at such great risk, EPA feels that they warrant special consideration in light of the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 279 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Executive Order on children’s health. EPA expects that many of the proposed changes would 

mitigate or eliminate many risks faced by youths. 

The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that 

assess effects of early life exposure to pesticides. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 

Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in 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. The revisions to part 170 are intended to improve the 

standards of protection offered to agricultural workers, and do not affect the use of oil, coal, or 

electricity. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

EPA considered adopting the American National Standards Institute Standard for eye 

flushing in the event of ocular contamination, which calls for a minimum of 1.5 liter (0.4 

gallons) per minute of flushing fluid, such as water, for 15 minutes (ANSI Z358.1-2009). EPA 

adopted this standard only at permanent mixing loading sites on agricultural establishments, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 280 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

rather than for all handler eye flush decontamination because the Agency believes it would be 

impractical for employers to achieve at non-permanent sites. EPA is requesting comments on the 

incorporation of this standard into the regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 ;February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 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. A., 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. 

The Agency engaged with stakeholders from affected communities extensively in the 

development of this rulemaking, in order to obtain meaningful involvement of all parties. EPA 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 281 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

believes that the proposed changes 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. 

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

Page 282 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 

 Environmental protection, pesticides, agricultural worker, pesticide handler, employer, 

farms, forests, nurseries, greenhouses, worker protection standard. 

Dated: ___________________ 

________________________________________________ 

Administrator. 

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

Page 283 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter E, part 170 is revised to read as 

follows: 

PART 170 -- WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD 

Subpart A – General Provisions

Sec. 

170.1 Scope and purpose. 

170.3 Applicability of this part. 

170.5 Definitions. 

170.7 Effective date. 

170.9 Agricultural employer duties. 

170.11 Pesticide information requirements on agricultural establishments. 

170.13 Commercial pesticide handler employer duties. 

170.15 Prohibited actions. 

170.17 Violations of this part. 

Subpart B – Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers 

170.101 Training requirements for workers. 

170.103 Establishment-specific information for workers. 

170.105 Entry restrictions associated with pesticide applications. 

170.107 Worker entry restrictions after pesticide applications. 

170.109 Oral and posted notification of worker entry restrictions. 

170.111 Worker decontamination supplies. 

Subpart C - Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Pesticide Handlers 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 284 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

170.201 Training requirements for handlers. 

170.203 Knowledge of labeling, application-specific, and establishment-specific information for 

handlers. 

170.205 Requirements during applications to protect handlers, workers, and other persons. 

170.207 Personal protective equipment. 

170.209 Handler decontamination supplies. 

Subpart D - Exemptions and Exceptions 

170.301 Exemptions. 

170.303 Exceptions for entry by workers during restricted-entry intervals. 

170.305 Agricultural employer responsibilities to protect workers entering treated areas during a 

restricted-entry interval. 

170.307 Exceptions to personal protective equipment requirements specified on pesticide 

product labeling. 

170.309 Exception to training requirements for workers. 

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

Subpart A – General Provisions 

§170.1 Scope and purpose.

This regulation is 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 and handlers when 

pesticides are used on agricultural establishments in the production of agricultural plants. It also 

requires pesticide handlers to wear the label-specified clothing and personal protective 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 285 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

equipment when performing pesticide handler activities, and to take measures to protect workers 

and other persons during pesticide applications. 

§170.3 Applicability of this part. 

(a) This regulation applies whenever a pesticide product bearing a label requiring 

compliance with this part is used in a manner directly related to the production of agricultural 

plants on an agricultural establishment that employs workers or handlers. 

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

Page 286 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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. 

§170.5 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. 

Agricultural plant means any plant, or part thereof, grown, maintained, or otherwise 

produced for commercial production. 

Authorized representative means 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.

Chemigation means the application of pesticides through irrigation systems. 

Closed system means 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. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 287 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Commercial pesticide handler employer means any person, other than an agricultural 

employer, who employs any handler to perform handler activities on an agricultural 

establishment. 

Commercial pesticide handling establishment means any enterprise, other than an 

agricultural establishment, that provides pesticide handler or crop advising services to 

agricultural establishments. 

Commercial production means growing, maintaining or otherwise producing agricultural 

plants for sale or trade, for research or experimental purposes, or for use in their entirety in 

another location. Commercial production includes producing agricultural plants for use by the 

agricultural employer or agricultural establishment instead of purchasing the agricultural plants. 

Crop advisor means any person who is assessing pest numbers, damage, pesticide 

distribution, or the status or requirements of agricultural plants. 

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 self-employed 

person, an independent contractor, or a person compensated by a third party. 

Enclosed cab means a cab with a nonporous barrier that totally surrounds 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 in a structure or 

space that is covered in whole or in part and that is large enough to permit a person to enter. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 288 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Entry-restricted area means the area from which workers or other persons must be 

excluded during and after the pesticide application. 

Farm means any agricultural establishment, other than a nursery or forest operation, 

engaged in the outdoor or enclosed production of agricultural plants. 

Forest operation means an agricultural establishment engaged in the outdoor production 

of any agricultural plant to produce any wood fiber or timber products. 

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 

cause a worker to have substantial contact with plants, plant parts, or soil and other surfaces that 

may contain pesticide residues. 

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

Page 289 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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 §170.105(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 

label-specified entry restricted period to adjust or remove coverings used in fumigation, such as 

tarpaulins; 

(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 §170.105(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-inlaw, mother-in-law, children, stepchildren, foster children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, 

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

Labor contractor means a person who employs workers or handlers to perform tasks on 

an agricultural establishment for an agricultural employer or a commercial pesticide handler 

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

Page 290 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Nursery means any agricultural establishment engaged in the outdoor or enclosed space 

production of any agricultural plant to produce cut flowers or foliage, ferns, plants, or seedlings 

that will be used in part or their entirety in another location. Such plants include, but are not 

limited to, flowering and foliage plants or trees; tree seedlings; live Christmas trees; vegetable, 

fruit, and ornamental transplants; and turf grass produced for sod. 

Outdoor production means production of an agricultural plant in an outside open space or 

area that is not enclosed or covered in any way.

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, chemical-resistant 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; 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 291 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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 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 

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. 

§170.7 Effective date. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 292 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

The effective date for this part shall be [effective date 60 calendar days after the promulgated 

rule is transmitted for Congressional review per FIFRA 25(a)(4)]. 

§170.9 Agricultural employer duties. 

Agricultural employers must:

(a) Ensure that any pesticide applied on an agricultural establishment is used in a manner 

consistent with the pesticide product labeling, including the requirements of this part. 

(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 worker performing early entry activities, is at least 

16 years old. 

(d) Provide to each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any workers or 

handlers, information and directions sufficient to ensure that each 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. If there is reason to believe that a person who is or has 

been employed by an agricultural establishment to perform tasks related to the production of 

agricultural plants, has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides as a result of his or her 

employment on the agricultural establishment, the agricultural employer must do all of the 

following, within 30 minutes after learning of the possible poisoning or injury: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 293 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(1) Make available to that person transportation from the agricultural establishment, 

including any worker housing area on the establishment, to an operating emergency medical 

facility. 

(2) Provide to that person or treating medical personnel all of the following information 

for each pesticide product to which that person might have been exposed: 

(i) Copies of the applicable safety data sheet and the label for the pesticide product, or 

alternatively, a copy of the applicable safety data sheet for the product and the product name, 

EPA registration number, active ingredients, antidote, and first aid and medical treatment 

information from the pesticide product labeling. 

(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 

§170.201. 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 persons: 

(1) That 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. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 294 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(h) Provide pesticide information in accordance with §170.11 if workers or handlers are 

on the establishment and within the last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring 

compliance with this part 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 handler 

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 entry restricted 

areas, or treated areas where a restricted-entry interval is in effect, and any restrictions on 

entering those areas. 

§170.11 Pesticide information requirements on agricultural establishments. 

(a) Pesticide Safety Information. Whenever pesticide information is required to be 

provided under §170.9(h), pesticide safety information must be displayed on the agricultural 

establishment in accordance with this paragraph (a). 

(1) Content. The pesticide safety information must be conveyed in a manner that workers 

and handlers can understand and must include all of the following points: 

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

Page 295 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 

(iii) Wear work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues (long-sleeved 

shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf). 

(iv) Wash 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 hair, and change into clean clothes. 

(vii) Follow directions about keeping out of treated or entry-restricted areas. 

(viii) The name, address, and telephone number of the nearest operating emergency 

medical care facility. 

(ix) After [date 2 years after effective date of the final rule specified in § 170.7], the 

pesticide safety information must also include the name, address, and telephone number of the 

state or tribal lead agency responsible for pesticide enforcement, and instructions to employees to 

seek medical attention as soon as possible if they believe they have been poisoned or injured by 

pesticides. 

(2) Changes to pesticide safety information. If there are any changes to the information in 

§§170.11(a)(1)(viii) or 170.11(a)(1)(ix), the agricultural employer must promptly update the 

pesticide safety information display. 

(3) Location. The pesticide safety information must be displayed at a place on the 

agricultural establishment where workers and handlers are likely to pass by or congregate and it 

can be readily seen and read. The pesticide safety information must also be displayed anywhere 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 296 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

that decontamination supplies must be provided on the agricultural establishment pursuant to §§ 

170.111 or 170.209. 

(4) Accessibility. Workers and handlers must be allowed access to the pesticide safety 

information at all times when the information is required to be displayed. 

(5) Legibility. The pesticide safety information must remain legible at all times when the 

information is required to be displayed. 

(b) Keeping and providing information about pesticides used on the agricultural 

establishment -- (1) Content and timing. Whenever pesticide information is required to be 

provided under §170.9(h), the agricultural employer must maintain copies of the pesticide 

product labellabeling and the safety data sheet for the pesticide product(s) applied and record all 

of the following information no later than the end of the work day that the application takes 

place: 

(i) The name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide product 

applied. 

(ii) The crop or site treated and the location and description of the treated area. 

(iii) The date(s) and times the application started and ended. 

(iv) The end date and duration of the restricted-entry interval. 

(2) Record Retention and Accessibility. The agricultural employer must maintain the 

pesticide information described in §170.11(b)(1) on the agricultural establishment for 2 years 

after the date of expiration of any restricted-entry interval, and make the information available to 

any worker(s), handler(s), or their authorized representative(s) upon request during normal work 

hours. 

§170.13 Commercial pesticide handler employer duties. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 297 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Commercial pesticide handler employers must: 

(a) Ensure that any pesticide applied on an agricultural establishment is used in a manner 

consistent with the pesticide product labeling, including the requirements of this part. 

(b) Ensure each handler subject to this part receives the protections required by this part. 

(c) Ensure that any handler is at least 16 years old. 

(d) Provide to each person, including labor contractors, who supervises any handlers, 

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, 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 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 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 entry restricted areas, or 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: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 298 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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) Restricted-entry interval. 

(5) Whether posting and oral notification are required under §170.109. 

(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) Ensure if there are any changes to the information provided in §170.13(i), that the 

agricultural employer is provided updated information within 2 hours after completing the 

application. Changes to the estimated application end time of less than 1 hour do not require 

notification. 

(k) Provide emergency assistance. If there is reason to believe that a person who is or has 

been employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment to perform tasks related to 

the production of agricultural plants, has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides as a 

result of that employment, the commercial pesticide handler employer must do all of the 

following, within 30 minutes 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 person may be working, to an 

operating emergency medical facility. 

(2) Provide to that person or treating medical personnel all of the following information 

for each pesticide product to which that person might have been exposed: 

(i) Copies of the applicable safety data sheet and the label for the pesticide product, or 

alternatively, a copy of the applicable safety data sheet for the pesticide product and the product 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 299 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

name, EPA registration number, active ingredients, antidote, and first aid and medical treatment 

information listed on the pesticide product labeling. 

(ii) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide(s). 

(iii) The circumstances that could have resulted in exposure to the pesticide(s). 

(l) Ensure that persons employed by the commercial pesticide handling establishment do 

not clean, repair, or adjust pesticide application equipment, unless trained as a handler under 

§170.201. 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 must provide all of the 

following information to such persons: 

(1) That 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. 

§170.15 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 attempting to comply with this part, or because 

the worker or handler has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in 

an investigation, proceeding, or hearing concerning compliance with this part. Any such 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 300 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

intimidation, threat, coercion, or discrimination violates FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), 7 U.S.C. 

136j(a)(2)(G). 

§170.17 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 productspecific instructions on the pesticide product labeling. 

(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. 

Subpart B – Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Workers 

§170.101 Training requirements for workers. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 301 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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 bearing a label 

requiring compliance with this part 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 and in §170.309 of this part. 

(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 of § 170.201. 

(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 a requirement for such certification or licensing is pesticide safety training that 

includes all the topics set out in §170.201(c)(2) and (3). 

(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. A 

person that meets the trainer requirements of §170.101(c)(4) must be present during the entire 

training program to conduct the training and must respond to workers’ questions. 

(2) The training must include, at a minimum, all of the following topics: 

(i) Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with information and 

protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses. This includes 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 302 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

providing pesticide safety training, pesticide safety and application information, decontamination 

supplies, and emergency medical assistance, and notifying workers of restrictions during 

applications and on entering pesticide treated areas. 

(ii) How to recognize and understand the meaning of the field warning sign 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 entry-restricted or 

pesticide treated areas. 

(iv) Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work activities and 

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

pesticide residues may be on or in plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, 

or used personal protective equipment and that pesticides may drift through the air from nearby 

applications. 

(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) Potential hazards from chemigation and drift. 

(vii) Routes through which pesticides can enter the body. 

(viii) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. 

(ix) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. 

(x) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eye 

flushing techniques. 

(xi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on 

the body and as soon as possible, shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes. 

(xii) How and when to obtain emergency medical care. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 303 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(xiii) When working near pesticides or 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. 

(xiv) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes 

as soon as possible after working near or in pesticide treated areas. 

(xv) Potential hazards from pesticide residues on clothing. 

(xvi) Wash work clothes before wearing again. 

(xvii) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes. 

(xviii) Do not take pesticides or pesticide containers used at work to your home. 

(3) After [date 2 years after effective date of the final rule specified in §170.7] if EPA has 

announced availability of training materials that comply with the requirements of 

§170.101(c)(2)(i)-(xviii) and §170.101(c)(3)(i)-(ix) in the Federal Register by [date 18 months 

after effective date specified in §170.7], or 180 days after EPA announces availability of training 

materials that comply with the requirements of §170.101(c)(2)(i)-(xviii) and §170.101(c)(3)(i)-

(ix) in the Federal Register if announced after [date 18 months after effective date specified in 

§170.7], the training must also include all of the following: 

(i) Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with pesticide hazard 

information. 

(ii) Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load or apply 

pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

handler. 

(iii) There are minimum age restrictions and notification requirements for early entry 

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

Page 304 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(iv) Potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure. 

(v) Keep children and nonworking family members away from pesticide treated areas. 

(vi) Remove work boots or shoes before entering home. 

(vii) After working near or in pesticide treated areas, remove work clothes and wash or 

shower before physical contact with children or family members. 

(viii) How to report suspected pesticide use violations to the state or tribal agency 

responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

(ix) Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

discriminating against any worker for attempting to comply with the requirements of this part, or 

because the worker has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this part. 

(4) The person who conducts the training must meet one of the following: 

(i) Be designated as a trainer of certified applicators 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) Until [date 2 years after effective date of the final rule specified in § 170.7], a 

certified applicator of restricted use pesticides under part 171 may conduct worker training. 

(d) Recordkeeping. (1) For each worker required to be trained under paragraph (a), the 

agricultural employer must maintain on the agricultural establishment, for 2 years from the date 

of the training, a record including all of the following: 

(i) The trained worker’s printed name and signature. 

(ii) The trained worker’s date of birth. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 305 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(iii) The date of the training. 

(iv) Information identifying which EPA-approved training materials were used. 

(v) The trainer’s name and documentation showing that the trainer met the requirements 

of §170.101(c)(4) at the time of training. 

(vi) The agricultural employer’s name. 

(2) For each worker trained, the agricultural employer must provide to the worker a 

record of the training that contains the information required under §170.101(d)(1). 

§170.103 Establishment-specific information for workers. 

(a) Requirement. Before any worker performs any task in a treated area on an agricultural 

establishment where within the last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring 

compliance with this part 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 

establishment-specific information in accordance with this section. The establishment-specific 

information must be provided orally, in a manner the worker can understand. 

(b) Content. The establishment-specific information must include all of the following: 

(1) The location of pesticide safety information required by §170.11(a). 

(2) The location of pesticide application and hazard information required by §170.11(b). 

(3) The location of decontamination supplies required by §170.111. 

§170.105 Entry restrictions associated with pesticide applications. 

(a) Outdoor production pesticide applications. During any outdoor production pesticide 

application described in column A of Table 1 of this paragraph, the agricultural employer must 

not allow or direct any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped 

handler, to enter or to remain in the entry-restricted area specified in column B of Table 1 of this 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 306 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

paragraph. After the application is complete, the area subject to the label-specified restrictedentry interval and the post-application entry restrictions specified in §170.107 is the treated area. 

Table 1 – Entry-Restricted Areas During Outdoor Production Pesticide Applications 

A. During application of a pesticide: B. Workers and other persons, other 

than appropriately trained and equipped 

handlers, are prohibited in: 

(1)(a) Applied: 

(i) Aerially, or 

(ii) In an upward direction, or 

(iii) Using a spray pressure greater than 

150 psi, or 

(b) Applied as a: 

(i) Fumigant, or 

(ii) Smoke, or 

(iii) Mist, or 

(iv) Fog, or 

(v) Aerosol. 

Treated area plus 100 feet around the 

treated area within the boundaries of the 

agricultural establishment. 

(2)(a) Applied downward using: 

(i) A height of greater than 12 inches from 

the planting medium, or 

(ii) A fine spray (droplet median diameter 

of 101-200 microns), or 

Treated area plus 25 feet around the treated 

area, within the boundaries of the 

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

Page 307 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

A. During application of a pesticide: B. Workers and other persons, other 

than appropriately trained and equipped 

handlers, are prohibited in: 

(iii) A spray pressure greater than 40 psi 

and less than 150 psi 

(b) Not as in (1) or (2)(a) above but for 

which a respiratory protection device is 

required for application by the product 

label. 

(3) Applied otherwise. Treated area 

(b) Enclosed space production pesticide applications. (1) During any enclosed space 

production pesticide application described in column A of Table 2 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, to enter or to remain in the entry-restricted area 

specified in column B of Table 2 during the application and until the time specified in column C 

of Table 2 has expired. 

(2) After the time specified in column C of Table 2 under paragraph (b)(4) of this section 

has expired, the area subject to the label-specified restricted-entry interval and the postapplication entry restrictions specified in §170.107 is the area specified in column D of Table 2 

under paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 308 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 (3) When column C of Table 2 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 the labeling requires to be achieved. 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 1 hour of mechanical ventilation. 

(v) Eleven hours with no ventilation followed by 2 hours of passive ventilation. 

(vi) Twenty-four hours with no ventilation. 

(4) The following Table 2 applies to paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (3) of this section. 

Table 2 – Entry-Restricted Areas 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 restrictedentry interval is: 

(1) As a fumigant. Entire enclosed 

space plus any 

The ventilation 

criteria of paragraph 

No post-application 

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

Page 309 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

adjacent structure or 

area that cannot be 

sealed off from the 

treated area. 

(b)(3) of this section 

are met. 

required by § 

170.107 after 

criteria in column C 

are met. 

(2) As a 

(i) Smoke, or 

(ii) Mist, or 

(iii) Fog, or 

(iv) Aerosol. 

Entire enclosed 

space. 

The ventilation 

criteria of paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section 

are met. 

Entire enclosed 

space. 

(3) Not in (1) or (2) 

above, and for 

which a respiratory 

protection device is 

required for 

application by the 

product label. 

Entire enclosed 

space. 

The ventilation 

criteria of paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section 

are met. 

Treated area. 

(4) Not in (1), (2), 

or (3) above, and: 

(i) From a height of 

greater than 12 in. 

from the planting 

medium, or 

Treated area plus 25 

feet in all directions 

of the treated area, 

but not outside the 

enclosed space. 

Application is 

complete. 

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

Page 310 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(ii) As a fine spray 

(droplet median 

diameter of 101-200 

microns), or 

(iii) Using a spray 

pressure greater 

than 40 psi. 

(5) Otherwise. Treated area. Application is 

complete. 

Treated area. 

§170.107 Worker entry restrictions after pesticide applications.

(a) After the application of any pesticide in outdoor production on an agricultural 

establishment, 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 labeling 

has expired and all treated area warning signs have been removed, except for early entry 

activities permitted by §170.303. 

(b) After the application of any pesticide in 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 in Table 2 under §170.105(b)(4), before the restricted-entry interval specified on the 

pesticide labeling has expired and all treated area warning signs have been removed, except for 

early entry activities permitted by §170.303. 

(c) When two or more pesticides are applied at the same time, the applicable restrictedentry interval is the longest of the applicable restricted-entry intervals.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 311 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

§170.109 Oral and posted notification of worker entry restrictions. 

(a) General Requirement. The agricultural employer must notify workers of all entry 

restrictions required by §§170.105 and 170.107 in accordance with this section. 

(1) Type of notification required -- (i) Outdoor production applications. If a pesticide 

with product labeling that requires a restricted-entry interval greater than 48 hours is applied in 

outdoor production, the agricultural employer must notify workers of the application by posting 

warning signs in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. If the product labeling of the 

pesticide requires a restricted-entry interval equal to or less than 48 hours, 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. 

(ii) Enclosed space production applications. If a pesticide with product labeling that 

requires a restricted-entry interval greater than 4 hours is applied in enclosed space production, 

the agricultural employer must notify workers of the application by posting warning signs in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. If the product labeling of the pesticide requires a 

restricted-entry interval equal to or less than 4 hours, 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. 

(iii) 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 the worker in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 312 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(2) Exceptions. Notification need not 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 enclosed space production until the end of the 

application and during any restricted-entry interval, no workers will enter the entire enclosed 

space. 

(ii) The only worker(s) for which notification is required were also involved in the 

application of the pesticide as handlers, and they are aware of all information required by 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(iii) From the start of the application in outdoor production until the end of the 

application and during any restricted-entry interval, no worker(s) will enter, work in, remain in, 

or pass through on foot the treated area or any area within 1/4 mile of the treated area on the 

agricultural establishment. 

(b) Requirements for posted warning signs. When posting is required, the agricultural 

employer must, unless otherwise prescribed by the label, ensure that the warning sign(s) 

conforms to 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, 

other than entry permitted by §170.303 of this part, is prohibited for the entire area while the 

signs are posted. 

(1) General. The warning signs must meet all of the following requirements: 

(i) Be one of the three sizes specified in this paragraph (b) 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. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 313 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(iii) Remain posted throughout the application and any restricted-entry interval. 

(iv) Be removed or covered within 3 days after the end of the application or any 

restricted-entry interval, whichever is later, but under no circumstances shall the signs remain 

posted and uncovered when worker entry is permitted, other than entry permitted by §170.303 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 “Entry Restricted" and "Entrada Restringida" must be at the bottom of the sign. Letters 

for all words must be clearly legible. An octagon 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 octagon 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: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 314 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

 

(ii) The agricultural employer may replace the Spanish portion of the warning sign with 

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. 

(iii) Until [date 2 years after effective date of the final rule specified in §170.7], a 

warning sign meeting the following requirements may be substituted for the warning sign 

specified in paragraph (b)(i) of this section. The warning sign must have a background color that 

contrasts with red. The words “DANGER” and “PELIGRO,” plus “PESTICIDES” and 

“PESTICIDAS,” shall be at the top of the sign, and the words “KEEP OUT” and “NO ENTRE” 

shall be at the bottom of the sign. Letters for all words must be clearly legible. A circle 

containing an upraised hand on the left and a stern face on the right must be near the center of the 

sign. The inside of the circle must be red, except that the hand and a large portion of the face 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 315 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

must be in a shade that contrasts with red. The length of the hand must be at least twice the 

height of the smallest letters. The length of the face must be only slightly smaller than the hand. 

Additional information such as the name of the pesticide and the date of application may appear 

on the warning sign if it does not detract from the appearance of the sign or change the meaning 

of the required information. An example of a warning sign meeting these requirements, other 

than the size and color requirements, follows: 

(3) Size and posting. (i) The standard sign must be at least 14 inches by 16 inches with 

letters at least 1 inch in height. 

(ii) When posting treated areas in outdoor production 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 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 316 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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 treated areas in enclosed space production using the standard sign, 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 octagon at least 3 

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 octagon 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 octagon smaller than one and a half 

inches in diameter containing an upraised hand and a stern face is not permitted. 

(c) Oral warnings -- (1) Requirement. The agricultural employer must provide oral 

warnings to workers in a manner that the workers can understand. If a worker is on the premises 

when an application will occur, the warning must be given before the application begins. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 317 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

Otherwise, the warning must be given at the beginning of the worker's first work period during 

which the application is taking place or the restricted-entry interval for the pesticide is in effect. 

The warning must include all of the following: 

(i) The location(s) and description of the entry-restricted area(s) and the treated area(s). 

(ii) The dates and times during which entry is restricted. 

(iii) Instructions not to enter the entry-restricted area during application, and not to enter 

the treated area until the restricted-entry interval has expired. 

§170.111 Worker decontamination supplies. 

(a) Requirement. The agricultural employer must provide decontamination supplies 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) General conditions. The decontamination supplies required in paragraph (a) of this 

section must include 1 gallon of water per worker for routine washing and emergency eye 

flushing, 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. When 

water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing pesticides, it must not be used for decontamination 

or eye flushing, unless the tank is equipped with properly functioning valves or other 

mechanisms that prevent movement of pesticides into the tank, such as anti-backflow siphon 

devices, one-way or check valves, or an air gap sufficient to prevent contamination. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 318 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(2) Soap and single-use towels. The agricultural employer must provide soap and singleuse towels for drying in quantities sufficient to meet the workers' 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 4 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 a restricted-entry 

interval of 4 hours or less, the decontamination supplies must be provided from the time workers 

first enter the treated area until at least 7 days after the restricted-entry interval expires. 

(d) Location. (1) The decontamination supplies must be located together and be 

reasonably accessible to and not more than 1/4 mile from where workers are working. 

(2) Where workers are working more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of vehicular 

access, the soap, single-use towels, clean change of clothing, and water may be at the nearest 

place of vehicular access. 

(3) The decontamination supplies must be outside any treated area. 

Subpart C – Requirements for Protection of Agricultural Pesticide Handlers 

§170.201 Training requirements for handlers. 

(a) General requirement. Before any handler performs any handler activity involving a 

pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with this part, 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 persons need not be trained under this section: 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 319 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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 §170.201(c)(2) and (3). 

(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. A 

person that meets the handler trainer requirements of §170.201(c)(4) must be present during the 

entire training program to conduct the training and must respond to handlers’ questions. 

(2) The pesticide safety training materials must include, at a minimum, all of the 

following: 

(i) All the topics required by §170.101(c)(2).

(ii) Information on proper application and use of pesticides. 

(iii) Handlers must follow all pesticide labeling and use directions. 

(iv) Format and meaning of all information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling. 

(v) Need for and appropriate use and removal of all personal protective equipment. 

(vi) How to recognize, prevent, and provide first aid treatment for heat-related 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. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 320 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(ix) Handlers must not apply pesticides in a manner that results in contact with workers 

or other persons. 

(x) Handler employers are required 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. 

 (3) After [date 2 years after effective date of final rule specified in §170.7] if EPA has 

announced availability of training materials that comply with the requirements of 

§170.201(c)(2)(i)-(x) and §170.201(c)(3)(i)-(iv) in the Federal Register by [date 18 months after 

effective date specified in §170.7], or 180 days after EPA announces availability of training 

materials that comply with the requirements of §170.201(c)(2)(i)-(x) and §170.201(c)(3)(i)-(iv) 

in the Federal Register if announced after [date 18 months after effective date specified in 

§170.7], the training materials must also include all of the following: 

(i) Handlers must cease or suspend a pesticide application if workers or other persons are 

in the treated area or the entry-restricted area. 

(ii) Handlers must be at least 16 years of age. 

(iii) Handler employers must ensure handlers have received respirator fit-testing, training 

and medical evaluation if they are required to wear a respirator. 

(iv) Handler employers must post treated areas as required by this rule. 

(v) All the topics specified in §170.101(c)(3). 

(4) The person who conducts the training must meet one of the following: 

(i) Be certified as an applicator of restricted use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 321 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(ii) Be designated as a trainer of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by EPA or the 

state or tribal agency responsible for pesticide enforcement. 

(iii) Have completed an EPA-approved pesticide safety train-the-trainer program for 

handler trainers. 

(d) Recordkeeping. (1) Handler employers must maintain records of training for handlers 

employed by their establishment for 2 years from 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 trained handler’s date of birth. 

(iii) The date of the training. 

(iv) Information identifying which EPA-approved training materials were used. 

(v) The trainer’s name and documentation showing that the trainer met the requirements 

of §170.201(c)(4) at the time of training. 

(vi) The handler employer’s name. 

(2) For each handler trained, the handler employer must provide a record of the training 

to the handler that contains the information required under §170.201(d)(1). 

§170.203 Knowledge of labeling, application-specific, and establishment-specific 

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 bearing a label requiring compliance with this part, the handler either has read the 

pesticide product labeling or has been informed in a manner the handler can understand of all 

labeling requirements and use directions necessary for proper use of the pesticide. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 322 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(2) The handler employer must ensure that the handler has access to the product labeling 

at all times during handler activities. 

(3) The handler employer must ensure that the handler is aware of requirements for any 

entry-restricted areas as described in §170.105. 

(b) Knowledge of establishment-specific information -- (1) Requirement. Before any 

handler performs any pesticide handler activity on an agricultural establishment where within the 

last 30 days a pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with this part 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 of establishment-specific information in 

accordance with this paragraph (b). The establishment-specific information must be provided 

orally, in a manner the handler can understand. 

(2) Content. The establishment-specific information must include all of the following: 

(i) The location of pesticide safety information required by §170.11(a). 

(ii) The location of pesticide application and hazard information required by §170.11(b). 

(iii) The location of decontamination supplies required by § 170.209. 

§170.205 Requirements during applications to protect handlers, workers, and other 

persons. 

(a) Contact with workers and other persons. 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 located on the establishment. 

(b) Suspending applications. After [date 2 years after effective date of final rule specified 

in § 170.7], the handler performing the application must immediately stop or suspend a pesticide 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 323 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

application if any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped 

handler, is in the treated area or entry-restricted area. 

(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 2 hours. 

(d) Fumigant applications in enclosed space production. The handler employer must 

ensure all of the following: 

(1) That any handler who enters an entry-restricted area described in Table 2 of §170.105, 

maintains continuous visual or voice contact with another handler stationed immediately outside 

of the enclosed space. 

(2) That the handler stationed outside the enclosed space has immediate access to and 

uses the personal protective equipment required by the fumigant labeling for handlers, in the 

event that entry becomes necessary for rescue. 

§170.207 Personal protective equipment. 

(a) Handler responsibilities. Any person who performs handler activities involving a 

pesticide product bearing a label requiring compliance with this part must use the clothing and 

personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide product labeling for use of the product. 

(b) Employer responsibilities for providing personal protective equipment. The handler 

employer must provide to the handler the personal protective equipment required by 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, short-sleeved shirts, long pants, short pants, shoes, and socks are not 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 324 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

considered personal protective equipment, even though pesticide labeling may require such work 

clothing to be worn. 

(1) When "chemical-resistant" personal protective equipment is specified by the pesticide 

product labeling to be worn, it must be made of material that the manufacturer has declared, in 

writing, to be chemical resistant. 

(2) When "waterproof" personal protective equipment is specified by the pesticide 

product labeling to be worn, it must be made of material that allows no measurable movement of 

water or aqueous solutions through the material during ordinary conditions of use. 

 (3) When a "chemical-resistant suit" is specified by the pesticide product labeling to be 

worn, it must be a loose-fitting, one- or two-piece chemical-resistant garment that covers, at a 

minimum, the entire body except head, hands, and feet. 

(4) When "coveralls" are specified by the pesticide product labeling to 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 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 325 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

chemical-resistant gloves under which they are worn. Chemical-resistant gloves with nonseparable 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) When "chemical-resistant footwear" is specified by the pesticide product labeling to 

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) When "protective eyewear" is specified by the pesticide product labeling to 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) When a "chemical-resistant apron" is specified by the pesticide product labeling to be 

worn, an apron that covers the front of the body from mid-chest to the knees must be worn. 

(9) The respirator specified by the pesticide product labeling must be used. Whenever a 

respirator other than a dust/mist filtering respirator is required by the pesticide product labeling, 

the handler employer must ensure that the requirements of paragraphs (b)(9)(i) through (iii) of 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 326 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

this section are met before the handler performs any pesticide handler activity where the 

respirator is required to be worn. The handler employer must maintain for 2 years, on the 

establishment, records documenting the completion of the requirements of paragraphs (b)(9)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Handler employers must provide handlers with fit-testing using the respirator specified 

on the pesticide product labellabeling 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 labellabeling in a manner that conforms to the provisions of 29 

CFR 1910.134. 

(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 labellabeling. 

(10) When "chemical-resistant headgear" is specified by the pesticide product labeling, it 

must be either a chemical-resistant hood or a chemical-resistant hat with a wide brim. 

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

Page 327 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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 be cleaned properly, the handler 

employer must render the personal protective equipment unusable and dispose of it in 

accordance with any applicable federal, state, and local 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. 

(3) The handler employer must ensure that contaminated personal protective equipment is 

kept separately 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 dust/mist filtering 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 8 

hours of cumulative use. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 328 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(7) The handler employer must ensure that when gas- or vapor-removing respirators are 

used, the gas- or vapor-removing canisters or cartridges are 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 breathing resistance becomes excessive. 

(iii) According to manufacturer's recommendations or pesticide product labeling 

instructions, whichever is more frequent. 

(iv) In the absence of any other instructions or indications of service life, at the end of 8 

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. 

(ii) The potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides. 

(iii) The correct way(s) to clean personal protective equipment and to protect themselves 

when handling such equipment. 

(iv) Proper decontamination and personal hygiene practices. 

(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 in use. 

(ii) Put on personal protective equipment at the start of any exposure period. 

(iii) Remove personal protective equipment at the end of any exposure period. 

(10) The handler employer must not allow or direct any handler to wear home or to take 

home personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 329 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(e) Heat-related illness. Where a pesticide label requires the use of personal protective 

equipment for a handler activity, the handler employer must take appropriate measures to prevent 

heat-related illness. 

§170.209 Handler decontamination supplies. 

(a) Requirement. The handler employer must provide decontamination 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 §170.207(d)(9). 

(b) General conditions. The decontamination supplies required in paragraph (a) of this 

section must include: at least 3 gallons of water per handler for routine hand washing, emergency 

eye flushing, and washing the entire body in case of an emergency; soap; single-use towels; and 

clean clothing for use in an emergency. The decontamination supplies must meet all of the 

following requirements: 

(1) Water. At all times when this section requires handler employers to make water 

available to handlers, 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. When 

water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing pesticides, it must not be used for decontamination 

or eye flushing, unless the tank is equipped with properly functioning valves or other 

mechanisms that prevent movement of pesticides into the tank, such as anti-backflow siphon 

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

Page 330 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

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 of any 

treated area, and be reasonably accessible to and not more than 1/4 mile from each handler 

during the handler activity. 

(1) Exception for mixing sites. For mixing activities, decontamination supplies must be at 

the 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 handling pesticides in remote areas. Where handler activities are 

performed more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of vehicular access, the soap, single-use 

towels, clean change of clothing, and water may be at the nearest place of vehicular access. 

(4) Exception for treated areas. The decontamination supplies must be outside any 

treated area or area subject to a restricted-entry interval, unless all of the following conditions are 

met:

(i) The soap, single-use towels, and clean change of clothing are protected from pesticide 

contamination in closed containers. 

(ii) The water is protected from pesticide contamination in closed containers. 

(d) Emergency eyeflushing. If the product label requires protective eyewear for handlers, 

the following requirements apply. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 331 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(1) To provide for emergency eyeflushing, the handler employer must provide at least 1 

pint of water per handler in portable containers that are immediately available to each handler 

who is performing activities for which the pesticide labeling requires protective eyewear. 

(2) A system capable of delivering at least 1.5 liters (0.4 gallons) of water per minute for 

15 minutes must be provided at all permanent pesticide mixing and loading sites when the label 

requires protective eyewear for mixing, loading, or applying. 

Subpart D - Exemptions and Exceptions 

§170.301 Exemptions. 

(a) Exemption for owners of agricultural establishments and their immediate families. (1) 

On any agricultural establishment that is wholly owned by an individual, or where all of the 

owners of the establishment are 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 tasks or 

tasks related to the production of agricultural plants that would otherwise be covered by this part 

on their own agricultural establishment. 

(i) §170.9(c). 

(ii) §170.9(f) through (j). 

(iii) §170.11. 

(iv) §170.101. 

(v) §170.103. 

(vi) §170.109. 

(vii) §170.111 and 170.209. 

(viii) §170.201. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 332 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(ix) §170.203. 

(x) §170.205(c) and (d). 

(xi) §170.207(c) through (e). 

(xii) §170.305(a) through (c) and (e) through (k). 

(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) Certified crop advisors. The requirements of §§ 170.9(e), 170.203(a), 170.207 and 

170.209 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 §170.201(c)(2) and (3). 

(3) The crop advisor who enters a treated area during a restricted-entry interval only 

performs crop advising tasks while in the treated area. 

§170.303 Exceptions for entry by workers during restricted-entry intervals. 

An agricultural employer may direct workers to enter treated areas where a restrictedentry interval is in effect to perform certain activities as provided in this section, and provided 

that the agricultural employer ensures that the worker is at least 16 years old and all of the 

applicable conditions of this section and §170.305 of this part are met. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 333 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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 restricted-entry 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 §170.105(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 

1 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 §170.105(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 which the agricultural employer could not have 

anticipated and over which the agricultural employer has no control, and which requires entry 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 334 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

into a treated area during a restricted-entry interval, when no alternative practices would prevent 

or mitigate a substantial economic loss. A substantial economic loss means a loss in profitability 

greater than that which would be expected based on the experience and fluctuations of crop 

yields in previous years. Only losses caused by the agricultural emergency specific to the 

affected site and geographic area are considered. 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) EPA, the state department of agriculture, or the state or tribal agency responsible for 

pesticide enforcement declares the existence of circumstances that could cause an agricultural 

emergency on that agricultural establishment. 

(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 4 hours out of any 

24-hour period in treated areas where such a restricted-entry interval is in effect. 

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

Page 335 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(1) No hand labor activity is performed. 

(2) No worker is allowed in the treated area for more than 8 hours in a 24-hour period. 

(3) No 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 §170.105(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 minimal contact 

with feet, lower legs, hands, and forearms. 

(8) The label of the product that was applied does not require both posting and oral 

notification. 

§170.305 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) Prior to early entry, the agricultural employer must inform each early entry worker 

with the information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section. The information must be 

provided orally in a manner that the worker can understand. 

(1) Date of the entry. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 336 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(2) Location of early entry area. 

(3) Pesticide(s) applied. 

(4) Dates and times that the restricted-entry interval begins and ends. 

(5) Which exception in §170.303 is the basis for the early entry, and a description of tasks 

that may be performed under the exception. 

(6) Whether contact with treated surfaces is permitted under the exception. 

(7) Amount of time the worker is allowed to remain in the treated area. 

(8) Personal protective equipment required by the pesticide product labeling for early 

entry. 

(9) Location of the pesticide safety information and the location of the decontamination 

supplies required by §§170.11(a)(1) and 170.111(d). 

(b) The agricultural employer must maintain on the agricultural establishment for 2 years 

a record of the information provided to early entry workers under paragraph (a) of this section, 

along with the printed name, date of birth, and signature of each early entry worker who received 

the information. 

(c) Prior to early entry, the agricultural employer must ensure that each worker either has 

read the 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 workers. The agricultural employer must ensure that the 

worker uses the personal protective equipment as intended according to manufacturer’s 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 337 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

instructions and follows any other requirements on the pesticide product labeling regarding early 

entry. Personal protective equipment must conform to the standards in §170.207 (b)(1) through 

(8).

(e) The agricultural employer must maintain the personal protective equipment in 

accordance with §170.207(d)(1) through (8). 

(f) The agricultural employer must ensure that no worker is allowed or directed to wear 

personal protective equipment, without implementing measures sufficient to prevent heat-related 

illness and that each worker is instructed in the prevention, recognition, and first aid treatment of 

heat-related illness. 

(g) 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 §170.209, 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 those 

workers. 

(i) If the pesticide product labeling of the product applied requires protective eyewear, the 

agricultural employer must provide at least 1 pint of water per worker in portable containers that 

are immediately available to each worker who is performing early entry activities for emergency 

eyeflushing. 

(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 3 gallons of water per worker so that the workers may wash thoroughly. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 338 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

§170.307 Exceptions to personal protective equipment requirements specified on pesticide 

product labeling.

(a) Body protection. (1) A chemical-resistant suit may be substituted for coveralls, and 

any requirement for an additional layer of clothing beneath the coveralls is waived. 

(2) A chemical-resistant suit may be substituted for coveralls and a chemical-resistant 

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 

as defined in §170.5 that meets all of the criteria 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, 

chemical-resistant apron, protective eyewear, and any protective gloves specified on the labeling 

for handlers for the labeling-specified personal protective equipment. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 339 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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 labeling-specified personal protective equipment. 

(2) The exceptions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section apply only where the closed system 

meets all of the following criteria: 

(i) The pesticide must be removed from its original shipping container and transferred 

through connecting hoses pipes, and/or couplings that are sufficiently tight to prevent exposure 

of any person to the concentrate, use dilution, or rinse solution. 

(ii) All hoses, piping, tanks, and connections used in conjunction with a closed system 

must be of a type appropriate for the pesticide being used and, the pressure and vacuum of the

system. 

(iii) All sight gauges must be protected against breakage. Sight gauges must be equipped 

with valves so the pipes to the sight gauge can be shut off in case of breakage or leakage. 

(iv) The closed system must adequately measure the pesticide being used. Measuring 

devices must be accurately calibrated to the smallest unit in which the material is being weighed 

or measured. 

(v) The movement of a pesticide concentrate beyond a pump by positive pressure must 

not exceed 25 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. 

(vi) A probe must not be removed from a container except when the pesticide is used 

without dilution and the container has been emptied or the container is emptied and the inside, as 

well as the probe, have been rinsed in accordance with §170.307(d)(2)(viii). 

(vii) Shut-off devices must be installed on the exit end of all hoses and at all disconnect 

points to prevent the pesticide from leaking when the transfer is stopped and the hose is removed 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 340 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

or disconnected. If the hose carried pesticide concentrate and has not been rinsed in accordance 

with §170.307(d)(2)(viii), a dry break coupler that will minimize pesticide loss to not more than 

two milliliters per disconnect must be installed at the disconnect point. If the hose carried a 

pesticide use dilution or rinse solution, a reversing action pump or a similar system that will 

empty the hose may be used as an alternative to a shutoff device. 

(viii) When the pesticide is to be diluted for use, the closed system must provide for 

adequate rinsing of containers that have held less than 60 gallons of a liquid pesticide. Rinsing 

must be done with a medium, such as water, that contains no pesticide. The system must be 

capable of spray-rinsing the inner surfaces of the container and the rinse solution must go into 

the pesticide mix tank or applicator vehicle via the closed system. The system must be capable of 

rinsing the probe, if used, and all hoses, measuring devices, etc. A minimum of 15 psi of pressure 

must be used for rinsing. The rinsing must be continued until minimum of 10 gallons or one-half 

of the container volume, whichever is less, has been used. The rinse solution must be removed 

from the pesticide container concurrently with introduction of the rinse medium. Pesticide 

containers must be protected against excessive pressure during the container rinse operation. The 

maximum container pressure must not exceed five psi. 

(ix) Each commercially produced closed system or component to be used with a closed 

system must be sold with complete instructions consisting of a functional operating manual and a 

decal(s) covering the basic operation. The decal(s) must be placed in a prominent location on the 

system. The system must include specific directions for cleaning and maintenance of the system 

on a scheduled basis and information on any restrictions or limitations relating to the system, 

such as pesticides that are incompatible with materials used in the construction of the system, 

types (or sizes) of containers or closures that cannot be handled by the system, any limits on 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 341 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

ability to correct or over measurement of a pesticide, or special procedures or limitations on the 

ability of the system to deal with partial containers 

(3) The exceptions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section apply only where the handler 

employer has satisfied the requirements of §170.13 and all of the following conditions: 

(i) 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 and for 

inspection by authorized officials. 

(ii) The handler employer must assure that any handler operating the closed system is 

trained in its use and operates the closed system in accordance with the manufacturer’s written 

operating instructions. 

(iii) The closed system must be cleaned and maintained as specified in the manufacturer's 

written operating instructions and as needed to make sure the system functions properly. If the 

system is not a commercially produced system it must be maintained on a regular basis. 

(iv) A record of the cleaning and maintenance must be maintained on the establishment 

for 2 years. 

(v) All personal protective equipment specified in the pesticide product labeling is 

immediately available to the handler for use in an emergency. 

(vi) The handler employer ensures that protective eyewear is worn when using closed 

systems operating under pressure. 

(e) Enclosed cabs. (1) If a handler applies a pesticide from inside an enclosed cab, and if 

the conditions listed in paragraph (e)(2) of this section are met, handlers may substitute a longsleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for the labeling-specified personal protective 

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

Page 342 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(2) All of the applicator personal protective equipment required by the pesticide product 

labeling must be immediately available and stored in an enclosed container, such as a plastic bag, 

to prevent contamination. Handlers must wear chemical-resistant gloves in addition to any 

personal protective equipment required by the pesticide product labeling for applicators, 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. 

(f) Aerial applications -- (1) Use of gloves. Chemical-resistant gloves must be worn when 

entering or leaving an aircraft that may be contaminated by pesticide residues. In the cockpit, the 

gloves must be kept in an enclosed container, such as a plastic bag, to prevent contamination of 

the inside of the cockpit. 

(2) Open cockpit. Handlers occupying an open cockpit must use the personal protective 

equipment specified in the pesticide product labeling for use during application, except that 

chemical-resistant 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. Handlers occupying an enclosed cockpit may substitute a longsleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for labeling-specified personal protective equipment. 

(g) Crop advisors. Crop advisors entering treated areas while a restricted-entry interval is 

in effect may wear the personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide labeling for early 

entry activities instead of the personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide labeling 

for handler activities, provided that all of the following conditions are met: 

(1) The application has been complete for at least 4 hours. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 343 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(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 §170.105(b)(3) or the 

pesticide product labeling have been met. 

§170.309 Exception to training requirements for workers. 

An agricultural employer may allow or direct a worker to perform tasks in a treated area 

on an agricultural establishment for up to two days without training the worker in accordance 

with §170.101 provided the agricultural employer ensures all of the conditions of this section are 

met. 

(a) The worker is trained in accordance with §170.101 before the third day of working in 

a treated area on the establishment. 

(b) The worker will not enter a treated area on the agricultural establishment while any 

restricted-entry interval is in effect. 

(c) The worker is provided with a copy of a pesticide information sheet that contains all 

of the points and information listed in §170.309(e)(1) through (15) prior to conducting any tasks 

in a treated area, and that same information is communicated to the worker orally in a manner the 

worker understands. 

(d) The agricultural employer must maintain on the agricultural establishment for a 

period of 2 years a record of the information provided to the worker under §170.309(c), along 

with the printed name of the worker, date of birth, the date the information was provided, the 

employer’s name, and employer’s phone number or phone number of the establishment, and 

signature of the worker affirming that he or she has been provided a copy of the information 

sheet required by §170.309(c), has had the information communicated to him or her orally in a 

manner the worker understands, and has understood the information. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 344 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(e) Pesticide information sheets required by §170.309(c) must convey the following 

points and information: 

(1) Agricultural employers are required to provide workers with information and 

protections designed to reduce work-related pesticide exposures and illnesses, including the 

following: 

(i) Employers are required to provide pesticide safety information to workers before 

being asked to work in pesticide treated areas if they have not received full pesticide safety 

training. 

(ii) Employers are required to provide the full pesticide safety training to workers before 

their third day of work in pesticide treated areas. 

(iii) Employers are required to provide pesticide safety information, pesticide hazard 

information for products used on the establishment, decontamination supplies, emergency 

medical assistance, and notification to workers of restrictions during applications and on entering 

pesticide treated areas. 

(2) Agricultural employers must inform workers 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. Workers must follow employer directions and/or 

signs about keeping out of entry restricted or pesticide treated areas. 

(3) Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker who has not received full 

pesticide safety training and additional early entry worker training to work in any area that is 

currently under a restricted-entry interval. Employers must comply with minimum age 

restrictions and notification requirements in order to direct workers to perform early-entry 

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

Page 345 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(4) Agricultural employers must not allow or direct any worker to mix, load, or apply 

pesticides or assist in the application of pesticides unless the worker has been trained as a 

handler. 

(5) Agricultural employers are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or 

discriminating against any worker for the purposes of interfering with any attempt to comply 

with the requirements of this part, or because the worker has made a complaint, testified, 

assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing pursuant to this 

part. 

(6) There are potential sources of pesticide exposure on agricultural establishments and 

pesticides and/or pesticide residues may be encountered during work activities. Pesticide 

residues may be on or in plants, soil, irrigation water, tractors, application equipment, or used 

personal protective equipment. Pesticides can also drift through air from nearby applications. 

Maintain a safe distance from nearby pesticide applications and leave the area immediately if 

pesticide sprays are contacting you. 

(7) Pesticides can cause illness or injury if they enter your body. Pesticides can enter the 

body by getting them on your skin or in your eyes, by swallowing them, or by breathing in their 

vapors. 

(8) There are potential hazards from toxicity and exposure that pesticides present to 

workers, including acute and chronic illnesses and effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. 

(9) There are potential hazards to children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure. 

(10) When working near pesticides or in pesticide treated areas wear work clothing that 

protects the body from pesticide residues and always wash hands before eating, drinking, using 

chewing gum or tobacco, or using the toilet. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 346 of 346 [RIN 2070–AJ22] 

(11) Wash or shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes as 

soon as possible after working near or in pesticide treated areas. 

(12) There are potential hazards from the pesticide residues that may be on work 

clothing. Wash work clothes before wearing them again, and always wash work clothes 

separately from other clothes. 

(13) Pesticides may cause skin rashes or hurt your eyes, nose or throat. Pesticides can 

make you feel sick in different ways, such as headache or dizziness, muscles pain or cramps, 

nausea or vomiting, sweating, drooling, fatigue, or trouble breathing. 

(14) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on 

the body. Shower, shampoo hair, and change into clean clothes as soon as possible. If a pesticide 

gets in your eyes, hold them open and rinse with a gentle stream of cool water. Rinse eyes for 15 

minutes. 

(15) If you or someone you work with gets sick while working, tell your employer right 

away. If you suspect you have been injured or made ill from pesticides, get medical help as soon 

as possible. If you have been injured from pesticides while working, your employer must provide 

emergency transportation from the establishment to a nearby medical facility and provide 

information about the pesticide or pesticides that may have made you sick.