### Friday August 21, 1992



# Part, III



# Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 156 and 170

Worker Protection Standard, Hazard

Information, Hand L,abor Tasks on Cut

Flowers and Ferns 0=xception; Final Rule,

and Proposed Rules

### 38102 Rederal Regist er / Vol. 57, lqo. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / 

### Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION



### AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 156 and 170

[OPP-300164A; FRL-3774-61

RIN 2070

- AA49

Worker Protection Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY : EPA is issuing ffnal revisions to its regulations governing the protection of workers from agricultural pesticides. These revised regulations expand the scope of the standard to include not only workers performing hand_labor operations in fields treated with pesticides, but employees in forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and employees who handle (mfx, load, apply, etc.) pesticides for use in these locations. The regulations expand requirements for warnings about applications, use of personal protective equipment, and restrictions on entry to treated areas, and add new provisions for decontamination, emergency
assistance, contact with handlers of highly toxic pesticides, and pesticide safety training. Pesticide registrants are required to add appropriate labeling statements referencing these regulations and specifying application restrictions, restricted-entry intervals (REIs), personal protective equipment (PPE), and notification to workers of pesticide applications. EPA has determined that its present regulations are inadequate to protect agricultural workers and pesticide handlers who are occupationally exposed to pesticides. The revised regulations are intended to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers through implementation of appropriate exposure

reduction measures.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become

effective October 20, 1992.

ADDRESSES : Comments should be submitted in triplicate and addressed to the Document Control Offfcer (H7506C), Offfce of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. All

comments should bear the document

control number OPP

- 300164A and will be available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Office of Pesticides Program's Document Control Office, Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: James J. Boland, Acting Chief, Occupational Safety Branch (H7506C), Ffeld Operations Division, Offfce of Pre`vention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460. Office location and room number:

Rni. 1114, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hf,ghway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-7666.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Federal Register notice discusses the background and events leading to this final rule revising the Worker Protection Standard; summarizes the public's co:mments on the provisions of the
pr(iposed rule (53 FR 25970, July 8, 1988); provides EPA's response to comments and final determination with respect to provisions of the revised standard; discusses implementation of the revised stEIndard by registrants, the Agency, the St:ttes, and pesticide users; and provides inf'ormation on the applicable.statutory and regulatory review requirements. More detailed discussion of the public co:mments and the Agency's response are found in the Response to Public Coininents in the docket. The Agency is interested in receiving additional
co;mments, data, and other evidence co:qcerning both the general prohibition of routine hand )abor tasks during a re:i'tricted-entry interval and the mechanism for granting exceptions to that prohibition. Written comments, data, or other evidence concerning these topytcs should be submitted on or before

Oc:tober 20, 1992. Upon review of these
co:mments, EPA may modify this final ru1.e's restrictions upon entering an area that remains under a restricted-entry inierval or the process by which the exception requests are considered. As ati aid to the reader, the following is an

outline of the contents of this document:

I. Elackground ik. Legal Authority 13. History of the Worker Protection

Staindard

II.

, Organization and Summary of the Final

Rul'e A. Organization of the Final Rule 13. Summary of the Worker Protection

StEindard t'.. Summary of Risk-Benefit Analysis I). Minor Crop Statement E. Compliance Dates

III. Provisions of the Final Rule

t

~ . Restrictions Associated with Applications 13. Entry Restrictions C. Notice of Applications 1). Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

E. Decontamination F, Emergency Assistance G. Pesticide Safety Training.and

Information 13. Knowledge of Labeling Information

1. Other

IV. '

~ .abeling Statements A. Background of Proposal

B. Reference Statement

C. Other Statements V. Statutory Re

A. U.S. Department of Agriculture

B. Congressional Committees

C. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel VI. Implementation

A. Agency Implementation Strategy

B. Registrant Compliance

C. EPA Communication and Training

Efforts

D. National Compliance Monitoring Strategy

VII. Public Docket VIII. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12291

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Background

A. Legal Authority

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 135) was enacted in 1947. Since then, pesticide products have been subject to Federa) regulation under FIFRA. Today, they are required to be registered with

EPA.

In 1972, FIFRA was amended by the

Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 U.S.C.136). The amendments broadened Federal pesticide regulatory authority by making it "unlawful for any person to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" (7 U.S.C. section 136j(a)(2)(G)), and they pxovided civil and criminal penalties for violations of FIFRA (7 U.S.C.1361). The

amendments also authorized EPA to provide regulations to carry out FIFRA (7 U.S.C.136w(a)). These new or revised provisions augmented EPA's authority to pxotect humans and the environment

from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides.

During the congressional

consideration of FIFRA amendments in 1972, it was emphasized that FIFRA was to be implemented by EPA to protect einployees who might be exposed to pesticides or their residues. The legislative history of the 1972 ainendments indicates an express intent of Congress that farmers, farmworkers, and others be afforded such protection

under FIFRA. The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry rejected the need to include a specific provision in Fl[FRA to protect farmworkers. However, the Committee found "protection of man and the

environment" to be a broad term encompassing farmers, farmworkers,

and others who come into contact with pesticides, and stated that:

The Committee believes there can be no question ... but. . .that the bill [The Federal

Environmental Pesticide Control Act bf 1972

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38103

(FEPCA)] requires the Administrator to require that the labeling and classification of pesticides be such 

### as to protect farmers, farm workers, and others coming in contact with pesticides or pesticide residues. (S. Rep. No. 92-883, (Part II), 92nd Congress, 2nd Session at 43-46 (1972) (Agriculture and Forestry), U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News 1972, p. 4083).



### B. History of the Worker Protection

Standard

In 1974, EPA promulgated the regulations found at 40 CFR part 170 pursuant to its authority under FIFRA (39 FR 16888; May 10, 1974). That part,

entitled "Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides," dealt oniy with the pesticide-related occupationa) safety and health of "farm workers performing hand labor operations in fields after ground (other than those incorporated into the soil), aeriai, or other type of application of pesticides" (40 CFR 170.1). Part 170 consisted of four basic requirements: (1) A prohibition against spraying workers and other persons; (2) a general reentry interval for all agricultural pesticides prohibiting reentry into treated fields until the sprays had dried or dusts had settled and longer reentry intervals for 12 specific pesticides; (3) a requirement for protective clothing for any worker who

had to reenter treated fields before the specific reentry period had expired; and (4) a requirement for "appropriate and timely" warnings. Soil-incorporated pesticides, mosquito abatement treatrnents and related public pest control programs, greenhouse treatments, livestock and other animal treatrnents, and treatments 

### of golf courses and similar nonagricultural areas were exempted from coverage. EPA's authority to promulgate such requirements, including reentry interval standards designed to limit workers' occupational exposure to pesticides and pesticide residues (such as those in part 170) is established, not only in the legislative history but in the courts. See,

e.g., 

### Organized Migrants in Community Action v. Brennan (OMICA) 520 F.2d 1161 (D.C. Cir.1975) and 

### Public Citizen 

### Health Research Group, et al. v. 

### Auchter 702 F.2d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

In OMICA the Court of Appeals stated: Our own analysis of the statute [FIFRA] and its legislative history confirms EPA's ample statutory authority to issue field reentry standards to protect farm workers. (520 F.2d at 1165) ... Even before FEPCA's enactment, EPA and predecessor agencies construed the labeling provisions of FIFRA to require field reentry limitations for many pesticides. See 39 Fed. Reg.18888 (1974). However, these were merely informationai untii FEPCA made them enforceable. See id. at 16889. It is clear from an examination of the explanatory statement accompanying EPA's proposed and final rules that these standards (part 170) were promulgated and implemented under the labeling authority given-EPA by FEPCA.

(520 F.2d at 1168).

In June 1980, EPA announced a Label Improvement Program (LIP) under which labels of pesticide products are upgraded, improved, or revised to meet current labeling standards. On March 29, 1983, EPA issued a Farm Worker Safety LIP (PR Notice 83-2) calling for certain information to be placed on labels of "all outdoor agricultural use products which are applied to crops whose culture requires hand labor." In effect, PR 83-2 implemented 40 CFR part 170, promulgated 9 years before. PR 83-2 did not include mixing, loading, flagging, or equipment operation because part 170 was limited to farmworkers engaged in

hand labor. Greenhouse treatments and forestry uses were excluded for the

same reason. PR 83-2 defined the term "hand labor tasks" to mean crop production activities such as harvesting, detasseling, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker removal, summer pruning, moving irrigation equipment, and other tasks performed in the £ield by

farmworkers who could havesubstantial contact with pesticidetreated sur£aces such as plants and plant parts. An Agency review of 40 CFR part 170, conducted in 1983, concluded that the regulations were inadequate to protect agricultural workers. The review revealed concerns about enforceability and coverage and cited continuing reports of worker poisonings. In 1984, EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that announced its decision to revise part 170 and solicited public comment (49 FR 32605; August 15, 1984). Most comments favored revising part 170, but they expressed wide differences in opinion

about the revisions needed. EPA subsequently initiated a process of public participation known as regulatory negotiation. An Advisory Committee consisting of 25 representatives of farmworker unions, health care providers, agricu)tural trade associations, commercial pesticide applicators, pesticide registrants, State health and agriculture agencies, EPA, and other Federal agencies was constituted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). Negotiations began in November 1985. In early 1986, after several meetings, the representatives of the farmworker unions ended their participation. As a result, regulatory negotiation consensus was not possible. EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

### in the July 8, 1988, Federal Register. The proposed revisions expanded the scope of part 170 to include all employees performing tasks related to the production of agricultural plants on farms, in forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of pesticides intended for use on agricultural plants in these locations. The NPRM also expanded requirements

for notification to workers about applications, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and restrictions on entry to treated areas, and proposed to add new provisions for decontamination, emergency medical assistance, maintaining contact with handlers of highly toxic pesticides, chdlinesterase monitoring, and training. EPA also proposed to promulgate labeling regulations to require statements pertaining to general worker protection, entry intervals, personal protective equipment, and posting of

treated areas.
The proposed revisions were based on five major concerns. First, the Agency believed that data developed after 1974 on pesticide poisonings of workers revealed the inadequacies and shortcomings in the scope and requirements of part 170. Many of these data were placed into the record by EPA and other parties to this rulemaking. Second, the Agency stated that the enforcernent experiences of EPA and the States over the years had led the Agency to conclude that a clearer exposition 

### of liability and responsibility" provisions would lead to improved worker protection. Third, the Agency

had determined that since the reregistration program would not be completed for sorne pesticides far several years, measures were necessary to protect workers in the interim. Fourth, because EPA believed that protection should be provided to other workers, it proposed expanding coverage to workers not covered by the present part 170. Finally, the Agency noted the increased use of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides since 1974. These pesticides tend to be more acutely toxic to humans than pesticides commonly used in agriculture in the past.
During July and August of 1988, EPA held more than 15 public meetings, mostly in agricultura) areas of the country, to explain the proposed rules and to answer questions (see 53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988). The major meetings were held in: Washington, DC; Casa Grande, AZ; Fresno, CA; Greeley, CO; Orlando, FL; Forest Park, GA; Caldwell, ID; Des Moines, IA; Augusta, ME; Hagerstown, MD; Salisbury, MD; Holyoke, MA; New Paltz, NY; Maumee, OH; McAllen, TX; and Yakima, WA.~

~



### 38104 Federal Register / Vol. 57, IVo. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency received 380 comments totaling more than 2,000

pages. After a careful review and analysis of
the comments and data in the record, the Agency is promulgating this final rule revising 40 CFR part 170 (Worker Protection Standard) and adding part 156, subpart K (Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices).

II.Organization and Summary of the

Final Rule

A. Organization of the Final Rule

Many comments stressed that the proposal was confusing. EPA believes

that some of the confusion stemmed from the format of the proposed revisions. The proposed revisions included requirements for workers at

four different use sites and addressedmany differing activities including handlabor activities, non-hand-labor activities, early-entry activities, and handling activities.

EPA has changed the format of the final rule. The revisions to part 170 are now in the form of two separate, more

self-contained standards—one for pesticide handlers and one for workers on all covered sites: Farms, forests, greenhouses, and nurseries. This organization will reduce confusion and will make it easier for employers and their employees to understand the requirements, to comply with the provisions; and to propose amendments

if data so warrant in the future.

B. Summary of the Worker Protection

Standard

The provisions in the revised Worker

Protection Standard are directed toward the working conditions of two types of employees: those who handle agricultural pesticides (mix, load, apply, clean or repair equipment, act as flaggers, etc.) and those who perform

tasks related to the cultivation and harvesting of plants on farms or in greenhouses, nurseries, or forests. There are three types of provisions intended to: (1) Eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides; (2) mitigate exposures that occur; and (3) inform employees about the hazards of pesticides. A summary of these provisions is given here. Discussions of these provisions and summaries of the public's comments on these provisions are contained in Unit III of this preamble. More detailed discussion of the public's comments can

be found in a document entitled "Summary of the Public Comments and the Agency's Response, Worker

Protection Standard" in the docket. :t. Provisions to eliminate orreduce pe,sticide exposures. Exposure to pesticides can be reduced by excluding

workers from areas treated with pesticides, prohibiting handlers from applying a pesticide in a way that will expose workers or other persons, and prdtecting handlers during handling
activities. Hence, the final rule contains seVeral provisions to achieve this purpose such as application restrictions, entry restrictions, use of personal protective equipment, and notification to woikers of treated areas so they can avoid inadvertent exposures. a. Application restrictions. Three types of restrictions apply during applications: '.i, No pesticide may be applied in a manner that will cause it to contact any person except an appropriately trained and equipped handler.

:ii. No person, except an appropriately traiined and equipped handler, may be in an area or, in some cases, near an area being treated with pesticides.

:iii. The employer must make sure that any handler who is handling a pesticide with a skull and crossbones symbol on the label is monitored visually or by voice at least every 2 hours. Handlers using fumigants in greenhouses must be

in continuous visual or voice contact

with another handier. b. Zlse of personal protective equipment (PPE). Additional provisions to minimize exposure are directed toward the use of PPE. The appropriate PF'E based on the product's acute toxicity by route of exposure (dermal, ocular, or respiratory) will be specified in the product labeling for the work activity (handling or early entry). i: Persons handling the pesticide must wear the PPE specified'for handlers on thd labeling of the pesticide being used. ii. Persons entering a treated areabefore the expiration of a restricteden.try interval (REI) who will contact an,ything that has been treated must w6ar PPE specified in the labeling for early entry. iYi. When PPE is required by the product labeling for the activity to be performed, the employer must: (1)

Provide the PPE to each worker or pesticide handler; (2) clean and maintain the PPE correctly; (3) make sure that

each handler or worker wears and uses the PPE correctly; (4) prevent workers or ha,ndlers from wearing home or taking hofne contaminated PPE; and (5) take action to prevent heat stress, if the work andthe PPE might cause heat stress. c. Entry restrictions. Access to pe:sticide-treated areas is limited after ar.i application while the pesticide may stiill present a hazard. EPA's current practice is to set entry intervals (REIs)

based on data collected and evaluated for this purpose, but many older pesticides in agricultural use today may not have been evaluated for entry

hazards. The collection and evaluation of such data may take several years.

The final rule establishes REIs for all pesticide products which are used in the production of agricultural plants and for which REIs have not been set according to current standards. Previously established entry intervals will be retained if they are based on entry data that meet Agency guidelines. Any other previously established entry interval is

considered to be "interim" and will be retained only if it is longer than the REI established by part 170.

In general, a 48-hour REI is established for any product containing an active ingredient that is in toxicity category I(most acutely toxic category) because of dermal toxicity or skin or eye

irritation. The REI is extended to 72 hours in arid areas if any such active ingredient is an organophosphate and the product is applied outdoors. A 24- hour REI is established for any product containing an active ingredient that is in toxicity category II (moderately toxic) because of dermal toxicity or skin or eye

irritation. A 12-hour interval is established for all other products.
Workers are restricted from entering a pesticide-treated area for the REI specified on the product labeling. With narrow exceptions, the time a worker may be in areas under an REI is limited and other safety measures are required. T'he activities that may take place in an

area under an REI are limited to tasks that do not require contact with treated surfaces, short-term tasks that do not require hand labor and tasks that may be necessary in an emergency to save a crop. In addition, affected persons or organizations may request that the Agency grant case-by-case exceptions to the entry restrictions if they believe their industries, crops, or crop practices

would bear an unreasonable economic

burden under such restrictions.

d. Notiflcation of applications. To help workers avoid inadvertent exposures to pesticide-treated areas, the Agency is requiring employers to inform workers of where pesticides have been applied on the agricultural establishment. This notification may

take one or more forms:
i. All agricultural employees who may

come near a treated area must be notified, either orally or by posting treated areas with warning signs, of pesticide applications and areas under an REI on agricultural establishments.

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38105

ii. For selected pesticide products for which inadvertent early entry could be especially hazardous, treated areas must be posted with warning signs, and oral warnings must be given to workers.

iii. For outdoor uses, there are no notification requirements if workers will

not be within 1/4 mile of the treated area during the application or before the expiration of the REI.

iv. Treated areas must be posted for all pestieide applications in greenhouses if workers will be in the greenhouse during the application or before the expiration o£ the REI. 

### 2. Provisions to mitigate exposure —

a. Decontamination. Employees handling pesticides must be provided an ample supply of water for washing splashed or spilled pesticides off themselves and for washing after the pesticide-handling activity.is complete. Workers entering treated areas where,

within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect, must be provided facilities for washing. 

### b. Emergency assistance. Although the Agency believes the precautions such as observing application restrictions and entry restrictions, using PPE, and notifying workers of applications will decrease the frequency of acute pesticide poisoning or injury incidents, medical emergencies involving agricultural workers and handlers may still arise. In such cases, prompt medical treatment is necessary to mitigate the extent of the injury or poisoning. Hence, the rule contains several duties related to emergency

care: i. The name and location of the nearest medical facility must be posted

at a central location.

ii. If an agricultural worker or handler may have been poisoned or injured by a pesticide, the employer must make available transportation to a medicai care facility.

iii. The employer must provide to the employee, or to medical personnel treating the employee, information about the pesticide(s) to which the worker or handler may have been exposed.

3. 

### Provisions to inform employees about pesticide hazards. Since training

and information are essential eomponents of a successful occupational risk-reduction strategy, the final rule eontains several requirements relating to providing pesticide safety training and information to employees. These are requirements for: (1) Pesticide safety training for all workers and handlers, (2) use of a pesticide safety poster, (3) access to labeling information, and (4)

. aecess to information about what pesticides have been used on the

establishment.



### a. Training. All agricultural workers must have basic pesticide safety training. All handlers must have basic pesticide safety training, training on the handling of pesticides, and training on

the use of PPE. A poster summarizing the elements of basic pesticide safety must be posted at a central location on the agricultural estabiishment to reinforce the safety training.


### b. Access to product-specific information. Pesticide handlers must have knowledge of and access to the information on the lab.eling of the product they are using; early-entry workers must have knowledge of the information on the labeling. Employees

must have access for 30 days after the application and any REI to a centrally located listing of information about any product used on any area on the

establishment.



### C. Summary of

Risk-Benefit Analysis

EPA estimates that at least tens of thousands of acute illnesses and injuries and a less certain number of delayed onset illnesses occur annually to agricultural employees as the result of occupational exposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants. These injuries and illnesses continue to occur despite the protections offered by the existing part 170 and by product-specific regulation of pesticides. Therefore, the Agency has determined that occupational exposures of agricultural employees to pesticides and pesticide residues continue to cause adverse effects in a broad range of agricultural sectors and that it needs to provide additional regulatory protection

for such workers. ` EPA could, as an alternative to issuing the pesticide product-specific aspects of this regulation, delay action until thedevelopment of additional productspecific data and analyses permit a product-specific solution. These data and analyses, in large part, will be generated through the ongoing reregistration process, but, under the present conditions, will not be completed until the year 2002 at the

earliest.

EPA has chosen to issue a rule at this time, because EPA cannot, through a product-by-product review, quickly or adequately reduce the incidence of pesticide-related injuries and illnesses. The Agenoy's workload preciudes rapid reevaluation of large numbers of products, even if the needed data were available now. Moreover, many of theprotections of this rule are not productspecific. Instead, they establish general protections, such as training, notification, and decontamination, that are also vital in protecting agricultural employees from risks associated with pesticide use.
The Agency believes that this rule will reduce substantially the current illness and injury incidents at modest cost to agricultural employers, pesticide handler employers, and registrants. The rule requires: (1) Restrictions on entryby agricultural employees into pesticidetreated areas for, depending on pesticide toxicity, 12 to 48 hours (72-hours in certain limited circumstances) after application, (2) the use of PPE for persons handling agricultural pesticides and for persons who must enter pesticide-treated areas before the expiration of the REI, (3) training for agrieultural employees about hazards from exposures to pesticides, (4) that information be provided to pesticide handlers and early-entry workers, and be available to other agricultural employees, about the specific pesticides to which they will be exposed, (5) that water, soap, and towels be made available to agricuitural employees to enable them to wash off pesticides and pesticide residues routinely and after emergency exposures, (6) that emergency assistance be made availableto agricultural employees if a pesticiderelated illness or injury occurs or is suspected, (7) that agricultural employees, other than pesticide handlers, be prohibited in areas being treated with pesticides, and (8) that agricultural employees be notified of areas that are being treated or that remain under an REI through oral warnings or through warning signs posted at the treated area, or, in the case of some particularly hazardous pesticides, through both oral and posted warnings. EPA, drawing on its expertise in regulating pesticides, has determined that these simple measures are likely to reduce substantially the number of pesticide-related illnesses and injuries to agricultural employees. Both the frequency of illness and injury incidents under existing conditions and the expected reduction in the number and severity of these incidents

- due to promulgation of this rule are difficult to quantify. However, the Agency believes that the reductions will be significant. In its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA),

EPA has calculated an incrementai first year compliance cost of $94.3 million for

this rule and an annual incremental compliance cost of $49.4 million in subsequent years. The continuing

annual incremental cost of this rule represents only one tenth of one percent38106 Federal Register / Vol. 57, 

### lvo. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / 

### Rules and Regulat ions

of the tota11987 value of production for all agricultural sectors subject to this final rule. Assuming that the majority of the current acute illness and injury incidents in agricultural employees caused by occupational exposures to pesticides are prevented through compliance with this new rule, there will be significant benefits to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers at a modest cost. Furthermore, the Agency is

convinced that a substantial number ofadditional incidents caused by delayedonset illnesses can be prevented through compliance with this new rule. Such expected avoidance of delayed-onset

illnesses in workers and handlers would

also reduce the costs attributable to

acute incidents avoided.
The Agency believes that, due to this new agricultural worker protection rule, the benefits in decreasing the number and severity of pesticide-related illnesses and injuries to agricultural employees exceed the costs of the rule to agricultural employers, pesticide handier employers, and registrants. Therefore, EPA hereby promulgates this

rule in the conviction that this -

mechanism is the best means of reducing the unreasonable adverse effects from pesticide-related illnesses and injuries to agricultural employees in

the near term.

Some persons who commented on the proposed worker protection ruie questioned the necessity for the rule in specific sectors of agriculture and requested exemptions for those sectors.
However, EPA believes that the record of illness and injury incidents resulting from occupational exposures of agricultural employees to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants and the undisputed inherent acute and delayed-onset toxicity of those agricultural pesticides supports the Agency's conclusion that such agricultural employees are subject to

unreasonable adverse effects from pesticide use across the broad range of agricultural sectors covered by this final rule. Furthermore, no persuasive evidence has been brought to the Agency's attention which demonstrates that any individual sector of agriculture is not subject to unreasonable risks of employee illness and injury. EPA is not persuaded to delay promulgation of this rule until data and analyses specific to each agricultural sector and to each pesticide are generated.

Under FIFRA, EPA is authorized to promulgate regulations to mitigate unreasonable adverse effects that may result from exposures to pesticides. The Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSH Act) is similar in that the Occupational Safety and Health Aclmini -ation (OSHA) is granted authority to promulgate regulations to mitigate "a significant risk." A recent co+urt decision that upheld the issuance
of OSHA's hazard communication rule { 29 CFR 1910.1200) was based solely on a finding of generalized risk; the United States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit stated:

7Chis rulemaking proceeding produced a performance-oriented information disclosure standard covering thousands of chemical

substances used in numerous industries. For suc:h a standard the significant risk reqluirement must of necessity be satisfied by

E. Compliance Dates



### 'ro ensure that pesticide product lalxeling bearing requirements of the new standard does not find its way to users before information on compliance can be disseminated, the new labeling m<iy not be used until April 21, 1993. At that time, specified selected provisions of the regulation will become Present part 170 prohibits the
application of any pesticide in a way
that directly or through drift will contact workers or other persons who are not
involved in the pesticide application. It also requires unprotected persons to vacate the area. The Agency proposed
to continue this provision with some changes.

1. General restriction. The NPRM
proposed changes to the existing general prohibition: "No owner or lessee shall permit the application of a pesticide in
such a manner as to directly or through drift expose workers or other persons except those knowingly involved in the
application. The area must be vacated by unprotected persons." The Agency
proposed to substitute the word "contact" for the less precise term "expose" and to clarify the requirement that unprotected workers must vacate the treated area during appiication by modifying the language to: "No worker

shall be allowed or directed to enter or remain in an area during the application of any pesticide to the area, unless the

worker is a handler involved in the application of the pesticide." Since these
regulations apply only to workers, all references to "other persons" were deleted in the proposal.

There were few comments on these application restrictions. One comment stated that workers should be permitted to remain in the treated area during application under some conditions. For example, planting crews may need to be in a field with the planter during an application of a granular pesticide; field crews may need to be in the same field but may be distant from the area under

treatment; and workers should be able to remain in a treated area if they are upwind from the treatment or if an "adequate barrier" or buffer zone separates them from the appiication. Some comments expressed concern for protecting the public from agricultural pesticide uses such as in retail greenhouses, at "you-pick" farms, in enforceable to support new instructions
to users on the labeling. After Apri121,
1994, all agricultural pesticide products sold or distributed by registrants must
bear the new labeling. After Apri115, 1994, all provisions of the regulations
are enforceable when pesticides with the revised labeling are used. After
October 23, 1995, all agricultural
pesticide products sold or distributed by anyone must bear the new labeling.

III. Provisi®ns of the Fin$1 Rule

A. Restrictions Associated With Appllcations

a general finding concermng all potentially covered industries. A requirement that the Secretary assess risk to workers and need for disclosure with respect to each substance in each industry would effectively cripple OSHA's performance of the duty imposed on it ... to protect all employees to the maximum extent feasible . . . [Associated Bwilders and Contractors, Inc. v. Brock, 862 F.2d 63 at 68 (3d Cir. 1988)].

For the same reasons, EPA is convinced that it is not required to make a c(etailed risk finding with regard to evdry pesticide product or to every ser,tor of agriculture before taking ac.tion to protect all agricultural employees.

D. Minor Crop Statement

According'o the Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology's June 1982 report, PESTICIDES, Minor L1ses/Major Issues:

11-egetables, fruits, nuts, herbs, orriamentals, trees, and turfgrass are often referred to as minor crops because the acreage and volume of production of any one of 'the many crops in these groups are much bel.ow that of corn, soybean, wheat, or any of the other major field crops. Minor crops, as well as major crops, must be protected from insects, weeds, and diseases so as to be economically produced. Specialized pest con'trol needs also exist for major crops in certain situations. Pesticides developed for use: on minor crops and to meet the spE:cialized needs for major crops are referred to as minor use pesticides.

'The minor use crops are the ones this Worker Protection Standard will impact the most. Much of agricultural labor is us'ed on minor crops, and it is in the production of these crops where the greatest chance of pesticide exposure to ag:ricultural workers occurs.

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

### 38107

parks and recreational areas, along roads and rights-of-way, and in schools. In the final rule, the language from the

NPRM has been modified. Section 170.110 states that "during the application of any pesticide ... the agricultural employer shall not allow or direct any person ... to enter or to

remain in the treated area." The exception found in the proposal for a "worker [who] is a handler involved in •the application" has been changed to an exception for "an appropriately trained and equipped handler." These changes were made to make it clear that only handlers trained and equipped as required by this rule can be in an area during application. Other workers, even if protected, are not permitted to be in

the area. The Agency has been persuaded by

the comments to reinsert the clause "and other persons" into the section prohibiting application in a way that will contact workers (§ 170.210). Pesticide applicators must refrain from applying pesticides in areas where any person is likely to be touched by the chemical—either directly or from the drift or fallout of the application. This responsibility is irrespective of the relationship of the handler to the person

in or near the treated area. This provision is intended to protect workers, or other persons on agricultural

establishments in or near the treated area even if those persons have no reason or privilege to be in that location. The prohibition is consistent with present part 170, which declares that applying pesticides directly on anyone, whether a worker or any other person, is a misuse and is subject to penalty.

2. 

### Applfcation restrictions fn nurseries and greenhouses. EPA proposed more stringent application restrictions for nurseries and greenhouses than the general application restriction in present part 170 or those proposed for farms and forests. In greenhouses and nurseries, production areas are often close together. Plants requiring differing pesticide treatments and hand labor schedules may occupy the same bench or bed. In the NPRM, the application

restrictions were discussed under the heading of reentry restrictions, but several comments requested clarification of the proposed language. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA is separating the requirements into two parts, restrictions associated with applications and post-application entry

restrictions. In greenhouses, employees often tlo diverse tasks, including the application of pesticides, close to other activities. EPA recognized that exposure could occur to workers in areas adjacent to the treated area during some pesticide applications and with some pesticide

formulations. The Agency proposed specific requirements for four different types of applications in greenhouses:

a The entire enclosed area of the greenhouse must be vacated during the application of a pesticide applied as a fumigant, smoke, mist, aerosol, or fog, or whose label requires a respiratory protection device for applicators.

b. The pesticide-treated area plus 25

feet in all directions must be vacated for any application other than those in paragraph (a) above if there is no ventilation in the enclosed area during the application and the pesticide is applied from a height of more than 12 inches from the planting medium, or is applied using fine spray droplets or a spray pressure greater than 40 psi.

c. The entire enclosed treated area in the greenhouse must be vacated during application if ventilation• occurs in the enclosed treated area during the types of application described in paragraph (b) above.

d. Only the pesticide-treated area must be vacated during application of pesticides applied froma height of 12 inches or less and applied as a dry formulation, or applied using coarse spray droplets and spray pressure less than 40 psi. Nursery exposure situations are similar to those in greenhouses, except

that nurseries: (1) Have lower inhalation hazards, because they are not enclosed structures, (2) do not have ventilation systems that can be turned on and off at will, but are constrained by the direction and speed of the wind, and (3) sometimes use aerial applications, upward-directed, and very high pressure (greater than 150 psi) sprays. The areas with restricted worker entry during applications in nurseries were defined by the types of applications:

i. For soil-directed applications, the restricted area is the treated area,

ii. For downward-directed applications, the restricted area is the treated area plus 25 feet downwind and

10 feet in other directions.

iii. For applications by aerial, upwarddirected, or high-pressure sprays, the restricted area is the treated area plus any moistened or dusted area.

Most comments concurred with the proposed definitions of areas res"tricted during applications for greenhouses and

nurseries. One comment stated that the

25-foot "barrier" zone was too small to be protective. Another requested that the 25-foot area restricted during applications not apply to pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV. One comment requested that "soil-directed" be redefined as pressure up to 60 psi if

water breakers are used. A few comments requested clarification of whether the specified 25- foot area restricted during application extended to areas beyond the greenhouse or, in nurseries, extended off the property. The Agency agrees with the recommendations that greenhouse and nursery restrictions be clarified. The restrictions in greenhouses have been summarized in a table containing the restrictions during applications and the entry restrictions after application (§ 170.110(c)). A similar table has been prepared for applications in nurseries (§ 170.110(b)). To provide a more useful description of the area restricted during application for empioyees in nurseries, the Agency specifies.that an area of 100 feet in each

direction around the treated area must be vacated during applications using aerial, upward-directed, or'high-pressure sprays instead of "the area dusted or misted"; EPA modified the area restricted during application to 100 feet beyond the treated area in nurseries during fumigant, smoke, mist, fog, and aerosol applications. The prohibition against applying pesticides in a way that will allow contact with workers or other persons is absolute. If an applicator has reason to believe that workers (or other persons) . may be contacted by a pesticide during a pesticide application in a greenhouse or nursery, even if those workers (or other persons) are in compliance with the minimum distance requirements, the application may not take place until those workers (or other persons) leave

the area. The Agency is not persuaded to exempt pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV from these provisions. The intent is to reduce occupational exposure to pesticides, regardless of their acute toxicity: The Agency is concerned also about possible subacute, chronic, and reproductive or developmental effects from pesticide

exposure. The Agency concurs that, except for fumigation when the entire greenhouse and any adjacent structures that cannot

be sealed off from the treated area must be vacated, subenclosures in the greenhouse are permissible and these

subenclosures constitute the area that . must be vacated during application. If the treated area is enclosed, the 100- or 25400t zones are not required. The Agency's interpretation is that the 25- foot or 100-foot areas restricted during appiication do not extend beyond the greenhouse, or beyond the property line4 

### 38108 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 19 92 /

### Rules and Regulations

of the nursery. However, the prohibition against contacting workers or other persons does extend beyond such

boundaries. A few comments requested clarification of "downwind" in a nursery

where wind currents tend to be multidirectional over time. The Agency

concurs with this observation and has determined that requiring a 25-foot area beyond the treated area in all directions will be more protective for workers.

3. Restrictions with fumigants. Although some comments suggested that the entry restrictions for fumigants were adequate, some stated that the restricted-entry area for a fumigant

should be defined as the "entire

enclosed structure" rather than the

"enclosed area" to differentiate between an area enclosed by a temporary barrier and the greenhouse itself. Some comments requested that "fumigant" be defined to distinguish it

from a mist or an aerosol. One comment recommended prohibiting any early entry into a greenhouse following fumigation except to determine fumigant

concentration or to facilitate ventilation. A comment requested that the ventilation criteria for defining dispersed vapors specify the minimum number of required air exchanges

needed. Other comments stated that the proposed ventilation criteria may not be adequate for large production areas if only small windows or fans are used and recommended that replicated tests be conducted using available ventilation to determine the time necessary to achieve the permissible exposure level for a specific site. In the final rule, the Agency defines a fumigant as "any pesticide product that is a vapor or gas, or forms a vapor or gas on application, and whose method of pesticidal action is through the gaseous state." Final part 156 requires pesticide registrants to identify fumigants on the front panel of the label. The Agency has determined that a fumigant application is complete only

when (1) any exposure level listed on the product labeling is reached, or (2) if there is no labeling specified exposure level, when one of the ventilation criteria has been met. The fumigant continues to disperse throughout the

treated area after its release. Persons are exposed to the fumigant when they enter fumigated areas to measure ambient concentrations of fumigant or to facilitate ventilation by manipulating ventilation systems in greenhouses or by removing tarpaulins or other coverings from outdoor fumigation sites. These persons, therefore, are handlers of the fumigants. The Agency has changed the

definition of handlers to include such '. persons and has extended the application prohibition 

### for fumigants in greenhouses to include the time needed to reach the exposure level listed in the la,beling or to meet one of the ventilation criteria. During this #ime, only handlers who have the protections mandated on ttie labeling and who meet the other requirements in part 170 may enter the treated area. These handlers may enter the treated area only to measure the fiimigant level, remove coverings, or operate the ventilation system. The gaseous nature of fumigants rE:quires that the entire structure, iricluding any adjacent structure that

c3nnot be sealed off from the treated a:rea, be vacated during application. Temporary barriers such as curtains or slhields are not designed to be air-tight and therefore would not prevent e:xposure to persons in areas adjacent to

tliose barriers. EPA has reworded the application restrictions for fumigant applications in greenhouses to specify tliat the entire greenhouse plus any adjacent structure that cannot be sealed off from the treated area, not just the "entire enclosed area," is the treated

area and therefore is restricted. The Agency concurs that a specific number of complete air exchanges should be specified as constituting sufficient ventiiation following a fiimigant application (or other airborne application) in a greenhouse. The Agency has conciuded that 10 is the niinimum number of air exchanges n.eeded. (If each air exchange removed 

### only 50 percent of the pesticide, 10 ezchanges should leave approximately 1/1,024 of the original volume of pesticide.) In proposing the ventilation criteria for "vapors dispersed," EPA

u.sed the limited data available and consulted with authorities in greenhouse piesticide application processes to establish appropriate and reasonably c:onservative criteria for protecting vvorkers from inhalation exposure following fumigation in greenhouses. Several comments noted that many gireenhouses are acres large and that

-vvorkers should be allowed to work in one end of the greenhouse while a spraying application is conducted in the other end of the greenhouse as long as Einy mechanical ventilation draws the cliift away from the workers.

The restriction on ventilation was intended to protect workers from etirborne vapors, spray, and dusts. INithout ventilation, the transport of the

Iiesticide off-site would be minimal and pFesumably would move in all directions e:qually. With ventilation (passive or active), 

# air movement in any direction is

Iiossible. The amount of drift is ciependent on such factors as the size and weight of droplets or particles, the pressure of spray, the distance from application equipment to treated
surface, and the force and direction of the ventilation. Even "passive"

ventilation involves factors such as size
of vents, the location of vents, and the outdoor wind currents. The Agency is not persuaded that it is possible to predict the direction or distance that sprays or dusts might drift for all ventilation systems used by the greenhouse industry; therefore, it will continue to prohibit workers from remaining in an area surrounding the application. The dimensions of the area depend upon the type of formulation and ihe type of application. EPA agrees that after application is completed, the sprays and dusts wili settle out of the air and no longer pose an exposure hazard to adjacent workers. Workers may enter •the greenhouse after application to work anywhere except in the treated area as defined by Table 2 in § 170.110(c)(4).

In the NPRM, EPA listed criteria for determining when vapors have dispersed after the application of a fumigant. Some comments requested clarification and guidance on when vapors are considered dispersed following application of nonfumigant pesticides that require the use of a respirator during application or that are applied as smoke, mist, fog, or aerosol.

The Agency has modified the application restrictions for pesticides that are applied as fumigants, smokes, mists, aerosols, or fogs, and for applications that require the use of a respiratory protection device, to include

ventilation criteria that must be met

before workers are allowed to return to worlc anywhere in the enclosed area, or, in the case of fumigant applications, anywhere in the entire greenhouse plus any adjacent structure that cannot be

sealed off from the treated area.

B. EntryRestrictions

The Agency long has recognized the value of limiting agricultural workers' exposure to pesticides through the use of
REIs. Present part 170 established that no worker without the prescribed protective clothing should be allowed to enter a treated area to perform a hand labor task until the expiration of an REI. In the NPRM, EPA did not change this basic requirement, but did extend the scope of this proscription to include any farm, forest, nursery, or greenhouse workers who contact pesticide residues
on treated surfaces or in soil, water, or air, not just those who are performing hand labor tasks. The NPRM required that other protections, such as PPE,

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 

### / Rules and Regulation s 

### 30109

training, and decontamination facilities, be provided to early-entry workers. 

### 1. Restricted-entry rntervals. Present part 170 established a generic "minimum" REI for pesticides used on agricultural sites covered by that part, and it set specific REIs of either 24 or 48 hours for 12 pesticides. Other REIs have been established during the registration, reregistration, and special review processes. Some of these intervals are "permanent" (based on adequate entry data as required by 

### 40 CFR part 158 or a waiver of data submission); others are interim intervals (not based on part 158 entry data) pending the generation of adequate data. Under existing Agency policy, the

establishment of REIs has been limited to pesticides used on agricultural crops where workers perform "hand labor operations," involving "substantial

contact with treated surfaces:' Workers may have contact with treated surfaces from activities such as moving irrigation pipes and scouting, tasks usually not

considered as "hand labor" tasks. The shift from routine preventive pesticide applications to the increasing use of pest

control on an as-needed basis has resulted in the need for more frequent post-application entry by crop advisors, such as integrated pest management (IPM) scouts, professional pest management consultants, and growers, to determine the status of insect, mite, disease, and weed pests at each stage of crop development. The amount of

contact with treated surfaces in these activities depends on v4riables such as the height and density of the crop, the nature of the activity, the surface that contains the pesticide residue, and whether residues are dry or wet. Adverse effects on workers may result from a combination of the toxicity of the pesticide and the amount of exposure. Even small amounts of highly toxfc pesticides can cause poisoning. For these reasons, the Agency decided that any activity that results in contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which the REI applies may be harmful to workers. Thus, the Agency proposed that REIs apply to all pesticide products used on agricultural plants as defined by this part, regardless of type of worker activities associated with particular agricultural plants. In proposing to revise part 170, the Agency did not contemplate a change to the part 

### 158 process for establishing permanent REIs. Rather, the proposed revision to part 170 represents a change in current Agency policy of setting interim REIs which appiy until permanent REIs are established on.the basis of part 

### 158 entry data. Therefore, part 156 retains all permanent REIs set by EPA on the basis of adequate data. It also retains all previously established interim intervals that are longer than those that would be established pursuant to this rulemaking in part 156. These longer REIs have been based, in general, on eitlier delayed (chronic) effects or other exposurehazards such as persistence, postapplication chemical transformations, or potential £or severe skin sensitization. 

### 2. Length of

### restricted-entry intervals. In the NPRM, the Agency proposed to retain the existing minimum REI of "until sprays have dried, and dusts have settled" for most pesticide applications and to modify it by adding the phrase "or vapors have dispersed" to protect workers immediafely after applications of fumigants, mists, fogs, aerosols, or smokes. It also proposed specific REIs of



### 48 hours for pesticides that contain organophosphates or N-methyl carbamates in toxicity category I, and 24 hours for pesticides that contain organophosphates or N-methyl carbamates in toxicity category II and for other active ingredients in toxicity category I. The Agency considered other options that reflect varying acute

toxicities.

The comments on this issue focused on the length of the proposed intervals and the bases for selecting the REIs. 

### a. Minimum restricted-entryintervals. Several comments endorsed the concept of "sprays dried, dusts settled, vapors dispersed" as a minimum REI. Some comments requested the Agency to

establish a minimum REI of 24 hours for all pesticides; others explicitly opposed a 24-hour minimum REI for,all pesticides. Another comment suggested that there be no restricted-entry period

less than 12 hours.

One comment stated that enforcement of "sprays have dried, dusts have settled, or vapors have dispersed"

would be difficult. Others stated that determining when "sprays have dried, dusts have settled, or vapors have dispersed" is not feasible in some greenhousee because in propagation and misting situations it 

## is difficult to ascertain if sprays have dried because foliage is kept constantly wet. The Agency agrees that in some

circumstances it is difficult to determine when the sprays have dried, the dusts have settled, or the vapors have dispersed; judgment is required to assess when such an REI has expired. The rates at which sprays dry, dusts settle, or vapors disperse depend on factors such as temperature, humidity, rainfall, irrigation, dew deposition, wind, crop density, height, leaf configuration, amount of sunshine, and type of pesticide formulation used. Parts of a treated area may be dry while others are not dry. In dense crops, such as mature corn, the foliage in the center of the stand may be wet while the foliage in the outer areas, where a supervisor is most likely to check, may be dry. Rewetting of foliage because of rain, irrigation, or dew may cause confusion and uncertainty about whether the sprays have dried. Wind may make it difficult to determine

whether dusts have settled. Many comments requested the Agency to establish minimuin REIs to protect against possible unknown chronic or delayed health effects. These comments expressed concern that because product-specific health-effect evaluations take the Agency a long time to conduct, agricultural workers continue to be exposed to chemicals whose potential for causing birth defects, cancer, genetic mutations, and other systemic damage has not been tested. They recommended that the Agency consider the potential chronic and other delayed health effects and establish longer REIs. The Agency has decided to establish a

minimum REI of 12 hours for all pesticide applications to replace the "sprays have dried, dusts have settled; vapors have dispersed" requirement. This will provide a margin of safety against occupational exposure to all pesticides and eliminate the need for pesticide users to judge how long workers should be kept out of an area. The disruption to agriculture, and thus the cost, should be minimal; pesticides could be applied in the evening, and worker entry would be allowed the foliowing morning. This REI of 12 hours could be modified through the reregistration (or registration) process on a case-by-case basis most often involving submission of fuli entry data (part 158).

, The Agency will continue to establish REIs on a case-by-case basis'for products where nonacute health effects

are a concern. 

### b. Specific res tricted-en try intervals. Although most comments supported the REIs proposed and many stated tha`t in most circumstances agriculture would be able to comply, one comment stated that REIs longer than the minimum should be reserved for compounds whose toxicity characteristics or exposure history indicated a need for longer intervals. Some comments supported a 48-hour REI for all active ingredients in toxicity category I and a 24-hour REI for all those in toxicity category II. Other comments requested that REIs not

### 38110 FederaT Reg 

### i st 

### er / Vol. 57, 

### ' No. 163 / Friday, Au gust 21, 1992

# f Rules and Regulations

exceed days-to-harvest intervals or

noted that 48 hours is the maximum feasible REI under current crop production methods. Many comments supported 72—, 48—, and 24—hour REIs for pesticides in toxicity categories I, II, and III, respectively. Others specifically opposed a 72/48/24—hour scheme or stated that the REIs proposed should be determined on a case-by-case basis

when data indicate a need. The Agency's proposal was based on California data showing that, from 1976 to 1985, 90 percent of the systemic poisonings caused by active ingredients in toxicity category I and 70 percent caused by active ingredients in toxicity category II involved either organophosphates or 1V-methyl carbamates. These data suggest a relationship between the classes of chemicals used and poisonings.
However, a few comments stated that the apparent relationship between chemical class and poisoning in the data is not unexpected; because of the types of crops grown in California, it is likely that 90 percent of the products in toxicity category I and 70 percent of the products in toxicity category II applied were anticholinesterase compounds. Many respondents objected to the

distinction made between organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides and other pesticides in the same toxicity category, stating that the subdivision of toxicity categories I and II by chemical family is not defensible scientifically. These

comments asserted that it would be more appropriate to use acute toxicity data as the basis for generic REIs, and to include all compounds in a toxicity category. In contrast, some comments requested that only organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides

have REIs. After reevaluating this issue, the Agency agrees that. chemical class should not be a criterion for establishing REIs. The Agency expects that chemicals in the same toxicity category will pose similar risks of adverse effects from acute toxicity; thus, no distinction should be made among the chemical classes within a toxicity category. The Agency has changed the specific REIs. In the final rule, all pesticides in toxicity category II have REIs of 24 hours, and all pesticides in toxicity category I have

REIs of 48 hours. All other pesticides (those in toxicity categories III and IV) are subject to the 12—hour minimum REI.

Studies have shown that some organophosphates transform into more toxic products in arid conditions. The Agency has been persuaded that, in areas receiving rainfall of less than 25 inches per annum, organophosphates tliiat are in toxicity category I and that

are used outdoors should have an REI of 72 hours. Acceptable sources of statistics on average annual rainfall for ain area are nearby weather bureaus, such as one located at a local airport or

one affiliated with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 'The Agency proposed that REIs be b;ased on the acute toxicity of the technical grade of the active ingredient. Some comments requested that inert ingredients be considered in setting
P;EIs. ;The Agency believes that the inert irigredients in pesticide products generally are not of a nature, or do not remain in treated areas long enough, to present hazards for reentering workers.

. 4kccordingly, REIs will be based on the possible hazards

. of residues of active iiigredients. The Agency is reexamining tlhe hazards of inert ingredients through

a separate process. 'The Agency proposed setting intervals based on the highest toxicity category ia.xdicated by available data on acute d.ermal toxicity or skin and eye irritation potential, determined by the criteria of 40 CFR 156.10(h)(1) of this chapter. If no d.ermal toxicity data are available, oral toxicity data would be used to set REIs. ; Workers may have dermal, oral, and respiratory exposure to pesticides; for vuorkers entering treated fields, the predominant route of exposure is d.ermal. The Agency considered using only dermal toxicity to establish REIs, biut the potential for eye and skin irritation and for respiratory exposure naay be significantly large in some entry situations. Cases of eye or skin irritation

a.re four times as common as those of systemic poisonings among reentering

vvorkers. Inhalation exposure is a hazard in e4closed areas, such as greenhouses, especially after applications of fumigants or pesticides with high vapor piressure; it is less important as a hazard fior entry into treated areas outdoors, except during removal of barriers, such. a.s tarpaulins, after application of a fumigant. Oral toxicity data are the most vvidely available data on pesticides, but 6ral exposure in agriculture is related to t:he worker's personal habits, such as niot washing hands and face before eating, drinking, or smoking. '; The Agency has determined that entering areas while inhalation exposure remains a hazard is not safe or practical for persons other than a.ppropriately trained and equipped plesticide handlers. Therefore, EPA has naodified the entry restrictions in gr,eenhouses to permit only handlers to enter greenhouses until air

i concentration levels or ventilation criteria have been met following applications of airborne pesticides or pesticides that require a respirator during application. The Agency also has

modified the definition of "handler" to include persons who must enter areas treated with soil fumigants to adjust or remove soil coverings, such as tarpaulins. 

## A few comments recommended that use patterns and mode of action be considered in setting REIs. Another recommended that the persistence of the residues should be considered in setting REIs since some injuries, such as eye injuries or birth defects, are unrelated to the acute toxicity of the chemical. Basing REIs on particular use patterns, on the mode of action, or on a particular use's potential for exposure is

not feasible because of variations in potential exposure related to crop, cultural practices, and application techniques. These considerations are appropriate for establishing permanent REIs on a case-by-case basis such as through the reregistration process. 

### c. Establishing entr,y restrictions in the future. The REIs established through

this final rule are intended to remain in effect until the reregistration process & other comprehensive EPA review process makes definitive REI determinations. In most circumstances, the Agency expects that any'REI

established as the result of the later Agency review would prohibit early entry to perform routine hand labor tasks. However, such REIs would be based on a risk-benefit judgment that takes into account the prohibition against routine early entry to perform

hand labor tasks. The Agency expects to establish appropriate entry restrictions on the basis of several types of data. These may include, as applicable, data on how the residue degradation rate and dislodgeability (amount readily transferable from a surface to persons contacting that surface) are influenced by pesticide formulation type; temperature; humidity; soil type; rainfall, dew, and irrigation practices; sunlight; crop type, height, and density; specific production practice's, or worker activity and length of exposure. When feasible,the Agency may establish productspecific REIs that vary depending on one or more of these parameters. For example, the Agency may establish longer REIs for timed-release formulations, which are designed to release the active ingredient over an extended time period. The Agency may determine that, for some tasks, shorter REIs are warranted for "low crops" than

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations • 38111

for tree crops and other "high crops," such as corn, because workers' exposure levels would be expected to be lower. The Agency may also determine that in areas with characteristically hot, arid conditions and certain soil types, longer

REIs are warranted for certain active ingredients because of slower degradation, higher transferability, and

transformation of the active into more toxic forms. The Agency may also impose longer REIs for some active ingredients in areas with heavy dew or frequent light rain because those actives are either activated by moisture or transformed by moisture into more toxic forms. On the other hand, if adequate data exist, the Agency may decide that

it is feasible to allow a reduction in REIs when a specified amount of rain has fallen or over-the-top irrigation has been applied to the treated area.
Another type of product-specific restricted-entry determination might

include situations where data indicate

that worker contact with the treated surfaces could be acceptably reduced through the use o£ minimal PPE or mechanical devices that physically separate the worker from the treated surfaces. Such determinations might, for eil±ample, allow early entry following soil-directed applications if the worker is wearing chemical-resistant footwear and is performing tasks that do not

involve skin contact with the soil surface. Another possible restricted entry adjustment would be to prohibit

all routine hand labor tasks for a specified time period, such as 1 or 2 days, and then to allow certain hand labor tasks during the remaining restricted-entry period if certain (perhaps minimal) PPE is worn and other precautions are taken. Still another possible restricted-entry adjustment might allow early entry (with or without minimal PPE) if devices, such as mechanical detasselers or roguers, are used that minimize worker exposure to treated surfaces. The final rule does contain an exception that allows early entry for activities that involve no contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which the REI applies, including, but not limited to, soil, water, air, or surfaces of plants in the treated area.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that such product-specific decisions will be routine, because of their complexity. Conveying such exceptions and restrictions to users in a simple, intelligible manner is difficult. The necessary labeling would be unduly complex. The Agency projects that such adjustments will be most likely in those

situations where data indicate that a relatively lengthy REI is necessary under everage conditions to adequately reduce risk, but where such a lengthy REI may make the pesticide's use infeasible for certain crops for which hand labor is necessary within tight timeframes after application. Under these circumstances, the Agency will consider alternatives to the prohibition of routine hand labor tasks throughout the REI. In any such deliberations, however, EPA will also consider whether workers can be adequately protected under a more complex set of entry requirements.For the longer run, because of themany factors that affect worker exposure to pesticide residues, the Agency is exploring alternative methods of establishing REIs and alternatives to REIs. One possible approach involves

on-site determination as to whether residues have degraded (or are . otherwise unavailable) to a degree deemed acceptable for workers to sa£ely enter to perform hand labor tasks involving contact with treated surfaces. One promising technique involves immunoassay-based detection. Tmmunoassay techniques could provide rapid, simple, and cost-effective methods for determining actual foliar or

soil residue levels under field conditions. It is expected that inexpensive kits can be developed that will yield results in a short period of time, thus enabling site-specific

determination as to whether residueshave decreased to an Agencyestablished acceptable level for worker entry. This technology would also provide an effective means of signaling to the agricultural employer when residues remain sufficiently high so as tc make worker entry unreasonably risky, even if the REI had expired.

EPA has determined that more research is required to develop immunoassay and other site-specific monitoring systems for field residues. However, the research data to date indicate that an immunoassay-based system probabiy could be developed. Immunoassay devices use"antibodies as receptors to sample the environment of the exposed surface (persons, foliage, soii, etc). Specific antibodies to many pesticides of concern already have been developed and evaluated, but specific antibodies for other priority compounds

need to be identified.' The Agency strongly encourages the rapid development-of practical and reliable techniques of this kind and

welcomes further information on ongoing research and the opportunity to cooperate with developers on the - necessary research. To support the goal of improving such technology, the Agency also intends to consider requiring the development of such detection methods for the registration or continued registration of selectedpesticides. Furthermore, as productspecific reentry data are generated and analyzed, EPA will investigate the feasibility of adding information on the pesticide labeling that indicates the acceptable residue levels on the specific surfaces of concern for that product. Such information might encourage more rapid development and marketing of site-specific test kits.

3. Entry before a restricted-entry interval expires—a. Entry for other than

hand labor tasks. Present part 170

allows workers to enter a treated area without PPE before the expiration of the REI if they are not performing hand labor tasks. The Agency proposed to modify this requirement by allowing entry into pesticide-treated areas before the expiration of the REI without protective measures only when there is no contact with pesticide residues on treated surfaces or in soil, water, or air.

P.esticides would be considered to be in the air, for example, in a greenhouse or other enclosed area before the exposure level listed on the labeling has been

reached or one of the ventilation criteria established by § 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling has been met. Examples of "no contact" activities listed in the proposal

included:

i. Operating a closed vehicle equippedwith a properly functioning positivepressure filtration system. '

ii. Performing tasks that do not

involve contact with the soil subsurface after a soil-incorporated or soil-injected pesticide application.

iii. Performing tasks that do not involve hand contact with the soil,planting media, or plants after a soildirected or basal-directed application while wearing chemical-resistant

footwear.

iv. Operating an open vehicle when the crop is not tall enough to brush against the worker or when pesticide residues could not drop from trees and other plants onto the worker.

v. Walking or riding through a pesticide-treated area on an aisle, a road, or a path, if the pesticide is applied or is directed in a way that would not cause residues to drop on the

worker and if the worker cannot brush against treated plants or trees.

Many comments opposed any earlyentry activities. It is not clear whether some were against early entry in

situations where there would be no contact with pesticide residues.

## j

;

1

### 38112 Fede ral Register / Vol. 57, P 

### Jo. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulation s

The Agency recognizes the need to allow workers access to adjacent benches or adjacent plants in greenhouses and nurseries to carry out other plant production tasks. In the proposed regulation, the Agency intended to allow workers to pass through treated areas (walk around benches, down aisles, etc.) after the sprays and dusts had settled from the air, if no contact with the treated surface would result. The Agency considered that walking down an aisle would result in "no contact" after sprays and dusts have settled if the worker was wearing shoes with chemical-resistant soles, even if the spray or dust has been applied over a large area and the aisle has received some deposit. Although the "sprays and dusts have settled" provision has been deleted, the Agency believes that walking through a pesticide-treated area on an aisle or path would constitute "no contact" as long as residues cannot drop on the

worker or the worker does not brush against treated surfaces. The Agency does not intend that workers wearing PPE would be

considered to have "no contact." Therefore, the example listed in the NPRM: "Performing tasks that do not involve hand contact with the soil,planting media, or plants after a soildirected or basal-directed application while wearing chemical-resistant footwear" is not applicable to the final rule. The following are examples of situations that may be considered no contact after sprays, dusts, and vapors

have settled out of the air: (a) The worker is wearing footwear and is walking in aisles or on roads, footpaths, or other pathways through the treated areas where the plants or other treated surfaces cannot brush against the worker and cannot drop or drip pesticides onto the worker. (b) The worker is in an open-cab

vehicle in a treated area where the plants or other treated surfaces cannot brush against the worker and cannot drop or drip pesticides onto the worker. (c) After a pesticide is correctly incorporated or injected into the soil, the worker is performing tasks that do not involve touching or disrupting the soil

subsurface. (d) The worker is in an enclosed cab on a truck, tractor, or other vehicle. The Agency will permit entry to a

treated area when the worker will have

"no contact" with the treated surfaces. b. Entry for short-term tasks. EPA proposed to allow worker entry into treated areas after sprays have dried or dusts have settled, but before the REI has expired, to perform any activity, if the workers are provided appropriate PP]E, training, and decontamination facilities. The Agency anticipated that agricultural producers seldom would

recluire workers to enter treated areas be!Eore the REI has expired because of
the:lincreased risk to the workers, the cast of providing PPE, and the problems of heat-related illnesses. It is expected that most agricultural management practices can be carried out after the REI expires; thus, few workers would need these protective measures. .A few comments supported the proposal that early entry be permitted

with the use of PPE or stated that

routine hand labor should be allowed if the; worker is wearing the PPE required by'EPA. Many cominents opposed early en.try even with the use of PPE. One comment noted that a requirement for

th

~ e use of PPE by field workers is not practical and is not likely to be adhered to in many situations. A comment stated that the REI should be sufficiently long

so'; that at its expiration there are no

further concerns or restrictions on either the field activities or the clothing worn

into the field. Information gathered by the Agency during the process that led to the NPRM aird comments that the Agency received in response to the NPRM have convinced EPA that entry during an REI

tc

, 'perform routine hand labor tasks is raiiely necessary, especially when the REI is 72 hours or less. The Agency

noted in the NPRM that:

'I'he Agency anticipates that agricultural producers will seldom require workers to re:enter treated areas before the reentry in.terval has expired, because of the increased risk to the workers; the cost of providing PPE, dDcontamination water, and training; and the piroblems related to heat-induced illnesses. S:ince most agricultural management pncctices can be carried out after the reentry iriterval expires, few workers will need these p:rotective measures.

Furthermore, comments received in r4sponse to the NPRM questioned the feasibility of workers wearing PPE while performing hand labor tasks under n.ormal agricultural field conditions. The Agency has studied the issue of PPE for agricultural field workers who are plerforming routine hand labor tasks and
h,as concluded that routine use of PPE, such as chemical-resistant gloves, footwear, and headgear, two layers of cilothing, and protective eyewear, for such field workers is, in general, notciinly impractical, but also may be riskiuducing due to heat stress concerns. 7Che Agency has determined that hired

~ igricultural workers, especially liarvesters, have a disincentive to wear PPE; because they frequently are paid at a; piece rate, they have little tolerance i'or anything that hinders their speed and efficiency. The Agency concludes that it is likely that the PPE would be removed or would be worn incorrectly if it were required routinely in most hand labor situations. Many comments also observed that routine early entry during the REI was rarely necessary.

After consideration of the comments and the available data, the Agency has
concluded that, under most circumstances, allowing routine entry
for unlimited time to areas under an REI,
even with PPE, decontamination, and training, will not reduce adequately the risk of agricultural workers' exposure to pesticides, and that the economic

benefits associated with such routine early entry do not justify the risks associated with such early entry. Consequently, the Agency is convinced

that routine hand labor tasks should not be allowed before the expiration of the REI, except in rare circumstances based on case-by-case consideration. , In this final rule, the Agency has therefore prohibited most entry during the REI to perform routine hand labor tasks. The Agency will allow necessary short-term activities, such as operating irrigation equipment, in areas remaining under an REI if: (1) There is no entry for the first 4 hours after application and thereafter until any exposure level listed on the labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria established by

§ 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling has been met; (2) no hand labor tasks are performed; (3) the time in treated areas does not exceed 1 hour in any 24—hour period for a worker; (4) the required PPE is provided, cleaned, and maintained for the worker; (5) the required decontamination and change areas are provided; and (6) the required safety training and labeling-specific safety

information have been furnished.
As stated in the NPRM, the Agencyconsiders the risk of exposure for earlyentry workers to be comparable, in some situations, to the risk for pesticide handlers. Sometimes, early-entry workers may receive greater exposure than that encountered by an applicator of the pesticide. The Agency believes that there should be no entry to freshly treated areas for any reason until the dusts or sprays have settled and some drying or volatilization of the formulation has taken place; thus it has prohibited entry to treated areas for the first 4 hours after application. After 4 hours have elapsed,l hour should besufficient time to do necessary "shortterm" tasks, which the Agency is aware must be done, and should minimize worker exposure. 

### c. Exceptions to the prohibition on roatine early entry. Although the

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regul at 

### io n 

### s 38113

Agency has determined, in general, not to allow routine early entry even with the use of PPE, the Agency did receive information during the comment period from the cut flower and cut fern industry about the economic hardships that would result in that particular industry if

routine hand labor activities were prohibited during REIs. In that industry, it appears that the risk-benefit balance might militate in favor of allowing some hand labor activity during the REI.

While no information was submitted during the comment period demonstrating that other industries might suffer a significant adverse economic effect if routine early entry during REIs were disallowed, it is certainly possible that other industries, crops, or crop practices may be significantly affected by the prohibition of such routine early entry.
The Agency has, therefore, adopted an exception process that would allow interested persons to demonstrate to the Ageney that, in a particular industry, erop, or crop practice, an exception should be granted to the general prohibition on routine early entry. Persons wishing to obtain an exception to the early-entry restrictions would submit a request for such an exception to the Agency.
The Agency encourages persons who wish to submit such requests to submit the requests as a group or association of affected parties, rather than as individuals. EPA expects that the most efficient and effective request process would ensue when a group or association of growers and/or workers with common interests present a single, consolidated request for an exception. Such a group request would both permit a more efficient review process and lend weight to the case that the exception was necessary to alleviate typicalconditions in the commodity or croppractiee situation for which the exception is being requested and was not a highly-specific localized situation. Requests for exceptions that are limited to a narrow geographic area, such as a single agricultural establishment, must be accompanied by persuasive evidence that such a narrow geographic scope is appropriate. The Agency also notes that all of the information pertinent to the specific exception must be submitted with the exception request. The rule states what types of crops and crop production practices might qualify for such an exception and what information must be supplied to the Agency in order for an exception to be considered. If a request for an exception is submitted to the Agency without all of the required information, the Agency shall return the request to the submitter. When a request for an exception that contains all of the required information is submitted to EPA, the Agency will publish a notice in

the Federal Register stating that an exception is being considered, describing the nature of the exception, and allowing at least 30 days for interested parties to comment. The Agency wiii also send a copy of such exception requests to USDA at that time. EPA expects to cooperate with USDA in obtaining information necessary for analysis of the exception

requests. If such an exception is approved, the Agency will publish_a notice describing the exception and the reasons for it in

the Federal Register. The final rule also provides a means for the Agency to withdraw exceptions if the Agency receives poisoning information or other

data that indicate that the health risks imposed by the early-entry exception are unacceptable or if the Agency

receives other information that indicates that the exception is no longer necessary or prudent. EPA will endeavor to review any requests for exceptions expeditiously. As stated above, requests from - registrants 

### or groups/organizations are likely to yield the most efficient review process. Also, the more specific the request, the more readily the Agency can evaluate the full range of impacts. The Agency will consider the economic urgency of the request and the timing of the pest concern, crop, or production practice for which the exception is being requested. To expedite the exception process, EPA intends to establish a formal exception-review procedure that remains outside of the usual registration and reregistration processes. A special organizational unit would be designated as responsible for receiving and processing exception requests, including establishing a mechanism for receiving comments, reviewing all submitted information, and facilitating the decision-making process among the Agency technical experts. EPA believes that this unique strategy will greatly expedite the exception process and allow the Agency to address exceptions in a timely.manner. With this process, EPA will endeavor to respond in a timely manner when receiving requests for exceptions that contain all of the required information and will attempt to respond with special urgency to exception requests that are particularly crucial due to unexpected pest problems or crop-season timing. The final rule provides that persons requesting an exception may assume that the eicception has been denied if EPA has not published its decision whether to grant the exception within 9

months from the comment-closure date specified in the Federal Register notice in which the Agency announced that it would consider the exception, unless the Agency has taken action to extend its review period for a specified time

interval due.to the complexity of the exception request or to the number of exception requests concurrently under Agency review. While exception requests may be filed immediately, the Agency is also interested in receiving additional

comments and information on both the general prohibition of routine early entry for•the performance of hand labor tasks during REIs and the mechanism and criteria for granting exceptions to that general prohibition. EPA is therefore providing an additiona160-day period during which written comments, data, and other evidence concerning these specific topics may be submitted to the Agency for consideration. Upon review of these comments, EPA may modify this final rule where appropriate. This additionai comment period should allow for possible refinement of this rule without delaying its implementation and without delaying the consideration of exceptions that may prove to be

necessary. Comments that EPA has already

received from the cut flower and cut fern industry have convinced EPA that this industry, at least, probably warrants such an exception.. The decision that such an exception is probably warranted is based on a

balance of the risks and benefits that would result from such an exception (see proposed exception to rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). The Agency is unaware of any specific information indicating that crops or industries other than the cut flower and cut fern industry would qualify for such an exception, but the exception process adopted in this final rule provides interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant information to the Agency if they believe additional exceptions are

warranted. d: Entry for agricvltural emergencies. Several comments suggested that early entry.beallowed for emergencies on a case-by-case basis. If there are

situations in which workers need to enter an area before the expiration of an REI, growers shouid be able to obtain permission, in advance, from the EPA or the State lead agency. The Agency recognizes there may be a

need for workers to enter a treated area, • i

,



### 38114 Federal Register /Vol. 57,

### 'No. 163 /'Friday, Augu st 21, 1992

### / Rules and Regulat ions

before the expiration of an REI to perform tasks, including hand labor tasks, in agricultural emergencies. The Agency regards an agricultural emergency as a sudden occurrence or set of circumstances that the employer could not have anticipated and over which the employer has no control, requiring entry into a treated area, when no alternative practices would prevent or mitigate a substantial economic loss.

A substantial economic loss means°a loss in profitability greater than'that which would be expected on the basis of experience and fluctuations of crop yields in previous years. Only losses caused by the emergency conditions specific to the affected site and geographic area are considered. The contribution of mismanagement cannot be considered in determining the loss. Such emergencies might consist of unexpected and severe.adverse weather, such as frost, high winds, tornado,. or hurricane, or an unexpected and severe pest outbreak immediately. before harvest on a time-sensitive crop such as .the soft fruits, soft vegetables, or floral crops. If an emergency is anticipated through a weather forecast, pest outbreak bulletin, or other means, it is not acceptable to proceed with a pesticide application after becoming aware of an impending emergency and then require workers, due to the emergency, to enter the treated area before the REI has expired.The Agency has modified the earlyentry restrictions to permit entry to areas under REIs in agricultural emergencies if a State, Tribal, or Federal agency having jurisdiction declares that the circumstances for an agricultural emergency exist and the employer determines that the agricultural establishmerit is subject to the emergency. Entry is permitted if: (1) There is no entry for the first 4 hours after application and no entry thereafter until any exposure level listed on the labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria established by § 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling has been met, (2) the required PPE is provided; cleaned, and maintained for the worker, (3) the required decontamination and change areas are provided, (4) the required general training and label-specific information has been furnished, and (5) only tasks related to mitigating the emergency are performed.

C. Notice of Applications

The Agency proposed that workers on an agricultural establishment be notified of pesticide applications and areas remaining under an REI. An exception was proposed for farms, forests, and n.urseries—no notification would be necessary if, from the start of a.ppiication until the end of the REI, the vvorker would not enter, work in, remain iin, or pass through, on foot or in an open vehicle, the pesticide-treated area or a.ny neighboring areas, including g;rowing areas and labor camps that are contiguous or separated only by a roadway from the treated area. A sfmilar exception proposed fot greenhouses stated that no notification vvould be required if, from the start of aipplication until the end of the REI, the vvorker would not enter, work in, remain i:n, or pass through the greenhouse. 7'hese exceptions were designed to limit the notification requirement to those occasions where the most potential for siccidental worker exposure exists and vvhere notification would prove most

useful. Notification would not be required when pesticides are applied at tiznes when no workers are employed by the establishment or when pesticides

~ ire applied to (or an REI is in effect at)

clistant areas of the establishment where rio work activities are occurring. ' Some comments supported these e:xceptions; some requested that the e:xceptions be dropped and that workers be notified of any pesticide-treated area cin the property, because crews may enter treated areas by mistake. One

c:omment wanted to have information Iirovided to workers about pesticides used in areas contiguous to the area where they will be working. Another noted that since only a small percentage of farms require hand labor for c:ultivation or harvesting, it seems impractical to post fields when the only oOe who would be entering is the farmer

who caused the field to be treated. A few comments requested a definition of the word "neighboring," nd some stated that "neighboring

~ i areas" should be defined as property controlled and/or owned by the employer.
After careful consideration, the ,.Agency has decided to retain but i`evvord the exception to notification on

farms and in nurseries and forests. The iterm "neighboring area" has been deleted; the final rule requires iiotification if workers may be within 1/

~~ mile of the treated area's perimeter.

'This distance was chosen for several reasons. First, data:from studies show

that residue drift from a treated area is aegligible beyond 1/4 mile. Second, the Agency believes that 1/4 mile is the

:farthest distance that workers would be likely to digress from their path or work ,site for rest or meal breaks. Although the Agency believes that a prudent



## , owner/operator of an agricultural establishment will inform adjacent property owners/operators of pesticide applications at their mutual borders,

EPA has determined that such a requirement is beyond the scope of this rule. The exception to notification in greenhouses has not been changed.
The Agency has added an additional notification exception that applies to all agricultural establishments. Notice (oral or treated area posting) need not be given to a worker if the worker (1) applied or supervised the application of the pesticide for which the notice would be given and (2) the worker is already

aware of the information that would be otherwise conveyed in an oral warning. This exception exempts establishments from having to orally warn or post warning signs at treated areas for an already-informed applicator of the pesticide. This exception would be especially important if the pesticide applicator is the only worker on the

establishment for whom notification would otherwise be required.

1. Oral notification. The Agency proposed that workers be given daily oral warnings about pesticide-treated areas on farms and in forests, except as noted above. The warnings would consist of: (1) The location and description of the treated area, (2) the time during which entry is restricted, and (3) instructions not to enter the treated area until the REI has expired. 'The warnings would be required to be given in a manner the worker can

understand.
Several comments supported the requirement for mandatory oral warnings on farms and forests because large numbers of agricultural workers

would not be able to read material printed in English.
Some respondents felt that oral warnings should be required only on the first work day for any worker or when there is a change in the spraying schedules because daily warnings may cause workers to ignore the repetitive message. Some comments stated that oral warnings would be unworkable in some agricultural operations because employees may report to work from

different locations at different times of the day, e.g., coming from on-farm camps or local housing or being bused

from cities or other farms.
Other comments objected to mandatory oral warnings and requested that employers be given a choice of using oral warnings or posting warning signs. One respondent suggested issuing cards containing information about sprayirig to workers in lieu of oral warnings.Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

### 38115

Some comments stated that oral warnings are more effective if they

include information such as the name of the product or active ingredient, the location of labeling, and/or safety information for the product and the REI. Most comments supported a requirement that oral warnings be communicated in a language the worker can understand. However, a few noted that it would be difficult for growers to find persons who could provide translations into all the languages that might be needed. The Agency has been persuaded that farm and forestry operations should have the choice of notifying workers orally or by posting signs at the treated area. EPA is convinced that for highly diversified farms where different crops would be grown close together or for large agricultural operations where many workers are employed, oral warnings may be impractical and may not be as protective as posting signs at ' the treated area. However, the Agency believes that most farm and forest.ry employers will opt to warn employees orally. Signs that employers post must meet the same criteria as the signs for the mandatory treated-area posting. The Agency also has been persuaded to eliminate the requirement that oral notification be given daily. Instead, employers are required to notify

workers before the worker's first opportunity for exposure to any treated area. Regardless of whether the employer uses oral notification or posting, the Agency is requiring thatapplication-specific and restricted-entryspecific information be posted at a

central location accessible to all

workers. This information will remind workers of areas where pesticides are being applied or where an REI is in

effect. EPA is convinced that additional information about the pesticide application can be conveyed more effectively through these centrally located notice areas than through oral notification. Providing information about applications on printed cards is not a practical alternative to oral notification because of language problems and the cost of duplicating the information. 2. Posting pesticide-treated areas. Besides oral warnings, the Agency proposed to require the posting of warning signs in areas of farms and forests treated with pesticides having REIs greater than 48 hours, except when no workers would be in the area, as discussed above. The Agency also considered other posting options, such as for pesticides with REIs more than 24
hours. Some comments supported the proposed posting requirements, but some stated that posting must be supplemented with oral notification, particularly on large farms and in forests where posting may be difficult. Many comments advocated daily oral notification supplemented with mandatory posting so that persons working near the area or moving through the area are aware of the application

and can avoid contact.

Some comments stated that areas treated with pesticides having REIs exceeding 24 hours should be posted because posting is an unequivocal way of communicating to workers their right and duty not to enter a treated field. Some comments said that posting for all pesticides with an REI of greater than

24 hours would be more consistent with the purpose of the proposed rule than posting only for intervals greater than 48 hours. The latter, they said, would exempt nearly all pesticide applications from posting: They stated that oral warnings alone are inadequate for warningworkers of the hazards of entry from products in toxicity categories I and II and suggested the requirement might be met by posting a map showing

treated areas. Other comments opposed any mandatory field posting requirement.

One stated that workers could be notified by a centrally located

information board. The Agency has reviewed the comments on mandatory field posting and has decided to modify these requirements. The Agency has defined at least two objectives for posting of treated areas: (1) Warning of areas treated with pesticides that are so toxic that incidental exposure, i.e., contact from brushing against the treated surfaces, could cause an acute illness or injury and (2) warning of areas treated with pesticides for which a short exposure could have the poten'tial for a delayed effect, such as developmental toxicity. The final rule requires posting for all pesticides that contain active ingredients that are classified as toxicity category I because of acute dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential. On a case-by-case basis, the Agency also may require posting for other pesticides that the Agency deems may produce adverse

health effects from a short-term

exposure. The Agency will require that oral notification also be given to workers when posting is required so that a second tier of warning is provided for these pesticides. Pesticides meeting

these criteria will have a statement in their labeling that the treated area must be posted and workers must be notified orally. The Agency proposed that "When several contiguous areas are to be treated with pesticide's on a rotating or sequential basis, the entire area may be posted." This would allow posting of a larger area than the treated area when a continuous spraying operation treats alternative rows or areas, rather than the entire area, on a sequential basis. Since posting of individual rows in this case would be difficult and expensive, the Agency would allow the entire area to be posted. However, no part of this entire area may be entered while signs are posted, except under the conditions specified in the regulation for early entry. The Agency has retained this provision in the final rule. 3. Warning sign. The Agency proposed a standard warning sign containing a stern-faced person with an upheld hand containing the words

"DANGER - PESTICIDES - KEEP OUT." Although the sign proposed by the Agency received some support, many comments requested modifications to the symbol or the wording. There were suggestions that the sign should contain

the skull and crossbones or should use some international symbol.
A£ter consideration of the comments, EPA remains opposed to the use of the skull and crossbones symbol for the

reasons stated in the NPRM and because posting may be, required by the Agency not only for the most acutely toxic pesticides but also for some pesticides in other toxicity categories. Acute toxicity is only one factor in determining what areas should be ` posted; posting will be required by the Agency on a case-by-case basis during registration, reregistration, or special review for pesticides presenting other types of risks: Furthermore, farm, forest, and nursery establishments may choose to post all pesticide applications, and greenhouse establishments must post all pesticide applications. The Agency did not find an appropriate international symbol that it believed conveyed the desired message. The Agency has not been persuaded that the basic design of the sign should be changed. The Agency is convinced that mandatory worker training will promote worker recognition and understanding of the sign proposed in

the NPRM. Some comments expressed concern

that the words "Pesticides" and/or "Danger" make the sign too negative; others recommended that pesticide signal words such as "DANGER" or

"CAUTION" be reserved for use with specific materials that carry relevant toxicity classifications. Some suggested

that to use the word "DANGER" or the

### 36116 Federal Regist er / Vol. 57,

### No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 /

### Rules and Regulations

skull and crossbones symbol on posting signs would be misleading and weaken the meaning of these signals where materials in toxicity categories III or IV might be involved. Some comments requested that the signs be in as many languages as necessary to reflect the composition of the work force; others requested that additional information be required on the signs, such as the name of the pesticide, the date and time applied, and where toxicity information may be

obtained. The Agency is persuaded to change the wording of the treated area warning sign. The words "DANGER/PELIGRO,"

"PESTICIDES/ PESTICIDAS " and

"KEEP OUT/NO ENTRE" will be required. The Agency realizes that Spanish/English signs cannot be read by all workers, but it is impractical to require printing in all the languages used by workers. The Agency believes that removal of the words "Pesticides" and "Danger" from the signs would defeat the purpose of the signs. Changing the wording to reflect the signal word for the pesticide used would require the employer to have several sets of signs, which would be burdensome. The objective of posting is to keep workers out of an area under treatment, not to inform them of the type or degree of hazard. Because the Agency believes that a generic treated-area sign is the most practical, economical, and reasonablechoice, it will not require applicationspecific information to be listed on the sign. Such information may be added to the sign if the information does not interfere with the other components of the sign. Application-specific information will be required at the centrally located notification area. The Agency proposed that warning signs be visible from all usual points of worker entry to the pesticide-treated areas, including each access road, each border with any labor camp adjacent to the pesticide-treated area, and each foot path and other walking route that enters the pesticide-treated area. When there were no usual points of worker entry, signs were to be posted in the corners of the pesticide-treated area or in any other location affording maximum visibility. Several comments requested that posting also be used to protect other persons, such as persons who live in houses or labor camps adjacent to the fields and persons who may be passing by fields. Some comments advocated posting at specified distances along the perimeter of treated areas in addition to the usual points of access; others noted thhe difficulty in posting all entries to

fo:rested areas.

The Agency believes that "at the usual points of entry" is the most reasonable requirement for placement of the. signs. Posting at specified intervals aliing the perimeter is unnecessary and burdensome. Labor camps within or ad.jacent to treated areas must be posted wlien posting is required for the treated area. Posting a warning sign at a central location is an inadequate replacement for the posting of treated areas. Alt'hough posting may be difficult for forestry operations, the Agency believes it i.s feasible to post at locations that may be considered usual points of acaess, such as at the place where logging roads enter a treated area.

'The Agency also recognizes the co:ncerais expressed about warning pe.rsons other than workers. While the intent of the rule is to protect ag:ricultural workers, the requirement for posting treated areas will provide warning to other people who might enter the'treated area inadvertently. The Agency intends to consider additional ac'hons to deal with exposures not

co

, 'Vered by these regulations. These inc:lude non-agricultural exposures, ag°icultural exposures excluded from thee'se regulations, and exposures to the
public.

41. Notice 

### of applications in greenhouses and nurseries. In grc:enhouses and nurseries, the Agency proposed mandatory posting of all enitry-restricted areas instead of oral
noitification, unless there are no workers

in

- the area.

Some comments supported the requirement as proposed, stating that the+-requirement to post pesticide-treated ars:as seems fair in lieu of oral warnings. Otlners objected to the requirement bei;ause nurseries were singled out for more restrictive posting requirements

tha.n forests or farms.
7Che Agency has considered the

various comments and has decided to ret-ain the mandatory posting requirement for pesticide applications in greenhouses, but to change the requirement for nurseries. Although

sor.nenurseries are much like greenhouses with many crops grown in sm,all areas, others more closely resemble farms. Therefore, the Agency is Fiersuaded that nursery employers, like farm employers, should be permitted to choose between oralnotification and posting pesticidetreiited areas except when mandatory posting and oral notification are required by the labeling. D. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

The predominant route of pesticide exposure in outdoor agricultural work,is through the skin. Therefore, any barrier tliat can be placed between the employee and the chemical to reduce

contact with the skin reducas the risk of pesticide poisoning. EPA concluded, in the proposal, that except for enclosed cockpits and enclosed cabs with positive-pressure filtration systems, the only other practical barrier availabie to pesticide applicators is PPE. For mixers and loaders, closed systems and technological advances in containers and packaging, such as water-soluble bags, have potential, but work is needed to perfect these approaches. The NPRM

stated that PPE was the most practicable approach to reducing occupational exposure to agricultural pesticides.

The proposal required the use of PPE appropriate to the pesticide and the work activity. The proposal also required employers to provide, clean, and maintain such equipment.

Several comments stated that PPE should be the last resort for protection and that engineering controls should be explored first. Some studies of desirable methods of protection have concluded

that PPE ranks below removal of employees from areas where they may be exposed, system design, and mechanical protection. Some comments stated that the proposed rule dismisses mechanical techniques of reducing or eliminating exposure as being unavailable or of limited utility and that

th.isis in sharp contrast with other regulatory proposals developed by EPA aiid other Federal agencies which "force technology" by providing a lead time for

nonmechanical solutions and then requiring the appiication of the "best available technology."

Unlike industrial environments, which
are more controlled and confined, agricultural settings do not lend themselves as easily to engineering controls. The Agency is aware of the emergence of engineering controls suitable for agricultural situations and is considering the adoption of such controls on a product-specific basis during the registration, reregistration, and Special Review processes. Until adequate engineering controls are developed and tested, PPE will remain the primary means of mitigating exposure for agricultural pesticide

handlers. The elimination of routine early entry for hand labor activities may "force" the development of engineering controls, such as mechanical harvesters,

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38117

weeders, and pruners, in crops where the timing of such tasks is critical. Some comments requested that closed system mixing and loading and enclosed cab application be required for all toxicity category I pesticides to reduce employee injuries. Some comments agreed with the proposed reduction of PPE requirements during use of closed mixing/loading systems. However, another comment requested that EPA not reduce PPE requirements for closed system mixing/ loading. It stated that pesticides are highly corrosive and that the Agency has no program to inspect and certify such systems. The comment asserted that the efficacy of closed systems has been impaired by the failure of the Agency or the manufacturers to establish uniform specifications for container openings.

One comment stated that the regulation should contain incentives to develop low-risk transfer and cleaningoptions. Requiring the use of chemicalresistant gloves and aprons to transfer granules in a closed system will cause applicators to stay with more dangerous, but cheaper, conventional systems. Similarly, if self-cleaning mechanisms are provided for pesticide equipment, PPE requirements should be reduced. Several comments requested that engineering controls such as wiper wands, low-pressure nozzles, and

stream emitters be rewarded with reduced PPE requirements. EPA considered requiring closed systems for mixing and loading all highly toxic pesticide concentrates. The Agency has decided to encourage the use of such systems by reducing the amount of PPE required when closed systems or enclosed cabs are used for mixing, loading, applying, or other handHng activities, but it will not require the use of such systems. The Agency agrees that for closed systems to be most effective in reducing exposure, the kinds and types of equipment used in such systems and the maintenance of such equipment must be standardized. Such a program is beyond the scope of part 170 as proposed; the Agency is investigating several types of engineering controls and may require

the use of such controls in the future. The Agency also agrees that "rewards" such as a reduction of PPE requirements

are incentives for handlers to use engineering controls, but eliminating all PPE requirements during the use of closed systems does not seem to be prudent. A number of accidents are reported despite the use of closed

systems. One respondent requested that EPA require state-of-the art protective clothing for employees where appropriate; another was concerned that the Agency not establish excessively rigid requirements that would discourage use of improved knowledge or technology.

EPA intends to remain attentive to the development of innovative PPE and to adjust the PPE requirements as appropriate. 1. Personal protective equipment (PPE) for early-entry workers. The Agency proposed minimum PPE requirements, based on the acute toxicity of the active ingredient, for the protection of workers who enter treated areas before the expiration of an REI.Several comments stated that earlyentry PPE should be the same as the PPE required for handlers, presumably including respiratory protection. Another stated the Agency should have a better rationale for excluding inhalation toxicity as a hazard for workers entering fields after dusts have settled, sprays have dried, or vapors have dispersed. The Agency intends to eliminate workers' respiratory exposure during application (which is defined as continuing until the pesticide is no longer being dispersed) by prohibiting workers from being in or near the treated area. The Agency has concluded that respiratory protection is not needed during the permitted entry after application. Many comments recommended that no early entry be allowed, because

workers will not use the PPE if the

weather is too hot or will risk heat stress if they do wear the equipment. A few comments objected to PPE other than normal work attire for early-entry workers by expressing the belief that, in most cases, long-sleeved work shirts and long work pants provide adequate protection. Several comments expressed dismay

that no minimum PPE was established for early-entry workers in areas treated with pesticides in toxicity categories IIIand IV and recommended that earlyentry PPE for these pesticides should benormal work attire plus chemicalresistant gloves because many of these

chemicals are skin irritants. Othersrequested that coveralls and chemicalresistant gloves be the minimum PPE for early entry after all pesticide applications. In the NPRM, there was a generic REI for pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV of: "until sprays have dried, dusts have settled, or vapors have dispersed." Since the proposal contained a complete ban on hand labor activities during that period, there was no need to specify PPE for early entry for pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV. In the final rule, the Agency has

established a 12-hour REI in lieu of the generic "until sprays have dried, dusts have settled, or vapors have dispersed" and specifies minimum PPE for early entry for all pesticides. The prohibition on most early-entry activities in the final version of part 170

has eliminated the need for most uses of early-entry PPE. For those exceptional circumstances when early entry is permitted, the Agency has decided to require early-entry workers to wear the PPE required for an applicator of the pesticide (with the exception of respiratory protection) for pesticides in toxicity categories I and Il. The Agency has specified that the minimum attire for early entry for pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV will be coveralls, waterproof or chemical-resistant gloves, socks, and shoes. This minimum attire is based on the Agency's desire to have the body protection (coveralls) provided,
cleaned, and maintained for the worker and on the Agency's belief that some early-entry workers may receive greater exposure to pesticides through residues in the treated area than handlers may receive during application: The Agency reserves the right to establish different PPE requirements for early-entry activities on a case-by-case basis if evidence supports such action. The Agency does not believe that requiring PPE or "normal work attire" after the expiration of the REI is

warranted. Where data indicate that such protection is needed, the Agency will establish such a requirement; however, if is more likely that the REI

would be extended until the PPE would no longer be needed. 2. Personal protective equipment (PPE) for pesticide handlers. Ideally, each pesticide product labeling should list specific PPE reflecting the formulation, anticipated exposure level, and toxicity of the product. These

determinations are made or are refined as products are registered or reregistered. However, the Agency acknowledges that many pesticide labels require PPE for handlers that is inadequate by the Agency's present standards. The Agency proposed to establish PPE requirements until appropriate product-specific requirements can be established. Registrants would be required to list the requirements on the labeling for each pesticide product. In this final rule, the Agency is establishing, through parts 156 and 170, minimum requirements for PPE for handlers of all agricultural pesticides in various exposure situations.

### 38118 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulat2ons

Handlers, such as those mixing, loading, and applying pesticides and those involved in flagging, repairing, adjusting, changing, or cleaning equipment face potentially dangerous levels of exposure to pesticides unless adequate protection is used. The risk of exposure is especially high for handlers who perform all these tasks and for persons, such as commercial pesticide handlers, who perform these tasks frequently.

Results of numerous studies indicate that more than 97 percent of the pesticide to which the body is exposed during handling (especially during spray applications) is deposited on the skin.

The hands and forearms account for the highest percentage of total dermal exposure. For ground applicators, mixers, and loaders, respiratory exposure constitutes a small percentage of total exposure in outdoor handling operations unless highly volatile formulations are irivolved. Respiratory exposure cannot be ignored in outdoor applications, however, since nearly 100 percent of any pesticide that enters through the lungs and gastrointestinal tract is absorbed. When pesticides are used in enclosed structures, the risk of respiratory exposure is greater than when pesticides are used outdoors.



### a. Basis for the requirements. The Agency considered whether the toxicity category of the formulated product was the appropriate basis for the PPE requirements for pesticide handlers. When the formulated pesticide product is diluted by the user, the resulting solution may be less toxic than the concentrated formulated product. When EPA establishes product-specific PPE requirements during registration or reregistration, it uses any available registrant-supplied data on the acute toxicity of the diluted product to determine the appropriate PPE for exposure to the diluted product. The Agency proposed to base the requirements on the toxicology of the formulated product. By submitting data on the toxicity of the diluted pesticide product, however, registrants could reduce the PPE requirements for handlers, except for mixers and loaders who would be exposed to concentrates. The Agency proposed that handlers of pesticides that are in toxicity category

III or IV because of acute dermal or skin irritation potential be required to wear "normal work attire" (long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks). For pesticides that are in toxicity category III because of dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential, handlers also would be required to wear chemical-resistant gloves. For pesticides that are in toxicity c:ategory III or IV because of inhalation toxicity or eye irritation potential, the Agency proposed no minimum PPE r'equirements, but reserved the option of requiring PPE for those hazards on a pioduct-specific basis as warranted by

e:vidence. Most comments supported the Agency's proposal to base PPE requirements on the toxicity of the formulated product and the Agency's

u.se of a table to determine the appropriate attire for a pesticide product.

Some comments recommended that P'PE for applicators be based on the toxicity of the dilute product; another requested that PPE be based on the type

o£ formulation as well as the acute toxicity. One comment stated that toxicity should not be the sole determinant of PPE and that use pattern

and mode of action must be considered. .This regulation allows registrants that have data on the toxicity of the dilute product to use that data in establishing the PPE requirements for handlers e:Kposed to the diluted product. H:owever, basing PPE on the type of fcirmulation, the use pattern, or the mode oiF;action is best accomplished on aproduct-specific basis during the caseby-case review of a product. Therefore, thie Agency will not consider these fa:ctors in establishing the generic PPE requirements for pesticide handlers in

psrrt 156.



### b. Types of personal protective ectuipment (PPE) required—i. Body protection. In the current regulations, "protective clothing" is defined as "at

least a hat or other suitabie headcovering, a long-sleeved shirt and longle,gged trousers or a coverall-type gairment (all of closely woven fabric covering the body, including arms and le;gs), shoes and socks." The Agency now deems this clothing inadequate to protect either handlers or workers er.itering treated areas before the ex:piration of the REI. In the NPRM, the Agency proposed m;inimum PPE requirements that would vaLiy according to: (1) The acute toxicity of the pesticide, (2) the type of employee activity, (3) route of exposure, and (4) this presence of engineering controls. Uiider the proposal, all handlers and early-entry workers exposed to pesticides in toxicity category I or II because of either dermal toxicity or skin irri;tation potential would be required to we'ar a protective suit over normal work

attire. 15ome comments requested that chemical-resistant protective suits be reiluired for handling all pesticides in toxicity categories I and II, especially for airblast applications. One comment requested a'change in the definition of "protective suit" to include suits made

of nonwoven materials. The Agency has changed the term "protective suit" to "coverall" and changed the definition. "Coverall"means any loose-fitting one- or twopiece garment that covers, at a minimum, the entire body except the
feet, hands, and head. ' The Agency considered requiring the use of a chemical-resistant protective suit when handling pesticides in toxicity category I (acute dermal), but was persuaded that two layers of clothing provide adequate protection. To minimize dermal exposure to pesticides, protective garments must be worn to cover any body area(s) of concern. iCotton or cotton and polyester, i.e., woven fabrics, are preferred for work clothing because they are more comfortable to wear, and they can be washed. Appropriate protective . coverings, such as coveralls, can reduce i:he exposure to pesticide users' trunk area, arms, and legs by 99 percent. One study concluded that the use of rubberized clothing did not provide more protection than the regular work clothing (consisting of cotton shirts and trousers worn under long-sleeved coveralls). The final rule, however,

allows users to wear a chemicalresistant protective suit as an alternative to the two layers of clothing. The development of various types of clisposable chemical-resistant garments r.nade of nonwoven materials, such as Tyvek (spunbonded olefinic fibers), gives pesticide users a wide choice of protective materials. Most comments on the requirement to wear a protective coverall over another layer of clothing asked the Agency to reconsider; objections centered on the problems of heat-related illness and discomfort associated with wearing two layers of clothing in the summer months. One comment stated that if a protective suit is worn and becomes contaminated, it can be discarded and replaced with a clean suit on site, whereas if the normal work attire becomes contaminated, the worker may have to return home in contaminated clothing.

Numerous comments stated that the inore uncomfortable protective clothing becomes, the more likely it is that employees will avoid wearing the protective clothing or the more likely they will not complain to the appropriate authority about the lack of protective clothing in the event the einployer fails to furnish such clothing. Another comment stated that, in an einergency, stripping the coverall off

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / R

### ule s

### a nd Regulations: 

### 38119

quickly, wasbing, and putting on the extra coverall that is required to be kept

at the decontamination site would be more protective than a false sense of security brought by two layers of clothing.

Some comments stated that convincing handlers to wear a coverall and chemical-resistant gloves would be



### a major breakthrough in PPE and that a requirement for two layers of protection might discourage any compliance. The Agency considered the comments on the requirement for handlers andearly-entry workers to wear a longsleeved shirt and long pants under a coverall in activities involving pesticides that are in toxicity category I or II because of dermal toxicity or skin irrltation potential. A review of the

literature revealed several studies supporting the concept of layering as an effective protective system; the protection afforded by protective clothing is proportional to the thickness

and the closeness of the weave. The Agency recognizes that the use of

PPE 

### in hot, humid working conditions may lead to heat stress and discomfort. But the alternative of requiring the use of a single-layered chemical-resistant suit would not solve these problems. The Agency does not consider a coverall without an additional layer of clothing to be protective for pesticides with an acute dermal toxicity value in toxicity category I or 11. The Agency does recognize, however, that pesticides in toxicity category I present a greater hazard and risk than those in toxicity category II. Therefore, the Agency will require either a chemical-resistant protective suit or a coverall worn over a long-sleeved shirt and long pants when handling pesticides classified as toxicity category I for dermal toxicity or skin irritation. For handling pesticides classified in toxicity category II for dermal toxicity or skin irritation, a chemical-resistant protective suit or coveralls worn over a layer of clothing that covers the trunk area (e.g., T-shirts and shorts) is specif'ied. Many comments agreed with the proposed PPE requirements for "normal work attire," which was defined as long pants, a long-sleeved shirt, shoes, and socks, for handlers of pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV. But several other comments requested that

more than "normal work attire" be required for handlers of pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV. The Agency has considered the comments regarding the PPE required for handling pesticides in toxicity categories III and IV and has determined that the PPE proposed is adequate to protect handlers of these pesticides. The Agency has written the PPE requirements to create an incentive for users to choose less acutely toxic pesticides whenever possible. Several comments requested EPA to clarify that its intent was to establish"normal work attire" for pesticidehandling activities and not for all work on agricultural establishments. To eliminate the confusion, the phrase

"normal work attire" is not used in the final rule. PPE and other clothing required for handling the pesticide will be specified on pesticide labeling. 

### ii. Hand protection. Dermal exposure

of the hands and forearms is the most significant route of pesticide exposure for hand laborers, applicators, mixers, loaders, and other persons who are exposed occupationally to agricultural pesticides and their residues. It has been estimated that chemical-resistant gloves can reduce hand exposure by as much as 98 percent. The Ager}cy proposed to requirechemical-resistant gloves for all earlyentry and pesticide handling situations involving pesticides that are in toxicity categories I, II, or III because of dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential. (No gloves were required for early-entry or pesticide handling situations for pesticides in toxicity category IV). Leather gloves, uncoated cloth gloves, and fingerless gloves are not acceptable, because liquid and particulate pesticides can penetrate them. The Agency considered an exception for early-entry workers handling roses, because sturdy, flexible glove materials

such as leather will withstand the wear and tear from thorns whiie providing sufficient dexterity. Few comments discussed glove materials. The greenhouse industry asked to be permitted to wear leather gloves while working with roses and other thorny plants. The Agency has determined thatmultiple-use cotton gloves and cottonlined gloves are not acceptable for use in pesticide handling or early entry because they are difficult to

decontaminate after use: If suitablepuncture-resistant and chemicalresistant gloves are not obtainable, the Agency will allow the use of leather gloves for working in thorny plants, with two restrictions: (1) Chemical=resistant glove liners must be worn, and (2) leather gloves that have been worn once for protection from pesticide exposure shall thereafter be worn only with

chemical-resistant liners.

A few comments stated that either the pesticide registrant or EPA should give more specific guidance on how to determine which glove materials are chemical-resistant to specific pesticide

formulations. The Agency concurs and has developed a guidance package for pes.ticide users on the selection, use, and

maintenance of chemical-resistant gloves. The final rule requires registrants to specify in the product labeling the appropriate type of gloves to be used with the product.,EPA will continue to cooperate with the American Society for Testing and Materials to develop testing'criteria for chemical resistance in glove's and to sponsor research into the chemical resistance of various glove materials.



### iii. Foot protection. The feet may be exposed to pesticides from spills, splashes, or downward sprays, and from walking through vegetation after application while sprays are still wet. The Agency proposed to require chemical-resistant footgear for handlers and workers entering areas treated with pesticides in toxicity category I or II (dermal/skin irritation). A few comments stated that wearing

chemical-resistant footwear can be uncomfortable and may cause a foot disease similar to trench foot. Many comments urged the Agency toreconsider the requirement for chemicalresistant footwear in forests, stating that

leather boots are worn for traction on rocks and debris, protection from pests and snakes, and for durability. The comments stated that the safety hazards of working in this environment increase

if chemical-resistant boots or boot covers are required. Because of the problems inherent in decontaminating non-chemical-resistant footwear, the Agency will continue to require the use of chemical-resistant footwear for pesticides in toxicity categories I and II (dermal toxicity or skin irritation). I-Iowever, the Agency is persuaded by the comments that for physical safety, pesticide handlers and early-entry workers in rough terrain should be permitted to wear leather

boots if chemical-resistant boots of sufficient traction and durability are not

obtainable.



### iv. Eye protection. The eyes and face may be exposed whenever there is a chemical splash or a high level of mists, vapors; or dusts during mixing, loading, and applying pesticides or whenever residues are dislodged from foliar

surfaces above the head of the worker. The Agency proposed to require the use of goggles or a face shield by all handlers and early-entry workers exposed to pesticides with,toxicity category I or II eye irritation potential. Goggles or a face shield also would be required during mixing and loading

### 38120 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

using pressurized closed systems because of the high risk of exposure and serious eye injury if the system ruptured. Many comments pointed out that goggles and face shields are uncomfortable during prolonged use in

hot weather and that there should be some provision for employees who wear eyeglasses. Others commented that for most pesticides and use circumstances, several styles of eye protection provide near goggle-level protection at greatly

increased levels of wearer comfort and with less tendency to fog. The Agency is persuaded that safety glasses with protective shields at the eyebrows and temples provide adequate eye protection in most pesticide handling and early-entry situations. Because they are more.acceptable than goggles to employees, they would be more likely to be used. The regulation, therefore, has been modified to require the use of "protective eyewear" in handler and early-entry situations involving pesticides in toxicity categories I and II for eye irritation. . V9lhen "protective eyewear" is required, the employer shall provide goggles, a face shield, or safety glasses with side shields and brow guards. For products in toxicity category I for eye irritation, the Agency may, on a case-by-case basis, require the labeling to include a requirement for the use of goggles or a face shield.
v. llespiratory protection. The Agency proposed to require handlers and other

workers who enter treated areas before vapors have dispersed to wear respiratory protection devices approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSI-iA), if the pesticide is in toxicity category I or II for inhalation toxicity. The Agency did not propose to require respiratory protection for handlers of pesticides with inhalation toxicity classified in toxicity category III or IV or for workers entering treated areas after pesticide vapors have dispersed. Several comments pointed out that although several types of respirators have NIOSH/MSHA approval for protection against pesticides, NIOSH does not test respirators for individual pesticides. Therefore, requiring "a NIOSH- or MSHA-approved respirator"

does not assure the use of the most appropriate respirator for a specific. pesticide. The comments also noted that the NIOSH instructions that accompany air-purifying respirators refer the user to the pesticide label for limitations of use. Some comments urged the Agency to require pesticide manufacturers to provide respirator instructions in the pleoduct labeling. Most comments urged the Agency to require respirator fit-testing before a respirator 

## is used and a physician's approval that the handler's physical c:pndition will permit him/her to use a respirator safely. One comment stated i.hat the use of forced air respirators

would eliminate some of the fitness and fit testing problems. : Several comments suggested that the
selection, use and maintenance of respirators be consistent with the program described in the OSHA standards (29 CFR 1910.134) and/or that i:he specific recommendations be provided in the Agency's rule. The Agency agrees with the comments regarding the need for a comprehensive respirator use program encompassing selection, correct use, and appropriate inaintenance of respirators. EPA has iieveloped a guidance document on the iise of respirators in agriculture. The llanguage in the final rule offers some guidance on changing filters, cartridges 

### and canisters in the absence of direction 1Fiom the manufacturer; part 156 requires the registrant to specify what type of nespirator should be used with a product that requires respiratory protection for ,handling.

c. Exceptions to personal protective squipment (PPE) requirements. The .Agency has retained the requirements proposed for aerial applicators. Pilots in enclosed cockpits will not be required to wear PPE. Pilots in open cockpits must wear the PPE required for a ground applicator of the product in use, except

that chemical-resistant footwear is not required, and a helmet with visor may be used in lieu of a hat and protective eyewear. Pilots in both types of equipment must wear the protective gloves required by the labeling when entering or exiting a plane whose exterior is contaminated by pesticide

residues. ' The Agency proposed that pesticide handlers in the enclosed cabs of ground vehicles should be exempt from PPE requirements. If the enclosed cab did not contain a properly functioning gas- or vapor-removing ventilation system, any labeling requirement for a respirator would be in effect, but all other PPE would be waived. Fully enclosed cabs

without air filtration have been shown to reduce dermal (but not respiratory) exposure substantially for airblast applicators. The Agency was concerned, ;however, that heat buildup in unventilated enclosed cabs might lead ,applicators to open windows for comfort, which would negate the benefit of the er.closed cab. The Agency specifically sought comment on this issue. The Agency also was concerned about the possibility of handlers leaving
the enclosed cab in the treated area, becoming contaminated, and then returning to the enclosed cab. Therefore, EPA proposed that all PPE required for a ground applicator of the pesticide must be available for use any time the

handler leaves the cab in the treated

area. Most comments expressed concern that applicators in cabs without ventilation will open the window on a warm day, thus negating the cab's protection. Many suggested that full PPE should be required for operators in an enclosed

cab without ventilation. One comment noted that there is no way to eliminate

the need for handlers to leave the cab in the treated area; since protective clothing must be worn, employers will use this as an excuse for not providing protective cabs. An equipment

manufacturer commented that their

studies have shown that contaminated clothing (gloves on the steering wheel or dash, etc.) is a major source of chemical

contamination inside cab enclosures. The Agency acknowledges the potential for defeat of the enclosed cab's protection by opening windows or by contaminating the interior of the cab with clothing or equipment containing pesticide residues. However, EPA supports the use of engineering controls in lieu of PPE where feasible; an enclosed cab used correctly is protective. The Agency is aware that pesticide applications in many regions of the country take place where discomfort from heat is not a factor, even in enclosed cabs. The Agency is aware also of many situations where the applicator is not the mixer or loader or the person who repairs or adjusts the application equipment, and therefore would not be required to change into or

out of PPE for these activities. Under these conditions, it would be inappropriate to require PPE in the enclosed cabs. Therefore, the Agency

continues to waive the PPE requirements, with the exception of any respirator requirement, for applicators in

enclosed cabs. If the windows of the cab are opened at any time during the application or the enclosure is otherwise breached, the cab is no longer considered enclosed, and applicators would be required to wear the PPE required on the pesticide labeling for applicators of the product. Users must wear PPE when leaving the cab only if they will contact pesticide-treated surfaces in the treated area. They may leave the cab for a rest stop or other reason (other than

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38121

handling pesticides) without wearing PPE if they will not be in contact with pesticide-treated surfaces in the treated area. The applicator may leave the cab and walk away from the just-treated

area without PPE. The Agency is concerned that the interior of the enclosed cab may becontaminated from pesticidecontaminated clothing worn or taken into the cab. Therefore, the Agency changed the language of the rule to prohibit such an action. Once PPE is

worn 

### in the treated area, it may not be

worn into or taken into the cab.

A few comments concurred with the Agency's proposal to waive the use of all PPE, including respirator, if the enclosed cab has a properly functioning, positive-pressure ventilation system that removes vapors from the air. The Agency based its proposal on studies indicating that positive-pressure, charcoal- filtered ventilation systems on

enclosed cabs can remove more than 99 percent of pesticide vapors and sprays during air intake. Other comments

stated that enclosed cabs were unproven as protection for airborne

hazards and that data are needed that

demonstrate the effectiveness of the protection offered by an enclosed cab. The Agency believes that incentives should be used to encourage the use of engineering controls instead of PPE when such technology exists. In the final rule, persons occupying an enclosed cab that has a properly functioning ventilation system, which is used and

maintained in accordance with that manufacturer's written operating

instructions and which is declared in writing by the manufacturer or by a government agency to provide respiratory protection equivalent to or greater than the respirator required by the pesticide labeling, may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks for labeling-specified PPE. 

### d. Duties relating to personal protective equipment (PPE). The Agency proposed that all PPE required by the pesticide product labeling for a particular work activity be provided to handlers and early-entry workers and that the employer clean and maintain suchequipment. In the final rule, EPA has modified the language to clarify who is responsible for fulfilling the various requirements and provisions. This section now specifically states that the employer shall provide the appropriate PPE in clean and operating condition. This provision does not prohibit handlers who own PPE, such as a respirator, from using that equipment. The employer, however, would be required to assure that such equipment is cleaned and maintained. The employees would not

be allowed to wear home or to take home the equipment unless it had been

cleaned first.

A few comments indicated uncertainty about who would provide "normal work attire" (long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, and socks) when it is required by the labeling and

whether it is considered to be PPE. The Agency does not include normal work attire in the definition of PPE; therefore, it is not part of the employer's responsibility to provide or maintain

this attire. The Agency perceives the appropriate decontamination of PPE as a major area of concern. Significant levels of some pesticides can remain in clothing or equipment if it is not laundered correctly or if prescribed decontamination procedures are not followed. Surveys of pesticide users, especially agricultural workers, indicate that a large percentage do not follow any precautionary procedures when cleaning contaminated clothing and equipment. If PPE is reused without cleaning or laundering, the protective effect may be reduced or eliminated. Therefore, the Agency has determined that it is appropriate for the employer to assure

that PPE is cleaned and maintained properly before it is reused. The proposal required that after each use all PPE be washed thoroughly, with detergent and hot water or be cleaned according to the manufacturer's

instructions and that it either be dried thoroughly before being stored or be placed in a well-ventilated place to dry. The Agency also proposed that PPE bestored away from pesticidecontaminated places and be stored separately from personal clothing to

avoid contamination of either clean PPE or clean personal clothing. A few readers interpreted the proposal as requiring laundry facilities on-site (on the farm, forest, or nursery, or in the greenhouse). It does not.

Several comments said EPA did not provide sufficient guidance for the implementation of the proposed cleaning and maintenance provisions. Two comments questioned appropriate

decontamination for chemical-resistant protective clothing and equipment; fabric clothing can be laundered daily,

but chemical-resistant suits are expensive and are damaged by constant laundering in hot water: One was concerned that conventional washing of chemical-resistant suits may result in

low-level contamination of the inside surfaces that might not occur otherwise. It suggested modifying the language to state that chemical-resistant suits, hats, boots, and gloves need not be washed or cleaned daily, but must be kept in a

condition of cleaniiness consistent with employee safety.

Several comments questioned the conditions under which the employee may be permitted to wear or to take

home "normal woik attire" that has become contaminated. To prevent these situations, some comments advocated that the employer should be responsible for'cleaning and maintaining "normal work attire," i.e., long-sleeved shirts, long pants, shoes, and socks worn during handling or early-entry activities when it is specified on the labeling.
Several comments from the forestry industry asserted that it 

### was awkward

to clean and maintain PPE 

### in typical forestry situations. Some of these requested that PPE and laundry requirements be eliminated for pesticides 

### in toxicity categories III and IV and for diluted pesticides:in toxicity categories I and II.
The Agency has studied the comments on this issue. As stated above, normal work attire is not considered to be PPE; thus, the employer has no responsibility to provide it. However, EPA is concerned about employees' wearing or taking home pesticide-contaminated clothing or equipment, regardless of whether the clothing is provided by the employer or by the employee. The Agency, therefore, is inclined to require that employers clean and maintain any attire an employee wears while handling pesticides or performing early-entry tasks. However, such an option was not discussed in the NPRM, and the economic impact of such a requirement has not been assessed. The Agency must study the costs and logistics involved in such a requirement and may publish a proposal on this issue for public comment at a later time. Although it would be prudent for employers toclean and to maintain pesticidecontaminated work clothing for their employees, it is not a requirement of this

final rule.
If a pesticide used in forestry requires the use of PPE, such equipment must be cleaned and maintained by the employer. This cleaning and

maintenance need not be done on the employer's premises or immediately foilowing use. EPA left flexibility in the requirement to allow for employers to

collect contaminated PPE and to clean it

at their convenience at a location of choice. Therefore, forestry employerscould provide their handlers (and earlyentry workers) with a clean set of PPE for each day of handling activities and provide a chemical-resistant container that could be securely fastened, such as

### 38122 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

a sturdy plastic bag, for storing the

contaminated PPE until it is cleaned.

EPA's directive to wash PPE in hot water and detergent is the alternative

when there are no directions from the

manufacturer on how to clean and maintain equipment. The goal is to remove pesticide residues as completely as possible so that the equipment is

clean the next time it is used. Evidence

indicates that non-chemical-resistant clothing and equipment, as well as many chemical-resistant items, should be cleaned in hot water and a heavy-duty detergent to remove pesticide residues most efficiently. If manufacturers of chemical-resistant gloves, boots, or protective suits indicate another method of cleaning and maintaining the equipment, it must be followed. EPA proposed that persons responsible for cleaning the PPE would be informed that the equipment might be contaminated with pesticides. Only a

few comments were received on this issue. One comment requested that any person cleaning the PPE be required to provide written verification that he has

been warned of the hazards.

EPA concurs with the sense of the

comment and has rewritten the rule to require the employer to inform persons

who clean or launder PPE or other pesticide-contaminated items of the possibility that such items may be contaminated with pesticides and of the potentially harmful effects from exposure to pesticides. The employer must also inform these persons of the appropriate procedure(s) for handling and cleaning such items. Some comments requested more specific guidance as to who would be responsible for inspecting the PPE before each day of use. A few suggested that the inspector be a certified applicator; others suggested that training on the appropriate inspection of

PPE would be beneficial. It is the employer's responsibility to

assure that the PPE is maintained properly, and this includes inspecting the PPE for damage and other defects. This may be done by the employer, by a designated supervisor, or by the employees if they have been instructed in the care and cleaning of PPE. The Agency believes that it is not practical in many agricultural situations to require a certified applicator to inspect all PPE before each day of use.

EPA concurs that information on procedures for inspecting PPE would be useful. The Agency has developed a guidance brochure on the maintenance and inspection of PPE such as protective eyewear, gloves, protective footwear, chemical-resistant protective suits, hats
or hoods, and coveralls. 

### e. Heat-related illness (heat stress). Pklthough chemical-resistant suits are not part of the minimum PPE proposed by this regulation, they are required by tl.ie labeling for a few pesticides. The NPRM prohibited tasks requiring

chemical-resistant suits where a combination of temperature, humidity, and time required to complete a,task niight be expected to cause heat-induced

il.lness. The onset of these illnesses d.epends on a variety of factors, and EPA expressed the belief in the NPRM tlhat users could be expected to a.nticipate when work activities might

result in heat stress. Many comments expressed concern

about the risk of heat stress in a.griculture with respect to the use of F'PE when handling pesticides in warm climates, stating that guidance and t:raining were central to enabling employers and employees to prevent heat-related disorders. Nearly every comment disagreed with EPA's a:ssumption that the employer could

ascertain when heat-related illness was a:risk and asked EPA to give guidance

a bout the conditions that would warrant l:imiting work due to heat stress

concerns. Some comments stated that it is i:nappropriate and unfair to ask e:mployers to make decisions about lieat-induced illness, a complicated and potentially life-threatening condition; farmers and ranchers have no training in

health care. The comments stated that the employee should be trained to recognize the early signs and symptoms of heat-induced illness and be permittedto take work breaks, remove chemicalresistant suits (in 

# a clean area), seek
inedical attention, or take other

reasonable measures to alleviate those

symptoms. A few comments requested that PPE not be used or that the protective suit be Iiermitted to be unzipped during applications when the applicator was iipwind of the spray. Some comments

stated that environmental conditions in some States or regions make wearing any PPE a problem because of extreme ]ieat or humidity. „ A few comments requested that specific temperature and humidity 1;uidelines be established.

' The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health offered !>'ome recommendations for reducing ]:ieat stress when PPE is required.

EPA has determined that heat-related i;llness is a potential problem with the r,ise of many types of PPE. Therefore, the Agency has modified the language in the rule to state that the employer should 3use appropriate precautions to prevent iheat-related illness (§ 170.240(g)). EPA l.1as developed a guidance document that addresses recognition, prevention, and

treatment of heat stress under agricultural working conditions. This document can be used by employers to

determine suitable measures for preventing heat-related illness, as required by the rule.
EPA also believes that training handlers and early-entry workers to recognize the early warning signs and symptoms and to implement appropriate

first-aid measures for heat-related illness will help to minimize the risk of
such illnesses. Thus, EPA has modified the requirements for the training programs for handlers and the instructions for early-entry workers to

include information about heat-related

illness.
The establishment of specific temperature and humidity limits was determined to be inappropriate, because they are only two of several factors that

contribute to the onset of heat-related illness. The Agency is persuaded that employers may be able to complete necessary pesticide handling activities, even in very warm weather, by acclimating handlers and early-entry workers, providing plenty of drinking water, modifying work schedules and work/rest cycles, and using portable cooling devices.



### E. Decontamination

The Agency proposed that water, soap, and single-use towels be available during any work activity where there is potential employee contact with concentrated or diluted pesticides or

with surfaces that have been treated with pesticides.
For pesticide handlers and early-entry
workers, decontamination facilities would be required at all times since these activities have the greatest risk of exposure. For persons working in treated areas after the REI has expired, the Agency proposed to limit the requirement to activities in areas that have been treated during the current growing season.
Many comments questioned the need for decontainination facilities during an entire crop cycle, stating that a time should be specified.
The Agency believes that there is a

need for decontamination facilities after the end of the REI. The Agency recognizes, however, that some pesticides'may have been applied long

before workers enter the area. EPA agrees with the comments that suggested that the proposed requirement might be excessive, and it sought to determine what might be a reasonable

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38123

time during which decontamination

facilities should be available. Knaak, Iwata, and Maddy, in a 1989 investigation of a series of pesticide poisoning incidents that occurred after the expiration of an REI, found that the median time from application in these incidents was 29 days. The Agency has studied more recent data regarding the incidence of multiple-case systemic illnesses of agricultural field workers from exposure to residues of organophosphates in California. Among

the 44 incidents for which data were provided, the mean length of time from application to poisoning was 20 days, with a median of 16 days. The range was from less than 1 day to 66 days, although this latter figure was an outlier and did not appear to be well substantiated. Excluding parathion (no longer registered for most crops) and this outlier, the longest period between application and reentry poisoning was 39 days. The Agency believes that poisoning ineidents that occur more than 30 days beyond the REI probably stem from a miscalculation in establishing the REI that is listed on the labeling. As part of the Pesticide Hazard Assessment Project funded by EPA in 1985, a computer model was developed to estimate how long hazardous residues might persist. For one of the pesticides studied the hazard was predicted to remain for 30 days after the REI had expired. The Agency is seeking to

corroborate and refine this model. In the meantime, the Agency believes it should institute a safety factor in the Worker Protection Standard to compensate for this potential variability. In response to the comments, the Agency has modified the language in the final rule to require decontamination facilities for workers entering a treated

area for which an REI is in effect and for workers entering a treated area within 30 days after the expiration of the REI.

The NPRM also stated that the water shall be potable, in adequate supply, at a temperature that will not injure the eyes, and reasonably accessible to each worker's place of work. There were many comments about the proposed rule's reference to potable water. Those supporting the requirement for potable water said that OSHA requirements for field sanitation already require potable water in the fields. Comments from representatives of the forestry industry pointed out that potable water might not be available to forestry workers working in areas with

no vehicular access. Those opposing the requirement for potable water stated that farm wells are not required to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements, so it is unreasonable to expect water supplied

from a farm to meet this standard for quality. In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

stated that the decontamination provisions of the draft final rule would be unreasonably burdensome to employers because of the requirement for potable water for handwashing purposes. They stated that the standard for potable water is higher than necessary for washing purposes and

that clean Water should be sufficient. Clean water, they suggested, would be readily available from farm and, irrigation wells, whereas potable water may not be. USDA believes that changing the decontamination provisions to permit the use of clean water would greatly reduce the burden and expense to farm employers without significantly reducing worker protection. They suggested that an appropriate standard might be the regional or local standard for water safe for swimming. As stated in the NPRM, the Agency proposed the standard of "potable" for the quality of water for two primary

reasons:

(1) "OSHA's Field Sanitation Standard (29

CFR 1928.110) requires potable water in the fields for hand laborers, intended not only for washing but also for drinking purposes. Even though EPA's proposed requirement was intended to provide water only for washing, in practice the water may be used by workers for drinking as well:' (2) "[O]nly 'potable' water can be defined in such a way that noncompliance can be clearly ascertained."

At the time of the proposal, EPA

believed that since OSHA uses the potable water standard for its Field Sanitation Standard, it would be easier for employers to comply with one water standard than with two. However; EPA was reminded by commenters that approximately 89 percent of agricultural establishments are not currently covered by OSHA's Field Sanitation

Standard and that EPA should be responsive wthe burden to employers

on those establishments. EPA has been persuaded by'the comments that a standard of. "potable" may impose a substantial burden to agricultural employers, without a

concomitant benefit to worlcers. EPA believes the goal of this requirement

should be to ensure that workers and handlers will be provided with water that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts their skin or eyes and will not cause illness or injury if they should happen to swallow it. Thus, the Agency has been persuaded to eliminate the requirement for "potable" water and instead has required the provision of water that meets the stated performance standards. This will permit employers to equip decontamination sites with water which is used for drinking 

### on the agricultural establishment, but which may not meet the standard of potability in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In reexamining the options, EPA considered .establishing the quality

standard of "clean" water defined as water safe for swimming. However, the Agency was unable to ascertain how agricultural employers would be able to apply such a standard. In adopting a standard of water quality different from a potability standard, EPA remains concerned that in practice, some workers may drink the water, especially if no alternative source of drinking

water were available in the field. Moreover, the Agency has concluded that water must be of a quality safe for drinking because (1) workers and handlers may accidentally swallow water in the process of washing/flushing their faces or eyes, and (2) workers and handlers may mistake wash water for drinking water. EPA believes that placarding water to indicate that it is not for drinking purposes would be a difficult and unwieldy requirement given the range of languages and degree of illiteracy among workers. EPA concurs with OSHA's stance in the preamble to the Field Sanitation Standard that they "would like to eliminate the use of signs in several languages to identify different ciasses of water quality in the same workplace and the errors that occur when water supplies are confused."
The Agency believes that defining decontamination/eyeflush water, in part, as water that "will not cause illness or injury if swallowed" will allow

enforcement officials to ascertain noncompliance. EPA expects that the water used for drinking purposes on the agricultural or handler establishment will usually be the source of water for washing and eyeflushing. EPA notes that those establishments currently complying with the requirement for providing potable handwashing water to

workers under OSHA's Field Sanitation Standard would also be in compliance with the EPA requirement for

decontamination water if the same water were used. It is important to note, however, that EPA is not exercising any statutory authority in this rulemaking to address the general sanitation hazards addressed by the OSHA Field

Sanitation Standard. The Agency recognizes. the difficulty in providing decontamination sites for employees working in areas with no vehicular access and is modifying the decontamination requirements for

### 38124 Federal Register / Vol. 57, 'No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 

# f Ru1es and Regulations

activities performed more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of vehicular ' access. For these remote work sites, the required decontamination site may be located at the nearest place of vehicular access, instead of within 1/4 mile of

each worker or handler. Workers and handlers may use clean water from springs, streams, lakes, or other sources for routine and emergency

decontamination at the remote work
site, if such water is more accessible '

than the decontamination w'ater located at the nearest place of vehicular access. The Agency has concluded that, in such
circumstances, the risks from the use of water of uncertain quality are likely to be less than the risks from delay in removing pesticides or pesticide residues from the skin or eyes.

Some comments stated that "reasonably accessible" needs

definition. Numerous comments suggested that decontamination sites should be no greater than 1/4 mile from empioyees. Others noted that the restricted-entry area is where contamination may occur, that

decontamination sites should be made
available there, and that water in a tank is protected in a treatment area. The Agency believes that the language of this requirement should be consistent with the language of the

OSHA Field Sanitation Standard requiring that the decontamination site must be reasonably accessible, not to exceed 1/4 mile or approximately a 5- minute walk from each worker's place of work. As a result, the rule has been revised to include a specific distance requirement of 1/4 mile. For agricultural workers, the decontamination site must

not be in an area under an REI. For early-entry activities, the decontamination site may be in the area where the employees are working. For application activities, the decontamination site may be in the area being treated if the soap, single-use towels, and clean change of clothing are

in enclosed containers and the water is running tap water or is enclosed in a

container. The Agency proposed that an eyeflush dispenser be provided during handling and early-entry situations involving a product that is a severe eye irritant, i.e., toxicity category I or II for eye irritation, signified to the user by a requirement for protective eyewear on the labeling. The dispenser would be immediately available for emergency use, e.g., it would be carried by the handler or on the handler's vehicle. The Agency

solicited comment on whether the dispenser needs to be available during all activities or only certain ones, vvhether each employee should carry a clispenser, and whether carrying a 1-pint dispenser on one's person represents undue weight burden.

' The comments supported the requirement for requiring eyeflush dispensers for mixers and loaders. Several comments stated that eyeflush e:quipment should be available for all e:inployees, but that not all workers need to carry eyeflush dispensers; only

handlers have such 

## a need. Again, language such as "otherwise immediately accessible" was thought to 

### be vague. One comment included a copy

of an OSHA Field Directive that cautions about the possibility of c:ontamination of eyeflush water by

crcanthamoebae. Some comments suggested that if a pesticide is a hazard



## to eyes, it is best if each person carries a clispenser, but if that is not possible, a f'ull pint for each 2 or 3 persons should

be made available. Several comments rioted that eyeflush containers carried by employees may be contaminated by

h'esticides.
. The Agency is concerned that the language of the proposed rule may have led to some misconception about what 1water may be used for flushing the eyes 

## in case of emergency. The

ciecontamination water that must be provided for routine washing and E:inergency whole-body cleansing must iiot cause iliness or injury when it c:ontacts the eyes. Therefore, the Agency lias added "emergency eyeflushing" as one of the basic functions to be met by

1:hat water. EPA wants to make clear i:hat while special eyeflush dispensers inay be used, any source of water that

ineets the standards for iiecontamination in the final rulemaking i.s acceptable for flushing the eyes. In ;ippropriate instances, the language of i:he rule has been altered to change the requirement from "eyeflush dispenser" 

## i:o "eyeflush water." In addition, these requirements have been combined in ichis final rulemaking to avoid confusion.
In response to comments about

workers and handlers who need more iimmediate access to eyeflush 6quipment, the Agency requires that the emergency eyeflush water shall be ll'arried by the handler or early-entry
'worker, or shall be on the vehicle or ;3ircraft which the handler or early-entry 'worker is using, or shall be otherwise '.immediately accessible. Again, EPA -,wants to make clear that this water does :not necessarilyhave to be in a idispenser. Any nearby source of adequate amounts of water meeting the ,definition of decontamination water ;satisfies this requirement. The Agency is persuaded of the importance of protecting against bacterial and other types of

contamination of the water used for washing and eyeflushing. Therefore, the final rule will require employers to

assure that "at all times when the water
is available" to workers and handlers, it will remain of a quality and temperature

that 

## will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. The agricultural employer and handler employer will be responsible for making sure that the water is replaced and the container is cleaned often enough to prevent

bacterial or other contamination that could cause illness or injury to employees using the water for washing or eyeflushing. In most circumstances this would mean replacing water in containers at least daily and regular cleaning of those containers.

F. Emergency Assistance

EPA proposed that all employees be
informed of the name, address, and telephone number of the nearest physician, clinic, or hospital equipped to provide medical care in a pesticide poisoning or injury emergency. This information was to be displayed in a prominent location on the agricultural

establishment at all times.

In pesticide poisonings or injury emergencies, the victims may be unable to transport themselves to the nearest medical facility. Therefore, EPA proposed that prompt transportation to an appropriate medical facility be made

available when there is reason to

believe that a worker or a handler has been poisoned or injured by a pesticide. In a possible pesticide poisoning or injury, the most effective medical care can be provided only through a correct diagnosis and prompt administration of the appropriate antidote or treatment. A

doctor must know the name of the product or active ingredient to which the worker or handler has been exposed to ascertain the appropriate treatment. Thus, EPA proposed that in an emergency, workers and handlers be provided, if available, the product name, registration number, active ingredient(s),

and first aid or antidote information and

other information about the use of the pesticide and possible exposure to the

worker or the handler. This information is available to pesticide users from the labeling of the product or from their knowledge of the product; the requirement to provide information did not require that the user maintain records or keep pesticide labels or

containers.

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 /Triday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

### 38125

-

In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), the USDA stated that EPA needed to clarify when the employer is responsible for making available to the worker prompt transportation to an appropriate emergency facility. USDA stated that they interpret this provision to be applicable only while the employee is on the employer's property. EPA agrees

and has clarified in the rule that the agricultural employer must provide such transportation when a worker is on the employer's establishment, including in any labor camp located on the establishment. The Agency has similarly

clarified in the final rule that the handler employer must provide emergency transportation when a handler is at the place of employment or at the handling

site.
The Agency found no other information among the few comments on this requirement to cause it to reconsider other aspects of the requirement; they remain in the final rule essentially as proposed.



### G. Pesticide Safety Training and Information

Based on the conviction that training

and information are essentialcomponents of a successful riskreduction strategy, the NPRM proposed several requirements related to providing pesticide safety training to handlers and information to workers: (1) General pesticide safety information for workers through a poster to be displayed in the work place, (2) pesticide safety training for handlersand early-entry workers, (3) labelingspecific information to handlers, and (4) labeling-specific information to workers

on request.



### 1. General 

### pesticide safety information—a. Poster. The Agency proposed to require that general pesticide safety information be displayed on a poster in a prominent location on each agricultural establishment during the growing season. The poster would contain statements concerning pesticide hazards and recommended safety practices, the location of emergency medical care facilities, a sample of the warning signs used for posting treated areas, and statements concerning the rights and duties of employers, supervisors, and workers. All information would appear in English; if some workers read only another language, the poster either would be translated into that language or contain a statement in that language recommending that the workers have someone explain the information to

them. Workers would be informed of the location of the information and would

be allowed reasonable access to it. The Agency considered whether other methods of communicating this information to workers, such as oral instructions or a training program given either by employers or by other providers, would be more effective than a poster, and asked for comment on this

issue. Most comments favored a requirement for a pesticide safety poster. There were specific criticisms focused on the proposed content of the poster. Some comments stated that the language was too forceful; others criticized the language for not being emphatic enough. Some comments requested that the poster have definitions of the signal words used on labeling.

There were several comments concerning the location of the poster. One suggested that more than one poster be displayed per establishment; another recommended that pesticide

users distribute information sheets to

their workers to avoid intimidation and retaliation should workers attempt to study the information presented on a

poster. Some comments pointed to the difficulty of posting information at forest work sites and requested flexibility to post at the crew headquarters or assignment area.

The final rule maintains the requirement for agricultural employers and handler employers (other than employers on commercial pesticide handling establishments) to display pesticide safety information in a poster format at a central location, with some modification of the proposed requirement. Although the final rule also requires that workers and handlers receive oral or audiovisual training in pesticide safety, the Agency believes that, at least for workers who are literate, a pesticide safety poster will serve as an important reinforcement and

reminder of the information learned in the training program. A poster also will provide a convenient place in the workplace to make note of specific emergency medical information, i.e. telephone numbers and addresses. The Agency concurs with many of the comments concerning liinguistic complexity, emphasis, and other aspects of the proposed pesticide safety poster. It has decided that the exact wording and format do not belong in part 170 because changes may be needed as EPA and others gain new information about pesticide safety. In lieu of requiring the employer to display specified items of information, EPA is requiring that general topics be covered in simple, emphatic language. EPA intends to publish a poster designed to address many of the concerns raised in the comments and intended to meet the part 170 requirement. Employers may use the EPA poster or a poster of similar content that meets the requirements of part 170. The Agency will make such 

### a poster available through numerous distribution sources and will encourage other organizations to produce similar posters.
The final rule permits employers of forestry workers or handlers'to display the poster at a place other than the forest work site, as long as it is reasonably convenient for workers or handlers and they are informed of the

location. EPA does not believe that it is necessary for employers to distribute

this information to workers or handlers

in written form. EPA believes that the requirement as worded makes it clear that only one poster need be displayed per agricultural establishment; even if there are several work sites, e.g., more than one greenhouse or field, as long as each employee has access to it. EPA has made no changes to the employer's duties to maintain the poster in legible condition and update the emergency medical care information as necessary.
EPA has been convinced by comments that requiring the items of information on the poster to be translated is impractical: Since the purpose of the poster in the final rule is to reinforce worker or handler training, which must be given in a manner the worker or handler can understand, the requirement for translation has been dropped. 

### b. Training for agricultural workers. The Agency's request for comment on the most appropriate method for conveying basic pesticide safety information to workers stimulated many responses. The comments strongly supported some combination of oral, audiovisual, and written traiiiing in pesticide safety for all agricultural workers who may be exposed to pesticides or pesticide residues. Comments favoring training for all workers came not only from worker advocates such as unions and legal and health service providers, but also from universities, chemical companies, State lead agencies and other State agencies, growers, and grower organizations. A Farm Bureau chapter stated that it supported a one-time instruction given for employees, i.e. at harvest or at time of employment.

The comments stated that employers need to convey safety information to all workers orally because workers cannot or will not read written materials; oral instruction and training are the most

### 381 2 

### 6 Federal Register / Vol. 57, 

### No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

effective means to communicate

information. The few comments opposing training

for workers were concerned about the logistics of doing the training, but did not oppose the concept of such training. In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), the United States Department of Agriculture stated a concern about requiring training for agricultural workers before their first work period. They state: "In effect, the training provision will require that an employer provide training at the beginning of the season, and then, each

time an additional worker or replacement worker is hired. ... Given the extremely high variability and

turnover within labor intensive agricultural work groups (1,000 percent is not uncommon), this procedure ... would frequently result in virtually continuous training of small groups of new hires by each employer."_
The Agency believes that providing information about ways to avoid or to mitigate occupational exposure to pesticides will reduce pesticide-related illnesses and injuries among agricultural workers significantly, and it has been convinced by the public comments that training as well as displaying a poster will better convey this information. A poster may be effective in conveying a simple message, but training more effectively conveys larger amounts of information. Reliance on a poster also presents problems relating to language, literacy, and accessibility. Many agricultural workers go directly to the work site, rather than to a central location; these workers would have neither the opportunity nor the incentive to examine a poster. For workers not literate either in English or their native language, adding a paragraph to the poster in any language advising them to have the poster explained to them would do little good. From the comments, EPA has concluded that an oral or audiovisual training program is an essential complement to a poster in communicating pesticide safety information to workers, and therefore such a requirement is a necessary component of worker protection

standards. Although training each worker involves more employer effort than displaying a poster, the Agency has

determined that the burden will not be significant. In their comments, many employers noted that they train their workers in pesticide safety, either because they feel it is important, or because they believe they are subject to

the OSHA Hazard Communication regulations. EPA has developed videotape and slide-tape training programs in English and in Spanish. The Agency interids to update these materials to correspond to i:he requirements of the final rule. These iipdated materials may be used by employers, the Cooperative Extension ;iervice, State agencies, health care providers, and others; employers may obtain and use the training materials i:hemselves or make arrangements to liave workers trained by others.

The final rule has been modified to include a training requirement for workers. The modified rule requires agricultural employers to assure that before the 6th day that any worker enters any areas on the agricultural
establishment where, within the last 30 (iays, a pesticide has been applied or an
REI has been in effect, the worker receives pesticide safety training. For i:he first 5 years after the effective date
iif the rule, however, the rule allows einployers up to the 16th day that any 1Norker enters any areas on the agricultural establishment where, within i:he last 30 days, a pesticide has been a,pplied or an REI has been in effect, to

assure that the worker receives pesticide safety training. The Agency's i.ntent is that workers receive training as :;oon as is practicable in each work sxtuation, but not necessarily before i:heir first exposure. In most instances, the Agency believes that whenever permanent employees and crews of employees are hired, the training could itake place before the new-hires' first exposure period.
The longer time period (approximately 3 work-weeks for the first 5 years and approximately 1 work-week thereafter) ;allows agricultural employers more :tlexibility in arranging for training of 'workers they employ. Such flexibility

- will be most useful for establishments •uVhere there is frequent turnover in the •workforce, such as with large crews of
seasonal labor, or where one or more of

the workers do not understand either English or Spanish and a person who -aan translate the training to such

workers must be located. After the 5— year period, most of the existing agricultural workforce already should be trained and only workers new to agriculture will need to be trained. In addition, by the end of the 5-3Fear period, agricultural employers should have access to training materials and translators in the necessary languages. Therefore, beginning 5 years from the effective date of the revised final WPS,

workers must be trained before their sixth day of entrance to areas where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has

~

; been applied or an REI has been in

effect. The 6th (or 16th, as applicable) day of entry is not limited to a growing season or calendar year. It is the 6th (or 16th) day of exposure beginning when a worker enters areas on the agricultural establishment following a treatment with a pesticide to which the Worker Protection Standard applies. To avoid keeping track of such workers' days of exposure, two options are available to the agricultural employers. First, they

can make sure that all workers are trained before their first exposure in such areas. Second, they can hire only those workers who have already received training and who possess a valid training certificate. The Agency is also attempting to mitigate repetitive training by establishing a relatively lengthy (about 20 months) lead time before the training provisions of the final rule are

enforceable. This lead time will allow a

substantial number of workers to be trained in the interim. Once a large percentage of workers have been trained, the concern about repetitive training diminishes, because many new hires already will have received training. The risks from pesticide residues

decrease as the time increases between application and entry into treated areas. The Agency recognizes that in some

circumstances or under some conditions residues might remain as long as 30 days

after the end of an REI. Workers who

enter the areas after that time have littleto gain from the use of exposuremitigation techniques. As a iesult, a grower who applies a preplant herbicide in March and uses no other pesticide treatments during the growing season would not be obliged to train workers who are hired to harvest the crop in October. Therefore, the Agency has chosen to require training for workers who enter an area where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or

an REI has been in effect. All early-entry workers must be trained before they are allowed to enter an area before the REI has expired. Workers must receive training before they are allowed to enter treated areas before the expiration of an REI to perform tasks permitted under § 170.112 and involving contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide, including, but not limited to, soil, water, or surfaces of plants, because EPA believes that their risk of exposure is higher than that for workers entering after the expiration of the REI. Workers and early-entry workers must be given the specified training in

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38127

pesticide safety, unless they: (1) Satisfy the training requirement for pesticide handlers under this regulation, (2) satisfy the training requirement under part 171 of this chapter, or (3) are currently certified private or commercial pesticide applicators. The training program must be presented in a manner the worker can understand, using nontechnical terms. The general pesticide information must be presented either orally using written materials, or audiovisually. As a minimum, the person conducting the training must have been trained as a pesticide handler under part 170. The training may be presented using a translator or through sign language, if the employer assures that the worker can understand the information being presented. The fact that an employer does not normally provide training in the particular language of a job applicant, or that translation services are not readily available, does not absolve an employer of his training responsibilities under the WPS. Employers who provide training under the WPS should be cognizant that a refusal to hire an applicant who is unable to understand the language or languages in which the employer usually provides training may constitute

discrimination on the basis of national origin. Discrimination on the basis of national origin is actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or under the Immigration Reform and

Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). There is also a possibility that the failure of an employer to provide training in any language and, instead to consistently require current training certificates from applicants for those jobs whose activities require WPS training, could thereby be causing a disparate impact which could, under some circumstances, be interpreted as constituting discrimination based on national origin. Employers desiring information regarding their responsibilities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the anti-discrimination provisions of the IRCA may contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices of the U.S. Department of Justice, respectively. The training programs for workers

must include the same basic information as those for handlers, ezcept for topics that are relevant only to handlers. For example, worker training need not

include information related to the format and meaning of pesticide labeling or to transportation, storage, and disposal of pesticides. Worker training must include information about the worker protection requirements of part 170 such as application and entry restrictions, the posting of warning signs and the design of the warning sign, oral warnings, the availability of specific information on applications, and protection against retaliatory acts. This will ensure that workers know what protection they should be receiving so they can encourage compliance with part 170. The final rule requires that workers be retrained at 5—year intervals, measured

from the end of the month in which the training is completed. The Agency

believes that such renewal of WPS worker training will be adequate to convey the basic pesticide safety precepts to workers and to provide timely updates and reinforcement, without undue burden. The presence of the required pesticide safety poster in the workplace will serve as a reminder of pesticide safety practices for workers whose training may have occurred some time in the past.

In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), USDA expressed concern about the absence of a formal mechanism to avoid repetitive training of each new hire on each agricultural establishment and welcomed the opportunity to work with EPA to develop such a verification program. A change to the rule was

made. The rule now states that if the agricultural employer determines that a worker possesses an EPA=approved WPS training certificate and has no reason to believe it is invalid, that

determination shall meet the requirements of assuring that the worker

has been trained. The revised final rule requires trainers to assure that appropriate WPS training has been given to a worker before the training

certificate is issued. EPA expects that a wide variety of groups would be qualified to conduct WPS training and issue EPA-approved training certificates, including grower or commodity organizations, pesticide dealers, worker advocacy or interest groups, or others. The use of an EPA-approved WPS training certificate is optional. The Agency encourages those trainers who, voluntarily, would like to maintain

records or issue cards to workers to do

so. EPA and USDA intend to establish a joint task force to develop and implement a mechanism for verification of training. The task force would seek to reduce the amount of cluplication in training and to establish a voluntary system of training verification. Once the mechanism for verification of training has been determined, the Agency will issue guidance regarding the specific nature of the verification system. Such guidance is expected to include the following topics: (1) Criteria that the Agency will use for determining which persons or agencies will distribute the training certificates to prospective trainers; (2) description, format, and content of the training certificate; (3) mechanism for ascertaining the expiration of the training certificate; (4)

content of the certification statement that prospective trainers would have to sign in order to receive the training

certificates. 2. Training for handlers. The Agency proposed that general pesticide safety training would be required for all persons who _are employed to handle pesticides intended for use on agricultural crops on farms or in forests, nurseries, or greenhouses. This requirement would be waived if the handler were certified as a private or commercial applicator. Each handler was to be instructed by a trainer who met certain minimum qualifications. The training program also had to meet

minimum standards. Many comments noted that EPA's handler training was similar to the training in chemical hazards required by

OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and questioned whether both requirements were necessary. There was concern that the apparent duplication of OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard may cause confusion for the growers and regulatory agencies. EPA acknowledges that there may be some confusion regarding the relationship between the training required by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard and by this standard and is working with OSHA to define more clearly the roles of the two agencies in hazard communication for pesticides users. For additional information on this topic, see EPA's proposed amendment to 40 CFR part 170 published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Most comments on the training requirements for handlers supported the concept of such training. However, a few comments opposed any training requirement for pesticide handiers because they thought private applicator certification for all persons who handle agricultural pesticides would be burdensome and impractical.. EPA does not intend to require private applicator certification for all who handle agricultural pesticides; but the Agency does believe it is important that all persons who handle agricultural

### 38 

### 128 Federal Register / Vol. 57 

### , No. 163 / Friday, A ugust 21, 1992

### / Rules and Regulations

pesticides have training in basic pesticide safety. Some comments that strongly supported the concept of handler training had reservations or ciiticisms regarding specific provisions of the training requirements. A few comments stated that being certified should not exempt handlers from being trained under part 170, noting that the proposed handler training requirements exceed the private applicator certification requirements in

some States. The Agency acknowledges that there may be variation among the States in

the content and effectiveness of certification programs. EPA is revising the certification regulations (40 CFR part

171) to upgrade the national "core" . requirements for certification of private . and commercial applicators. When the revisions to part 171 are promulgated, all State ceriification programs for pesticide applicators will be required to contain the components of the upgraded national "core" re.quirements. The Agency is confident that all State certification programs then will meet or exceed the minimum requirements for training of pesticide handlers contained in part 170. Several comments said that training should be specific to the task being performed, not general pesticide safety training and that, like labeling, training should fit the toxicity of the substance. EPA is not persuaded that job- or product-'specific instruction by. supervisors is an effective substitute for basic pesticide safety training. The Agency is convinced that pesticide handlers will be more willing to observe job speci£ic safety instructions and to cooperate in hazard reduction provisions, such as using PPE, if they are

informed of the reasons for such provisions. Therefore, this final rule retains the requirement for general pesticide safety training for all pesticide

handlers. Some respondents questioned where to find information required for the training program, especially regarding spill cleanup and chronic health effects. EPA intends that the training programs for pesticide handlers stress basic principles of safe pesticide' handling. Pesticide-specific information is required to be furnished to each handler before each handling task. EPA

intended that the information on health effects should focus on types of possible health effects, such as acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization (allergic effects), that may be associated with pesticide exposure, not on product-specific effects. Information in the training program regarding pesticide spill cleanup would be limited to the generally accepted three-step procedure of containment, removal, and disposal. Information on how to dispose of a specific spilled

material will not be included in the general training program. Any handler assigned to clean up a spill would need to have any information on the pesticide labeling regarding spill cleanup procedures, precautions, or requirements specific to that product. If no specific information is listed on the pesticide labeling, the employer has no requirement under this part to seek out additional spill-specific information or

instructions. The Agency is supportive of those who want to train handlers beyond the minimum requirements in part 170 and encourages such initiatives. EPA is developing a new regulation regarding the appropriate procedures for disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers. When the rule is promulgated, the information is expected to be incorporated into pesticide labeling and can be conveyed to the handler on a product-specific basis.

' The handler also must be informed of • any pesticide-specific warnings or information regarding any health effects listed on the labeling of the pesticide being handled. One comment questioned the relevancy of environmental information in worker protection training. The Agency believes such training is relevant to worker protection. Many environmental concerns are applicable not only to the organisms in the environment, but also to workers and other persons who may be in that

environment. Ground and surface water warnings, for example, are designed to protect not only aquatic organisms, but also workers and other persons who may be using the water for drinking, cooking, bathing, etc. The Agency notes

that FIFRA defines "environment" as including "water, air, land, and all plants and man and other animals living therein, and the interrelationships which exist among these." A number of comments suggested that handlers receive instruction concerning 'the part 170 handler protection requirements so they can assist in protecting themselves and be aware of noncompliance. One comment said thatthe training should cover the antiretaliation provisions of the regulation .and employees's rights to file complaints. . EPA agrees with these comments and

!has added such a subsection to the ,training requirements.

In § 170.230, EPA has made some

modifications to the content of the . training program in addition to those discussed above. The topics have been
reordered, and some have been

combined. Several subsections have been rewritten to improve their clarity. A subsection has been added requiring instruction in the recognition and

avoidance of heat-related illness

associated with the use of PPE.

The Agency's proposal to require a trainer to be a certified private or commercial applicator or to be designated by a State or Federal agency as a trainer of certified applicators

received considerable attention.

Some comments objected to permitting certified applicators, especially private applicators, to run training programs. Being certified has no bearing on competency to train others in pesticide safety, they maintained, and this provision may lead to unqualified persons providing training. Comments

also said that trainers should be required to attend a continuing

education course on how to instruct pesticide handlers.
A number of comments requested that other people who meet EPA requirements be permitted to run training programs for handlers or that the trainer should not be required to be a certified applicator. They pointed out that many agricultural professionals could do such training, such as county cooperative extension agents, university professors, consultants, and properly trained supervisory personnel.
Several respondents stated that a trainer was not necessary at all; employees handling pesticides could be given written information on pesticides to meet training requirements, if the

handler is able to read. Another

comment said that States should determine how training will be done.
The Agency continues to believe that the physical presence of a person to run the program and to respond to the questions of participants is critical to the success of the training. EPA will require the presence of a trainer since many of those needing training may have little formal education and may not be able to read and comprehend written materials without help. The Agency is aware that some States have developed successful training programs for certified applicators that do not require the presence of a trainer. EPA will allow States to adopt training programs that are more comprehensive than the Federal program. If any State wishes to establish an autotutorial program accompanied by some measurement of understanding, EPA will review the program to determine whether it is as

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regula#ions 

### 381 29

comprehensive as the program required by this regulation. After considering these comments, the Agency has decided that the most relevant trainer qualification is previous training in pesticide use and safety. Certified applicators, whether private or commercial, would have some knowledge and experience in pesticide handling; with the assistance of written and audiovisual materials they should be able to respond to most questions on this topic. The Agency believes that most agricultural establishments either employ a certified applicator or contract for the services of a certified applicator in the course of business. Therefore, the Agency does not expect that a large number of people will need to obtain

certification to act as trainers under this part. The Agency also does not envision or promote the idea that agricultural employers will use the certification system as an alternative to this handler training requirement. A person designated as a qualified trainer of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by a State, Tribal, or Federal agency having jurisdiction is eligible to be a trainer under part 170. EPA is also persuaded by the comments

that stated that a trainer could be aperson who has completed a train-thetrainer or continuing education course. In the final rule, the Agency has modified the trainer qualification requirement to specify that a person who has completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer course is eligible to be a trainer of handlers under this part. EPA did not propose to require verification of training, because it was

concerned that this could be considered a requirement for private certified applicator recordkeeping—a requirement specifically prohibited by

FIFRA section 11. Some comments expressed the view that section 11 of FIFRA prohibits the Agency from issuing aegulations requiring recordkeeping by private applicators. A number of comments urged some type of training verification with mandatory recordkeeping. Some suggested cards be issued to trained handlers; others suggested that the trainer be required to maintain records of training program participants. Many

comments were concerned about the lack of recordkeeping requirements. They stated that without verification of training, violations will occur, enforcement will be difficult, and employees will be trained more than

once. Some comments argued that requirements to keep records of worker training would not be prohibited by FIFRA section 11, claiming that a requirement for persons acting as trainers to keep records of trainees would not be the imposition of a recordkeeping requirement on a private applicator who voluntarily chose to act

as a trainer. Several comments suggested eliminating private applicators as trainers since they cannot be required to keep records and suggested that only certified commercial applicators should be eligible to conduct this training because they could be required to keep

records. EPA did not propose recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rule because of possible concerns that such recordkeeping might be inconsistent with section 11 of FIFRA. The Agency

has concluded that section 11 does not prohibit the Agency from requiring trainers, including trainers who happen to be private applicators, to keep records verifying any training they give . under part 170. Because the Agency did not propose a recordkeeping requirement for trainers in the proposed rule, however, EPA is not adopting any such requirements in the final rule. If experience under the final rule indicates that recordkeeping would be warranted,

EPA will revisit this issue. Although the training provision may

be difficult to enforce in some cases without written verification, the Agency will seek enforcement of the provision and expects that the compliance rate will be high enough that significant risk reduction will be accomplished.

In their comments on the draft final rule, under FIFRA section 25(a), USDA expressed concern about the absence of a formal mechanism to avoid repetitive training of each new hire on each agricultural establishment and welcomed the opportunity to work with EPA to develop such a verification program. A change to the rule was

made. The rule now states that if the handler employer determines that a handler possesses an EPA-approved WPS trainirig certificate and has no reason to believe it is invalid, that

determination shall meet the requirements of assuring that the

handler has been trained. The revised final rule requires trainers to assure that appropriate Worker Protection Standard training has been given to a handler before the training certificate is issued.

As described under the section about worker training, EPA and USDA intend to establish a joint task force to develop and implement a mechanism for verification of training. The task force

would seek to reduce the amount of duplication in training and to establish a voluntary system of training verification. The use of an EPA-approved WPS training certificate is optional. The Agency encourages those trainers who, voluntarily, would like to maintain

records or issue cards to handlers to do

so. Some respondents misinterpreted the proposed rule's silence on the issue of frequency of handler training to indicate that retraining before each handling episode was necessary; others assumed that training was required either annually or upon initial employment each year. ISTumerous comments raised questions such as when and how often training should be done. Some suggested it

should be a one-time instruction conducted at the beginning of the growing season or at the time of employment; others wanted to see training required annually or more often. The Agency did not specify in the NPRM how often pesticide safety training must be conducted. However, the final rule requires training for

handlers to be renewed at least once every 5 years, measured from.the end of the month in which the training is completed. The Agency believes that such renewal of WPS handler training will be adequate to convey the basic pesticide safety precepts to handlers and to provide timely updates and reinforcement, without undue.burden. Mandatory annual retraining of the same employees presenting general information that typically does not change over the course of a year would be a burden on employers. EPA intends to develop model training programs that will facilitate compliance with part 170. The Agency's plans in this respect are discussed in more detail in Unit VI of this preamble. Although the Agency expects that most pesticide safety training will be conducted using materials developed by EPA, it does not believe that this must be the only source of training materials. On the other hand, some assurance of the adequacy of privately developed materials is desirable. The final rule specifies the

minimum content for such materials (§ 170.230).

H. Knowledge 

## ofLabeling Information

1. Access to labeling. The Agency proposed that any information from the labeling of any pesticide that is being used be provided upon request to the handler. This requirement was intendedto provide handlers with productspecific pesticide safety inforination that will increase their ability to protect

themselves and others.Some comments stated that productspecific information is important but

### 3813®

- FederaI Register / Vo l. 57, No. 163 

### / Friday, August 21, 1992 

### / Rules and Regulations

that handlers may be too intimidated to request the information from the supervisor or employers. . Some comments suggested that the Agency delete the access-to-labeling provisions because the OSHA Hazard

Communication Standard has been expanded to include agricultural . employees. One recommended that the rule be changed to allow growers to retain either the pesticide label or the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

EPA has amended this section

(§ 170.232) to address these concerns.

Handlers must read or must be informed of, in a manner that they can understand, all labeling requirements related to the safe use of the pesticide such as signal words, human hazard precautions, PPE requirements, first aid instructions, and any additional precautions relating to the handling activity. In addition, the handler must have access to the labeling at all times during the handling activity in case a question arises about the use requirements. This does not mean that multiple copies must be made and carried with each handler, but that the product container itself or a copy of the labeling must be available in a place where it may be consulted if necessary. The Agency believes that almost all respondents supported its intended goal, which was to assure that all handlers, including those working in an assisting or nonsupervisory capacity, are aware of the product-specific instructions for the pesticide being handled. If handlers are not aware of labeling requirements, it is more likely the product will not be used in accordance with labeling, a violation of FIFRA. In this regard, a MSDS is not an adequate substitute for product labeling. Although an MSDS may contain useful information about the safe handling and storage of the

material and the risks associated with exposure to the material, it will not

address all the enforceable use requirements on the pesticide labeling. The Agency considers that giving instructions in the relevant labeling requirements would assure this awareness and that reading the labeling also would be adequate. EPA agrees that handlers may be intimidated from requesting the labeling, and that even if a request is made, the labeling may not

be read or understood.

2. Labeling information for earlyentry workers. The Agency did not propose that early-entry workers have access to labeling information.Some comments noted that earlyentry workers would need productspecific information to have knowledge of the specific hazards associated with their early-entry assignment and that it would be appropriate for early entry workers to have access to the labeling. EPA agrees that it is essential for

workers who enter a treated area before #he expiration of an REI to have job and product-specific instructions in pesticide safety. Therefore, the Agency has added language under the entry restrictions in the subpart on agricultural workers. This language provides that before being allowed to enter a treated area during the REI, the workers either must read 'the product labeling or must be informed in a manner that they can understand of 

### ,all labeling requirements related to human hazards or precautions, first aid, symptoms of poisoning, PPE specified 

### for early-entry, and any other labeling requirements related to safe use. 3. Product-specific information for

workers. The Agency proposed to require that product-specific information be provided to workers, on request, for . all treated'areas subject to notification, beginning on the day the pesticide is to be applied and continuing at least until the expiration of the REI. The required

information included: (1) The specific location and description of the area treated or to be treated, (2) the brand name, active ingredients, and EPA registration number of the pesticide used, and (3) the restricted-entry interval. In the NPRM, the Agency stated that it considered requiring this information to be displayed at a central location, such as a notice board, or to be written on warning signs. Few comments were opposed to providing this information. Most were critical of the requirement as written, however, and recommended posting the

information at a central location. Numerous comments were opposed to any requirement that compels workers to request information, because workers are too intimidated to request information from the employer, fearing that such a request could jeopardize their jobs. . The Agency is convinced that workers must have unhampered access to product-specific information about the pesticides to which they are exposed occupationally. The Agency was persuaded by the comments that some agricultural workers may be intimidated

and that oral communication of this information may be complex and inconvenient. The Agency has amended this section to require employers to list the product-specific information in a central place on the agricultural

establishment and to allow workers unimpeded access to this information. The information must include: (1) The location and description of the treated area, (2) the product name, (3) the EPA registration number, (4) the active ingredient(s) of the pesticide, (5) the time and date the pesticide was applied, and (6) the REI for the pesticide. While the Agency acknowledges the similarity between this requirement and requirements of OSHA's Hazar.d Communication Standard, EPA will inot require that an MSDS or similar fact sheet be made available, because such a requirement was not proposed in the

NPRM. EPA and OSHA are committed to cooperating, within the constraints of their respective statutes, to minimize confusion and to avoid duplication of the requirements of the two agencies. EPA has prepared a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the WPS that requests comments on the feasibility.and utility of requiring that

MSDSs or fact sheets be made available to agricultural employees, This NPRM is being published in this issue of the . Federal Register.

I. Other

1: Cholinesterase monitoring. EPA proposed that commercial pesticide handlers exposed to toxicity category 

### I
or II organophosphate pesticides for 3 consecutive days or for any 6 days in a 21—day period be monitored for cholinesterase inhibition. The Agency solicited and received comments on: (1) The types of employees to be monitored and, in particular, whether the requirement should be extended to private handlers, (2) the length of exposure (whether a more sensitive "trigger" with fewer days exposure would be more appropriate), and (3) the difficulties, costs, and advantages of day-based and symptom-based triggers. Although some comments stated that only commercial handlers had sufficient exposure to warrant monitoring, many comments stated that private pesticide handlers also may have sufficient exposures to warrant cholinesterase monitoring and that this requirement should apply to all handlers. Some comments stated that applying the , requirement only to commercial

handlers creates a double standard for protection that is not supportable. Several comments supported the inclusion of all agricultural employees in a medical monitoring requirement because the cholinesterase monitoring requirement of the proposal afforded no protection for early-entry workers 

### or
other workers. Other comments stated

- that a medical monitoring program for all employees would be unnecessary and impractical.

A few comments stated that cholinesterase monitoring was unnecessary because of all the other requirements being initiated with part

### Federal Register / Vol. 5 7,

### No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

### 38 131

170. Some suggested that cholinesterase monitoring be an option rather than a requirement; voluntarily implemented programs probably would be more successful than imposed programs. Most respondents supported the Agency's proposed "trigger" of 3 consecutive days or any 6 days of exposure in a 21-day period. Some, however, stated that while a day-based trigger may be of use in detecting adverse health effects over time, it is of limited use in addressing accident situations or brief overexposure; a symptom-based trigger is too ill defined for use as a regulatory tool and could be confusing to both the employer and the supervising physician as to its applicability. One comment stated that a trigger based on hours (rather than days) of exposure would be a more rational way of including the highly exposed. Some comments suggested alternative triggers. A few reviewers stated that the Agency had given no rationale for the trigger chosen and

asked how it had been determined. One suggested that determining the ideal trigger would have to wait until more

data were available. Some comments suggested eliminating a trigger and requiring the testing on a preset

schedule. Many comments, both those for and those against a cholinesterase monitoring requirement, expressed concern about the recordkeeping that would be necessary to implement a monitoring program and to follow migratory and seasonal workers. Some comments opposed monitoring

because of the cost. Two comments included estimates that monitoring would cost $70 per test or $200 to $400 per employee over the growing season, exclusive of the costs of recordkeeping and additional physician fees. Others

noted that lost work time and cost of transporting handlers to a physician's office where the test could be performed would be a burden to employers. In some remote rural areas, the testing would necessitate long-distance travel to the nearest qualified physician. One comment warned that the expense of the test and the time off work probably would result in this regulation being ignored. In contrast, another comment

stated that the reduced medical disability costs among handlers would easily outweigh the costs of implementing a monitoring program. Numerous comments expressed concerns regarding the validity and the reliability of cholinesterase testing methods, the availability of qualified laboratories to support a cholinesterase monitoring program, and the sufficiency of most physicians' knowledge about the toxicity of pesticides and ability to interpret the results of cholinesterase tests properly. The Agency is concerned about many of the problems of cholinesterase monitoring, including the difficulty in finding knowledgeable physicians to set up monitoring programs and qualified laboratories to perform the analyses. The comments noted that a quality control program for laboratories would be needed nationwide if a monitoring program were to be successful. EPA is not prepared to establish such a program nationwide at this time. The Agency believes that despite the practical difficulties associated with a nationwide program, the monitoring of employee exposure is a prudent occupational health practice and encourages employers wishing to operate such programs. To facilitate voluntary programs, the Agency has required that pesticides that contain cholinesterase-inhibiting compounds be identified as such in the labeling of the product. The Agency also is interested in cooperating in research or evaluations that might be done on new or existing exposure monitoring

programs. The Agency is concerned, however,

that even reliable blood-level cholinesterase monitoring often would not prevent pesticide poisoning incidents. Blood samples are taken at intervals—weekly, biweekly, or monthly—during the exposure season; the handler may accumulate enough exposure between samples to become ill. In addition; the delay between sampling and the evaluation of the test

results is such that most handlers will receive more exposure before the test

results are known. Before such a monitoring system can indicate that

handlers should be removed fromfurther exposure to cholinesteraseinhibiting pesticides because their blood cholinesterase levels are dangerously low, the handlers may have received enough additional exposure to precipitate acute poisoning. EPA is troubled by the reactive nature of available cholinesterase monitoring methods. The Agency would prefer to explore methods of monitoring s exposures to cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, and perhaps to other pesticides, which'are more likely to be preventive. One promising approach involves immunoassay-based detection. Immunoassay techniques could provide rapid, simple, and cost-effective monitoring methods.for exposure monitoring systems under field conditions. It is expected that inexpensive kits can be developed that will yield quantitative results in less than 30 minutes, thus enabling more frequent monitoring and rapid response if unacceptable exposure is iridicated. This technology could provide an effective means of signaling to the pesticide handler when exposure is unacceptably high.

EPA has determined that more research is required to develop irnmunoassay monitoring systems for pesticide handlers. However, the

research data to date indicate that an immunoassay-based personal monitoring exposure system probably could be developed. Immunoassay devices use antibodies as receptors to sample the environment of the exposed persons. Specific antibodies to many pesticides of concern already;have been developed and evaluated, but specific antibodies for other priority compounds need to be identified. Ideally,'a sampling system would be developed to incorporate all of the compounds of concern. The Agency strongly encourages the rapid development of practical and reliable techniques of this

kind and welcomes further information on ongoing research and the opportunity to cooperate with developers,on the necessary research. To support the goal of improving exposure monitoring technology, the Agency also intends to consider requiring the development of

such detection methods for the registration or continued regi'stration of selected pesticides. In conclusion, although a blood-level cholinesterase monitoring program may be prudent for some handlers, EPA has determined that imposing a nationwide requirement for such monitoring is not justified at this time. The Agency is not convinced that such a program would provide benefits commensurate with the costs entailed. The Agency intends to pursue the ilevelopment of more effective exposure monitoring systems, such as the immunoassay-based system

discussed above.

EPA intends to reconsider the need for and the appropriate form of exposure monitoring for pesticide handlers after

this final Worker Protection Standard has been implemented. This will give the Agency the opportunity to evaluate more thoroughly the ongoing research in

this area and the results of new or existing exposure monitoring programs. The Agency expects to issue a proposed

rule in this area in about 

### 3 years.

2. 

### Relationship between OSHA's
Hazard Communication Standard and EPA's Worker Protectfon Standard. The proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) were published July 8,1988; the following month,.August 8, 1988, the Occupational

### 38132 Federal Register / Vol. 57 

### , No. 163 / Friday, A ugust 21, 1992 

### / Rules and Regulations

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking which would modify its

Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). In the preamble to these proposed modifications, OSHA states that the HCS would apply to workers who are exposed to pesticide residues after application.

EPA received numerous comments that pointed to the potential overlap of some requirements of the WPS with

those of the HCS. Those who wrote were concerned that the requirements of the two standards might duplicate each other or might be conflicting. A few were concerned about possible conflicts

with similar State laws. All want to see EPA and OSHA resolve any potential conflict before their respective regulations are made final. Some respondents felt that OSHA should have responsibility for defining

hazard communication 

## in agriculture;

more felt that EPA should have the responsibility where pesticides are used. Some asked that the access-to-labeling provisions of the 

### WPS be deleted because of the OSHA regulation calling

for access to MSDSs. Some growers claimed they should be exempt from the WPS because they are covered by OSHA. Worker representatives want EPA to require training for all workers, as the HCS

does.

EPA has made a commitment to work

with OSHA within the constraints of each Agency's statutes to minimize confusion and to avoid duplication between the requirements of each Agency. Section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act precludes OSHA from regulating working conditions or hazards with respect to which other Federal agencies exercise statutory authority to prescribe or to enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health (29 U.S.C. 653(4)(b)(1)). In part 170, however, EPA has exercised statutory authority only with regard to agricultural working conditions or hazards that are related to pesticides. The Occupational Safety and Health Act and its regulations may apply to other agricultural working conditions or hazards and to nonagricultural working conditions (e.g., office work) that may take place on agricultural establishments. Among the regulations that may be applicable to nonpesticide working conditions in agriculture are the Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1928.21) and the Field Sanitation Standard (29 CFR 1928.110). Since the

OSHA Field Sanitation Standard addresses general sanitary hazards, rather than pesticide hazards, EPA believes its applicability is not affected by part 170.



### IV. Labeling Statements

A. Background 

### of

Proposal

i The Agency noted in the NPRM that for part 170 to be enforceable under the misuse provision of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G), its requirements must be incorporated onto pesticide labels or labeling. Rather than require that the regulations be printed in their entirety



## on each product, EPA proposed that part

170 be incorporated by means of a

reference statement. In addition to the reference statement, those requirements of part 170 that were product specific, such as personal protective equipment hnd restricted-entry intervals, and product-specific information necessary for compliance with part 170, such as whether the product is a fumigant, would appear as statements on labeling. Requirements applicable to all products, such as providing decontamination rvater, would not appear as statements on labeling. The NPRM proposed that the required worker protection labeling statements

be consolidated for the convenience of registrants in a new subpart K of part 156, "Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices: ' The Agency proposed specific regulatory text and labeling statements for part 156, and solicited comment on the labeling aspects of the Worker Protection Standard. The Agency also discussed 'how it would implement these labeling ;changes as part of its pesticide registration program.

B. Reference Statement

The comments were divided evenly in ,'opposing or supporting the proposal to reference part 170 on the label rather 'than including the full text of all requirements in labeling. Comments that opposed the proposal to reference part

170 gave reasons such as: (1) The problem of availability of the specific requirements of the regulation should it not be incorporated in pesticide labeling in its entirety, (2) the need for information at the use site, and (3) the undermining of the "read the label" and the "label is the law" message that users have been trained to follow. They suggested that noncompliance is more likely for requirements that are not on

the label. Several comments stressed the

need for wide dissemination of the requisite information. Two comments suggested that users should not be referred to part 170 but to Agencygenerated guides, instructional materials, or popularized versions of the regulations. The Agency acknowledges the need for pesticide users to have access to full information about the legal requirements for use of a pesticide. It also notes that in many cases the quantity of information on pesticide labeling is

considerable. Confusion in understanding labeling statements may result in noncompliance as surely as difficulty in obtaining the information may result in noncompliance. The Agency intends to develop and to make available, through its outreach activities

and with the assistance of the Cooperative Extension Service, State pesticide-regulating agencies, and the

traditional networks of communication with the agricultural community such as commodity organizations and industry
associations, information to assist users in understanding and complying with

part 170. EPA believes that such

information will minimize the need for

users to seek out the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to understand their duties. The Agency intends to complete the development of basic training materials prior to implementing part 170. The Agency considered requiring registrants to distribute a copy of part

170 with each sale of agricultural pesticides, but concluded that such requirement would result in waste through duplication. However, the Agency encourages any efforts registrants choose to make to communicate part 170 requirements to users. The Agency has retained its approach in the final rule of referencing

part 170 on the label, but has changed the language in the reference statement for the purposes of brevity and clarity.

C. Other Statements

Other changes have been made to part 156 in response to comments. The proposed wording of the labeling statements for restricted-entry intervals, notification, and personal protective equipment have been shortened. One comment suggested that the signal word be required to appear in Spanish for products in toxicity categories III and IV as well as on products in toxicity categories I and II.
. The Agency believes that for the most toxic products, where there is a significant risk of serious injury by accidental exposure, it is reasonable to require translation of a limited amount of critical information, such as the signal word, into Spanish because it is the primary language for many agricultural workers in the United States. Extending this translation requirement to additional products, information, or languages would add verbiage to already crowded product labels without

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

### 38133

increasing the likelihood of avoiding additional pesticide poisonings. EPA permits a product to bear labeling in languages other than English, but it will not require translation as part of the

final rule. A number of changes to worker protection statements have been made in the final rule in response to comments. These changes have focused on risk mitigation measures such as the entry restrictions, notification about treated areas, and use of personal protective equipment by handlers and other workers entering treated areasprior to the expiration of a restrictedentry interval. The restricted-entry statements are to be placed in the

"Direetions For Use" section of the pesticide labeling uncler the subheading of "Agricultural Use Requirements" to consolidate most worker protection statements in one place.

No comments were received in reference to the proposed notification statements. Several changes to the

notification section have been made in the final rule. The wording of the statement was changed to "notify workers of the application by warning them orally and posting warning signs at

entrances to treated areas" rather than merely "subject to posting" to distinguish the statement from other general requirements of part 170 which involve the display of written materials.

The subsection related to location of the statement on the labeling has been modified to require that the notification requirement be in the Agricultural Use Requirements section of the labeling with the other required worker protection statements.

No comments were received on the proposed personal protective equipment statements. In the final rule the Agency

has made a number of administrative and technical changes to these sections. These are reflected in changes in the terminology used in the table for the protective equipment requirements for handling activities in 40 CFR 156.212(e). For example, the term "coveralls" has been used instead of "protective suit" and "protective eyewear" has been used Instead of "goggles or face shield."

Two differences between the proposed and the final rule relate to PPE labeling statements. Wherever possible throughout the PPE section, the Agency has taken the approach of specifying the exact wording of PPE labeling statements and specifying which products are subject to the statement. The goals of this approach are to reduce the burden on registrants in interpreting part 156 in the process of revising product labeling and to reduce the need for registrants to consult with EPA about PPE labeling language.

Another difference between the proposed and the final rule is the way in which information about,acceptable types of PPE is conveyed to users. Specific types of glove materials will be recommended on the labeling, and specific types of respirators will be required on the pesticide labeling. Where protection of a certain body area is called for, e.g., eye protection, the labeling will not list all acceptable kinds of protective eyewear. Instead, the . labeling statement will list "protective eyewear," and users will refer to the standardized definition of acceptable kinds of PPE for eye protection in 40 CFR 170.240 (the section of the pesticide-handling subpart which covers PPE), in the EPA-prepared guidance brochure on protective eyewear, or in other new EPA training materials dealing with PPE. Through these definitions and through handler training programs, users should become

accustomed to the criteria for acceptable types of PPE, and EPA believes this will reduce labeling verbiage related to PPE. EPA has made every effort to minimize the additional labeling language necessitated by the revisions to part 170 and to eliminate excess verbiage. At the same time, EPA recognizes that use restrictions can ordinarily be enforced only through labeling statements. EPA's approach, therefore, has been to put users on notice, via the labeling, of the regulations with which tliey must comply. One comment suggested requiring the identification of the toxicity category on product labels. Signal words are intended to convey the relative acute toxicity of products in a manner users can understand easily. Since users may

not be aware of the criteria on which toxicity categories are based, the Agency believes that the toxicity category would not be useful on labeling and that the signal word is sufficient. In the final rule, EPA has specified the location, or alternative locations, for all required statements. The final rule allows that statements be consolidated, to the extent possible, for the

convenience of the reader and that statements be at the beginning of the directions for use to emphasize their importance.

V. Statutory Review



### A. U.S. Department of



### Agriculture

As required by FIFRA section•25(a), a copy of this final rule was provided to the Secretary of Agriculture on June 7, 1991. On March 27, 1992, the Secretary provided written comments on this final rule. The Secretary offered many

comments that led EPA to revise the final rule, its cost estimates, and its approach to implementation of the final rule. Following is a summary of the principal comments by the Secretary, together with the Agency's responses. The full texts of the Secretary's comments and EPA's responses are

contained in the docket for this rule. Comment #1: USDA expressedconcern about the impact of restrictedentry intervals (REIs) that exceed 72

hours. Response: USDA's concern is due to two aspects of the draft final rule: (a) A requirement that registrants must retain existing REIs that are longer than those that would be established thr.ough the Worker Protection Standard, 'and (b) a redefinition of "restricted-entry interval" — instead of allowing early entry if minimal protective clothing is worn, the rule now prohibits all early entry to perform hand labor tasks, except for a few narrow exceptions. Therefore, this rule might subject users

to considerable costs that were not contemplated when these longer REIs

were set. EPA believes that USDA has a valid concern regarding longer REIs established before the promulgation of

this rule.

EPA has ascertained that REIs exceed 72 hours for only a few currently registered active ingredients—usually for only a few uses of each. EPA is reviewing such uses for each of the few active ingredients in light of current

information. The review is based on the availability of reentry data, poisoning incidents, or other evidence that could help determine: (a) Whether routine early entry to perform hand labor tasks must be prohibited for the entire REI to mitigate risk to hand laborers, or (b) whether early entry for hand laborers with personal protective equipment (PPE) and other protections could be permitted on pesticide labeling as an appropriate temporary mechanism to respond to USDA's concerns about disruptions and costs to growers who are using pesticides with REIs longer than 72 hours, or (c) whether another product-specific strategy should be adopted. EPA will notify registrants of this review process and will request that registrants notify EPA of longer REIs that may have been overlooked in the Agency's search. With cooperation from affected registrants, EPA expects to complete ;the review process in time for those registrants to alter their labeling

within the.ti.me allotted in this rule.

### 38134 FederalRegister / Vol. 57 

### , No. 163 / F riday, August 21, 1992 

### / Rules and Reg ulations

Comment #2: Activities that entail only slight contact with treated surfaces should be subject to a reduced standard, and provision should be made to permit necessary agricultural worker activities with the use of PPE, particularly when

REIs exceed 72 hours. Response: The final rule contains an exception that allows early entry for

activities that involve no contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which the REI applies, including, but not limited to, soil, water,
air, 

## or surfaces of plants in the,treated area. However, when contact with treated surfaces will occur, EPA is unable to predict on a generic basis which activities, crops, and situations will involve only "slight" contact. This can be determined only through data review, usually as part of the registration or reregistration process. See preamble discussion in Unit III— establishing entry restrictions in the

future. During the formal comment period for this rulemaking, EPA received many

comments from the cut flower and cut fern industry about the economic hardship that prohibiting routine hand labor during REIs would cause their industry. The Agency did not receive

comments from other industries or commodity organizations that indicated that they would sustain such a hardship and the Agency has no information indicating that any crops or industries

other than the cut flower and cut fern industry would be significantly affected by the entry restrictions imposed by this final rule. However, there may be other industries, crops, or crop practices that

would bear an unreasonable economic

burden under such restrictions: Therefore, the fina.l rule allows the Agency to grant exceptions to the entry restrictions on a case-by-case basis.

Comment #3: USDA believes it is imperative that EPA clarify whether the prohibition on early entry to performhand labor tasks applies to Stateestablished REIs. Response: States determine therestrictions that apply to Stateestablished REIs. The final rule's restrictions on entry apply solely to REIs that appear on federally approved pesticide product labeling. On some occasions, registrants request the

addition of a State-established REI to their federally approved product labeling. If EPA approves such an addition, a decision will be made on a case-by-case basis as to whether to prohibit routine early entry to performhand labor tasks during the entire Stateestablished REI. EPA may chose to create an exception on individual product labeling to allow, after the expiration of the EPA-mandated REI, early entry to perform routine hand

labor tasks with certain limited PPE and work clothing. Comment #4: USDA supports the concept of providing training to workers 'who may be exposed to potentially dangerous pesticides. Response: None required. Comment #5: USDA expressed

concern that the manner in which training is required is unreasonably

burdensome. Response: USDA's concern is that if EPA requires training before each worker is potentially exposed, then training one or more times daily could be required of employers with frequent ; employee turnover, as is common in some hand labor crews. Such training inight have to be conducted on the spot,
,such 

## as at the side of the field, and would likely be less beneficial to the worker and onerous to the employer. EPA will continue to require that early entry workers must be trained before entering areas and contacting treated
surfaces while an REI is in effect, because their risks are expected to be higher. EPA has made a change, however, in the training requirement for non-early-entry workers. The modified rule continues to require training for, all agricultural workers. However, in general, the modified rule requires agricultural employers to assure that when any worker enters any areas on the agricultural establishment where,

within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in effect, the worker receives pesticide safety training.before their 6th day of entry into such treated areas on any particular agricultural establishment. However, for the first 5 years after the effective date of the rule, workers must be trained before their 16th day of entry .into such treated areas on any particular agricultural establishment. Finally, it should be noted that EPA deliberately established a relatively lengthy (about 20 months) lead time before the training provisions of the

final rule would be enforceable. This lead time was established, in part, so

that a substantial number of workers

could be trained in the interim. Once a large percentage of workers have been trained, the concern about repetitive training diminishes, because many new hires already will have received training. This issue does not pertain to handlers' for whom risks are expected to be higher—the rule requires that handlers receive training before they handle pesticides. Comment #6: USDA expressed

concern about the absence of a formal mechanism to avoid repetitive training of each new hire on each agricultural

establishment. USDA welcomes the opportunity to work with EPA to develop such a verification program. Response: Two changes to the final rule were made. The rule riow requires training for workers or handlers to be renewed at least once every 5 years. In
addition, the rule now states that if the agricultural employer determines that a worker possesses an EPA-approved Worker Protection Standard training certificate that the employer has no
reason to believe is invalid, that

determination shall meet the requirements of assuring that the worker

has been trained. The revised final rule requires trainers to assure that appropriate Worker Protection Standard training has been given to a worker before the training certificate is issued.

Comment #7: Additional funding 

## will

be required if EPA anticipates that USDA will meet some of the training - requirements of this rule. Response: EPA has not assumed that

USDA will be the vehicle to meet the ' training requirements. The Agency believes that employers will train most workers and handlers. In addition, EPA will promote training by other interested persons and organizations by conducting train-the-trainer courses and by developing suitable training materials and making them available for trainers' use. However, EPA seeks to work closely with USDA in the development of Worker Protection Standard training materials, including materials designed to train workers and pesticide handlers and materials targeted at aiding growers in learning how to comply with the revised rule. EPA also seeks to cooperate with USDA in the development and implementation of the training verification system and other projects designed to inform the regulated audience about the revised rule and how to comply with it.

Comment #8: Making agricultural producers responsible for employees' own safety actions is unrealistic. Response: While compliance is primarily a duty of employers under the final rule, enforcement officials have authority to consider the facts of the case before making a determination of

whether a violation has occurred. The Agency agrees, for example, that it would be unfair for employers who expend considerable efforts to assure compliance to be treated in the same manner as less conscientious employers who tolerate or encourage noncompliance. However, the Agency believes that it is more appropriate not to intrude by regulation into this area.-

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38135

Enforcement officials have traditionally based their compliance decisions on the

facts of an individual case. Comment #9: USDA questions the requirement that a listing of all pesticides applied must be displayed in

a central location until 30 days after the REI has expired. Response: The NPRM, which proposed that the information be provided to workers upon request, generated many comments. The majority of the commenters, including worker organizations, State agencies, and a land-grant university, recommended that the information be provided to workers through posting. The National Agricultural Chemicals Association recommended a requirement that the information be provided with each oral warning. Some commenters cited

worker intimidation as the reason for opposing the proposal that information be supplied upon request. Others cited the potential difficulties that employers would have in complying with individual oral requests for such information. EPA was persuaded by the comments to require the posting of this information at a central place. On that basis, in turn, EPA was persuaded to drop the proposed daily oral warnings and require one-time oral warnings

instead. EPA believes that most employers would find daily oral warnings more onerous than a one-time posting in a central location.

Comment #10: The rule needs to clarify when the employer is responsible for making available to the worker prompt transportation to an appropriate emergency facility. USDA interprets this to be applicable only while the employee is on the employer's property. Response: EPA has clarified in the final rule that the agricultural employer must provide such transportation when



### a worker is on the employer's property, including in any labor camp located on the property. The Agency has similarly

clarified in the final rule that the handler employer must provide emergency transportation when a handler is at the place of employment or at the handling

site.

Comment #11: The decontamination provisions are unreasonably burdensome to employers because of the requirement for potable water for handwashing purposes. Response: A change to the final rule



### was made. EPA replaced the requirement for potable water with a requirement for water that is of a quality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. Evidence indicates that the drinking

water 

### on many agricultural establishments has not been test for potability. EPA continues to require water of such quality that, if accidently swallowed, would not cause illness or injury, because it is concerned that workers will accidently use decontamination water for drinkingpurposes. In addition, the Agencyrecognizes that water used to wash the face may accidently enter the mouth. EPA believes that this is a simple standard that will be easy for employers to understand and comply with. Comment #12: The cost for eyeflush dispensers should be accounted for. Response: USDA's, comments on the cost analysis of eyeflush dispensers led, in part, to EPA's reexamination of the requirement. The language of the rule has been altered to change the requirement from "eyeflush dispenser" to "eyeflush water," and the requirements for decontamination water and eyeflush water have been combined

in the rule to avoid confusion. In addition, the requirement for weekly replacement of nonsterile eyeflush

water has been deleted and a performance standard has been added that requires employers to ensure that the decontamination and eyeflush water remains "of a quality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is

swallowed." Eyeflush dispensers are no longer specifically required at decontamination sites; instead, eyeflush water is required. For example, eyeflush water may be the water in a carboy containing the decontamination water or may be running water from a tap. While special eyeflush dispensers may be used, any

source of water that meets the

standarda for decontamination in the final rufemaking is ,acceptable for flushing the eyes. Eyeflush dispensers would be required only when°handlers or early-entry workers must carry, eyeflush water. This would occur only when handlers or early-entry workers are required by the pesticide labeling to wear protective eyewear and when they

do not have decontamination water otherwise immediately accessible to them, such as running water nearby or a carboy on a vehicle they are using.

Comment #13: USDA questions whether it is reasonable to require decontamination facilities and training for a period of 30 days after the expiration of the REI. Response: EPA reconsidered the 30- day time period due to comments from

both USDA and Congress, and remains convinced that pesticide safety training

and access to decontamination water are necessary for a considerable time after the REI expires. (Congress requested a time`period longer than 30 days.) The final rule continues to require that worker training and decontamination water be provided for

30 days after the expiration of the REI. The 30-day period was an attempt to

limit and better define the sometimes open-ended time period in the NPRM that was "any surface that ha's been treated with a pesticide during the agricultural crop production cycle in which the task occurs." (NPRIvI § 170.38(a)) In addition, it is important to note that this final rule is establishing

minimum REIs. These REIs are intendedas temporary safeguards until productspecific reviews are conducted. At that time, the Agency anticipates that longer

REIs will be established on some of theproducts, based on restricted-entryrelated incidents or on entry data. On the other hand, even permanent product-specific REIs are based on "average" conditions. They do not and

cannot take into account differences due to temperature and humidity; rainfall, dew, and irrigation practices; degree of sunlight; crop type, height, and density; region-specific production practices; or worker activity and length of exposure. Evidence indicates the importance of washing pesticides off as soon as possible after an exposure to mitigate adverse effects. Retaining decontamination requirements for a period of 30 days after the expiration of

an REI minimizes the chances.that workers will be harmed by residues, decreases their chronic exposures to pesticides, and lessens the risk of delayed effects that may be unrecognized at present. Studies also indicate the value of training in any program to reduce risk and increase 'safety. EPA has concluded that providing workers with pesticide safety training and supplying them with wate'r, soap, and towels for routine washing for a period of 30 days after the expiration of an REI is a prudent and inexpensive measure to protect them from 

### a variety _ of opportunities for exposure to pesticides.

Comment #14: EPA should establish regional climate-based restricted-entry intervals, and the need for decontamination provisions and safety training should be based on the pesticide persistence expected in a particular region. Response: When EPA establishes product-specific REIs all available data for the product are considered. All such REIs must be set on a case-by-case basis, after detailed review of the properties and uses of the pesticide. Such a detailed review is not possible in

### 38136 Federal Reg ister / Vol. 57, 

### : No. 163 / Friday, Au gust 21, 1992

### / Rules and Regulations

a regulation of the scope of the Worker

Protection Standard. Part 170 establishes only "interim" REIs to strengthen deficient existing protections until a more thorough review can be performed. As discussed in response to Comment #13, restricted-entry intervals will, for the most part, be based on "average" conditions. Even in the ideal situation, where entry is based on on-site field tests, situations will arise where workers will be exposed to unacceptable levels of residues. These situations include being contacted by drift from nearby applications, mistakes in warnings about areas not yet safe to enter, "hot spots" within treated areas from spills, or application mistakes, etc. In addition, the establishment of a residue level that is "safe" for entry involves, at this time, only an analysis of exposure to a specific product on a specific occasion, and is often based only upon acute toxicity data. The Agency is also concerned about acute and delayed health effect risks from the cumulative effect of multiple exposures to a single product and multiple • exposures to multiple products. Since the opportunities for exposure are so variable, training employees once every 5 years and providing decontamination facilities for a period of 30 days after the restricted-entry interval seem to be prudent, iow-cost measures that can reduce the pesticide-related illnesses and injuries that may stem from such

exposures. Comment #15: USDA takes exception

to the term "decontamination facilities" after the expiration of the REI when the risk of pesticide exposure is negligible and suggests "personal hygiene facilities" or simply "handwashing

facilities." Response: EPA will continue to call the provision "decontamination facilities," because the term best describes the purpose of providing soap, towels, and water to pesticide handlers, early-entry workers, and agricultural workers working in areas that have recently been treated with pesticides. The Agency does not consider the risk of pesticide exposure to be negligible for these employees.

Comment #16: USDA is concerned that regulation beyond the harvest interval could be misinterpreted in a manner that would generate unwarranted food safety concerns. Response: Preharvest intervals and entry restrictions are based on different criteria. Entry restrictions are based on the expected skin or eye exposure that workers might receive during an entire workday from exposure to residues on foliage, fruit, other plant parts, and in or on the soil, water, or air. Preharvest iMervals are based on the expected d'ietary intake of the edible portion of the crop based on amounts consumed. '['he Agency has concluded that field workers often will have a far greater opportunity for exposure than the consumers of the crop they pick. Finally, i:he uncertainties associated with any ].tEI have already been discussed. This iincertainty has led EPA to require lirudent, but economical, worker protections after the REI has expired. '; Comment #17: In informal discussions

between EPA and USDA about this final rule, USDA expressed concern about ]limiting the access of crop consultants

+snd IPM scouts to treated areas

~ immediately following pesticide ;applications and during REIs. Response: EPA has changed the final :rule to allow persons who are .performing duties as crop advisors to

have access to treated areas without a time limitation. A crop advisor is defined as any person who is assessing pest numbers or damage, pesticide
distribution, or the status or requirements of agricultural plants. The term does not include any person who is performing hand labor tasks. EPA was unwilling to exempt crop advisors from all of the protections provided by this rule, but has defined them as pesticide handlers if they enter an area during a pesticide application or REI. As pesticide handlers, they must receive such protections as handler training (unless already certified applicators), PPE and the availability of decontamination facilities. However, !since crop advisors who are employed by commercial establishments (rather ttian directly for the agricultural establishment) are not workers covered 'by part 170 protections, their presence in 'a treated area after the expiration of the REI will not trigger notification requirements, such as oral warnings, treated area posting, or posting of application-specific information, and the operator of the establishment need not supply them with decontamination sites. ' The Agency bases this change on its conclusion thatcrop advisors are likely to be particularly well-informed about pesticide risks and how to protect

themselves.

Coiriment #18: USDA raised concerns about the Regulatory Impact Analysis. Response: In light of USDA's

concerns, EPA reexamined the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final 'rule. The Agency used USDA-provided

'data and data from other sources to update and refine the analyses for the 'various requirements of the rule. The fuli 'text of EPA's responses to USDA's

concerns is contained in the docket and in EPA's revised Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule.



### B. Congressional Committees

As required by FIFRA section 25(a), a copy of this final rule was provided to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives. Comments were provided by Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative Charlie Rose. Following is a summary of each comment by Senator Leahy and Representative Rose, together with the Agency's response. Comment #1: Supports covering greenhouse, nursery, and forestry

workers.
Response: None required.
Comment #2: Supports prohibiting routine hand labor activities prior to theexpiration of the applicable restrictedentry interval.
Response: None required. Comment #3: Supports covering all farms regardless of size.
Response: None required.
Comment #4: Supports training for

workers as well as handlers.
Response: None required.

Comment #5: All field workers should be given crop sheets. Response: The Agency agrees that

workers should have access to

information about the hazards of the specific pesticides to which they may be exposed during their work activities. Crop sheets provide workers with hazard information for all the pesticides that may be applied to the crops they are working with. The Agency is establishing a system whereby information on the specific pesticide(s) actually used on a crop will be posted at

a central location to which workers will have access. The Agency is also proposing to make MSDSs or comparable pesticide-specific fact

sheets available to workers. The information posted at the central location, coupled with MSDS-type information, will allow workers to determine the hazards of the specific pesticides they may be exposed to during their work activities. Comment ##6: The training for workers

and handlers should include information on the workers' rights and the growers' responsibilities.
Response: The Agency agrees that

workers and handlers should be aware of the protections they are entitled to

under the Worker Protection Standard. The Agency has incorporated such a provision into the training requirements

for workers and handlers.

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules 

### and Regulations 38137

Comment #7: All worker and handler training should be ongoing and updated

as needed. Response: The Agency supports the concept of ongoing training and the updating of information as needed. A change to the final rule was made. The final rule now requires training for

workers or handlers to be renewed at least once every 5 years, measured from

the end of the month in which the training is completed. The Agency

believes that such renewal of WPS training will be adequate to convey the basic pesticide safety precepts to handlers and to provide timely updates and reinforcement, without undue

burden. This final rule requires the continual presence of a pesticide safety poster to serve as ongoing reinforcemerit of training for workers and handlers on agricultural establishments. The final rule also requires employers to update as necessary the information about the location of the nearest emergency medical facility. In addition, updated information about specific pesticides to which the workers may be exposed will be provided to workers as specified under the notification provisions. Comment #8: Supports establishing a minimum restricted-entry interval (REI) for all pesticides and setting REIs for toxicity category I and 

### II pesticides without distinguishing those of a specific

chemical class. Response: None required.

Comment #9: In all dry areas, all toxicity category I pesticides should have a 72-hour restricted-entry interval. Response: During the ongoing reregistration of pesticides, the Agency is requiring registrants to supply data about foliar and soil dissipation rates on products for which this information is relevant. When the Agency has thenecessary data, it will establish productspecific REIs based on the product, and, as applicable, on the crops or sites where it is used, cultural practices, varying climatic conditions, and application techniques. At present, the Agency has data to indicate that some organophosphates transform into more toxic products in arid conditions. There

are no data to indicate that other chemical classes of pesticides undergo

similar transformations. Without data to support a longer REI for chemical families other than organophosphates, the Agency has extended the REI to 72 hours for organophosphate pesticides only. The transformation of organophosphates into more toxic products is related to the lack of

moisture in the soil and conditions of very low humidity. These conditions are generally found only in areas where rainfall is consistently below 25 inches a year. The Agency believes that defining arid-like conditions, such as a combination of percent humidity, days without measurable dew or rainfall, and percent soil moisture, is unsuitable for establishing these "interim" REIs.

Comment #10: Generic REls should be established on the basis of the highest acute toxicity rating, whether dermal or oral. (Methomyl poisoning incidents in California cited as basis.) Response: Studies of fieldworker exposures indicate that the predominant exposures in outdoor situations are to the skin and eyes. Except in those few

situations where fieldworkers have eaten fruits or vegetables before the preharvest interval has expired, the Agency is unaware of validated fieldworker poisoning incidents where the primary route of exposure was oral. The worker training materials being developed by the Agency include specific warnings not to eat fruits and - vegetables unless a supervisor indicates that it is safe to do so. In this final rule, the Agency intends to establish REIs based on three parameters: dermal toxicity, skin irritation potential, and eye irritation potential. If dermal toxicity data are unavailable, the oral toxicity data will be used. For example, under this strategy, methomyl would be assigned a 48-hour REI because it is a toxicity category I eye irritant. With respect to the methomyl incidents cited by Congress, preliminary reports indicate that, under special environinental conditions, methomyl dissipation is not following the predicted pattern and rate. EPA will adjust REIs for methomyl to reflect these special environmental conditions, if

there are indications that the incidents were not unique. The Agency is unaware of data or conclusions by experts that the oral LDso is a more

accurate assessment of the actual hazard tb workers than dermal LD5o, either in these methomyl incidents or in other fieldworker poisoning incidents. Comment #11: Continue protections

for workers for a minimum of 60 daysafter the expiration of the restrictedentry interval. Response: EPA reconsidered the 30- day time period due to comments from both USDA and Congress. The Agency has studied more recent data regarding the incidence of multiple-case systemic illnesses of agricultural field workers from exposure to residues of organophosphates in California. Among

the 44 incidents for which data were provided, the mean length of time from application to poisoning was 20 days,

with a median of 16 days. The range was from less than 1 day to 66 days, although this latter figure was an outlier and did not appear to be well substantiated. Excluding parathion (no longer registered for most crops) and this outlier, the longest period between application and reentry poisoning was

39 days. The Agency believes that poisoning incidents that occur more than

30 days beyond the REI probably stem from a miscalculation in establishing the REI that is listed on the labeling. ,
Therefore, EPA decided to continue to require that decontamination water be provided for 30 days after the expiration of the REI. See EPA's response to

USDA's Comment #13 for a more complete discussion.

Comment #12: Moving or repair of irrigation equipment should be designated as a hand labor task, since workers performing such tasks are likely

to come in contact with treated surfaces. Response: EPA concurs that moving and repairing irrigation equipment may

, cause workers to contact treated surfaces. However, the Agency believes

that this contact will be short-term and mostly nonsubstantial. The Agency realizes that moving, adjusting, or repairing irrigation equipment may be necessary while an area remains under a REI. The Agency has, however, placed strict limitations on early entry to perform such tasks. These include: (1) No entry for the first 4 hours after an application, (2) a limit of 1 hour per worker per day for performing such early entry tasks, (3) PPE provided, cleaned, and maintained for the workers, (4) special instructions provided, including information about the hazards of the pesticide(s) to which the workers will be exposed, and (5) special decontamination and change area provisions.

Comment #13: A responsible agency

should determine whether or not an emergeincy actually exists before early entry due to an agricultural emergency is permitted. Response: The Agency intends that early entry due to an agricultural emergency be an extremely rare circumstance. Therefore, this final rule requires two separate determinations that an emergency exists: (1) A responsible agency must declare that circumstances exist that might cause an agricultural emergency on an establishment. For example, a State, Tribal, or Federal agency having jurisdiction over the establishment would have to declare that a potentially crop-damaging drought, hail storm, high winds, hurricane, tornado, freeze, or frost has occurred (or is predicted to occur) in the area where the agricultural establishment is located. (2) 

### In addition,

### 38138 Federal Re g 

### ister / Vol. 57,

### No. 163 / Friday, A ugust 21, 1992

### / Rules and Regulations

the agricultural employers must declare: (a) That they could not have anticipated

the circumstances that led to the emergency when they applied the pesticide, (b) that they had no control

over the circumstances that ied to the emergency, (c) that no practices other than early entry will prevent or mitigate a substantial economic loss involving the crop in that treated area, and (d) that the loss of profit without early entry will be greater than that which would be expected on the basis of experience and the fluctuations of crop yields in previous years. EPA believes that these rigorous determinations will preclude widespread or improper use of the emergency provisions.
Comment #14: Strongly object to the exemption for cut flower and cut fern workers for early entry. Congress notes that California prohibits early entry for hand labor without appare'nt deleterious effect on the cut flower industry. Response: A change to the final rule has been made. The Agency has adopted an exception process that would allow interested persons to demonstrate to the Agency that, in a particular industry, an exception should be granted to the general prohibition on routine early entry. Persons wishing to obtain an exception to the early-entry restrictions would submit a request for such an exception to the Agency. Comments that EPA has already

received from the cut flower and cut fern industry have convinced EPA that this industry, at least, probably warrants such an exception. The decision that such an exception is probably warranted is based on a balancing of the risks and benefits that would result from such an exception (see proposed exception to rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). However, the Agency is interested in a full range of comments and information on this proposed exception and has provided 30 days for interested parties to comment. The Agency particularly welcomes comments supported by information, such as evidence demonstrating whether

the risks to workers would be. acceptable, whether the use of personal protective equipment in these
circumstances would be feasible, and

whether there are feasible alternative practices that would make routine early entry unnecessary. The Agency also would welcome any additional information concerning the likely economic impact on this industry of a prohibition of routine hand labor tasks during the restricted-entry intervals. While EPA has concluded thqt it

would be difficult to ensure worker safety during widespread and routine early entry, narrow exceptions, such as this one, can receive adequate inanagement attention to help ensure c:ompliance when such early entry is ciitical to a crop. The Agency notes that although California law prohibits all early entry work involving hand labor, California (ioes not currently impose REIs beyond "sprays have dried/dusts have settled" for many of the pesticides used by the cut flower and cut fern industry. In +iddition, California has established only a 24-hour REI for toxicity category I pesticides, with longer REIs for specific organophosphate and N-methyl carbamate pesticides. This final rule is establishing a minimum 12-hour REI for isll pesticides plus a 24-hour REI for all 'toxicity category II (dermal and ocular iroutes) pesticides and a 48-hour REI for all toxicity category I(dermal and 13cular routes) pesticides. Thus, while California prohibits early entry, its entry :standards for this industry are generally less stringent than those of EPA's final eule. The economic impact of complying with EPA's REIs is likely to be higher than compliance with California's entry limitations, unless an exception is provided. Comment #15: Urge a requirement for cholinesterase monitoring of all commercial and private pesticide handlers who may handle organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides. !. Response: The Agency believes that monitoring of employee exposure is a prudent occupational health practice. However, as explained in the preamble (Unit III.I), EPA is concerned about many of the problems of cholinesterase monitoring.

~ EPA intends to reconsider the need 'for and the appropriate form of exposure monitoring for pesticide handlers after this final rule is implemented. This will give the Agency the opportunity to evaluate more thoroughly the ongoing

research in this area and the results of new or existing exposure monitoring ,programs. The Agency expects to issue a proposed rule in this area in about 3

years. Comment #16: Cholinesterase testing of field workers should be required in poisoning incidents involving organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate pesticides. Response: EPA presumes that treating inedical personnel would prescribe such rtesting when appropriate and that prudent employers would encourage such diagnostic tests. However, the focus of this rule is prevention of poisoning incidents for persons occupationally exposed to agricultural pesticides. It does not address diagnosis or treatment of pesticide illnesses or injuries. Diagnostic testing was not proposed in the NPRM and the Agency deems such a requirement beyond the scope of this rule. Comment #17: Supports evacuation of greenhouse workers during fumigation application and restricted-entry periods. Response: None required. Comment #18: Supports mandatory posting of treated areas in greenhouses. Respons'e: None required. Comment,#19: Unrealistic to expect that unprotected workers could reenter treated areas in greenhouses andnurseries without exposure to pesticidetreated surfaces. Response: The Agency is convinced

that there are situations in which workers may reenter many areas in nurseries and greenhouses without contacting treated surfaces, and has chosen to permit such entry. An example of such entry is when workers are wearing footwear and are walking through the aisles of treated areas where the plants or other treated surfaces cannot brush against the worker and cannot drop or drip pesticides onto the worker. Under the final rule, worker entry into treated areas is prohibited when contact would take place.

Comment #20: Concerned about the adequacy of the ventilation and buffer

zone criteria established for greenhouses and nurseries and urge further studyof the effectiveness of the standards in practice. Response: The Agency is interested in cooperating in research or evaluations that might be done on this aspect of the regulation and has held some preliminary discussions as to the best design of such a research project. Comment #21: Not requiring

notification for workers who are not expected to come within 1/4 mile of a treated area is inappropriate. Response: EPA acknowledges that workers frequently are required to move throughout the field or nursery to accomplish their assigned tasks. This final rule requires employers to notify workers of any pesticide application on the establishment unless the employer

makes sure that the worker will not be

in the treated area and will not walk

within 1/4 mile of the treated area. As a practical matter, if workers move throughout an establishment, their employer must notify them of all treated areas on the establishment remaining under an REI. The exception to the notification requirement is intended to be in effect only when pesticides are

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38139

-

applied at times when workers are not present on the property or when pesticides are applied to distant areas of

the establishment where no work activities are occurring. Some farms, nurseries, and forests are vast or noncontiguous; requiring workers to be notified of areas greatly distant from their place of work would be pointless and counterproductive.

Comment #22: Concern about EPA's rejection of the skull and crossbones symbol for the restricted-entry sign. Response: The Agency acknowledges

that the skull and crossbones is a far more recognized symbol for "highly toxic" or "very poisonous" than any other pictorial representation. For precisely that reason, FIFRA requires the skull and crossbones symbol on the labels of pesticides that are highly toxic orally, dermally, or through inhalation. EPA prohibits the use of the skull and crossbones symbol on any other pesticide label. The Agency has consistently taught pesticide users that the skull and crossbones is the symbol £or the most highly toxic pesticides, i.e. those where only a few drops by mouth

could be fatal. For this reason, the Agency is

convinced that the skull and crossbones is not appropriate for notifying workers of areas remaining under an REI. While some of these areas may have been treated with highly toxic pesticides, other areas may have been treated with moderately or slightly toxic pesticides. Rather than diluting the impact of the skull and crossbones symbol, EPA has chosen to create a new symbol for restricted entry. The Agency is taking several steps to assure recognition and acceptance of the new symbol: (1) The symbol is mandatory nationwide. States and industries currently using other signsand symbols must use the EPAmandated sign. (2) Mandatory worker training programs must explain thesymbol to workers. (3) The EPAmandated pesticide safety poster will serve as a reminder to workers by depicting the restricted-entry sign and its meaning. Comment #23: The implementation time frames are too long. All regulations should be mandatory within 8 months. Response: Implementation and enforcement of the revised Rule depends on the misuse provision of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) that states it is unlawful "to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." Thus, the provisions of the

Worker Protection Standard must be in the labeling or must be linked to pesticide product labeling as directions for use before they can be implemented or enforced. Although the Agency strongly believes that the protective

measures of this final rule should become effective as soon as practicable, it has concluded that a phased and orderly schedule of relabeling, information dissemination and training,

and enforcement is needed to facilitate both registrant compliance with the new labeling requiremen'ts and user understanding and compliance with the worker protection standard. Therefore, the Agency will require that no revised labels appear in the marketplace for approximately the first 8 months after promulgation so the Agency will have an opportunity to explain the requirements to users. Thereafter, product-specific requirements will be enforceabl,e when they appear on labeling. Twenty months is the latest time that labeling may be revised by the registrants. EPA expects many labeling revisions will occur

earlier than the 20—month deadline. Comment #24: The regulatory protections ignore chronic health risks. Response: The Agency is concerned about minimizing both acute and chronic health risks. Several provisions of this final rule are designed, at least in part, to reduce chronic health risks. These include: (1) Incorporating

information about chronic risks and how to avoid them into the mandatory worker and handler training programs, (2) providing decontamination sites for 30 days beyond the expiratio

~ n of the REI, (3) establishing a minimum REI of 12 hours for all pesticides, and (4)establishing for all handlers and earlyentry workers minimum PPE and work clothing requirements designed to minimize dermal exposure to all pesticides, regardless of their acute toxicity. EPA believes that these protections against acute risks, if adhered to consistently over time, will protect against chronic risks as well, by reducing exposures that may give rise to chronic effects. On the other hand, the Agency has concluded that more stringent pesticide-specific protections (such as REIs or PPE) based on chronic health risks should more appropriately be set after case-by-case review.

Comment #25: No buffer zones are required to protect workers in the field

from drift. Response: The Agency recognizes that drift from nearby applications is a common cause of exposure for agricultural workers. This final rule specifically requires that both the pesticide handler and the handler's employer must make sure that the pesticide is not applied so as to contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler. EPA considers this protection

so crucial that it is the one situation where a generic requirement from the Standard is listed on each pesticide product label.
Comment #26: Toxicological concerns about inert ingredients are ignored.
Response: The Agency is concerned about minimizing risks to workers and handlers of any chemicals of, toxicological concern, whether they are active or inert ingredients. In establishing PPE requirements for handlers and early-entry workers in the final rule, the Agency considers the toxicity of the formulated pesticide product. The toxicity of the formulated product encompasses the toxicological

characteristics of both the active ingredient(s) and the inert ingredient(s).
In establishing REIs, however, the Agency has determined'that the properties of the active ingredient(s) are the main toxicological concern. Many of the inert ingredients that might otherwise pose a toxicological hazard

are volatile and will not remain on the treated surface beyond the first few hours. Similarly, EPA has chosen to consider only the toxicity of the active ingredient(s) in establishing REIs and in determining which products must contain a requirement for both oral warnings and treated area posting.
In a process separate from this rule, EPA is evaluating and, where appropriate, reducing the risks posed by inert ingredients. In addition, the Agency will evaluate the risks of all formulations, including their inert ingredients,,during its accelerated reregistration program, now underway. The Agency has concluded that further attention to inert ingredients in the final rule is unnecessary.



### C. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

Pursuant to FIFRA section 25(d), a copy of this final rule was provided to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP waived review of the

final rule.

VI. Implementation



### A. Agency Implementation Strategy

1. Phased implementation. The Agency is establishing different implementation dates for the requirements in part 170 and the changes required in pesticide labeling found in part 156.
The first amended labeling under part

156 would be available to users no sooner than April 21, 1993. As pesticide products with amended labeling are used, EPA will begin to enforce the

### 38140 Federal Register / Vol. 157, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rule 

### s and Regulatfons

provisions of part 170 that are related to ' the new specific requirements onpesticide product labeling for restrictedentry intervals, personal protective equipment, and notification about

treated areas. After April 21, 1994, all products covered by this rule must have amended , labeling when they are distributed or sold by registrants. After Apri115,1994, EPA will begin to , enforce the remaining provisions of part



### 170. Implementation and enforcement of
the revised Worker Protection Standard , depend upon the misuse provision of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) that states it is unlawful "to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with , its labeling." Thus, the provisions of this , revised standard must be in the labeling ' or must be linked to pesticide product labeling by reference before they can be ; implemented or enforced. Currently, changes in directions for use ordinarily are incorporated in their „ entirety into the labeling of each affected pesticide product. Implementation and enforcement of new

directions for use occur when a pesticide product with the changed labeling is used. The Agency has determined that implementation of the Worker Protection Standard through this' mechanism would be difficult. Only worker protection requirements that vary from product to product will be placed on the pesticide product labeling : as specific directioris for use. Part 170 requirements that do not vary among affected products will not be repeated in ' each product's labeling; the Agency will ' reference these standards on pesticide product labeling. Placing requirements related to the

directions for use in documents that are referenced on the pesticide product labeling, but which do not accompany the product in commerce, is unusual. Although the Agency believes the protective measures of the revised part 170 should become effective as soon as , possible, it has concluded that a phased and orderly schedule of relabeling, information dissemination, and enforcement is needed to facilitate both ; registrant compliance with the new labeling requirements and user understanding and compliance with the ;

Worker Protection Standard. The requirements of the revised

Worker Protection Standard related to a' product's potential hazard to users and other persons will be on the label or in the product labeling. A registrant of an affected pesticide product will be required to specify: (1) A prohibition from applying the pesticide in a manner that contacts anyone except appropriately trained and equipped handlers, (2) PPE for handling and early-• entry activities, (3) a restricted-entry interval, and (4) when appropriate, that workers be notified orally and by posting of signs at the treated areas. - Although the concepts of not applying pesticides when workers or other people may be contacted, of using PPE to handle pesticides, of restricting entry to treated areas, and of notification about pesticide-treated areas are familiar to agricultural pesticide users, this rulemaking modifies these requirements in significant ways. Since these.product-• specific provisions are essential to the safe use of a pesticide, the Agency is unwilling to delay their implementation. Consequently, all product-specific requirements will be effective as soon as they appear on pesticide product labeling. However, the Agency will require that no such-labeling changes appear in the marketplace until there has been an opportunity to explain them

to users. Other new requirements apply to all pesticide products used in the production of agricultural plants. These include the requirements for training handlers and agricultural workers, for providing pesticide-specific information to employees, and for providing decontamination water and emergency

assistance for handlers and workers. It is not practical to describe these requirements fuIly in the product labeling. Therefore, it will take time to communicate these requirements to the agricultural community and for that community to implement them. As a result, enforcement of the general requirements will be delayed as described below. (Unit VI.A.2.) 2. Implementation 

### of

part 170. EPA will implement part 170 in two phases: a. Accelerated implementation 

### of provisions supporting product-specific labeling. Specific requirements related to restricted-entry intervals and

notification about treated areas.are being added or changed through this revision of part 170. To implement the requirements that will be found on some product labeling for restricted-entry intervals, and the instructions to both orally warn and post treated areas, sections of part 170 that concern these requirements and the exceptions to these requirements must be implemented quickly to prevent unintended burden on the user during the phase-inperiod of compliance with this regulation. The sections of part 170
that will have accelerated implementation, i.e. that will be

enforced as the associated statements appear in pesticide labeling are: i. Sections 

### of part 170 related to entry"

restriction. Section 170.112(a)(1) through (a)(4) states the general restrictions on worker entry to treated areas prior to the expiration of an REI. Section 170.112(b) describes an exception to the general restrictions and permits entry if

the worker will have no contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which the REI applies. Sections 170.112(c)(1) through (3) describe the exemption for early entry to perform short-term tasks and describe the requirements for that exemption which will be implemented on an

accelerated schedule. Sections 170.112(d)(1) through (2)(ii) plus 170.112(c)(3) that is referenced in (d)(2)(iii) describe the exemption for early entry due to an agricultural emergency and describe the requirements for that exemption which will be implemented on an accelerated

schedule.

ii. Sections 

### of

part 170 related to requirements about oral warnings and
posting 

### of treated areas. Implementation of the requirements to both orally warn and post treated areas in the labeling requires implementation of F 170.120(a)(3) and (b)(3), which tell the employer the exceptions to the oral warning and treated-area posting requirements. b. Implementation 

### of

part 170 provisions that dre generlc to all pesticide uses. The enforcement of the remaining or "generic" provisions (i.e. those that apply to all pesticides uses) in the final rule will begin April 15, 1994. The phased implementation dates for parY170 are intended to allow time for EPA and cooperating organizations to develop, reproduce, and distribute the training and instructional materials necessary to encourage compliance. If

part 170 implementation were to be triggered solely by the appearance of revised labeling, some users would have to comply with part 170 before

instructional materials were available to assist them in doing so. 3. Implementation 

### of

part 156. The Agency is establishing two separate sale/distribution dates for registrants. The first date regulates the earliest date that a registrant is allowed to sell or distribute a pesticide product with labeling amended to include part 156

statements. This date is the effective date of part 170 (which is 60 days after publication of the final rule) plus 6 months. During this time the Agency will execute an implementation outreach program. The second date,l8 months after the effective date of part 170, is the time by which all affected pesticide products sold or distributed by

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

### 38141

registrants would be required to contain the appropriate part 156 statements in their labeling.

In the past, EPA has not placed constraints on registrants as to howsoon pesticide products bearing Agencyrequired changes to labeling could be sold or distributed; the emphasis has been on the maximum time registrants would be allowed for changing labeling. I°iowever, in the implementation of the Worker Irrotection Standard, registrants

will not be allowed to sell or distribute pesticide products with labeling amended to include part 1561abe1- specific requirements or the generic part 170 reference statement prior to an

established date. This constraint is to prevent pesticide labeling with the new worker protection statements pursuant to this final rule from becoming

available to users before EPA and cooperating organizations can disseminate the information necessary to tell users how to comply with the requirements. Otherwise, users could face the dilemma of being required to comply with provisions without the necessary information on how to do so.
-A summary of the implementation schedule Is given in the following Table

1:

Table 1.—Implementation Time Table

Time I Part 156 

# I

Part 170

Activities Activities

PublicaUon in Inform Initiate outreach

the Federai reg(strants of to reguiated Register of required label community to part 170 and changes (LIP inform part 156 or PR notice). affected (notice to parties about registrants of the ruie, mandatory particularly labeiing the ch®nges). acceierated provisions,

i.e. the
requirements

in the Iabeiing for

restrictedentry
intervals,

treated area posting and

oral

notification to

workers, and

use of
personal
protecUve equipment.

80 days after EffecGve date. Effective date, publicaUon. inciuding the process for requesting exceptions to

restrictedentry

intervais. Table 1.—Implementation Time Table—

Continued

Time Part 156

Activities Part 170

Activities

6 months after Earliest date Start

effective date that products compliance of part 156 with efforts on and part 170. amended new productlabeling may specific

be sold or requirements distributed by on labeling registrants. (accelerated

provisions of
part 170).

April 15, 1994. Start

enforcement of part 170 "generic" provisions

whenever a pesticide product with

amended labeling is

used.

18 months after AII pesticide part 156 and products sold part 170 or distributed

effective date by registrants
(12 months must bear

after earliest Iabeiing

saie or referencing

distribution part 170 and

date for other part registrants). 156 labeling

statements.

36 months after Pesticide part 156 and products part 170 sold/

effective distributed by

date. any person

must bear

amended labeling.

B. Registrant Compliance

A large number of products will be affected by the new requirements, and an orderly relabeling process is necessary to avoid confusion, to ensure clear and appropriate labeling to guide users, and to facilitate registrant compliance. Thus, the Agency has included in this preamble instructions to registrants and compliance deadlines for changes to pesticide labeling required by the new subpart K, part 156 ("Worker Protection Statements"). The Agency has tried to make the new labeling requirements as self-explanatory as possible to reduce the need for registrant inquiries.

1. Applicability of part 156, subpart K

statements. This section provides guidance to registrants in determining which of their products may be affected by the new part 156 subpart K, whether existing worker protection statements should be retained, and how new part 156 subpart K labeling statements

should be determined. a. Scope. Products affected by part 156 subpart K are, with some exceptions, those products registered for use in the production of agricultural plants (40 CFR 156.200(b)). The scope of agricultural pesticides for purposes of subpart K is broad and refers to any product registered for use in the production of agricultural plants on farms, or in forests, nurseries, or greenhouses; these

terms are defined in 40 CFR 170.3. Part 156, subpart K applies to products that may be applied directly to agricultural plants br to growing areas. Any such product must bear the subpart K statements, except as noted below. Several types of products that may be registered for application on farms, or in forests, nurseries, or greenhouses need not bear the subpart K statements. These are defined by the exceptions to the handler applicability section of part 170 (40 CFR 170.202(b)). If a product has both exempted uses and covered uses, the subpart K statements must appear on labeling. Under subpart K, a,reference

statement on the label will direct users to part 170, which contains more specific requirements than those listed in the labeling.

b. Existing statements. Various types of worker protection statements currently appear in the labeling of many agricultural products. Most of these

statements will be modified or will be replaced by the new subpart K requirements. Several comments on the proposed rule requested clarification of the relationship between subpart K and PR Notice 83-2, which called for certain worker protection statements, based on part 170, to be placed on agricultural product labels. EPA is revoking PR Notice 83-2 effective as of April 21, 1993, and registrants of products subject to PR Notice 83-2 must modify their labeling according to subpart K requirements. Some products within the scope of subpart K were not subject to PR Notice 83-2, including products registered for uses in forests and in greenhouses, for use on nursery ornamentals, and for use on crops whose culture does not involve commoniy recognized hand labor tasks.

In addition to PR Notice 83-2 statements, some products currently bear statements pertaining to REIs and PPE that were required through ` registration or a Registration Standard or Special Review decision on an active ingredient contained in the product. The status of existing REI and PPE statements will be governed by the relevant subpart K sections on these topics (40 CFR 156.208 and 156.212). The Agency will issue a PR Notice to registrants with detailed guidelines on. •

.



### 38142 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, A ugust 21, 1992

### / Rules and Regulat ions

how to evaluate existing labeling statements and on what new iabeling statements to adopt.

c. New statements. Four types of worker protection statements may apply to products covered by the new subpart K: General statements, REI statements, worker notification statements, and PPE '

statements.


### i. General. All products must carry a standard reference statement alerting the user that the product must be used according to part 170 (40 CFR 156.206(b)). A standard statement prohibiting users from allowing a pesticide to contact nonhandlers directly or through drift also must appear on all products (40 CFR 156.206(a)). A different version of this statement was required by PR Notice 83-2; that version must be replaced by the revised version. Products required to

use either DANGER or WARNING as signal words (toxicity category I or II products) also must use the Spanish signal word PELIGRO or AVISO on the label, and a phrase in Spanish instructing the reader to have the label explained before using the product (40 CFR 156.206(e)). If the product contains an active ingredient that is an organophosphate or an N-methyl carbamate, this information must be in the labeling either as part of the product name or in the Statement of Practical Treatment (First Aid) section of the labeling (40 CFR 156.206(c)(1)). This information is required in the labeling to aid employers who want to provide cholinesterase monitoring programs for their employees. If the product is a fumigant, its status as a fumigant must be conveyed as part of the product-name or product-type information, placed close to the product name (40 CFR 156.206(c)(2)).



### ii. Restricted entry. Products covered by subpart K must have a standard REI statement. Fumigants will retain their current entry restrictions, but the

statements must be converted to the format of the subpart K restricted-entry statements (40 CFR.156.208(d)). The standard restricted-entry

. statement (40CFR 156.208(a)) includes the restrictedentry interval (determined by 40 CFR

156.208(c),(d),(e), or (f)).Some existing labeling bears entryrestriction statements. In determiningthe appropriate subpart K restrictedentry interval (REI), three situations are possible:First, a product that has a productspecific REI based on foliar or soil dissipation data for the product (or for each active ingredient in the product)

that have been submitted to and accepted by EPA, must retain this REI

(40 CFR 156.208(e)). The second situation involves products that have an REI that is not product-specific. Here the existing REI must be comparec

## ~ to the REI that would apply using the criteria in 40 CFR 156.208(c); the longer of the two REIs would be the restricted-entry interval. Third, a product that has no REI (this would include products prohibiting entry "until sprays have dried or dusts have settled" and other products) must use the criteria of 40 CFR 156.208(c) to determine the appropriate REI unless all data required to set a product-specific interval are submitted to and accepted by EPA and a specific REI is approved.

Under the criteria of 40 CFR 156.208(c), REIs are determined by comparing available acute toxicity data for the active ingredients in a product. Registrants must use any obtainable results of toxicity testing (i.e., toxicity category) for the three relevant routes of exposure (dermal toxicity, skin irritation effects, and eye irritation effects) for each active ingredient in the product. If necessary, formulators should seek verification of toxicity category information from their suppliers. In some circumstances, acute oral toxicity or the toxicity of a registered technical product may be used. Among the acute toxicity data used in the comparison, the most toxic toxicity category determines the REI: 48 hours for toxicity category I, 24 hours for toxicity category II, or 12 hours for toxicity category III and toxicity category IV (40 CFR 156.208(c)). When no acute toxicity data are

available for one or more of the active ingredients, registrants must use the toxicity category of the formulated product indicated by the signal word in the comparison. When the REI has been determined, the appropriate number of hours is inserted into the restricted-entry
statement of 40 CFR 156.208(b), unless the REI varies crop by crop. If a product contains a toxicity category I active ingredient that is a cholinesteras e-inhibiting organophosphate ester, a statement must be added requiring a 72-hour REI when the product is applied outdoors in an area where the average annual rainfall is less than 25 inches a year (40
CFR 156.208(c)(2)(i)). EPA reserves the right to modify any subpart K restricted-entry interval for a product in the future. For example, this may occur either at the beginning or end of a Special Review for an active ingredient in the product (40 CFR 156.204(a)) or on evaluation of foliar or soil dissipation data, or other relevant data, showing that a different REI is
warranted (40 CFR 156.204(b)). Registrants, or others, may undertake to develop, at their discretion, foliar dissipation or other exposure data that

would lead to the establishment of a product-specific REI; until that time, an interim REI will apply to the product.



### iii. Notification to workers. Each product in toxicity category I for acute dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential, other products designated by EPA, and each fumigant that may be ,.,used in greenhouses must carry a standard statement indicating that workers must be given notification of the application both oraliy and by posting of treated areas (40 CFR 156.210). A definition of a fumigant appears in 40 CFR 156.203.



### iv. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and work clothing. All products must bear statements specifying minimum PPE or work clothing as determined by subpart K. Appropriate PPE or work clothing is required by subpart K for all handling activities (40 CFR 156.212) and activities in treated areas before the expiration of an REI. If a product has PPE or work clothing statements on the labeling, the registrant must compare these existing statemerlts with the requirements of subpart K, and use the more protective or more specific item of PPE or work clothing for each area of the body to be protected. If product labeling prohibits the wearing of gloves or boots, such a prohibition must be retained on labeling as it is worded. The format of all PPE and work clothing

statements should be that described in subpart K, even if a more protective or more specific item is being retained. The following are examples of comparisons of degree of protection or specificity between PPE items in subpart K and PPE. items now on product labeling:
(1) A coverall is more protective than a long-sleeved shirt and long pants.
(2) A chemical-resistant (or liquidproof, waterproof, rubber, etc.) suit, rain gear or rain suit is moreprotective than a coverall or longsleeved shirt and long pants.
(3) Chemical-resistant gloves are more protective than cotton, cloth, paper, or leather gloves. (4) Chemical-resistant footwear is more protective than shoes and socks. (5) Air-supplied or self-contained respirators are more protective than other classes or types of respirators. (6) A cartridge or canister respirator is more protective than a dust/mist mask or dust/mist respirator. As indicated below, certain words and phrases on existing labeling must be replaced by terms described in subpart



### K. Unless the registrant has data that indicate a particular type of material(s)

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

1 

### 38143



### is more chemically resistant to a particular pesticide product or a particular type of pesticide products, the labeling statements for the use of gloves in subpart K must be followed.

"Chemical resistant" must be used instead of such terms as "liquidproof," "rubber," "natural rubber," "vinyl," "synthetic rubber," "impervious," "neoprene," "plastic," "impermeable," or "nonporous." The term "waterproof"must be used in place of "waterresistant" or other terms if the pesticide is used dry or as an aqueous solution. Unless the registrant has data indicating that the NIOSH/MSHA approval number prefix listed in subpart K is inappropriate for a particular pesticide product or a particular type of pesticide product, NIOSH/MSHA approval number prefixes indicated in subpart K shall be substituted for the general phrase "NIOSH/MSHA approved" in respirator statements on existing labeling. For a dust/mist mask, the NIOSH/MSI-iA approval number prefix is "TC-21C." For a cartridge respirator, the NIOSH/MSHA approval number prefix is "TC-23C." For a canister respirator, the NIOSH/MSHA approval number is prefix "TC-14G." For a supplied-air respirator, the NIOSH/MSHA approval number prefix is "TC19C:' For a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), the NIOSH/MSHA approval number prefix is TC-13F." To determine the appropriate PPE requirements for handling activities, the table in 40 CFR 156.212(e) is used in conjunction with the acute toxicity data on the formulated product for each route of exposure listed in the table. Registrants must determine the toxicity category of the formulated product for acute dermal toxicity, skin irritation potential, eye irritation potential, and acute inhalation toxicity. If the acute toxicity data for dermal or inhalation exposure are not available, the acute oral toxicity may be used as a surrogate. (If acute toxicity data for any of these . routes of exposure are not available, the toxicity category of the formulated product as a whole must be used as a

substitute for each such route of exposure.) Given the toxicity category for each route of exposure, the table gives the appropriate item or items of PPE or work clothing necessary to protect that part of the body. All such items taken together comprise the basic "outfit" to be worn by the handier. This "outfit," in the form of a list of PPE and work clothing items, is inserted into a

standardized handler PPE statement (40 CFR 156.212(d)(3)).

In addition to the basic handler outfit statement, statements related to exposure pattern are required for products in toxicity categories I and II

(40 CFR 156.212(i)). For products that must be mixed or loade,d, there must be a statement requiring the use of a chemical-resistant apron unless there is a requirement for a chemical-resistant

suit (40 CFR 156.212(i)(1)). If overhead exposure is possible during handling, there must be a statement requiring the

use of a wide-brimmed hat or a

chemical-resistant hood (40 CFR 156.212(i)(2)). If equipment is used to mix, load, or apply the product, there must be a statement requiring the use of a chemical-resistant apron for persons who clean or repair equipment unlessthere is a requirement for a chemicalresistant suit (40 CFR 156.212(i)(3)). If a product is sold as a concentrate and diluted for application, registrants may submit to the Agency or cite additional acute toxicity data on the diluted product. The PPE requirements for all handlers except mixer/loaders would then be based upon the data on the product as diluted for application. The appropriate PPE and work clothing requirements for' early-entry

activities are the same as for applicators, except no respiratory protection device would be needed for early entry to pesticide-treated areas. Inaddition, the minimum PPE for earlyentry activities consists of coveralls, chemical-resistant (or waterproof) gloves, shoes, and socks. The Agency reserves the right to modify the subpart K requirements for PPE and work clothing for a product at some future time. This might occur at the beginning or end of a Special Review, or on review of data showing that different requirements are warranted.

d. Labeling format—i. Language and location of labeling. Specific language for worker protection labeling statements has been employed in subpart K to facilitate registrant compliance and to eliminate unnecessary variation among agricultural product labeling. Each section of subpart K describing a required worker protection statement specifies a location on labeling for that statement. Most worker protection statements are required to be grouped near the beginning of the Directions for Use section of the product labeling under the heading Agricultural Use Requirements. General statements such as the reference to part 170 would appear first. The only statements required to appear elsewhere on labeling are the Spanish signal word and explanatory statement, which must appear close to the English signal word; the identification of the type of product (organophosphate or N-methyl carbamate), which must be associated with the product name or in the Statement of Practical Treatment (First Aid) section; identification of 

# a fumigant, which must appear as part of or close to the product name; and the PPE statements, which must appear in the Hazards to Humans (and Domestic Animals) section of the labeling. At the discretion of the registrant, any existing worker protection statements that are not superseded or modified by'subpart K may be relocated under this overall worker protection heading, unless this would reduce existing protection associated with nonagricultural uses.

ii. New or amended product labeling. As of April 21, 1993, labeling submitted with applications for new or amended registration must comply with subpart K. The Agency will review and approve labeling for new prodiicts under normal Agency procedures.

iii. Existing products. Registrants of products that ar.e registered as of the effective date of subpart K and that fall within the scope of subpart K must revise their product labeling to comply with the new requirements in one of the following ways:

(1) Subpart K labeling followed exactly. The Agency is specifying precise wording and exact requirements for worker protection labeling so that registrants of existing products will be able to revise product labeling more easily within the timeframes established. If a registrant certifies that

the Worker Protection Standard PR Notice wording is followed exactly for a specific product, no Agency approval is required. The registrant must submit the following: (A) An Application for Amended Registration (EPA Form 8570-1): Under "Subject of Amendment" in section II of the application, the registrant must identify the subject of the amendment as

"WORKER PROTECTION

CERTIFICATION" and include a certification statement such as, "All products being sold or distributed after April 21, 1994, will be in compliance with the labeling requirements of 40 CFR part 156, subpart K." (B) A copy of the product's revised labeling (draft or final) with the changes highlighted, preferably with a felt-tipped marker. The Agency may choose to review this labeling as a check on the correctness of the registrant's compliance with subpart K.

(2) Subpart K labeling not followed exactly. If a registrant wishes to use wording different from that required by

the Worker Protection Standard PR Notice, an amended registration must be

### 3$144 Fecleral Regis t 

### e r / Vol. 0, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 

## f Rules and Regu)ations

approved. The registrant must submit the following: (A) An Application for Amended Registration (EPA Form 8570-1). Under "Subject of Amendment" in section II of the application, the registrant must identify the subject of the amendment as

"WORKER PROTECTION LABELING

AMENDMENT" and include a statement such as, "The applicant requests the Agency to review proposed revised labeling text that differs from 40 CFR

part 156, subpart K." (B) Five copies of the product's proposed draft labeling with the changes highlighted, preferably with a felt-tipped

marker. EPA encourages registrants seeking amendments under section 3(b) to submit their applications as soon as possible after the effective date of this regulation. EPA cannot assure that these amendments to registration will be approved in time to incorporate the revised language on the labeling by the deadlines. As stated above, the Agency

intends that the standard and implementing labeling statements be put in place as

. quickly as possible. Thus, it is unlikely that EPA will grant an extension of time merely because a special labeling amendment has been proposed. This policy does not preclude registrants from requesting special amendments to registration; registrants, however, are required to meet applicable deadlines for labeling changes regardless of the status of any special amendment to registration.

iv. Where to send amended application. Applications for amended registration and other labeling must be

submitted to the address listed in the

Worker Protection Standard PR Notice and must be received on or before April 21, 1994. After this date, no product may be distributed or sold by the registrant (or a supplemental registrant) unless it is in compliance with the new subpart K. After October 23, 1995, all products distributed or sold by any person must bear labeling statements in compliance with the new subpart K.

v. Earliest distribution or sale. Finally, it should be noted that no product with the subpart K labeling statements may be distributed or sold by a registrant prior to April 21, 1993 9 even though the registrant may submit certification and EPA may approve new or amended products with subpart K labeling prior to that date.

vi. Failure to comply. If the items listed above, such as a certification statement, and, if applicable, the final printed labeling are not submitted on or before the date specified above, the Agency may issue a"Notice of Intent to Cancel" under FIFRA section 6(b)..If, after a certification is reviewed, the Agency determines that the registrant has incorrectly labeled the product, the product may be deemed to be

misbranded in violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(1)(E) or the Agency may

issue a"Notice of Intent to Cancel" under FIFRA section 6(b).

C. EPA Communication and Training 

### Efforts

EPA has been engaged in the promotion of pesticide safety in agriculture for many years. In the course of this program, the Agency has developed working relationships with other Federal, State, and private organizations with similar objectives: It has sponsored the production and distribution of many types of pesticide §afety materials. With the promulgation

of the revised Worker Protection Standard, the Agency intends to develop appropriate materials to inform pesticide users and agricultural workers of the new requirements and to facilitate compliance. 1. Product labeling. The labeling of each agricultural pesticide product subject to part 170 will indicate, by means of a reference statement, that the product must be used according to these regulations. Requirements that vary from product to product, such as restricted-entry intervals and personal protective equipment, will appear as specific labeling statements, while requirements that do not vary among products, such as provision of decontamination sites, will not be repeated in each product's labeling. ;. 2. Development of materials. To assist agricultural employers and pesticide users in complying with the revised Worker Protection Standard, the Agency intends to develop or to cooperate in the development of new educational mate,rials and to revise some existing

educational materials. These materials may be used by agricultural employers, migrant health clinics, Cooperative Extension offices, unions, commodity organizations, and similar groups. a. Compliance materials. In addition to the promulgation of part 170 standard, the Agency intends to develop compliance guides and audiovisual compliance programs for agricultural employers and handler employers. These guides and programs will summarize and explain the regulations and will assist agricultural employers and handler employers to understand their responsibilities under part 170. ', b. Training programs for handlers and

workers. Existing written and audiovisual training programs on pesticide safety are expected to be revised as one squrce of assistance to agricultural employers and handler employers in training their employees in pesticide safety. The training programs also may be used by others such as migrant health clinics, State agencies, and worker organizations to train agricultural workers and handlers. The training programs that are planned are handbooks, slides/tapes and videos in English and Spanish. They will be designed to meet the pesticide safety training requirements of the new part

170.

c. Pesticide safety poster. A bilingual pesticide safety poster for agricultural workers, entitled "Be Safe With

Pesticides/Use Pesticidas Con Cuidado," has been developed by the Agency and has been distributed widely with the assistance of cooperating organizations. EPA plans to revise the poster and intends that display of this revised poster will fulfill the pesticide safety poster requirement of part 170.

d. Guidelines on the selection and vse of personal protective equipment (PPE). Numerous comments from the public

addressed the need for more information and guidance on the selection, use, and maintenance of PPE, including the avoidance of heat stress. The Agency has developed informational materials to provide guidance to pesticide users on these topics. The Agency also intends to develop guidance documents on cholinesterase monitoring to assist employers who have or want to have such a program. 3. Liaison with other agencies and organizations. In the past, EPA has had

the assistance'of a number of governmental agencies, farmworker service organizations, and trade associations in communicating with the agricultural community. The Agency will continue to work with these groups to inform affected persons of their rights and responsibilities under the revised standard, to assist in the reproduction

and distribution of educational materials developed by the Agency and to encourage compliance on the part of

their members and clients.

D. National Compliance Monitortng Strategy

The Agency's approach to

enforcement of the Worker Protection Standard will be based on development of a National Compliance Monitoring Strategy for worker protection.

Pesticide use enforcement under FIFRA is dependent upon two broad authorities, the authority to regulate the distribution and sale of pesticides ,and the authority to require that registered pesticides be used according to their labeling. In most States, enforcement is

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

### 38145

by State regulatory agencies through Cooperative Enforcement Agreements

with EPA. EPA intends to assure enforcement of part 170 primarily through these agreements. The National Compliance Monitoring Strategy will be developed in partnership with the State regulatory agencies and will guide all

enforcement activities related to this regulation.
To achieve maximum compliance, the Agency plans a major communication effort to inform the regulated community of the new requirements. The registrant of a pesticide product subject to .part 170 will be governed by the timeframes for product relabeling laid out above. Once



### a relabeled product is used, it must be used in accordance with its labeling or

the user will be in violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G). The product will bear a reference statement notifying the user that the product must be used in accordance with part 170.
The relationship between State and

Federal entities in the enforcement of pesticide use regulations is governed by FIFRA section 26(a). With the exception of Nebraska, Wyoming, and (in part) Colorado, all States have primary use enforcement authority and have entered into Cooperative Enforcement Agreements with EPA. EPA regional offices annually negotiate the terms of these agreements with State regulatory agencies. Starting in fiscal year 1990, these agreements have included a speeifie section on worker protection en£orcement activities. EPA expects that individual State eompliance monitoring strategies will be developed once the National Compliance Monitoring Strategy is completed. These strategies will describe inspection and complaint response schemes and compliance

communication activities to be conducted in each State. Development of interagency coordination agreements among various State agencies concerned with pesticide use and worker safety may be part of each State's strategy. EPA also anticipates that registrantcompliance with worker-protectionrelated registration requirements will be monitored through activities agreed upon under Cooperative Enforcement Agreements.
Toward the accomplishment of these goals, money has been allocated to the States in EPA's budget for fiscal years ' 1990,1991, and 1992 for the development of worker protection programs and related compliance activities. In States where Cooperative Enforcement Agreements are not in place, EPA regional inspectors will conduct compliance monitoring programs based on the National Compliance Monitoring Strategy for this regulation.



### VII. Public Docket

. Documents relied upon by the Agency in the development of this final rule, including public comments submitted on the proposed rule, have been given the

document control number OPP-300164A and are available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the Office of Pesticide Programs' Document Control Office, Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

VIII. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12291

Under Executive Order 12291, a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) has been developed and has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This document is available for public inspection at the address given at the beginning of this Notice. A summary

of.the document follows.

EPA believes that the benefits that will accrue to agricultural "workers and handlers from implementation of the

WPS include the reduction in lost time from the workforce, reduced medical expenses, and increased well-being and productivity through being less affected by pesticide poisoning. These and any related benefits cannot be adequately quantified with available data. The Agency is convinced that the benefits to society from avoided incidents of acute, allergic, and delayed adverse effects from occupational exposures to agricultural-plant pesticides exceed the

costs attributable to this final rule. The final rule would serve to protect a labor force of 3.9 million exposed either directly or indirectly to pesticides as a result of their occupations on farms, in forests, in nurseries, in greenhouses, or in commercial pesticide-handling operations. This work force includes 1.4

million hired workers and handlers on farms, 92,000 hired workers and handlers in nurseries and greenhouses, and 10,000 hired workers and handlers
in forests. There are also 38,000

commercial handlers who handle agricultural-plant pesticides. In addition, 2.36 million agricultural-establishment operators and unpaid workers (presumably family members) handle agricultural-piant pesticides or perform tasks related to the production of agricultural plants on farms, nurseries, and greenhouses.

EPA estimates that the incremental costs of this final rule will be about $95 million in the first year and about $50 million annually thereafter. To facilitate comparison with other regulations, EPA has also calculated the increniental costs by annualizing them over 10 years at several illustrative interest rates. Using 3% and 10%, the annualized costs of this final rule would be about $54 and $56 million per year respectively. The

annual cost of the rule is therefore expec4ed to be $50 to $60 million dollars,

while the estimated annual beinefits of this final rule include avoiding 8,000 to 16,000 physician-diagnosed (nonhospitalized) acute and allergic pesticide poisoning incidents,'avoiding about 300 hospitalized acute and allergic pesticide poisoning incidents, and avoiding potentially important numbers of cancer cases, serious developmental defects, stillbirths, persistent neurotoxic effects, and nondiagnosed acute.and allergic poisoning incidents. '

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) for its impact on small

businesses. The results of.that review have been incorporated into the Regulatory Impact Analysis and are

discussed in more detail in that document (available for public inspection at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice). A summary

follows. . The revised final rule exempts owners of agricultural establishments and members of their immediate family from the provisions pertaining to safety training and information, decontamination facilities, notification of pesticide treatments, and emergency assistance. EPA presumes that owners and family members will provide

themselves and each other with these protections, and has chosen not to regulate such behavior. This decision represents a significant exemption for small entities, since about 45 percent (251,000 of 560,000) of the agricultural establishments within the scope of the
WPS do not hire labor and are, . therefore, exempt from all but a few of the final rule's requirements. As a result, the analysis reveals that agricultural establishments without

hired labor will bear a low cost-burden as compared to agricultural

establishments with hired lalior. The incremental continuing annual costs . averaged across all establishments without hired labor are about $15 per
establishment, whereas the costs averaged across all hired-labor agricultural establishments are about

$140 per establishment per year. Nonhired-labor feed and grain farms, which make up the largest crop segment, will incur incremental continuing annual

### 3$146 

### Federal Register / Vol. 5S 

### ', No. 163 / Friday, A

### ug ust 21, 1992

### / Rules and Regulations

~ costs averaging about $10 per farm. Hired-labor feed and grain farms will incur incremental continuing annual costs averaging about $55 per farm. None of the provisions of the regulation provide a direct efficiency of size to establishments with many employees. Most of the provisions are totally or mostly variable (per worker) costs. However„ two provisions that contain some fiiced (per establishment) cost elements are training and notification. Even these provisions are not directly efficiency-of-size cost factors, due to: (1) The diverse and sporadic nature of pesticide-use and labor-use practices, and (2) the exceptions and options in the rule thatallow employers to select the most costeffective option for their particular

circumstance. The variability in the cost-factors due to these exceptions and options is difficult to quantify. Therefore, the analysis of the impact on 1-worker agricultural establishments versus the impact on 10-worker agricultural

establishments is a "worst-case" analysis that assumes that all costs of training and notification are fixed rather

than variable. This results in an overestimate of the impact of this rule to 1-worker agricultural establishments. However, even with the overestimate,

results indicate that the burden is not unreasonably higher for such small establishments. The average incremental continuing annual cost due to all provisions for a feed and grain farm with one hired employee is about $25 (or $25 per employee). For a feed and grain farm with 10 hired employees, it is about $115 per year (or $10 per employee). For vegetable/fruit/nut

establishments with one hired employee, the average incremental continuing annual cost for all provisions is about $95 per establishment (or $95 per employee). The cost is about $650 (or $65 per employee) for a vegetable/fruit/

nut establishment with 10 hired employees. The Agency has determined that the burden on small agricultural businesses does not outweigh the risk to handlers and workers empioyed in those businesses, and that further exemptions from the regulation for small businesses

would not be warranted.



### C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been assigned OMB Control

Number 2070-0060. The reporting burden for registrants is lestimated to average 5.9 hours per product, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, toChief, Information Policy Branch, PM223, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460 and to the Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked

"Attention: Desk Officer for. EPA."

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 156 and

'170

Environmental protection, Labeling, :Pesticides and pests, Intergovernmental :relations, Occupational safety and lhealth, Reporting and recordkeeping irequirements.

Dated: August 13,1992.

'William K. Reilly,

Administrator.
Therefore, chapter I of Title 40 is amended in subchapter E, to read as

follows:

IPART 156—LASELING

IRE®UIREMENTS FOR PESTICIDES

AND DEVICES
1. In part 156: ! a. The authority citation for part 156

continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C.136-136y.

b. Section 156.10 is designated as subpart A, and the subpart heading is added, § 156.10 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(2)(viii), and subparts B through J are added and reserved, to

r-ead as follows:

Subpart A—General Provisions

§ 156.10 Labeiing reaiuirements.

(i) * *

~ (2) * * *

(viii) Worker protection statements nneeting the requirements of subpart K af this part.

c. New subpart K, consisting of

§ § 156.200, 156.203, 156.204, 156.206, 156.208, 156.210, and 156.212, is added, to

read as follows:

Subpart K—Worker Proteetion Statements

Sec.

156.200 Scope and applicability.

1156.203 Definitions.
1,56.204 Modification and waiver of requirements.

1156.206 General statements.

1156.208 Restricted-entry statements. Sec.

156.210 Notification-to-workers statements. 156.212 Personal protective equipment

statements.

Subpart K—Worker Protection

Statements

§ 156.200 Scope and appiicabiiity.

(a) Scope. (1) This subpart prescribes statements that must be placed on the pesticide label and in pesticide labeling. These statements incorporate by

reference the Worker Protection Standard, part 170 of this chapter. The requirements addressed in these statements are designed to reduce the risk of illness or injury resulting from workers' and pesticide handlers' occupational exposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants on agricultural establishments as defined in § 170.3 of this chapter. These statements refer to specific workplace practices designed to reduce or eliminate exposure and to respond to emergencies that may arise from the exposures that may occur.

(2) This subpart prescribes interim requirements that must be placed on the pesticide label and in pesticide labeling. These interim requirements pertain to restricted-entry intervals, personal protective equipment, and notification. On a case-by-case basis, these interim requirements will be reviewed and may be revised during reregistration or other agency review processes.

(b) Applicability. (1) The requirements of this subpart apply to eaeh pesticide product that bears directions for use in the production of any agricultural plant on any agricultural establishment as defined in § 170.3 of this chapter, or whose labeling reasonably permits such

use. (2) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to a product that bears directions solely for uses excepted by

§ 170.202(b) of this chapter.

(c) Effective dates. (1) The effective date of this subpart is October 20, 1992.

(2) No pesticide product bearing labeling amended and revised as required by this subpart shall be distributed or sold by a registrant prior to April 21, 1993.

(3) No product to which this subpart applies shall be distributed or sold without amended labeling by any :registrant after Apri121, 1994.

(4) No product to which this subpart applies shall be distributed or sold without amended labeling by any person
after October 23, 1995.

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules an 

### dR 

### eg u 

### lations 381 

### 4 7

§ 156.203 Definitlons.
Terms in this subpart have the same meanings as they do in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. In addition, the following terms, as used in this subpart, shall have the meanings stated below: 

### Fumigant means any pesticide product that is a vapor or gas or forms E vapor or gas on application and whose method of pesticidal action is through the gaseous state. 

### Restricted-entry interval means the time after the end of a pesticide application during which entry to the

treated area is restricted.

§ 156.204 Modification and waiver of requirements.



### (a) Modification on Special Review. If the Agency concludes in accordance with § 154.25(c) of this chapter that a pesticide should be placed in Special Review because the pesticide meets or

exceeds the criteria for human health effects of § 154.7(a)(1)(2) or (6) of this chapter, the Agency may modify the personal protective equipment required for handlers or early-entry workers or both, the restricted-entry intervals, or the notification to workers requirements. 

### (b) Other modifications. The Agency, pursuant to this subpart and authorities granted in FIFRA sections 3, 6, and 12, may, on its initiative or based on data submitted by any person, modify or waive the requirements of this subpart, or permit or require alternative labeling statements. Supporting data may be either data required by Subdivisions U

or K of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines or data from medical, epidemiological, or health effects

studies. The Pesticide Assessment

Guidelines contain the standards for conducting acceptable tests, guidance on evaluation and reporting of data, definition of terms, further guidance on when data are required, and examples of acceptable protocols. They are available through the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. A registrant who wishes to modify any of the statements required in §§ 156.206, 158.208,156.210, or 156.212 must submit an application for amended registration unless specifically directed otherwise by the Agency.

§ 156.206 Genera! atatements. 

### (a) Application restrictions. Each product shall bear the statement: "Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application." This statement shall be near the beginning of the DIRECTIONS FOR USE section of the labeling under the heading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. 

### (b) 40 CFR Part 170 

### reference statement. (1) Each product shall bear

the reference statement: "Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170." This statement shall be placed on the product label under the heading

AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. (2) Each product shall bear the

statement: "This standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label [in this labeling] about [use any of the following that are applicable] personal protective equipment, restricted-entry interval, and

notification to workers." These statements shall be placed immediately following the reference statement required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or they shall be placed in the supplemental product labeling under the heading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. (3) If the statements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are included in supplemental labeling rather than on the label of the pesticide container, the

container label must contain this statement immediately following the statement required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section: "Refer to supplemental labeling entitled AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the DIRECTIONS FOR USE section of the labeling for

information about this standard."
(4) If the statements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are included in supplemental labeling, they must be preceded immediately by the statement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section under the heading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling. 

### (c) Product-type identification. (1) If the product contains an organophosphate (i.e., an organophosphorus ester that inhibits cholinesterase) or an N-methyl carbamate (i.e., an N-methyl carbamic acid ester that inhibits cholinesterase),

the label shall so state. The statement shall be associated with the product name or product-type identification or

shall be in the STATEMENT OF

PRACTICAL TREATMENT or FIRST

AID section of the label. (2) If the product is a fumigant, the

label shall so state. The identification shall appear:

(i) As part of the product name; or

(ii) Close to the product name, as part of the product-type identification or as a separate phrase or sentence,


### (d) State restrictions. Each product shall bear the statement: "For any requirements specific to your State, consult the agency in your State responsible for pesticide regulation." .

This statement shall be under the heading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling.



### (e) Spanish warning statements. If the product is classified as toxicity category I or toxicity category II according to the criteria in § 156.10(h)(1), the signal word shall appear in Spanish in addition to English followed by the statement, "Si Usted no entiende la etiqueta, busque a alguien para que se la explique a Usted en detalle. (If you do not understand the label, find some one to explain it to you in detail.)" The Spanish signal word "PELIGRO" shall be used for products in toxicity category I, and the Spanish signal word "AVISO" shall be used for products in toxicity category II. These statements shall appear on the label close to the English signal word.

(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2070-0060.)

§ 156.208 Restricted-entry statements.



### (a) Requirement. Each product with a restricted-entry interval shall bear the following statement: "Do not enter or allow wo,rker entry into treated areas during the restricted-entry interval (REI)." This statement shall be under the heading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling.


### (b) Location of specific restrictedentryinterval statements. (1) If a product has one specific restricted-entry interval applicable to all registered uses of the product on agricultural plants, the restricted-entry interval for the product shall appear as a continuation of the statement required in paragraph (a) of this section and shall appear as follows: "of X hours" or "of X days" or "until the acceptable exposure level of X ppm or mg/m 3is reached."
(2) If different restricted=entry

intervals have been established for some crops or some uses of a product, the restricted-entry statement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be associated on the labeling of the product with the directions for use for each crop each use to which it applies, immediately preceded or immediately followed by the words "Restricted-entry intervaP' (or the letters "REI").

### 3814$ Fecfleral 

### Regi ster / Vol. 5: 

### 7, No. 163 / Friday, A ug 

### u st 21, 1992

### / Rules and Regulations

(c) Restricted-entry interval bqsed on toxicity of active ingredient—(1) Determination of toxicity category. A restricted-entry interval shall be established based on the acute toxicity of the active ingredients in the product. For the purpose of setting the restricted- ' entry interval, the toxicity category of each active ingredient in the product shall be determined by comparing the

obtainable data on the acute dermal toxicity, eye irritation effects, and skin irritation effects of the ingredient to the criteria of § 156.10(h)(1). The most toxic of the applicable toxicity categories that are obtainable for each active ingredient

shall be used to determine the restricted-entry interval for that product. If no acute dermal toxicity data are obtainable, data on acute oral toxicity

also shall be considered in this comparison. If no applicable acute toxicity data are obtainable on the active ingredient, the toxicity category corresponding to the signal word of any ' registered manufacturing-use product that is the source of the active ingredient in the end-use product shall be used. If no acute toxicity data are obtainable on the active ingredients and no toxicitycategory of a registered manufacturinguse product is obtainable, the toxicity category of the end-use product (corresponding to the signal word on its labeling) shall be used. (2) Restricted-entry interval for sole active ingredient products. (i) If the product contains only one active ingredient and it is in toxicity category I' by the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the restricted-entry interval shall be 48 hours. If, in addition, the active ingredient is an organophosphorus ester that inhibits cholinesterase and that may be applied ' outdoors in an area where the average annual rainfall for the application site is less than 25 inches per year, the following statement shall be added to the restricted-entry interval statement: "(72 hours in outdoor areas where average annual rainfall is less than 25 inches a year)." (ii) If the product contains only one active ingredient and it is in toxicity category II by the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the restricted-entry

interval shall be 24 hours. (iii) If the product contains only active ingredients that are in toxicity category III or IV by the criteria in paragraph

(c)(1) of this section, the restricted-entry

interval shall be 12 hours. (3) Restricted-entryinterval for multiple active ingredient products. If the product contains more than one active ingredient, the restricted-entry interval (including any associated statement concerning use in arid areas ' under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section) shall be based on the active ingredient that requires the longest restricted-entry interval as determined by the criteria in

this section. (d) Exception for fumigants. The criteria for determining restricted-entry intervals in paragraph (c) of this section shall not apply to any product that is a fumigant. For fumigants, 

### any existing restricted-entry interval (hours, days, or acceptable exposure level) shall be retained. Entry restrictions for fumigants

have been or shall be established on a case-by-case basis at the time of registration; reregistration, or other Agency review process. (e) Existing product-specific restricted-entry intervals. (1) A productspecific restricted-entry interval, based

on data collected in accordance with § 158.390 of this chapter and Subdivision

K of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, shall supersede any restricted-entry interval applicable to the product under paragraph (c) of this

section. (2) Product-specific restricted-entry intervals established for pesticide products or pesticide uses that are not covered by part 170 of this chapter shall , remain in effect and shall not be placed under the heading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling. (f) Existing interim restricted-entry intervals. (1) An interim restricted-entry interval established by the Agency before the effective date of this subpart will continue to apply unless a longer restricted-entry interval is required by paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Existing interim restricted-entry intervals established by the Agency for pesticide products or pesticide uses not covered by part 170 of this chapter shall remain in effect and shall not be placed under the heading AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS in the labeling.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2070-0060.)

§ 156.210 Notification-to-workers

statements. (a) Requirement. Each product that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section shall bear the posting and oral notification statements prescribed

below. The statements shall be in the

DIRECTIONS FOR USE section of the labeling under the heading

AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. (b) Notification to workers of pesticide application. (1) Each product that contains any active ingredient classified as toxicity category I for either acute dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential under the criteria in § 156.10(h)(1) shall bear the statement: "Notify workers of the application by warning them orally and by posting warning signs at entrances to treated areas." If no acute dermal toxicity data
are obtainable, data on acute oral toxicity of the active ingredient shall be

considered instead. If no data on acute dermal toxicity, skin irritation potential, or acute oral toxicity are obtainable on the active ingredient, the toxicity category corresponding to the signalword of any registered manufacturinguse product that is the source of the active ingredient in the end-use product shall be used. If none of the applicable acute toxicity data are obtainable on the active ingredient and no toxicity category of the registered manufacturing-use product is obtainable, the toxicity category of the end-use product corresponding to the product's signal word shall be used.

(2) Each product that is a fumigant and is registered for use in a greenhouse (or whose labeling allows use in a greenhouse) shall bear the statement: "For greenhouse applications, notify workers of the application by warning them orally and by posting warning signs outside all entrances to the greenhouse."

(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2070-0060.)

§ 156.212 Personal protective equipment

statements.

(a) Requirement. Each product shall bear the personal protective equipment statements prescribed in paragraphs (d) through (j) of this section.

(b) Exceptions. (1) If personal protective equipment were required for a product before the effective date of this subpart, the existing requirements shall be retained on the labeling wherever they are more specific or more protective (as specified in EPA guidance materials) than the requirements in the table in paragraph (e) of this section.

(2) Any existing labeling statement that prohibits the use of gloves or boots overrides the corresponding requirement in paragraph (e) of this section and must be retained on the labeling.

(3) If the product labeling contains uses that are not covered by part 170 of this chapter, the registrant may adopt the personal protective equipment required in this section for those uses. However, if the personal protective equipment required in this section would not be sufficiently protective or would be onerously overprotective for uses not covered by part 170 of this chapter, the registrant must continue to apply the existing personal protective equipment requirements to those uses. The labeling must indicate which

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38149

personal protective equipment requirements apply to uses covered by part 170 of this chapter and which . personal protective equipment requirements apply to other uses.
(c) Location of personal protective equipment statements—(1) Personal protective equipment statements for pesticide handlers. Personal protective equipment statements for pesticide

handlers shall be in the HAZARDS TO FIUMANS (AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS) section of the labeling. The required statements may be combined to avoid redundancy as long as the requirements and conditions under which they apply are identified. (2) Personal protective equipment statements for early-entry workers. Personal protective equipment statements for early-entry workers shall be placed in the DIRECTIONS FOR USE section of the labeling under the heading

AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS and immediately after the restricted-entry statement required in § 156.208(a). (d) Personal protective equipment statements for pesticide handlers. (1) The table in paragraph (e) of this section specifies minimum requirements for personal protective equipment (as defined in § 170.240 of this chapter) and work clothing for pesticide handlers. This personal protective equipment requirement applies to any product that presents a hazard through any route of exposure identified in the table (acute , dermal toxicity, skin irritation potential, aeute inhalation toxicity, and eye irritation potential). (2) The requirement for personal protective equipment is based on the acute toxicity category of the end-use product for each route of exposure as defined by § 156.10(h)(1). If data to determine the acute dermal toxicity or the acute inhalation toxicity are not obtainable, the acute oral toxicity shall be used as a surrogate to determine the personal protective equipment requirements for that route of exposure. If data to determine the acute toxicity of the product by a specific route of exposure (including acute oral toxicity in lieu of acute dermal or acute inhalation toxicity) are not obtainable, the toxicity category corresponding to the signal word of the end-use product shall be used to determine personal protective equipment requirements for that route of exposure. If the signal word is "CAUTION," toxicity category III will

be used. (3) The minimum personal protective equipment and work clothing requirements specified in this section

shall be included in a statement such as the following: "Applicators and other handlers must wear: (body protection statement); (glove statement, if applicable); (footwear statement, if applicable); (protective eyewear statement, if applicable); (respirator statement, if applicable)." The format of statements given in this paragraph is optional, but it is recommended for

clarity. (e) Summary of personal protective equipment requirements. The following Table 1 summarizes the personal protective equipment requirements by route of exposure and toxicity category:

TABLE 1.—MINIMUM PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) AND WORK CLOTHING FOR HANDLING ACTIVITIES

R

- viite vi Eiipoaiiie Toxicity Category of End-Use Product

I II 1 III IV

~

Dermai Toxicity or Skin IrritationI Coveralls worn over long- Coveralls worn over short- I Long-sleeved shirt and long Long-sleeved shirt and long
PotenUal' ............................................. sleeved shirt and long sieeved shirt and short pants pants

pants pants

Socks Socks Socks Socks

Chemical-resistant footwear Chemical-resistant footwear Shoes Shoes

Chemical-resistant glovesz Chemical-resistant gloves 2 Chemical-resistant gloves 2 No minimum 4

Inhalation Toxicity Respiratory protection Respiratory protection No minimum" No minimum 4

device 3 device 3

Eye Irritalion Potential Protective eyewear Protective eyewear No minimum 4 No minimum 4

' If dermal toxicity and skin irritation potential are in different toxicity categories, protection shall be based on the more toxic (lower numbered) category. ° For Iabeiing language for chemical-resistant gloves, see paragraph (f) of this section.

~ For labeling language for respiratory protection device, see paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section.

4Although no minimum PPE is required by this section for this toxicity category and route of exposure, the Agency may require PPE on a product-specific basis.



### (f) Chemical-resistantgloves labeling statements forpestfcide handlers. If the table in paragraph (e) of this section indicates that chemical-resistant gloves are required, the glove statement shall be as specified in paragraph (f)(2), (3), (4), or (5) of this section. (1) Exception. The registrant shall specify a glove type other than that selected through the criteria in paragraphs (f)(2) through (5) of this

section if information available to the registrant indicates that such a glove type is more appropriate or more protective than the glove type specified

in this section. The statement mustspecify the particular types of chemicalresistant glove (such as nitrile, butyl, neoprene, and/or barrier-laminate). (2) Solid formulations. For products formulated and applied as solids or formulated as solids and diluted solely with water for application, the glove statement shall specify: "waterproof gloves."
(3)Aqueous-based formulations. For products formulated and applied as a water-based liquid or formulated as a water-based liquid and diluted solely with water for application, the glove statement may specify: "waterproof gloves" instead of the statement in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.

(4) Other liquid formulations. For products formulated or diluted with liquids other than water, the glovestatement shall specify: "chemicalresistant (such as nitrile or butyl) gloves."

(5) Gaseous formulations and applications. For products formulated or applied as gases, any existing glove

statement established before the effective date of this subpart, including any glove prohibition statement, will continue to apply. If no glove statement or glove prohibition now exists, theglove statement shall specify "chemicalresistant (such as nitrile or butyl) gloves."

(g) Existing respirator requir'ement for pesticide handlers on product labeling— (1) General requirement. If a statement placed on a product's labeling before the effective date of this subpart indicatesy 3815e Federal Register / Vol. 5 7, No. 163 /Friday, August 21, 1992 /Rules and Regulations

~

that respiratory protection is required, that requirement for protection shall be retained. The statement must specify, or be amended to specify, one of the following respirator types and the appropriate MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix: (i) Dust/mist filtering respirator with MSHA/NIOSH/ approval number.prefix
TC-21C; or (ii) Respirator with an organic-vaporremoving cartridge and a prefilter approved for pesticides with MSHA/ NIOSH approval number prefix TC-23C or with a canister approved for pesticides with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-14G; or (iii) Supplied-air respirator

- with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-19C or self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with MSHA/NIOSH approval number TC-13F. (2) Respirator type already specified on labeling. If the existing respiratory protection requirement specifies a - respirator type, it shall be retained. The respirator statement must be revised, if necessary, to conform to the wording in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. (3) Respirator type not already specified on labeling. If the existing respiratory protection requirement on product labeling does not specify a respirator type as listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, the specific respirator type shall be that required in the criteria in paragraphs (g)(3)(ii) through (vi) of this section. (i) Exception. The registrant shall specify a different type of respiratory protection device if information, such as vapor pressure value, is available to the registrant to indicate that the type of respiratory protection device selected through the criteria in paragraphs (g)(3)(ii) through (vi) of this section would not be adequately protective, or might increase risks to the user unnecessarily. (ii) Gases applied outdoors. For products that are formulated or applied as a gas (space and soil fumigants) and that may be used outdoors, the respiratory protection statement shall be: "For handling activities outdoors,use either a respirator with an organicvapor-removing cartridge with a prefilter approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-23C), or a canister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-14G)." (iii) Gases used in enclosed areas. For products that are formulated or applied as a gas (space and soil fumigants) and that may be used in greenhouses or other enclosed areas, the respiratory protection statement shall specify: "For handling activities in enclosed areas, use either a supplied-air respirator with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-19C, or a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with MSHA/NIOSH approval number TC-13F."
(iv) Solids. For products that are formulated and applied as solids, the respiratory protection statement shall specify: "dust/mist filtering respirator (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix

. TC-21C)." (v) Liquids in toxicity category I. For products that are formulated or applied , as liquids, and, as formulated, have an acute inhalation toxicity (or its surrogate, as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section) in category I, the respiratory ; protection statement shall specify:"either a respirator with an organicvapor-removing cartridge with a prefilter approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-23C), or a canister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix 14G)."
(vi) Liquids in toxicity category 11. For products that are formulated or applied as liquids, and, as formulated, have an acute inhalation toxicity (or its surrogate as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section) in category II, the respiratory protection statement shall specify: "For handling activities during (select uses applicable to the product: airbiast, mistblower, pressure greater than 40 p.s.i. with fine droplets, smoke, mist, fog, aerosol or direct overhead) exposures,wear either a respirator with an organicvapor-removing cartridge with a prefilter approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-23C), or a canister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix 14G). For all other exposures, wear a dust/mist filtering respirator (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C)." " (h) Nerv respirator requirement established for pesticide handlers in this part—(1) General requirement. If' the table in paragraph (e) of this section indicates a respiratory protection device is required, and existing product i labeling has no respiratory protection requirement, the registrant shall add a respiratory protection statement that specifies a: "dust/mist filtering respiratoi (MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C)." (2) Exceptlon. The registrant shall specify a different type of respiratory protection device if information, such as vapor pressure value, is available to the registrant to indicate that the type of respiratory protection device required in paragraph (h)(1) of this sectjion would not be adequately protective or might increase risks to the user unnecessarily. (i) Additional personal protectrve equipment requirements for pestrcide

handlers. In addition to the minimum personal protective equipment and work clothing requirements given in the table in paragraph (e) of this section, the labeling statement for any product in toxicity category I or II on the basis of dermal toxicity or skin irritation potential (or their surrogate as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section), shall include the following personal protective equipment instructions, additions, or substitutions as applicable:
(1) If the product is not ready-to-use and there is no existing requirement for a chemical-resistant suit, the following

statement shall be included: "Mixers/

Loaders: add a chemical-resistant apron."
(2) If the application of the product may result in overhead exposure to any handler (for example, applicator exposure during airblast spraying of orchards or flagger exposure during aerial application), the following

statement shall be included: "Overhead Exposure: wear chemical-resistant headgear."
(3) If any type of equipment other than the product container may be used to mix, load, or apply the product, andthere is no requirement for a chemicalresistant protective suit, the following

statement shall be included: "ForCleaning Equipment: add a chemicalresistant apron." (j) Personal protective equipment for early-entry workers. This paragraph specifies minimum requirements for person.alprotective equipment (as defined in § 170.240 of this chapter) and work clothing for early-entry workers.
(1) For all pesticide products, add the statement: "For early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the

Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water, wear: (list the body protection, glove, footwear, protective eyewear, and protective headgear, if applicable, statements specified for applicators and other handlers, but omit any respiratory protection statement)."
(2) If the body protection statement in the personal protective equipment requirement for handlers specifies a long-sleeved shirt and long pants, "coveralls" must be-specified in the statement of personal protective equipment for early-entry workers. (3) If there is no statement requiring gloves and no prohibition against gloves for applicators and other handlers under the heading HAZARDS TO HUMANS (AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS) in the labeling, add a requirement for

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21,. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

### 38151

"waterproof gloves" in the statement ofpersonal protective equipment for earlyentry workers. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2070-0060.) 2. By revising part 170 to read as

follows:

PART 170—WORKER PROTECTION

STANDARD

Subpart A—Generai Provisions

Sec.

170.1 Scope and purpose.

170.3 Definitions.

170.5 Effective date and compliance dates.

170.7 General duties and prohibited actions.

170.9 Violations of this part.

Subpart B—Standard for Workers

Sec.

170.102 Applicability of this subpart.

170.110 Reslriclions associated with pesticide applications.

170.112 Entry restrictions.

170.120 Notice of applications.

170.122 Providing specific information about applications.

170.124 Notice of applications to handler employers.

170.130 Pesticide safety training.

170.135 Posted pesticide safety information.

170.150 Decontamination.

170.160 Emergency assistance.

Subpart C—Standard for Pesticide
Nandiers

Sec.

170.202 Applicability of this subpart.

170.210 Restrictions during applications.

170.222 Providing specific information about appiications.

170.224 Notice of applications to agricullural employers.

170.230 Pesticide safety training.

170.232 Knowledge of labeling and sitespecific information.

170.234 Safe operation of equipment.

170.235 Posled pesticide safety information.

170.240 Personal protective equipment.

170.250 Decontamination.

170.200 Emergency assistance.

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

Subpart A—Generai Provisions

§ 

### 170.1 Scope and purpose.

This part contains a standard designed to reduce the risks of illness or injury resulting from workers' and handlers' occupational exposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants on farms or in nurseries, greenhouses, and forests and also from the accidental exposure of workers and other persons to such pesticides. It requires workplace practices designed to reduce or eliminate exposure to pesticides and establishes procedures for responding to exposure-related emergencies. § 170.3 Definitions.

Terms used in this part have the same meanings they have in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. In addition, the following terms, when used in this part, shall have the following meanings: Agricultural employer means any person who hires or contracts for the services of workers, for any type of compensation, to perform activities related to the production of agricultural plants, or any person who is an owner of or is responsible for the management or condition of an agricultura)

establishment that uses such workers. Agricultural establishment means any farm, forest, nursery, or greenhouse. Agricultural plant means any p)ant grown or maintained for commercial or research purposes and includes, but is not limited to, food, feed, and fiber plants; trees; turfgrass; flowers, shrubs; ornamentals; and seedlings. Chemigation means the application of pesticides through irrigation systems. Commercial pesticide handling

establishment means any establishment, other than an agricultural establishment,

that: (1) Employs any person, including a self-employed person, to apply on an agricu)tural establishment, pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants. (2) Emp)oys any person, including a self-employed person, to perform on an agricultural establishment, tasks as a crop advisor. Crop advisor means any person who is assessing pest numbers or damage, pesticide distribution, or the status or requirements of agricultural plants. The term does not include any person who is performing hand labor tasks. Early entry means entry by a worker into a treated area on the agricultural establishment after a pesticide application is complete, but before any restricted-entry interval for the pesticide has expired.

Farm means any operation, other than a nursery or forest, engaged in the outdoor production of agricultural plants.

Forest means any operation engaged in the outdoor production of any agricultural plant to produce wood fiber : or timber products. Fumigant means any pesticide product that is a vapor or gas, or forms a vapor or gas on application, and whose method of pesticidal action is through the gaseous state.

Greenhouse means any operation engaged in the production of agricultural plants inside any structure or space that is enclosed with nonporous covering and that is of sufficient size to permit worker entry. This term includes, but is not limited to, polyhouses, mushroom houses, rhubarb houses, and similar

structures. It does not include such structures as malls, atriums,
conservatories, arboretums, or office buildings where agricultural plants are present primarily for aesthetic or

climatic modification.

Hand labor means any agricultural activity performed by hand or with hand

tools that causes a worker to have substantial contact with surfaces (such as plants, p)ant parts, or soil) that may contain pesticide residues. These activities include, but are not Iimited to, harvesting, detasse)ing, thinning, weeding, topping, planting, sucker remova), pruning, disbudding, roguing, and packing produce into containers in

the field. Hand labor does not include operating, moving, or repairing irrigation or watering equipment or performing the tasks of crop advisors.

Handler means any person, including a self-employed person: (1) Who is employed for any type of compensation by an agricultural - establishment or commercial pesticide handling establishment to which subpart C of this part applies and who is: (i) Mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides. (ii) Disposing of pesticides or ' pesticide containers. (iii) Handling opened containers of pesticides. (iv) Acting as a flagger. (v) Cleaning, adjusting, handling, or repairing the parts of mixing, loading, or application equipment that may contain pesticide residues. (vi) Assisting with the application of pesticides. (vii) Entering a greenhouse or other enc)osed area after the application and before the inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has been reached

or one of the ventilation criteria established by this part (§ 170.110(c)(3)) or in the labeling has been met:
(A) To operate ventilation.equipmerit.
(B) To adjust or remove coverings

used in fumigation.
(C) To monitor air levels. (viii) Entering a treated area outdoors after application of any soil fumigant to adjust or remove soil coverings such as tarpaulins. (ix) Performing tasks as a crop

advisor:
(A) During any pesticide application.
(B) Before the inhalation exposure . level listed in the labeling has been

reached or one of the ventilation criteria established by this part (§ 170.110(c)(3)) or in the labeling has been met.

### 38152 Federal R egister / Vol. 57 

### , No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

(C) During any restricted-entry

interval. (2) The term does not include any person who is only handling pesticide containers that have been emptied or cleaned according to pesticide product labeling instructions or, in the absence of such instructions, have been subjected to triple-rinsing or its equivalent. Handler employer means any person who is self-employed as a handler or who employs any handler, for any type of compensation. Immediate family includes only spouse, children, stepchildren, foster children, parents, stepparents, foster parents, brothers, and sisters. Nursery means any operation engaged in the outdoor production of any agricultural plant to produce cut flowers and ferns or plants that will be used in their entirety in another location. Such plants include, but are not limited to, flowering and foliage plants or trees; tree seedlings; live Christmas trees; vegetable, fruit, and ornamental transplants; and turfgrass produced for

sod.

Owner means any person who has a present possessory interest (fee, leasehold, rental, or other) in an agricultural establishment covered by this part. A person who has both leased such agricultural establishment to another person and granted that same person the right and full authority to manage and govern the use of such agricultural establishment is not an owner for purposes of this part. Restricted-entryinterval means the time after the end of a pesticide application during which entry into the

treated area is restricted.

Treated area means any area to which a pesticide is being directed or

has been directed.

INorker means any person, including a self-employed person, who is employed for any type of compensation and who is performing activities relating to the production of agricultural plants on an agricultural establishment to which subpart B of this part applies. While persons employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment are performing tasks as crop advisors, they are not workers covered by the requirements of subpart B of this part.

§ 170.5 Effective date and compiiance

dates. (a) Effective date. The effective date for this part, including § 170.112(e), shall be October 20, 1992. (b) Accelerated provisions. The compliance date shall be Apri121, 1993,

for: (1) Section 170.112(a) through (c)(3); (2) Section 170.112(d)(1) through
(d) (2) (ii); (3) The requirement of § 170.112(c)(3) as referenced in § 170.112(d)(2)(iii); ' (4) The requirement of § 170.112(c)(3)



## as referenced in § 170.112(e)(5);
(5) Section 170.120(a)(3); and

(6) Section 170.120(b)(3). (c) All other provisions. The compliance date for all other provisions of this part shali be Apri115,1994.

§ 170.7 General duties and prohibited

actions.

: (a) General duiies. The agricultural ;employer or the handler employer, as appropriate, shall: (1) Assure that each worker subject to subpart B of this part or each handler subject to subpart C of this part receives the protections required by this part. "(2) Assure that any pesticide to which subpart C of this part applies is used in



## a manner consistent with the labeling of 'the pesticide, including the requirements of this part. (3) Provide, to each person who supervises any worker or handler,

information and directions sufficient to

assure that each worker or handler receives the protections required by this part. Such information and directions shall specify which persons are responsible for actions required to

; comply with this part. (4) Require each person who 'supervises an.y worker or handler to assure compliance by the worker or handler with the provisions of this part

and to assure that the worker or handler receives the protections required by this

part. , (b) Prohibited actions. The , agricultural employer or the handler employer shall not take any retaliatory action for attempts to comply with this part or any action having the effect of preventing or discouraging any worker or handler from complying or attempting to comply with any requirement of this

part.

§ 170.9 Violations of this part.

(a) Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.

136 et seq.) (FIFRA) section 12(a)(2)(G) it is unlawful for any person "to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." When this part is referenced on a label, users must comply with all of its requirements except those that are inconsistent with product-specific instructions on the ' labeling. For the purposes of this part, EPA interprets the term "use" to include:
(1) Preapplication activities, including,

but not limited to: (i) Arranging for the application of the pesticide;
(ii) Mixing and loading the pesticide;

and
(iii) Making necessary preparations for the application of the pesticide, including responsibilities related to worker notification, trainiing of handlers, decontamination, use and care of personal protective equipment, emergency information, and heat stress

management. (2) Application of the pesticide.

(3) Post-application activities necessary to reduce the risks of illness and injury resulting from handlers' and workers' occupational exposures topesticide residues during the restrictedentry interval plus 30 days. These
activities include, but are not limited to, responsibilities related to worker training, notification, and

decontamination.
(4) Other pesticide-related activities, including, but not limited to, providing emergency assistance, transporting or storing pesticides that have been opened, and disposing of excess pesticides, spray mix, equipment wash waters, pesticide containers, and other pesticide-containing materials.

(b) A person who has a duty under this part, as referenced on the pesticide product label, and who fails to perform that duty, violates FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(G) and is subject to a civil penalty under section 14. A person who knowingly violates section 12(a)(2)(G) is subject to section 14 criminal sanctions.

(c) FIFRA section 14(b)(4) provides that a person is liable for a penalty under FIFRA if another person employed by or acting for that person violates any provision of FIFRA. The term "acting for" includes both employment and contractual relationships.
(d) The requirements of this part, including the decontamination requirements, shall not, for the purposes of section 653(b)(1) of Title 29 of the U.S. Code, be deemed to be the exercise of statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting the general sanitary hazards addressed by the OSHA Field Sanitation Standard, 29 CFR 1928.110, or other agricultural, nonpesticide hazards.

Subpart B—Standard for Workers

§ 170.102 Appiicability of this subpart.

(a) Requirement. Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies when any pesticide product is used on an agricultural establishment in the production of agricultural plants.

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38153

(b) Exceptions. This subpart does not apply when any pesticide is applied on an agricultural establishment in the following circumstances: (1) For mosquito abatement, Mediterranean fruit fly eradication, or similar wide-area public pest control programs sponsored by governmental

entities. (2) On livestock or other animals, or in or about animal premises. (3) On plants grown for other than commercial or research purposes, which may include plants in habitations, home fruit and vegetable gardens, and home greenhouses. 

### (4) On plants that are in ornamental gardens, parks, and public or private lawns and grounds that are intended only for aesthetic purposes or climatic

modification. (5) By injection directly into agricultural plants. Direct injection does not include "hack and squirt," "frill and spray," chemigation, soil-incorporation, or soil-injection. (6) In a manner not directly related to the production of agricultural plants, including, but not limited to, structural pest control, control of vegetation along rights-of-way and in other noncrop areas, and pasture and rangeland use. (7) For control of vertebrate pests. (8) As attractants or repellents in

traps. (9) On the harvested portions of agricultura) plants or on harvested

timber. (10) For research uses of unregistered pesticides. 

### (c) Exemptions. For the purposes of this subpart, the owners of agricultural

establishments need not assure that the protections in § 170.112(c)(5) through 

### (9); § 170.112(c)(5) through 

### (9) as referenced in §§ 170.112(d) (2) (iii) and 170.112(e); and §§ 170.120, 170.122, 170.130, 170.135, 170.150, and 170.160 are provided to

themselves and members of their immediate family while they are performing tasks related to the production of agricultural plants on theii own agricultural establishment. However, they must provide any protections required by these sections tc other workers and other persons who are not members of their immediate family and are encouraged to provide the protections to themselves and

members of their families.

§ 170.110 Restrictions associated with

pesticide appiications.

(a) Farms and forests. During the application of any pesticide oit a farm or in a forest, the agricultural em,ployer shall not allow or direct any person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler, to enter or to remain

in the treated area.

(b) Nurseries. In a nursery, during any pesticide application described in

column A of Table 

### 1 of this paragraph, the agricultural employer shall not allow or direct any person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped
handler, to enter or to remain in the area specified in column B of Table 

### 1 of this paragraph. After the application is completed, until the end of anyrestricted-entry interval, the entryrestricted area is the treated area.

Table 1.—Entry-Restricted Areas in Nurseries During Pesticide Applications

A. During Application of a Pesticide: 

## I B. Workers are Prohibited in:

(1) (a) Applied: (y Aeriaily, or

G7 In an upward direction, or (iit) Using a spray pressure greater than 150 psi,

(b) Appliod as a: O Fumigant, or

07 Smoke, or
(iiQ Mist, or
(iv) Fog, or
(v) Aorosot.

(2)(a) Applied downward using: (7 A height of greater than 12 inches from the pianting medium, or (i7 A fine spray, or
(4) A spray pressure greater than 40 psi and iess than 150 psi.

(b) Not as In 1 or 2(a) above but for which a respiratory protection device is required for application by the product labeling.

(3) Applied othenvise. Treated area pius 100 feet in all directions on the nursery

Treated are plus 25 feet in all directions on the nursery

Treated area



### (c) Greenhouses. (1) When a pesticide application described in column A of Table 2 under paragraph (c)(4) of this section takes place in a greenhouse, the agricultural employer shall not allow or direct any person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped
handler, to enter or to remain in the area specified in column B of Table 2 until the time specified in column C of Table 2 has expired.

(2) After the time specified in column C of Table 2 under paragraph (c)(4) of this section has expired, until the expiration of any restricted-entry interval, the agricultural employer shall not allow or direct any worker to enter or to remain in the treated area as specified in column D of Tabie 2 under paragraph (c)(4) of this section, except as provided in § 170.112.

(3) When column C of Tabie 2 under paragraph (c)(4) of this section specifies
that ventilation criteria must be met,

ventilation shall continue until the air concentration is measured to be equal to or less than the inhalation exposure level the labeling requires to be achieved. If no inhalation exposure level is listed on the labeling, ventilation shall

continue until after:
(i) Ten air exchanges are completed;

or (ii) Two hours of ventilation'using fans or other mechanical ventilating

systems; or (iii) Four hours of ventilation using vents, windows or other passive ventilation; or

(iv) Eleven hours with no ventilation followed by 

### 1 hour of inechanical ventilation; or

(v) Eleven hours with no ventilation followed by 2 hours of passive ventilation; or

(vi) Twenty-four hours with 

### no
ventilation.
(4) The following Table 2 app)ies to paragraphs (c)(1), (2), aind (3) of this

section.

### 38154 Federal Re gister / Vol. 57 

### , No. 163 / Friday, 

### Augu st 21, 1992

### / Rules ancl 

### Regulations

Table 2.—Greenhouse Entry Restrictions Associated With Pesticide Applications

A. When a Pesticide is Applied: B. Workers are Prohibited in: C. Until: D. After the Expiration of Time in Column C Until the Restricted-Entry Interval Expires, the Entry-Restricted Area is:

(1) As a fumigant Enfire greenhouse plus any. adjacent The ventilation criteria of paragraph No entry restrictions after criteria in

structure that cannot be sealed off (c)(3) of this section are met, column C are met

from the treated area

(2) As a Entire enclosed area The ventilation criteria of paragraph Entire enclosed area is the treated area

(c)(3) of this section are met

(i) Smoke, or

(ii) Mist, or

(iii) Fog, or

(iv) Aerosol

(3) Not in 1 or 2 above, and for Entire enclosed area The ventilation criteria of paragraph Treated area

which a respiratory protection

, (c)(3) of this section are met

device is required for application by the product Iabeling

(4) Not in 1, 2, or 3 above, and: Treated area plus E!5 feet in all directions Application is complete Treated area

in the enclosed area

(i) From a height of greater "

than 12 in. from the planting

medium, or

(i'i) As a fine spray, or i

(iii) Using a spray pressure greater than 40 psi

(5) Otherwise Treated area Application is complete Treated area

§ 170.112 Entry restrictions. 

### (a) General restrictions. (1) After the application of any pesticide on an agricultural establishment, the agricultural employer shall not allow 

### or direct any worker to enter or to remain

in the treated area before the restrictedentry interval specified on the pesticide labeling has expired, except as provided

in this section. (2) Entry-restricted areas in greenhouses are speci£ied in column D in Table 2 under § 170.110(c)(4). (3) When two or more pesticides areapplied at the same time, the restrictedentry interval shall be the longest of the applicable intervals. (4) The agricultural employer shall assure that any worker who enters a treated area under a restricted-entry interval as permitted by paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section uses the personal protective equipment specified in the product labeling for early-entry workers and follows any other requirements on the pesticide labeling regarding early entry. 

### (b) Exceptfon for actfvities with no

contact. A worker may enter a treated area during a restricted-entry interval if the agricultural employer assures that both of the following are met: , (1) The worker 

### will have no contact with anything that has been treated withthe pesticide to which the restrictedentry interval applies, including, but not limited to, soil, water, air, or surfaces of plants; and (2) No such entry is allowed until any inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria established by § 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling have

been met.
(c) Farception for short-term activities. A worker may enter a treated area during a restricted-entry interval for short-term activities if the agricultural employer assures that the following requirements are met:

(1) No hand labor activity is performed.

(2) The time in treated areas under a restricted-entry interval for any worker does not exceed 1 hour in any 24-hour period.

1 (3) No such entry is allowed for the first 4 hours following the end of the application, and no such entry is allowed therea£ter until any inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria established by § 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling have been met.
(4) The personal protective equipment specified on the product labeling for early entry is provided to the worker. Such personal protective equipment ishall conform to the following

standards:
(i) Personal protective equipment (PPE) means devices and apparel that are worn to protect the body from contact with pesticides or pesticide residues, including, but not limited to, coveralls, chemical-resistant suits,.chemical-resistant gloves, chemicalresistant footwear, respiratory protection devices, chemical-resistant aprons, chemical-resistant headgear, and protective eyewear. (ii) Long-sleeved shirts, short-sleeved shirts, long pants, short pants, shoes, socks, and other items of work clothing are not considered personal protective equipment for the purposes of this section and are not subject to the requirements of this section, although pesticide labeling may require that such work clothing be worn during some

activities.

(iii) When "chemical-resistant" personal protective equipment is specified by the product labeling, it shall

be made of material that allows no measurable movement of the pesticide being used through the material during

use. (iv) When "waterproof" personal protective equipment is specified by the product labeling, it shall be made of

material that allows no measurable movement of water or aqueous solutions through the material during use.

(v) When a "chemical-resistant suit" is specified by the product labeling, itshall be a loose-£itting, one- or twopiece, chemical-resistant garment that covers, at a minimum, the entire body except head, hands, and feet.

(vi) When "coveralls" are speci£ied by the product labeling, they shall be a loose-fitting, one- or two-piece garment, such as a cotton or cotton and polyester coverall, that covers, at a minimum, the entire body except head, hands, and feet. The pesticide product labeling may specify that the coveralls be worn over a layer of clothing. If a chemical-resistant
suit is substituted for coveralls, it need not be worn over a layer of clothing.-- _ 

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

### 38155

(vii) Gloves shall be of the type specified by the product labeling. Gloves or glove linings made of leather, cotton,

or other absorbent materials must not be worn for early-entry activities unless these materials are listed on the product labeling as acceptable for such use. If chemical-resistant gloves with sufficient durability and suppleness are not

obtainable for tasks with roses or other plants with sharp thorns, leather gloves may be worn over chemical-resistant liners. However, once leather gloves have been worn for this use, thereafterthey shall be worn only with chemicalresistant liners and they shall not be worn for any other use. (viii) When "chemical-resistant footwear" is specified by the product labeling, it shall be one of the following types of footwear: chemical-resistant shoes, chemical-resistant boots, or ehemical-resistant shoe coverings worn

over shoes or boots. If chemicalresistant footwear with sufficient durability and a tread appropriate for wear in rough terrain is not obtainable for workers, then leather boots may be

worn in such terrain. (ix) When "protective eyewear" is specified by the product labeling, it shall be one of the following types of eyewear: goggles; £ace shield; safety glasses with front, brow, and temple protection; or a full-face respirator. (x) When "chemical-resistant headgear" is specified by the productlabeling, it shall be either a chemicalresistant hood or a chemical-resistant

hat with a wide brim. (5) The agricultural employer shall assure that the worker, before entering the treated area, either has read the product labeling or has been informed,

in a manner that the worker can understand, of all labeling requirements

related to human hazards or precautions, first aid, symptoms of poisoning, personal protective equipment specified for early entry, and any other labeling requirements related

to safe use. (6) The agricultural employer shall

assure that: (i) Workers wear the personal proteetive equipment correctly for its intended purpose and use personal protective equipment according to

manufacturer's instructions. (ii) Before each day of use, all personal protective equipment is inspected for leaks, holes, tears, or worn plaees, and any damaged equipment is repaired or discarded. (iii) Personal protective equipment that cannot be cleaned properly is disposed of in accordance with any applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. (iv) All personal protective equipment is cleaned according to manufacturer's instructions or pesticide product labeling instructions before each day of reuse. In the absence of any such instructions, it shall be washed thoroughly in detergent and hot water. (v) Before being stored, all clean personal protective equipment is dried thoroughly or is put in a well-ventilated place to dry. (vi) Personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides is kept separately and washed separately from any other clothing or laundry. (vii) Any person who cleans or launders personal protective equipment is informed that such equipment may be contaminated with pesticides, of the potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides, and of the correct way(s) to handle and clean personal protective equipment and to protect themselves when handling equipment contaminated with pesticides. (viii) All clean personal protective equipment is stored separately from personal clothing and apart from pesticide-contaminated areas. (ix) Each worker is instructed how to put on, use, and remove the personal prbtective equipment and is informed about the importance of washing thoroughly after removing personal protective equipment. (x) Each worker is instructed in the prevention, recognition, and first aid

treatment of heat-related illness. (xi) Workers have a clean place(s) away from pesticide-storage and pesticide-use areas for storing personal clothing not in use; putting on personai protective equipment at the start of any exposure period; and removing personal protective equipment at the end of any exposure period. (7) When personal protective equipment is required by the labeling of any pesticide for early entry, the agricultural employer shall assure that

no worker is allowed or directed to perform the early-entry activity without implementing, when appropriate, measures to prevent heat-related illness. (8) During any early-entry activity, the agricultural employer shall provide a

decontamination site in accordance with

§ 170.150. (9) The agricultural employer shall not allow or direct any worker to wear home or to take home personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides. (d) Exception for an agricultural emergency. (1) An "agricultural emergency" means a sudden occurrence

or set of circumstances which the agricultural employer could not have anticipated and over which the agricultural employer has no control, and which requires entry into a treated area during a restricted-entry interval, when no alternative practices would prevent or mitigate a substantial

economic loss. A substantial economic loss means a loss in profitability greater than that which would be expected based on the experience and fluctuations of crop yields in previous years. Only losses caused by the agricultural emergency specific to the affected site and geographic area are

considered. The contribution of mismanagement cannot be considered in determining the loss.
(2) A worker may enter a treated area under a restricted-entry interval in an agricultural emergency to perform tasks, including hand labor tasks, necessary to mitigate the effects of the agricultural emergency, if the agricultural employer assures that all the following criteria are

met:
(i) A State, Tribal, or Federal Agency having jurisdiction declares the

existence of circumstances that could cause an agricultural emergency on that agricultural establishment.

(ii) The agricultural employer determines the agricultural establishment is subject to the circumstances declared undei, paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section that resnit in an agricultural emergency meeticig the criteria of paragraph (d)(1) of this

section.

(iii) The requirements of paragraphs (c)(3) through (9) of this section are met.
(e) Exception requiring Agency approval. The Agency may, 

## in

accordance with paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section, grant an exception from the requirements of this section. An exception may be :

withdrawn in accordance with paragraph (e)(6) of this section.

(1) Requesting an exception: A request for an exception must.be
submitted to the Director, Office of Pesticide Programs (H-7501C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 and must be accompaiiied by two copies of the following information:
(i) The name, address, and telephone

number of the submitter.
(ii) The time period for which the exception is requested.

(iii) A description of the crop(s) and specific crop production task(s) for which the exception is requesfed. Such a description must include an explanation as to the necessity of applying pesticides of a type and at a frequency such that the restricted-entry interval would interfere with necessary and" f 

### 38156 Federal Reg i 

### s ter / Vol. 57 

### , No. 163 / Friday, Au gust 21, 1992

### f Rules and Regulation s

time-sensitive hand labor tasks for the period for which the exception is sought.

(iv) A description of the geographic area for which the exception is requested. If the exception request is for a limited geographic area, the explanation must include a description as to why the circumstances of exposure or economic impact resulting from the prohibition of routine hand labor tasks during the restricted-entry interval are unique to the geographic area named in the exception.

(v) An explanation as to why, for each requested crop-task combination, alternative practices would not be technically or financially viable. Such alternative practices might include: rescheduling the pesticide application orhand labor activity; using a nonchemical pest control alternative; using
an alternative to the hand labor tasks, such as machine cultivation; or substituting a pesticide with a shorter restricted-entry interval. This

information should include estimates or data on per acre revenue and cost of production for the crop and area for which the exception is requested. These

estimates or data should include: the situation prior to implementation of this
final rule, the situation after implementation of this final rule if the exception is not granted, the situation after implementation of this final rule if the exception is granted, and specific

information on individual factors which

cause differences in revenues and costs among the three situations.

(vi) A description or documentation of the safety and feasibility of such an exception, including, but not limited to, the feasibility of performing the necessary hand labor activity while wearing the personal protective equipment required for early entry for the pesticide(s) expected to be applied, the means of mitigating heat-related illness concerns, the period of time required daily per worker to perform the hand labor activity, any suggested methods of reducing the worker's exposure, and any other mitigating factors, such as the availability of running water for routine and emergency decontamination and

mechanical devices that would reduce

the workers' contact with the treated

surfaces. The information should include the costs associated with early-entry, such as decontamination facilities, special information and training for the
workers, heat stress avoidance procedures, and provision, inspection, cleaning, and maintenance of personal protective equipment. EPA will not grant exceptions where the costs of early entry equal or exceed the expected loss iin value of crop yield or quality.
(2) Notice of receipt. (i) When a ieequest for an exception is submitted to 'the Agency along with all of the iinformation required in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the Agency shall issue a inotice in the Federal Register stating that an exception is being considered,

~ describing the nature of the exception, iand allowing at least 30 days for :interested parties to comment. (ii) If a request for an exception is submitted to the Agency without all of the information required in paragraph i[e)(1) of this section, the Agency shall return the request to the submitter.
(3) Exception decision. EPA will publish in the Federal Register its decision whether to grant the request for exception. EPA will base its decision on whether the benefits of the exception outweigh the costs, including the value

of the health risks attributable to the exception. If the exception is granted,

the notice will state the nature of and reasons for the exception.
(4) Presumptive denial. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section, persons requesting an exception may assume that the exception has been

denied if EPA has not issued its decision whether to grant the exception within 9

months from the comment-closure date specified in the Federal Register notice in which the Agency announced, in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section, that it would consider the exception. (ii) Persons requesting an exception may not assume that the request has been denied as provided by paragraph ,(e)(4)(i) of this section if the Agency has taken action to extend its review period for a specified time interval due to the complexity of the exception request or to the number of exception requests

i concurrently under Agency review. EPA shall state the reason(s) for the delay in issuing a decision on the exception request. A notice of such an action may 'be published in the Federal Register or persons who requested the exception may be directly notified of the action.
(5) Agricultural employer duties.

When a worker enters a treated area

i during a restricted-entry interval under an exception granted under paragraph ,(e) of this section, the agricultural employer shall assure that the requirements of paragraphs (c)(3) through (9) of this section are met, unless the notice granting the exception specifically indicates otherwise. (6) Withdrawing an exception. An exc,eption may be withdrawn by the Agency at any time if the Agency ,receives poisoning information or other data that indicate that the health risks imposed by this early-entry exception are unacceptable or if the Agency

receives other information that indicates that the exception is no longer necessary or prudent. If the Agency determines that an exception should be withdrawn, it will publish a notice in the Federal Register, stating the basis for its determination. Affected parties would then have 30 days to request a hearing on the Agency's determination. The exception, however, would be discontinued as of the date specified by EPA in the notice, which may include any of the 30-day period and•the time required for any subsequent hearing process. Thereafter the Agency will

decide whether to withdraw the exception and will publish a notice in the Federal Register stating its decision.

§ 170.120 Notice of appiications.
(a) Notification to workers of pesticide applications in greenhousea. The agricultural employer shall notify workers of any pesticide application in the greenhouse in accordance with this paragraph.
(1) All pesticide applications shall be posted in accordance with paragraph (c)

of this section.
(2) If the pesticide product labeling has a statement requiring both the posting of treated areas and oral notification to workers, the agricultural employer shall also provide oral notification of the application to the worker in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(3) Notice need not be given to a worker if the agricultural employer can assure that one of the following is met:
(i) From the start of the application until the end of the application and during any restricted-entry interval, the worker will not enter, work in, remain in, or pass through the greenhouse; or
(ii) The worker applied (or supervised the application of) the pesticide for

which the notice is intended and is aware of all information required by paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this

section. (b) Notification to workers on farms, in nurseries, orin forests of pesticide ' applications. The agricultural employer' shall notify workers of any pesticide application on the farm or in the nursery

or forest in accordance with this paragraph. (1) If the pesticide product labeling has a statement requiring both the posting of treated areas and oral notification to workers, the agricultural employer shall post signs in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and shall provide oral notification of the

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations , 38157 '

application to the worker in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) For any pesticide other than those for which the labeling requires both posting and oral notification of applications, the agricultural employer shall give notice of the application to the worker either by the posting of warning signs in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section or orally in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, and

shall inform the workers as to which

method of notification is in effect.
(3) Notice need not be given to a worker if the agricultural employer can assure that one of the following is met: (i) From the start of the application until the end of the application and during any restricted-entry interval, the worker will not enter, work in, remain in, or pass through on foot the treated area or any area within 1/4 mile of the
treated area; or (ii) The worker appiied (or supervised the application of) the pesticide for

which the notice is intended and is aware of all information required by (d)(1) through (3) of this section. (c) Posted warning signs. The agricultural employer shali post warning signs in accordance with the following

criteria: (1) The warning sign shall have a background color that contrasts with

red. The words "DANGER" and "PELIGRO," plus "PESTICIDES" and "PESTICIDAS," shall be at the top of the sign, and the words "KEEP OUT" and

"NO ENTRE" shall be at the bottom of the sign. Letters for all words must be clearly legible. A circle containing an upraised hand on the left and'a stern face on the right must be near the center of the sign. The inside of the circle must be red, except that the hand and a large portion of the face must be in a shade that contrasts with red. The length of the hand must be at least twice the height of the smallest letters. The length of the face must be only slightly smaller than

the hand. Additional information such as the name of the pesticide and the date of application may appear on the warriing sign if it does not detract from the appearance of the sign or change the meaning of the required information. A black-and-white example of a warning sign meeting these requirements, other than the size requirements, follows:

81Ll.ING CODE 6560-50-Fli



### 38158 Federal Register / Vol. 57 ;No. 163 /

### Friday, August 21, 1992 /]3ules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38159

(2) The sign shall be at least 14 inches by 16 inches in size, and the letters shall be at least 1 inch in height unless a smaller sign and smaller letters are necessary because the treated area is too small to accommodate a sign of this size. If a smaller sign is used, it must meet the proportions and other requirements described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. (3) On farms and in forests and nurseries, the signs shall be visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area, including at least each access road, each border with any labor camp adjacent to the treated area, and each footpath and other walking route

that enters the treated area. When there are no usual points of worker entry, signs shall be posted in the corners of the treated area or in any other location affording maximum visibility. (4) In greenhouses, the signs shall be posted so they are visible from all usual points of worker entry to the treated area including each aisle or other walking route that enters the treated area. When there are no usual points of worker entry to the treated area, signs shall be posted in the corners of the treated area or in any other location affording maximum visibility. (5) The signs shall: (i) Be posted no sooner than 24 hours before the scheduled application of the pesticide. (ii) Remain posted throughout the application and any restricted-entry

interval. (iii) Be removed within 3 days after the end of the application and any restricted-entry interval and before agricultural-worker entry is permitted, other than entry permitted by § 170.112. (6) The signs shall remain visible and legible during the time they are posted. (7) When several contiguous areas are to be treated with pesticides on a rotating or sequential basis, the entire area may be posted. Worker entry, other than entry permitted by § 170.112, is prohibited for the entire area while the signs are posted. (d) Oral warnings. The agricultural employer shall provide oral warnings to

workers in a manner that the worker

can understand. If a worker will be on the premises during the application, the warning shall be given before the application takes place. Otherwise, the warning shall be given at the beginning of the worker's first work period during which the application is taking place or the restricted-entry interval for the pesticid°e Is in effect. The warning shall

consist of: (1) The location and description of the

treated area. (2) The time during which entry is

restricted. (3) Instructions not to enter the treated area until the restricted-entry interval has expired.

§ 170.122 Providing specific information about applications. When wor'kers are on an agricultural
establishment and, within the last 30 days, a pesticide covered by this subpart has been applied on the establishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, the agricultural employer shall display, in accordance with this section, specific information about the pesticide. (a) Location, accessibility, and legibility. The information shall be displayed in the location specified for the pesticide safety poster in § 170.135(d) and shall be accessible and legible, as specified in § 170.135(e) and 

## (fl. (b) Timing. (1) If warning signs are posted for the treated area before an application, the specific application information for that application shall be posted at the same time or earlier. (2) The information shall be posted before the application takes place, if

workers will be on the establishment during application. Otherwise, the information shall be posted at the beginning of any worker's first work period. (3) The information shail continue to be displayed for at least 30 days after the end of the restricted-entry interval (or, if there is no restricted-entry interval, for at least 30 days after the end of the application) or at least until workers are no longer on the establishment, whichever is earlier. (c) Required information. The

information shall include: (1) The location and description of the

treated area. (2) The product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide. (3) The time and date the pesticide is to be applied. (4) The restricted-entry interval for the pesticide.

§ 170.124 Notice of appiications to handier empioyers.

Whenever handlers who are employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment wili be performing pesticide handling tasks on an agricultural establishment, the agricultural employer shall provide to the handler employer, or assure that the handler employer is aware of, the foilowing information concerning any areas on the agricultural establishment that the handler may be in (or may walk within 1/4 mile of) and that may be treated with a pesticide or that may be under a restricted-entry interval while the handler will be on the agricultural

establishment:
(a) Specific location and description of any such areas; and
(b) Restrictions on entering those

areas.

§ 170.130 Pesticide safety training.
(a) General requirement-0J Agricultural employer assurance. The agricultural employer shall assure_that each worker, required by this section to be trained, has been trained according to this section during the last 5 years, counting from the end of the month in which the training was completed.
(2) Requirement for workers performing early-entry activities. Before

a worker enters a treated area on the agricultural establishment during a restricted-entry interval to perform early-entry activities permitted by § 170.112 and contacts anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which the restricted-entry interval appiies, including but not limited to, soil, water, or surfaces of plants, the agricultural employer shall assure that the worker

has been trained. (3) Requirement for other agricultural workers—(i) Training before the 6th day of entry. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, before the 6th day that a worker enters any areas on the agricultural establishment where, within the last 30 days a pesticide to which this subpart applies has been applied or a restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been in effect, the agricultural employer shall

assure that the worker has been trained.
(ii) Exception for first 5-ye'ar period. Until October 20, 1997, and except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, before the 16th day that a worker enters any areas on the agricultural establishment where, within the last 30 days a pesticide to which this subpart applies has been applied or a restricted-entry interval for such pesticide has been in effect, the agricultural employer shall assure that

the worker has been trained. After October 20, 1997, this exception no longer applies. (b) Exception. A worker who is a currently certified as an applicator of restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter or who satisfies the training requirements of part'171 of this chapter or who satisfies the handler training requirements under § 170.230(c)

need not be trained under this section. (c) Training programs. (1) General pesticide safety information shall be

### 38160 Federal Register / Vol. 57,, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / RuIes and Regulations

presented to workers either orally from written materials or audiovisually. The information must be presented in a

manner that the workers can understand (such as through a translator) using nontechnical terms. The presenter also shall respond to workers' questions. (2) The person who conducts the training shall meet at least one of the following criteria: (i) Be currently certified as an applicator of restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter; or (ii) Be currently designated as a trainer of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by a State, Federal, or Tribal agency having jurisdiction; or (iii) Have completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program approved by a State, Federal, or Tribal agency having jurisdiction; or (iv) Satisfy the training requirements in part 171 of this chapter or in § 170.230(c).(3) Any person who issues an EPAapproved Worker Protection Standard worker training certificate must assure

that the worker who receives the training certificate has been trained in accordance with (c)(4) of this section. (4) The training materials shall convey, at a minimum, the following

information: (i) Where and in what form pesticides may be encountered during work

activities. (ii) Hazards of pesticides resuiting from toxicity and exposure, including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. (iii) Routes through which pesticides can enter the body. (iv) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. (v) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. (vi) How to obtain emergency medical

care. (vii) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emergency eyeflushing techniques. (viii) Hazards from chemigation and

drift. (ix) Hazards from pesticide residues on clothing. (x) Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home. (xi) Requirements of this subpart designed to reduce the risks of illness or injury resulting from workers' occupational exposure to pesticides, including application and entry restrictions, the design of the warning sign, posting of warning signs, oral warnings, the availability of specific information about applications, and the protection against retaliatory acts. (d) Veriflcation of training. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this Section, if the agricultural employer iassures that a worker possesses an ]EPA-approved Worker Protection IStandard worker training certificate, then the requirements of paragraph (a)

Of this section will have been met. (2) If the agricultural employer is

iaware or has reason to know that an :EPA-approved Worker Protection 15tandard worker training certificate has

:not been issued in accordance with this
section, or has not been issued to the worker bearing the certificate, or the training was completed more than 5 years before the beginning of the current month, a worker's pcssession of that

certificate does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this

section.

§ 170.135 Posted pesticide safety

information.
, (a) Requirement. When workers are on an agricultural establishment and, within the last 30 days, a pesticide covered by this subpart has been applied on the establishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, the agricultural employer shall display, in accordance with this section, pesticide safety information. ,(b) Pesticide safety poster. A safety poster must be displayed that conveys, at a minimum, the following basic pesticide safety concepts: (1) Help keep pesticides from entering your body. At a minimum, the following points shall be conveyed: "(i) Avoid getting on your skin or into your body any pesticides that may be on plants and soil, in irrigation water, or drifting from nearby applications. (ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using

the toilet. (iii) Wear work clothing that protects'the body from pesticide residues (longsleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf). : (iv) Wash/shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean

clothes after work. (v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again. (vi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body. As soon as , possible, shower, shampoo, and change , into clean clothes. (vii) Follow directions about keeping

out of treated or restricted areas. (2) There are Federal rules to protect workers and handlers, including a requirement for safety training. (c) Emergency medical care ,information. (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the nearest emergency medical care facility shall be on the safety poster or displayed close to the safety poster. (2) The agricultural employer shall inform workers promptly of any change to the information on emergency

medical care facilities.
(d) Location. (1) The information shall be displayed in a central location on the farm or in the nursery or greenhouse where it can be readily seen and read by

workers. (2) The information shall be displayed

in a location in or near the forest in a place where it can be readily seen and read by workers and where workers are likely to congregate or pass by, such as

at a decontamination site or an equipment storage site.
(e) Accessibility. Workers shall be

informed of the location of the

information and shall be allowed access

to it. (f) Legibility. The information shall remain legible during the time it is posted.

§ 170.150 Decontamination.

(a) Requirement. If any worker on an agricultural establishment performs any activity in an area where, within the last 30 days, a pesticide has been applied or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect and contacts anything that has been treated with the pesticide, including, but not limited to, soii, water, or surfaces of plants, the agricultural employer shall provide, in accordance with this section, a decontamination site for washing off pesticide residues.
(b) General conditions. (1) The agricultural employer shall provide workers with enough water for routine washing and emergency eyeflushing. At

all times when the water is available to workers, the employer shall assure that it is of a quality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is

swallowed.
(2) When water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing pesticides, it shall

not be used for decontamination or eyeflushing, unless the tank is equipped with properly functioning valves or other mechanisms that prevent movement of pesticides into the tank.
(3) The agricultural employer shall provide soap and single-use towels at each decontamination site in quantities

sufficient to meet workers' needs.
(4) To provide for emergency eyeflushing, the agricultural employer

shall assure that at least 1 pint of water is immediately available to each worker who is performing early-entry activities permitted by § 170.112 and for which the pesticide labeling requires protective eyewear. The eyeflush water shall be

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38161

carried by the early-entry worker, or shall be on the vehicle the early-entry worker is using, or shall be otherwise immediately accessible. (c) Location. (1) The decontamination site shall be reasonably accessible to

and not more than 1/4 mile from where workers are working. (2) For worker activities performed

more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of vehicular access: (i) The soap, single-use towels, and water may be at the nearest place of


### vehicular access. (ii) The agricultural employer may permit workers to use clean water from springs, streams, lakes, or other sources

for decontamination at the remote work site, if such water is more accessible

than the water at the decontamination site located at the nearest place of


### vehicular access. (3) The decontamination site shall not be in an area being treated with pesticides. (4) The decontamination site shall not

be in an area that is under a restrictedentry interval, unless the workers for whom the site is provided are performing early-entry activities permitted by § 170.112 and involving

contact with treated surfaces and the

decontamination site would otherwise not be reasonably accessible to those

workers. (d) Decontamination after early-entry

activities. At the end of any exposureperiod for workers engaged in earlyentry activities permitted by § 170.112 and involving contact with anything that has been treated with the pesticide to which the restricted-entry interval applies, including, but not limited to, soil, water, air, or surfaces of plants, the agricultural employer shall provide, at

the site where the workers remove 

### personal protective equipment, soap, clean towels, and a sufficient amount of water so that the workers may wash 

### thoroughly.

§ 170.160 Emergency assistance.

If there is reason to believe that a person who is or has been employed on an agricultural establishment to perform tasks related to the production of agricultural plants has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides used on the agricultural establishment, including, but not limited to, exposures from application, splash, spill, drift, or pesticide residues, the agricultural employer shall: (a) Make available to that person prompt transportation from the agricultural establishment, including any labor camp on the agricultural establishment, to an appropriate emergency medical facility. (b) Provide to that person or to treating medical personnei, promptly upon request, any obtainable

information on: (1) Product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredients of any product to which that person might have been exposed. (2) Antidote, first aid, and other medical information from the product labeling. (3) The circumstances of application or use of the pesticide on the agricultural establishment. (4) The circumstances of exposure of that person to the pesticide.

Subpart C—Standard for Pesticide

Handlers

§ 170.202 Applicability of this subpart.
(a) Requirement. Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies when any pesticide is handled for use on an agricultural

establishment. (b) Exceptions. This subpart does not apply when any pesticide is handled for use on an agricultural establishment in the following circumstances: (1) For mosquito abatement, Mediterranean fruit fly eradication, or similar wide-area public pest control programs sponsored by governmental

entities. (2) On livestock or other animals, or in or about animal premises. (3) On plants grown for other than commercial or research purposes, which may include plants in habitations, home fruit and vegetable gardens, and home


### greenhouses. (4) On plants that are in ornamental gardens, parks, and public or private lawns and grounds and that are intended only for aesthetic purposes or

climatic modification. (5) In a manner not directly related to the production of agricultural plants, including, but not limited to, structural pest control, control of vegetation along rights-of-way and in other noncrop areas, and pasture and rangeland use. (6) For control of vertebrate pests. (7) As attractants or repellents in

traps. (8) On the harvested portions of agricultural plants or on harvested '

~ timber. (9) For research uses of unregistered pesticides. (c) Exemptions. For the purposes of this subpart, owners of agricultural

estabiishments need not assure that the protections in § § 170.210(b) and (c),

170.222, 170.230, 170.232, 170.234, 170.235, 170.240(e) through (g), 170.250, and 170.260 are provided to themselves or to members of their immediate family who are performing handling tasks on their own agricultural establishments. However, they must provide any protections required by these sections to other handlers and other persons who

are not members of their immediate family, and are encouraged to provide the protections to themselves and

members of their families.

§ 170.210 Restrictions during appiications.

(a) Contact with workers and other

persons. The handler employer and the handler shall assure that no pesticide is applied so as to contact, either directly or through drift, any worker or other person, other than an appropriately trained and equipped handler.

(b) Handlers handling highly toxic pesticides. The handler employer shall assure that any handler who is performing any handling activity with a product that has the skull and crossbones symbol on the front panel of the label is monitored visually or by voice communication at least every 2

hours.

(c) Fumigant applications in greenhouses. The handler employer .

shall assure:

(1) That any handler who handles a fumigant in a greenhouse, including a handler who enters the greenhouse before the acceptable inhalation exposure level or ventilation criteria

have been met to monitor air levels or to
initiate ventilation, maintains `

continuous visual or voice contact with

another handler.

(2) That the other handler has immediate access to the personal protective equipment required by the fumigant labeling for handlers in the event entry into the fumigated greenhouse becomes necessary for

rescue.

§ 170.222 Providing specific Information
about applications.

When handlers (except those employed by a cqmmercial pesticide handling establishment) are on an agricultural establishment and, within the last 30 days, a pesticide covered by this subpart has been applied on the establishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, the handler employer shall display, in accordance with this section, specific information about the pesticide.

(a) Location, accessibility, and legibility. The information shall be displayed in the same location`specified for the pesticide safety poster in § 170.235(d) of this part and shall be accessible and legible, as specified in § 170.235(e) and (f) of this part.

### 38162 F ed

### eral Register / Vol. 57, 

### , No. 163 / Fr iday, August 21, 1992 f Rules and Regulations



### (b) Timing. (1) If warning signs are posted for the treated area before an application, the specific application information for that application shall be posted at the same time or earlier. (2) The information shall be posted before the application takes place, if handlers (except those employed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment) will be on the establishment during application.
Otherwise, the information shall be posted at the beginning of any such handler's first work period. (3) The information shall continue to be displayed for at least 30 days after the end of the restricted-entry interval (or, if there is no restricted-entry interval, for at least 30 days after the end of the application) or at least until the handlers are no longer on the establishment, whichever is earlier. 

### (c) Required information. The

information shall include: (1) The location and description of the

treated area. (2) The product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s) of the pesticide. (3) The time and date the pesticide is to be applied. (4) The restricted-entry interval for the pesticide.

§ 170.224 Notice of applications to
agricultural employers. Before the application of any pesticide on or in an agricultural establishment, the handler employer shall provide the following information to any agricultural employer for the establishment or shall assure that any agricultural employer is

aware of: (a) Specific location and description

of the treated area. (b) Time and date of application. (c) Product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s). (d) Restricted-entry interval. (e) Whether posting and oral notification are required. (f) Any other product-specific requirements on the product labeling concerning protection of workers or other persons during or after application.

§ 170.230 Pesticide safety training.
(a) Requirement. Before any handler performs any handling task, the liandler employer shall assure that the handler

has been trained in accordance with this section during the last 5 years, counting

from the end of the month in which the training was completed. (b) Exception. A handler who is currently certified as an applicator of restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter or who satisfies the training requirements of part 171 of this chapter need not be trained under this

section.

~ (c) Training programs. (1) General F esticide safety information shall be presented to handlers either orally from vvritten materials or audiovisually. The information must be presented in a

r.nanner that the handlers can cinderstand (such as through a translator). The presenter also shall respond to handlers' questions. (2) The person who conducts the training shall meet at ieast one of the i'ollowing criteria:

~ , (i) Be currently certified as an applicator of restricted-use pesticides under part 171 of this chapter; or (ii) Be currently designated as a trainer of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by a State, Federal, or Tribal agency having jurisdiction; or (iii) Have completed a pesticide safety train-the-trainer program approved by a 15tate, Federal, or Tribal agency having .jurisdiction.(3) Any person who issues an EPAapproved Worker Protection Standard 'handler training certificate must assure

that the handler who receives the training certificate has been trained in accbrdance with paragraph (c)(4) of this

section. (4) The pesticide safety training materials must convey, at a minimum, #he following information: '(i) Format and meaning of information contained on pesticide labels and in labeling, including safety information such as precautionary statements about

'human health hazards. (ii) Hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and exposure, including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects, and sensitization. (iii) Routes by which pesticides can enter the body. (iv) Signs and symptoms of common types of pesticide poisoning. (v) Emergency first aid for pesticide injuries or poisonings. ;(vi) How to obtain emergency medical

care. (vii) Routine and emergency decontamination procedures. (viii) Need for and appropriate use of personal protective equipment. (ix) Prevention, recognition, and first

aid treatment of heat-related illness. (x) Safety requirements for handling,

; transporting, storing, and disposing of pesticides, including general procedures for spill cleanup. (xi) Environmental concerns such as
drift, runoff, and wildlife hazards. (xii) Warnings about taking pesticides or pesticide containers home. (xiii) Requirements of this subpart that must be followed by handler employers for the protection of handlers and other persons, inbluding the prohibition against applyiing pesticides

in a manner that will cause contact with worlcers or other persons, the requirement to use personal protective equipment, the provisions for training and decontamination, and the protection against retaliatory acts.
(d) Verification of training. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, if the handler employer assuresthat a handler possesses an EPAapproved Worker Protection Standard handler training certificate, then the requirements of paragraph (a) of this

section will have been met.
(2) If the handler employer is aware or

has reason to know that an EPAapproved Worker Protection Standard handler training certificate has not been
issued in accordance with this section,

or has not been issued to the handler bearing the certificate, or the handler training was completed more than 5 years before the beginning of the current month, a handler's possession of that

certificate does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this

section.

§ 170.232 Knowledge of labeling and sitespecific information.

(a) Knowledge of labeling information. (1) The handler employer

shall assure that before the handler performs any handling activity, the handler either has read the product labeling or has been informed in a

manner the handler can understand of all labeling requirements related to safe use of the pesticide, such as signal words, human hazard precautions, personal protective equipment requirements, first aid instructions, environmental precautions, and any additional precautions pertaining to the handling activity to be performed.
(2) The handler empioyer shall assure

that the handler has access to the product labeling information during handling activities.

(b) Knowledge of site-specific in formation. Whenever a handler who is ernployed by a commercial pesticide handling establishment will be performing pesticide handling tasks on an agricultural establishment, the handler employer shall assure that the handler is aware of the following information concerning any areas on the agricultural establishment that the handler may be in (or may walk within 1/4 mile of) and that may be treated with a pesticide or that may be under a restricted-entry interval while the handler will be on the agricultural

establishment:

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations ' 

### 38163

(1) Specific location and description of any such areas; and
(2) Restrictions on entering those

areas.

§ 170.234 Safe operation of equipment.

(a) The handler employer shall assure that before the handler uses any equipment for mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides, the

handler is instructed in the safe operation of such equipment, including, when relevant, chemigation safety requirements and drift avoidance.
(b) The handler employer shall assure that, before each day of use, equipment used for mixing, loading, transferring, or applying pesticides is inspected for leaks, clogging, and worn or damaged parts, and any damaged equipment is repaired or is replaced.

(c) Before allowing any person to repair, clean, or adjust equipment that has been used to mix, load, transfer, or apply pesticides, the handler employer shall assure that pesticide residues have been removed from the equipment, unless the person doing the cleaning, repairing, or adjusting is a handler employed by the agricultural or commercial pesticide handling establishment. If pesticide residue removal is not feasible, the handler employer shall assure that the person who repairs, cleans, or adjusts such equipment is informed:
(1) That such equipment may be contaminated with pesticides.
(2) Of the potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides.
(3) Of the correct way to handle such equipment.

§ 170.235 Posted pesticide safety
informatton.



### (a) Requirement. When handlers (except those employed by a eommercial pesticide handling establishment) are on an agricultural establishment and, within the last 30 days, a pesticide covered by this subpart has been applied on the establishment or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, the handler employer shall display, in accordance with this section, pesticide safety

information. 

### (b) Pesticfde safetyposter. A safety poster must be displayed that conveys, at a minimum, the following basic pestieide safety concepts: (1) Help keep pesticides from entering your body. At a minimum, the following points shall be conveyed: (i) Avoid getting on your skin or into your body any pesticides that may be on plants and soil, in irrigation water, or drifting from nearby applications. (ii) Wash before eating, drinking, using chewing gum or tobacco, or using

the toilet.
(iii) Wear work clothing that protectsthe body from pesticide residues (longsleeved shirts, long pants, shoes and socks, and a hat or scarf).
(iv) Wash/shower with soap and water, shampoo hair, and put on clean

clothes after work.
(v) Wash work clothes separately from other clothes before wearing them again. (vi) Wash immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo, and change

into clean clothes.
(vii) Follow directions about keeping

out of treated or restricted areas. (2) There are Federal rules to protect workers and handlers including a requirement for safety training. 

### (c) Emergencymedical care information. (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the nearest emergency medical care facility shall be on the safety poster or displayed close to the safety poster.

(2) The handler employer shall inform handlers promptly of any change to the information on emergency medical care

facilities. 

### (d) Location. (1) The information shall be displayed in a central location on the farm or in the nursery or greenhouse where it can be readily seen and read by

handlers.

(2) The information shall be displayed

in a location in or near the forest in a place where it can be readily seen and read by handlers and where handlers are likely to congregate or pass by, such

as at a decontamination site or an equipment storage site. 

### (e) Accessibility. Handlers shall be

informed of the location of the

information and

- shall be allowed access

to it. 

### (f) Legibility. The information shall remain legible during the time it is posted.

§ 170.240 Personai protective equipment.



### (a) Requirement. Any person who performs tasks as a pesticide handler shall use the clothing and personal protective equipment specified on the labeling for use of the product. 

### (b) Definition. (1) Personal protective equipment (PPE) means devices and apparel that are worn to protect the body from contact with pesticides or pesticide residues, including, but not limited to, coveralls, chemical-resistant suits, chemical-resistant gioves, chemical-resistant footwear, respiratory protection devices, chemical-resistant aprons, chemical-resistant headgear, and protective eyewear.

(2) Long-sleeved shirts, short-sleeved shirts, long pants, short pants, shoes, socks, and other items of work clothing are not considered personal protective equipment for the purposes of this section and are not subject to the requirements of this section, although pesticide labeling may require that such work clothing be worn during some

activities. 

### (c) Provision. When personal protective equipment is specified by the labeling of any pesticide for any handling activity, the handler employer shall provide the appropriate personal protective equipment in clean and operating condition to the handler.

(1) When "chemical-resistant" personal protective equipment is specified by the product labeling, it shall

be made of material that allows no measurable movement of the pesticide being used through the material during

use. (2) When "waterproof' personal protective equipment is specified by the product labeling, it shall be made of

material that allows no measurable movement of water or aqueous solutions through the material during use.

(3) When a "chemicai-resistant suit" is specified by the product labeling, it shall be a loose-fitting, one- 

### or two-piece chemical-resistant garment that covers, at a minimum, the entire body except head, hands, and feet.

(4) When "coveralls" are specified by the product labeling, they shall be a loose-fitting, one- or two-piece garment, such as a cotton or cotton andpolyester coverall, that covers, at a minimum, the entire body except head, hands, and feet. The pesticide product labeling may specify that the coveralls be worn over another layer of clothing. (5) Gloves shall be of the type specified by the product labeling. Gloves or glove linings made of leather, cotton,

or other absorbent material shall not be worn for handling activities unless such materials are listed on the product labeling as acceptable for such use. (6) When "chemical-resistant footwear" is specified by the product labeling, one of the following types of

footwear must be worn: (i) Chemical-resistant shoes. (ii) Chemical-resistant boots: (iii) Chemical-resistant shoe coverings

worn over shoes or boots.

(7) When "protective eyewear" is specified by the product labeling, one of the following types of eyewear must be

worn: (i) Goggles. (ii) Face shield.

### 98164 Federal Reg i 

### ste r / Vol. 57 

### , No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992/ Rules and Regulations

(iii) Safety glasses with front, brow, and temple protection. (iv) Full-face respirator. (8) When a "chemical-resistant apron" is specified by the product labeling, an apron that covers the front of the body

from mid-chest to the knees shall be

worn. (9) When a respirator is specified by the product labeling, it shall be appropriate for the pesticide product used and for the activity to be performed. The handler employer shall assure that the respirator fits correctly. (10) When "chemical-resistant headgear" is specified by the product labeling, it shall be either a chemical

resistant hood or a chemical-resistant

hat with a wide brim. 

### (d) Exceptions to personal protective equipment specified on product labeling—(1) Body protection. (i) A chemical-resistant suit may be substituted for "coveralls," and any reqairement for an additional layer of clothing beneath is waived. (ii) A chemical-resistant suit may be

substituted for °coveralls" and a chemical-resistant apron.

(2) Boots. If chemical-resistant footwear with sufficient durability and a tread appropriate for wear in rough terrain is not obtainable, then leather boots may be worn in such terrain. 

### (3) Gloves. If chemical-resistant gloves with sufficient durability and suppleness are not obtainable, then during handling activities with roses or other plants with sharp thorns, leathergloves may be worn over chemicalresistant glove liners. However, once leather gloves are worn for this use, thereafter they shall be worn only with chemical-resistant liners and they shall not be worn for any other use.

(4) Closed systems. If handling tasks are performed using properly functioning systems that enclose the pesticide to prevent it from contacting handlers or other persons, and if such systems are used and are maintained in

accordance with that manufacturer's written operating instructions, exceptions to labeling-specified personal protective equipment for the handling activity are permitted as provided in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii)

of this section. (i) Persons using a closed system to mix or load pesticides with a signal word of DANGER or WARNING may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, socks, chemical-resistant apron, and any protective gloves specified on the labeling for handlers for the labeling-specified personal protective equipment. (ii) Persons using a closed system to mix or load pesticides other than those in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section or to perform other handling tasks may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, longpants, shoes, and socks for the labelingspecified personal protective equipment. (iii) Persons using a closed system that operates under pressure shall wear protective eyewear. ,(iv) Persons using a closed system shall have all labeling-specified personal protective equipment immediately available for use in an

emergency. 

### (5) Enclosed cabs. If handling tasks are performed from inside a cab that has a nonporous barrier which totally surrounds the occupants of the cab and prevents contact with pesticides outside of the cab, exceptions to personal ,protective equipment specified on the 'product labeling for that handling activity are permitted as provided in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iv) of this

section. (i) Persons occupying an enclosed cab may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long-pants, shoes, and socks for the labelingspecified personal protective equipment. If a respiratory protection device is specified on the pesticide product labeling for the handling activity, it must

be worn. „ (ii) Persons occupying an enclosed cab that has a properly functioning !yentilation system which is used and

maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's written operating

instructions and which is declared in writing by the manufacturer or by a governmental agency to provide respiratory protection equivalent to or greater than a dust/mist filtering respirator may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for the labeling-specified personal protective equipment. If a respiratory protection device other than a dust/ mist-filtering respirator is specified on the pesticide product labeling, it must be

worn. (iii) Persons occupying an enclosed

~,cab that has a properly functioning ventilation system which is used and

maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's written operating

instructions and which is declared in writing by the manufacturer or by a governmental agency to provide , respiratory protection equivalent to or greater than the vapor- or gas-removing respirator specified on pesticide product labeling may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks for the labeling-specified personal "protective equipment. If an air

- supplying respirator or a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) is specified on the pesticide product labeling, it must be

worn. (iv) Persons occupying an enclosed cab shall have all labeling

- specified personal protective equipment immediately available and stored in a
chemical-resistant container, such as a plastic bag. They shall wear such personal protective equipment if it is necessary to exit the cab and contact pesticide-treated surfaces in the treated area. Once personal protective equipment is worn in the treated area, it must be removed before reentering the

cab. 

### (6) Aerial applications

— 

### (i) Use of
gloves. Chemical-resistant gloves shall be worn when entering or leaving an aircraft contaminated by pesticide residues. In the cockpit, the gloves shall be kept in an enclosed container to prevent contamination of the inside of the cockpit.
(ii) Open cockpit. Persons occupying an open cockpit shall use the personal protective equipment specified in the product labeling for use duringapplication, except that chemicalresistant footwear need not be worn. A helmet may be substituted for chemical= resistant headgear. A visor may be substituted for protective eyewear.
(iii) Enclosed cockpit. Pers.ons occupying an enclosed cockpit may substitute a long-sleeved shirt, longpants, shoes, and socks for labelingspecified personal protective equipment. (7) Crop advisors. Crop advisorsentering treated areas while a restrictedentry interval is in effect may wear the personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide labeling for early-entry activities instead of the personal protective equipment specified on the pesticide labeling for handling activities, provided:
(i) Application has been completed for

at ieast 4 hours. (ii) Any inhalation exposure level listed in the labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria .established by § 170.110(c)(3) or in the labeling have

been met.
(e) Use of personal pro.tective
equipment. (1) The handler employer shall assure that personal protective. equipment is used correctly for its intended purpose and is used according

to the manufacturer's instructions.
(2) The handl

~ c employer shall assure that, before each day of use, all personal protective equipment is inspecte.d for leaks, holes, tears, or worn places, and any damaged equipment is repaired or

discarded. (f) Cleaning and maintenance. (1) The handler employer shall assure that all personal protective equipment is cleaned according to the manufacturer's instructions olesticide product

,x

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38165

labeling instructions before each day of reuse. In the absence of any such instructions, it shall be washed thoroughly in detergent and hot water. (2) If any personal protective equipment cannot be cleaned properly, the handler employer shall dispose of the personal protective equipment in accordance with any applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. Coveralls or

other absorbent materials that have been drenched or heavily contaminated with an undiluted pesticide that has the signal word DANGER or WARNING on

the label shall be not be reused. (3) The handler employer shall assure that contaminated personal protective equipment is kept separately and washed separately from any other clothing or laundry. (4) The handler employer shall assure that all clean personal protective equipment shall be either dried thoroughly before being stored or shall be put in a well ventilated place to dry. (5) The handler employer shall assure that all personal protective equipment is stored separately from personal clothing and apart from pesticide-contaminated

areas. (6) The handler employer shall assure that when dust/mist filtering respirators are used, the filters shall be replaced: (i) When breathing resistance

becomes excessive. (ii) When the filter element has physical damage or tears. (iii) According to manufacturer's recommendations or pesticide product labeling, whichever is more frequent. (iv) In the absence of any other instruetions or indications of service life, at the end of each day's work period. (7) The handler employer shall assure that when gas- or vapor-removingrespirators are used, the gas- or vaporremoving canisters or cartridges shall be replaced: (i) At the first indication of odor, taste,

or irritation. (ii) According to manufacturer's reeommendations or pesticide product labeling, whichever is more frequent. (iii) In the absence of any other instructions or indications of service life, at the end of each day's work period. (8) The handler employer shall inform any person who cleans or launders personal protective equipment: (i) That such equipment may be contaminated with pesticides. (ii) Of the potentially harmful effects of exposure to pesticides. (iii) Of the correct way(s) to clean personal protective equipment and to protect themselves when handling such equipment. (9) The handler employer shall assure that handlers have a clean place(s) away from pesticide storage and pesticide use areas where they may: (i) Store personal clothing not in use. (ii) Put on personal protective equipinent at the start of any exposure period. (iii) Remove personal protective equipment at the end of any exposure period. (10) The handler employer shall not allow or direct any handler to wear home or to take home personal protective equipment contaminated with pesticides. (g) Heat-related illness. When the use of personal protective equipment is specified by the labeling of any pesticide for the handling activity, the handler employer shall assure that no

handler is allowed or directed to perform the handling activity unless appropriate measures are taken, if necessary, to prevent heat-related

illness.

§ 170.250 Decontamination.

(a) Requirement. During any handling activity, the handler employer shall provide for handlers, in accordance with this section, a decontamination site for washing off pesticides and pesticide

residues. (b) General conditions. (1) The handler employer shall provide handlers with enough water for routine washing, for emergency eyeflushing, and for washing the entire body in case of an emergency. At all times when the water is available to handlers, the handler employer shall assure that it is of a quality and temperature that will not cause illness or injury when it contacts the skin or eyes or if it is swallowed. (2) When water stored in a tank is to be used for mixing pesticides, it shall not be used for decontamination or eye flushing, unless the tank is equipped with properly functioning valves or other mechanisms that prevent movement of pesticides into the tank. (3) The handler employer shall provide soap and single-use towels at each decontamination site in quantities

sufficient to meet handlers' needs. (4) The handler employer shall provide one clean change of clothing, such as coveralls, at each

decontamination site for use in an

emergency. (c) Location. The decontamination site shall be reasonably accessible to and

not more than 1/4 mile from each handler during the handling activity. (1) Exception for mixing sites. For mixing activities, the decontamination site shall be at the mixing site. (2) Exception for pilots. The decontamination site for a pilot who is applying pesticides aerially shall be in the airplane or at the aircraft's loading

site. (3) Exception for handling pesticides

in remote areas. When handling activities are performed more than 1/4 mile from the nearest place of vehicular

access: (i) The soap, single-use towels, clean change of clothing, and water may be at the nearest place of vehicular access.
(ii) The handler employer may permit

handlers to use clean water from springs, streams, lakes, or other sources

for decontamination at the remote work site, if such water is more accessible

than the water at the decontamination site located at the nearest place of

vehicular access.
(4) Decontamination site 

### in treated

areas. The decontamination site shall not be in an area being treated with pesticides or in an area under a restricted-entry interval, unless: (i) The decontamination site is in the area where the handler is performing handling activities; (ii) The soap, single-use towels, and clean change of clothing are in enclosed containers; and
(iii) The water is running tap water or

is enclosed in a container. (d) Emergency eyeflushing.; To provide for emergency eyeflushing, the handler employer shall assure that at least 1 pint of water is immediately

available to each handler who is performing tasks for which the pesticide labeling requires protective eyewear. The eyeflush water shall be carried by the handler, or shall be on the vehicle or aircraft the handler is using, or shall be otherwise immediately accessible.
(e) Decontamination after handling

activities. At the end of any exposure period, the handler employer shall provide at the site where handlers remove personal protective equipment, soap, clean towels, and a sufficient

amount of water so that the handlers may wash thoroughly.

§ 170.260 Emergency assistanoe.

If there is reason to believe'that a person who is or has been employed by an agriculturai establishment or commercial pesticide handling establishment to perform pesticide handling tasks has been poisoned or injured by exposure to pesticides as a result of that employment, including, but not limited to, exposures from handling tasks or from application, splash, spill, drift, or pesticide residues, the handler employer shall: (a) Make available to that person prompt transportation from the place of employment or the handling site to an appropriate emergency medical facility.

### 38166 Federal Register / Vol. 57. 

### ,. No. 163 / Friday, Augu st 21, 1992 ./ R 

### ules and Regulations

~

(b) Provide to that person or to treating medical personnel, promptly upon request, any obtainable

information on:

(1) Product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredients of any product to which that person might have been exposed.
(2) Antidote, first aid, and other medical information from the product labeling.
(3) The circumstances of handling of the pesticide. (4) The circumstances of exposure of that person to the pesticide.

[FR Doc. 92-20005 Filed 8-19-92; 10:31 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Proposed Rules 38167

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 170

LOPP-300164C; FRL-3793-11

RIN 2070-AA49

Worker Protection Standard; Hazard

Information

AOENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule is a companion to a final rule, published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, which revises regulations governing worker protection from agricultural pesticides and their

residues. As a result of comments received during this rulemaking, EPA is proposing an additional modification to

its Worker Protection Standard to provide information to covered workers that is substantially equivalent to that required under the Hazard Communication Standard promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health AdministratIon (OSHA). This proposal would add a requirement that specific

hazard information be made available to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers concerning the pesticides to which they are exposed. This

information would be in the form of fact sheets or Material Safety Data Sheets.

EPA believes this modification would provide information to agricultural workers equivalent to that provided to

other workers and would do much to avoid confusion among pesticide users as to their obligation for communicating pesticide hazard information to workers.

DATES: Written comments, data, and other evidence concerning the proposal

should be submitted on or before October 20, 1992.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in triplicate and addressed to the Document Control Officer (H7506C), Offiee of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. All

comments should bear the document control number, OPP-300164C, and will be available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays, at the OPP Document Control Office, Rm.1132, CM #2,1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: James J. Boland, Acting Chief, Occupational Safety Branch (H7506C), Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substanees, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and phone number: Rm. 1114, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703)-305-7666.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1974, EPA promulgated the regulations found at 40 CFR part 170, which dealt with pesticide-related occupational safety and health of workers performing hand labor operations in fields during or after application of pesticides. As the result of changing conditions and an awareness of the shortcomings of part 170, EPA proposed to revise its worker protection regulations in 1988 (53 FR 25970; July 8, 1988) ("the NPRM"). A

substantial number of comments were received as the result of this proposal, and the Agency is issuing the final rule

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. These revisions expand the scope of part 170 beyond coverage of workers performing hand labor operations in fields treated with pesticides to include a wider range of occupational exposures to agricultural pesticides. The regulations cover
workers in or on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, as well as workers who handle (mix, load, and apply) pesticides at these locations. The revisions expand requirements for safety and health warnings about applications, use of personal protective equipment, and observation of entry restrictions, and add new provisions for training, decontamination, and emergency medical assistance. As a result of the rulemaking revising part 170, EPA received many comments expressing concern about possible overlap or conflict between part 170 requirements and any requirements that might also be placed upon the regulated community by OSHA. Some comments expressed the opinion that part 170 should provide agricultural employees

information about the chemicals to which they are exposed equivalent to the requirements of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. The Agency has reviewed the record underlying this rulemaking and believes that the revised part 170 provides protection at least the equivalent of the Hazard Communication Standard, with oneexception. OSHA requires that hazardspecific information be made available

to workers in the form of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). Based on the comments in the record, EPA agrees with the need for providing hazard. specific information to workers exposed to those hazards. EPA proposes to require that employees be given access to pesticide-specific information in the form of fact sheets approved by EPA or State agencies concerning specific pesticides; alternatively, this requirement would be met if employees were given access to MSDSs for the pesticides to which they are exposed.

I. Relationship Between EPA's Worker

Protection Standard and OSI3A's

Hazard Communication Standard

OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) requires employers to train employees in the nature, detection, and avoidance of chemical hazards in the workplace;

maintain MSDSs for all hazardous chemicals and provide them on request;.

and label chemical containers. The HCS was promulgated in 1983 to cover manufacturing workers; in 1987, it was extended to cover all workers, including agricultural workers (52 FR 31852; August 24, 1987) (29 CFR 1926.21).
Although the NPRM for EPA's Worker Protection Standard (WPS) discussed the relationship between the proposed decontamination requirements and OSHA's Field Sanitation Standard (29 CFR 1928.110), it did not address the relationship between part 170 and the HCS. Nevertheless, the Agency received a considerable number of public comments on this issue in response to the NPRM. Comments came primarily from grower groups, the Cooperative Extension Service, worker representatives, and State lead agencies. Comments noted that the HCS recently had become applicable to agricultural employers and contained requirements, such as training and notification, that appeared to be similar to measures in EPA's proposal. Comments claimed either that the two regulations were duplicative or they were inconsistent. One comment pointed to inconsistencies

between some MSDSs and the corresponding pesticide labels in the hazard information they provide. Many growers believed that there could be confusion in dealing with moce than one "oversight agency," unnecessary compliance costs, and extra paperwork burdens. One comment stated that, by including agriculture in its HCS, OSHA was "interfering" with EPA's pesticide

program. The comments proposed varying solutions to the perceived inconsistencies. The majority, stated that

EPA and OSHA should hold discussions to clarify the "regulatory boundaries" between the two agencies, noting that confusion among the public, ' enforcement difficulties, and litigation are likely if the relationship is not clarified. One comment suggested a Memorandum of Understanding

between EPA and OSHA. 

### Two comments requested that EPA delay

### 38168 Federal Register / Vol. '57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 f Proposed Rules

—
implementation of part 170 until an agreement with OSHA was reached. Many comments stated that OSHA should "stay out," and that only EPA should regulate hazard communication in agriculture. In support of this view, comments stated that the Cooperative Extension Service "traditionally works well" with EPA; that EPA has a history of putting resources and priority in its pesticide program; that the revised part 170 would include adequate hazard communication for agricultural workers; that the HCS is primarily a standard for manufacturing while part 170 is "specifically designed" for the agricultural setting; that OSHA enforcement is limited to larger farms because of a current appropriations rider; that Congress intended FIFRA to regulate pesticide-hazardous materials;

that OSHA has no Indian reservation enforcement policy; and that labels are

a"better source of information" than the MSDS. One comment stated that only one agency should regulate, without stating which one. Another suggested that OSHA adopt EPA's proposed regulations as hazard co

mmunication requirements for the agricultural sector.

One comment stated that EPA should "yield" to the HCS and "fill in elsewhere" as necessary, while another felt that OSHA should cover all aspects of worker safety. Several comments proposed a specific division of regulatory authority between the agencies, under which the EPA would cover workers at agricultural pesticide use sites, including both handlers and workers who are exposed to residues,

while OSHA would cover "downstream" nonagricultural workers, those exposures to residues other than at agricultural use sites.
While pesticide users anticipated confusion over which rules they should follow, some State agencies were

concerned about the division of responsibility for programs and enforcement at the State government

level. The situation would be complicated because a given State could be participating in an EPA State Plan, an OSHA State Plan, both, or neither. One State agency asked for either a formal jurisdictional division at the Federal

level which each State would be required to implement, or an alternative "flexible approach" allowing cooperation among pesticide lead agencies and occupational safety and health agencies in each State. One comment stated that regardless of which agency issued regulations, enforcement would be "complaint-driven" rather than based on inspections, and was

concerned that EPA did not have an OSHA-type complainant protection

system.

Comments from the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), the lead agency in that State for pesticides, iclentified the difficulty that a given
situation may present. In 1988, the State Iiassed an Agricultural Worker Hazard Communication Act pursuant to which TDA developed training programs and liromulgated implementing regulations,

actions consistent with the Federal- ;3tate relationship set forth by FIFRA

section 24. Because Texas does not have an approved OSHA State Plan, under

i:he OSHAct the Federal HCS is applicable in that State, and any similar State regulations are preempted. ]3ecause of the similarity between the

~zew Texas law and the Federal HCS, some persons in that State have s'uggested that the Texas law and iregulations may be preempted by the IFICS. TDA has urged both OSHA and EPA to clarify their jurisdictional irelationship in a manner that would ;permit TDA to implement its programs ,and enforce its regulations without the .present ambiguity. During the public comment period on

EPA's NPRM for the Worker Protection 'Standard, OSHA held a public hearing and requested public comment on

several issues associated with the HCS (53 FR 29822; August 8, 1988), including Yhe question of possible preemption of the HCS by EPA's pesticide regulations.

EPA has reviewed the relevant comments in OSHA's HCS rulemaking docket and was represented at the hearing. Substantially the same

coricerns were raised in comments on the two rulemakings, and similar solutions were proposed. A number of organizations submitted written comments to both agencies:

EPA submitted its written comments

to the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard docket. The Agency acknowledged that both agencies had ,attempted to regulate occupational pesticide exposure under their respective statutes, and pointed out that

; significant public concern existed over the recent actions of both agencies in this area. EPA identified problems with the view of jurisdictional issues expressed by OSHA in its Federal Register notice, as related to some aspects of EPA's pesticide program, the implications of the proposed revisions to part 170, the question of preemption, and possible alternative approaches. EPA concluded that "[g]iven the shared regulatory purpose, the similarity of the proposed requirements, and the justifiable public concern over kegulatory duplication, EPA believes

; that the time is ripe for the two agencies to address, in as concrete a fashion as possible, the issues raised by their mutual jurisdiction" (OPP Docket

300164

— C373). In late 1988, the two agencies formed a working group to address these issues. The United States Department of Agriculture requested and was granted permission to participate because of its

close involvement in matters related to the use of agricultural pesticides. The working group met several times. After reviewing drafts of the final Worker
Protection Standard and this NPRM,
OSHA's view is that EPA's final rule, when promulgated and enforced, will address essentially the same

information transmittal issues covered by the HCS. OSHA also concluded that when this NPRM is promulgated, EPA will have approximately the same requirements as the HCS. In view of this sirnilarity, OSHA will defer to EPA and will not enforce the HCS with regard to employees exposed to pesticides who are covered by the Worker Protection Standard. However, OSHA will

continue to enforce the HCS for other

hazardous chemicals to which employees are exposed in agriculture. EPA fully supports OSHA's efforts to assure that persons exposed to chemical hazards are provided with information about those hazards; EPA pursues similar goals in its pesticide program. At the same time, EPA acknowledges the various public coztcerns expressed by growers, workers, States and others regarding the relationship between the revised part 170 and OSHA's HCS. EPA does not intend to require actions on the part of the regulated public that either duplicate or conflict with another agency's requirements intended to accomplish essentially the same purpose. FIFRA encourages cooperation

between EPA and other Federal agencies and flexibility between Federal and State levels in the implementation of pesticide programs, as long as the overall goal of protection is met. EPA also supports such flexibility and cooperation among various agencies in a given State. In light of the differences among State pesticide and occupational health and safety programs, a single approach at the Federal level may not fit particular cases at the State level. EPA has elected to proceed with the

final Worker Protection Standard published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, believing it is unreasonable to delay issuance of all part 170 protective measures, including

those unrelated to hazard communication. The Agency is proposing in this document to amend

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Proposed Rules 38169

part 170, as soon as practicable following public notice and comment, to provide pesticide hazard communication for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers on agricultural sites that is at least the equivalent of OSHA's hazard communication provisions. EPA believes that its newly revised Worker Protection Standard, with modifications, would provide an appropriate vehicle for enauring the communication of pesticide hazard information in the agricultural workplace, for a number of reasons. First, EPA's final rule already includes a number of provisions that appear to accomplish a similar purpose as some of

OSIiA's hazard communication requirements. These include pesticide safety training for handlers and workers (§§ 170.130 and 170.230); display of a pesticide safety poster (§ 170.135); notification of the presence of pesticides in the workplace, including posted or oral warnings and the pesticide name and location o£ treated areas displayed at a central location (§§ 170.120, 170.122, 170.222); and access to and knowledge of pesticide labeling information by handlers (§ 170.232). The principal

difference between OSHA's hazard communication program and EPA's current worker protection program is the right to written information about the specific hazards of pesticides present in the workplace, in the form of MSDSs. Second, EPA's hazard communication requirements would be tailored to fit the context of agricultural-pesticide use, rather than being generic standards for all occupational sectors as is the case

with OSHA's Hazard Cornmunication

Standard. Third, incorporation of a full agricultural hazard communication program into part 170 would do much to

alleviate confusion and concern in the regulated community over possible conflicts and duplication between the agencies. Fourth, direct EPA involvement in agricultural pesticide hazard

communication could assist States such as Texas that desire to implement their own State-specific hazard communication program in agriculture. Under FIFRA, more stringent State regulations are permissible. Under the OSHAct, however, more stringent State regulations may be permitted, but in States without approved OSHA State plans, State regulations are preempted. EPA does not propose to incorporate OSHA's hazard communication program word for word, primarily because the Agency believes that its part 170 requirements are more suited to the agricultural workplace. 'I'herefore, EPA proposes to modify part 170 in only one respect to meet the objectives of OSHA's HCS. Specifically, EPA proposes to include a requirementto make available written pesticidespecific hazard information on request to pesticide handlers and to workers potentially exposed to pesticide residues. The Agency proposes to add new §§ 170.133 and 170.233, entitled "Hazard Information," to subpart B, Standard for Agricultural Workers, and subpart C, Standard for Pesticide Handlers, respectively. The proposed pesticide-specific hazard information requirement has been adapted from OSHA's MSDS requirement (29 CFR 1910.1200(g)) and specifies the type and form of written information (MSDS or fact sheet) and the obligation to obtain, to maintain, and to make available the

information to handlers and workers.

Some commenters stated that the typical MSDS is not written with the agricultural workplace in mind and

contains information that is either

difficult to understand or irrelevant to agricultural workers. In response, the Agency has proposed that an alternative

form of hazard inforrnation also be acceptable, i.e., a fact sheet that contains specific types of relevant

information. These fact sheets would be either prepared by or approved by a Federal or State agency. One advantage of fact sheets is that they might bedesigned to communicate productspecific risk and hazard-reduction information to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers through the use of nontechnical and often comparative terms. The proposed fact sheets allow the development of one fact sheet for a pesticide, i.e., malathion or 2,4-D. The Agency welcomes comments as to

whether the fact sheets should be narrower in focus, such as requiring

different fact sheets for different

formulations of the same active ingredient. The Agency is considering a range of options concerning the for ti and

content of the fact sheets. e option is to require all the information currently required in an MSDS. Another option is to require that the fact sheet contain only the MSDS information that would be most useful to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers, allowing them to obtain other information from an MSDS,

which also would be made accessible. Still another option is to refer users to the pesticide product labeling for certain information, such as personal protectiveequipment requirements and restrictedentry intervals and to require that both the labeling and the fact sheet be made accessible to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The Agency seeks comment as to the appropriate format

and content of the fact sheets. The content being proposed for the fact sheets would encourage the use of nontechnical language and eliminate the requirement for some.highly,technical data that might be of little use to agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The Agency is inclined to minimize the technical specificity of the information in favor of language more easily interpreted by agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. Specifically, the Agency is considering requiring that technical information be expressed through the use of comparative terms. The Agency seeks

information and assistance from interested parties as to how this might best be accomplished and seeks specific comments as to what range of numeric values for each quantitative property of the pesticide would be appropriate for each comparative term. In the case of vapor pressure, for example, what ranges of vapor pressure values should be characterized as highly volatile, moderately volatile, slightly volatile, or relatively nonvolatile? Other physical characteristics that might be best expressed in comparative terms include flammability, explosivity, solubility, stability (or shelf life), and, in some instances, compatibility. However,

this latter characteristic could be specifically described either by listing products the pesticide is known to be compatible with or.by listing;products the pesticide is known to be . incompatible with. At least two possible chart-style presentations might be appropriate for

fact sheets. One is the National Fire Protection Association Hazard Rating chart, which could be used to describe the fire hazards. These ratings are keyed

to a numeric scale frorn 0 to 4 as follows:

0= least,l = slight, 2= moderate, 3= high, and 4= severe hazard. •Health hazard, fire hazard, and reactivity

hazard are rated. Another chart that might be appropriate for adaptation is

the SARA Title III Hazard Classification chart, which uses a"yes/no" key to indicate whether the chemical presents an immediate (acute) health, delayed (chronic) health, fire, sudden release of pressure, or reactivity hazard: The Agency solicits comment on chart-style presentations in general and on the utility of.these two specific exampies. The Agency is inclined to require simple, standardized phrases to describe the toxicological characteristics of the

chemicals. The usual technical terminology, for example: "Toxicology: Acute Exposure: Skin - Rabbit, 2.0 mg/ kg" may not communicate interpretable information to most people, including most agricultural workers and pesticide

### 38170 Federal Regist er / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Proposed Rules

handlers. The Agency believes that standard descriptive phrases should be limited to three or four per adverse effect, such as: (1) Skin or eye irritants
could be classified as: severe irritant, moderate irritant, slight irritant, or relatively non-irritating; (2) Systemic toxicity through swallowing, through inhaling, or through absorption through the skin could be classified as: highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightly toxic, or relatively nontoxic; (3) Sensitization potential could be classified as: severe sensitizer, moderate sensitizer, slight sensitizer, or relatively nonsensitizing. These simple terms could be easily learned by agricultural workers and pesticide handlers who are occupationally exposed to pesticides. The Agency is also considering whether to associate a"signal word," i.e., danger, warning, caution, with each of these routes of entry in addition to the comparative phrase. For example: , "Warning—moderately toxic if swallowed; Caution—slightly irritating to the eyes," etc. The LDso or LC 50or other quantitative values could also appear on the fact sheet, but standard descriptive terms would be mandatory.
The Agency is also inclined to require that fact sheets express delayed-onset toxicity concerns in a comparative manner and to require that the fact sheet simply state whether any government agency or recognized medical organization has listed the pesticide or any of its ingredients as a potential carcinogen, rather than list each agency or organization separately. In any case, EPA is inclined to require that fact sheets incorporate simplified language for these effects, such as: tumor-causing in lieu of oncogenic; birth-defect-causing in lieu of teratogenic; injury to fetus in lieu of embryotoxic or fetotoxic; injury to pregnant females in lieu of maternally toxic; injury to geines or chromosomes in lieu of genotoxic or mutagenic; injury to brain and nervous system in lieu of neurotoxic; immune system injury in lieu of immunosuppression; and heart/lung injury in lieu of cardiopulmonary impairment.

Information on the fact sheet that is directed specifically to medical personnel, such as antidotes or appropriate medical amelioration procedures, could retain the precise medical terminology. However, for the sections on symptoms of overexposure, medical conditions aggravated by exposure, and einergency and first aid procedures for each applicable route of exposure, the Agency is inclined to require the use of simplified language. For example, the following terms might be substituted for the more precise nnedical terminology: tears in lieu of liacrimation; rash or reddening in lieu of erythema; cracking in lieu of fissuring; peeling or scaling in lieu of desquamation; unconsciousness or stupor in lieu of narcosis; swelling in l:ieu of edema; tissue damage in lieu of r.iecrosis; giddiness, headache, dizziness,

a:nd blurred vision in lieu of central r.iervous system depression; slow heart rate in lieu of bradycardia; rapid heart rate in lieu of tachycardia; high blood Iiressure in lieu of hypertension; low blood pressure in lieu of hypotension; bqw body temperature in lieu of hiypothermia; cramps, diarrhea, nausea or vomiting in lieu of gastrointestinal i:rritation; loss of appetite in lieu of anorexia; muscle pains in lieu of nayalgia; bluish skin color in lieu of cyanosis; yellowish skin color in lieu of jaundice; lack of coordination in lieu of ataxia; shortness of breath or difficulty breathing in lieu of dyspnea; rapid breathing in lieu of tachypnea; muscle spasms in lieu of tetany or myotonia; pinpoint pupil in lieu of miosis; runny
r.iose in lieu of rhinorrhea; blood in feces in lieu of inelena; blood in urine in lieu
cif hematuria; irritated stomach in 

### lieu of gastritis; drooling or excess saliva in lieu 

### of salivation; abnormality or irregularity 

### i:n lieu of anomaly; poisoning in lieu of toxification; and plenty or large in lieu of copious. The Agency solicits, comments on this approach and suggestions as to possible changes in these proposed substitutes as well as suggestions as to similar terms that r.night be simplified.

The Agency is considering allowing

the fact sheets to indicate which e:xposure-reduction measures have been e:stablished for the product, without specifying the details of those measures.

7'he fact sheet would then indicate how the pesticide handlers or agricultural

ivorkers should assess whether those e:xposure-reduction measures have been

r.net . For example, the fact sheet would i:ndicate that a restricted-entry interval 

### has been set for the product and that

ivorkers should not enter the area immediately after application and until the supervisor indicates that the restricted-entry period has expired. If another type of exposure limitation has been established for the product, such as an OSI-IA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), the fact sheet might state that a

standard had been established for eixposures to the product through

inhalation and direct that enclosed

treatment areas should be tested before

ivorkers reenter those areas. If

ventilation r.riteria or other criteria have

lieen established for such enclosed ti'eatment areas, these should be listed in the fact sheet. For example, the fact sheet might state: "Stay out of enclosed treatment areas until they have been mechanically ventilated for at least 2

hours or until a test indicates that the levels of pesticide product in the air are no longer hazardous." The Agency is also inclined to require that any environmental effects listed on the fact sheets be,expressed in simple, standardized comparative phrases. The existing terminology on some MSDSs, for example: "48-hr ECso Daphnia Magna: 22 mg/1," may not communicate interpretable information to the audience targeted by the fact sheet. As an alternative, EPA suggests the use of the same language as for systemic toxicity to humans, i.e., highly toxic, inoderately toxic, slightly toxic, or relatively nontoxic. The environmental categories could include, as appropriate, an indication of the relative toxicity of the pesticide to fish, other aquatic organisms, birds, mammals, bees, reptiles and amphibians, and invertebrate organisms. If personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and other special worlcplace practices are actually listed

on the fact sheet rather than referenced by the fact sheet to the labeling or MSDS, the Agency is inclined to require standardization of terminology in describing such requirements and practices. This requirement would be designed to reduce confusion that may be caused by fact sheets that appear to be inconsistent with the requirements on pesticide labeling. For example, the following terms might be required: (1) Personal protective equipment in lieu of protective clothing or protective clothing and equipment; (2) coverall in lieu of full body suit or protective clothing; (3)

chemical-resistant in lieu of chemicalimpervious or impermeable; (4) specifying one or more protective types of chemical-resistant materials, such as neoprene, natural rubber, butyl rubber, PVC, nitrile, plastic laminate, etc; (5) specifying "waterproof ' only when any plastic or rubber is resistant to the chemical; (6) protective eyewear, such as goggles, face shield or safety glasses in lieu of other eyewear terms; (6) protective footwear, such as boots, shoe

covers or shoes in lieu of other footwear terms; (8) dust/mist respirator in lieu of dust respirator or mask; and (9) specifying a type of respirator—either dust/mist, vapor-removing, or supplied air—in lieu of respirator, organic-vapor respirator, air-purifying respirator, or pesticide respirator. In addition, the Agency is inclined to require a standardized format for the presentation of such requirements and

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Proposed Rules

I 3317i

practices, such as: (1) Body: [specify:

"coverall" or "chemical-resistant protective suit" or "long-sleeved shirtand long pants" and/or "chemicalresistant apron" as applicable]; (2) I3ands: [specify type of glove material or use "waterproof' to indicate any plastic or rubber will suffice]; (3) Feet: [specify type of footwear material or use "waterproo£' to indicate that any plastic or rubber material will suffice]; (4) Eyes: [specify "protective eyewear" or a particular type of eyewear, such as goggles]; (5) Lungs: [specify "dust/mist respirator" or "vapor-removing respirator approved for pesticides or organic vapors" or "air-supplied respirator"].
The Agency seeks comment as to appropriate standardized language for describing various engineering controls, such as closed systems, enclosed cabs, and enclosed cockpits and for deseribing various workplace practice recommendations or requirements, such as cleaning and maintenance of personal protective equipment, washing hands and face frequently, etc. The Ageney solicits comment as to the appropriate means of conveying information about spill cleanup procedures and about disposal methods for excess pesticide and for pesticidecontainers. Such technical, productspecific information might be more appropriate for pesticide labeling or

MSDSs than for fact sheets. On the other hand, unless pesticide labeling or MSDSs were also accessible to pesticide handlers and agricultural workers, at

least some of this information would seem appropriate for fact sheets to avoid unacceptable risk of exposure in

an emergency. The Agency also solicits comment as to whether providing the pesticide product labeling should be an acceptable alternative or supplement to providing an MSDS or fact sheet. The Agency has several concerns about such an option. The pesticide product labeling may be unavailable to most agricultural workers. The labeling is often affixed to the product container and thus located in a pesticide storage area. The labeling may be contaminated or rendered partially unreadable during

use of the container under normal field conditions. Furthermore, the Agency is

concerned about information that is routinely included in MSDSs but that is not on the pesticide product labeling, such as information about delayed-onset adverse health effects and spill or leak cleanup procedures. However, the pesticide product labeling is a logical

source of hazard information about the product and could be produced separately from the container, which

would make it more accessible. Another option is to require that both the labeling or MSDS and a fact sheet be made available. The Agency seeks comment as to whether pesticide labeling should be an acceptable

alternative to MSDSs or fact sheets in the agricultural workplace or whether a fact sheet plus the pesticide labeling or MSDS should be required. The Agency is also considering requiring or allowing the use of pictogram symbols on fact sheets to graphically convey crucial health and safety information to workers occupationally exposed to pesticides. The use of pictograms is a widely accepted and efficient means of conveying information to people. Workers/handlers exposed occupationally to agricultural pesticides have a wide range of language skills. Many workers/handlers speak and read a language other than English; others speak English, but cannot read it; still others speak and read English, but are unable to interpret the technical data being presented to them in the fact

sheets. While some workers/handlers may have little difficulty deciphering highly technical terms, the Agency believes they constitute a small fraction of the workforce currently encompassed by the Worker Protection Standard. Considerable study has been given to the use of easily understood international symbols for traffic control. While less study has been undertaken to develop such symbols for hazard communication such an approach could prove beneficial. For example, a pictogram could depict a drop of

chemical on the skin of a hand or forearm with the words (or an additional symbol) in the upper corner of the pictogram indicating whether the chemical is slightly toxic, moderately toxic, or highly toxic by the dermal route. Some of these pictograms have already been developed or proposed;

others would have to be created. The Agency solicits comments on the option of requiring or allowing pictograms on fact sheets and solicits examples of pictograms that might be appropriate. The Agency is concerned that State or Federal agencies choosing to produce or to approve fact sheets should develop and employ specific standards for content and completeness under the general criteria in the rule. The Agency invites comment on the option of requiring that authority to approve fact sheets be contingent upon EPA approval and periodic reapproval of a plan by the organization proposing to operate such a process. Such a plan would describe the criteria for approval, including topics to be covered, method of presentation, acceptable sources of information, and requiremer.ts for updating of fact sheets

as new information becomes available.
The Agency believes that the economic impact of this proposal on agricultural entities will be negligible. Agricultural employers already are subject to OSHA's Hazard

Communication Standard and must provide MSDSs on request. The fact sheet alternative may reduce this existing burden by creating a regulatory option that may be easier for employers to meet and that may benefit handlers and workers by providing hazard

information in a more understandable form. Agricultural employers also will

derive benefits from the consolidation of

certain Federal hazard communication requirements under one agency, which will facilitate understanding and compliance.

The Agency believes that its proposal, when implemented, would address the public's concern about the relationship

between OSHA's Hazard

Communication Standard and EPA's Worker Protection Standard in a way that could be anticipated to reduce confusion among agricultural employers and ensure adequate communication of pesticide hazards to agricultiural

handlers and workers. EPA solicits comment on any aspect of the matters discussed in this proposal.

II. Statutory Review

A. U.S. Department of AgricUlture

As required by FIFRA section 25(a), a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the final rule (40 CFR Part 170) were provided to the Secretary of Agriculture on June 7, 1991. On March 27,1992, the Secretary provided written comments. The Secretary hafl comments concerning hazard communication in connection with provisions in the Worker Protection Standard; however, none of those comments applied specifically to this NPRM.

B. Congressional Committees

As required by FIFRA section 25(a), a copy of the final rule was provided to the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of'the U.S. House of Representatives. Comments were provided by Ser.ator Patrick Leahy and Representative Charlie Rose. Following is a summary of each comment by Senator Leahy and Representative Rose, together with the Agency's response.

### 38172 Feder al Register / Vol.

### 57, No. 163 / Frid ay, August 21, 1992 / Proposed Rules

Comment #1: Farmworkers, like all other workers, should have access to MSDSs as well as the product label. Response: EPA agrees that workers

should have access to MSDSs or fact sheets containing similar information about the hazards of specific pesticides. The Agency also notes that the Worker Protection Standard requires employers to provide information from pesticide labels to workers assigned to perform early entry activities and to persons assigned to handle pesticides. In addition, label-specific information must be provided to workers and handlers in the event of an occupationally caused pesticide-related iliness or injury. Comment #2: EPA should also require growers to provide their workers with crop sheets. Response: The Agency agrees that

workers should have access to

information about the hazards of the specific pesticides they may be exposed to during their work activities. The purpose of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is to establish a mechanism for effectively and efficiently conveying information about pesticide hazards to workers and handlers. The Agency anticipates diverse suggestions and views during the comment period as tothe best means of conveying productspecific information to agricultural employees.

C. Scientific Advisory Panel

Pursuant to FIFRA section 25(d), a copy of this proposed rule was provided to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). A waiver of review was requested; the waiver was granted..

III. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12291

Under Executive .Order 12291, EPA is required to judge whether a rule should be classified as major or non-major for purposes of review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). According to E.O. 12291, major rules are rules that are likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more; or (2) A major increase in the costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local governmental agencies, or geographic regions; or, (3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or in the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. This proposed rule would not be a major rule because it does not meet any of the above criteria. This proposed rule

has been submitted to the Office of Ivlanagement and Budget (OMB) for i-eview as required by E.O. 12291.

13. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed imder the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 91980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164; 5 1J.S.C. 601-612) for its impact on small

businesses. The Agency has determined that the liurden on small agricultural businesses cl,oes not outweigh the risk to handlers and workers employed in those businesses, and an exemption from the requirements in this rule amendment for

small businesses would not be vyarranted. The burden to employers is ihat of holding for 30 days and making a'vailable to their employees upon request informational documents that ;are available to the employers at no rharge.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Agency has determined that there

+are no information collection burdens iander the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., iELssociated with the requirements of this proposed rule.

]List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

' Environmental protection, Pesticides iand pests, Intergovernmental relations, iDccupational safety and health, ;keporting and recordkeeping irequirements.

Dated: August 13, 1992.

'William K. Reilly,

.Administrator.

„ Therefore, it is proposed that part 170



## as revised elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, be amended as.

follows:

PART 170—[AMENDED]

; I 1. The authority citation for part 170

continues to read as follows:

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

2. By amending § 170.3 by adding and alphabetically inserting the following

definition to read as follows:

§ 170.3 Definitions.

Material Safety Data Sheet means an information document as defined by 29 CFR 1910.1200(g).

* * * * *

3. By adding new § 170.133 to subpart B, to read as follows:

§ 170.133 Hazard information.
(a) Requirement. The agricultural employer shall make available hazard information concerning a pesticide, in accordance with this section, to any worker who enters a pesticide treated area on an agricultural establishment where, within the last 30 days a pesticide has been applied or a restricted-entry interval has been in effect, or to any worker who may be exposed to the pesticide during its

normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency.
(b) Format of information. Hazard

information shall be in one of the following forms:

(1) A Material Safety Data Sheet for the product, or for each active and inert ingredient listed on the label of the product.

(2) A fact sheet that has been prepared or approved by a State or Federal agency for the pesticide. If the chemical ingredients of two or more pesticides are substantially similar, but the specific composition varies and the products present similar hazards, one fact sheet may suffice for these similar products.
(c) Content of fact sheets. Each fact
sheet shall contain information, expressed in nontechnical terms, except for items specifically targeted towards medical personnel, such as antidotes or emergency treatment. The information

shall include:
(1) Typical brand name(s) of the pesticide, and the chemical name and common name of the pesticide.
(2) Information on the physical characteristics of the pesticide, such as:

(i) Color, state (solid, liquid, or gas), odor, and comparative volatility.

(ii) Comparative flammability and explosivity.
(iii) Comparative shelf-life stability, compaiative or actual compatibility or incompatibility to possible tank-mix products, and comparative likelihood of decomposing into hazardous

components. (3) Information on the comparative toxicity of the pesticide:
(i) The comparative acute toxicity for the pesticide when swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin, expressed in terms of the relative category (highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightly toxic or relatively nontoxic) and corresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on the criteria of § 156.10(h) of this chapter.
(ii) The comparative skin

- irritation potential and eye irritation potential for the pesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (severely, moderately, or slightly irritating or relatively nonirritating to skin and/or eyes) and corresponding signal word, basing the

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Proposed Rules i38 173

category and signal word on the criteria of § 156.10(h) of this chapter. (iii) The comparative sensitization category for the pesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (highly, moderately, or slightly likely or relatively unlikely to cause allergic or sensitivity reactions in some individuals). (iv) Symptoms of overexposure. (v) Any chronic or delayed health effects, including tumors, malignancy or cancer, changes in the genes or chromosomes, birth defects, illness or death (miscarriage or stillbirth) to a fetus, infertility or sterility in men or
women, blood disorders, nerve or brain disorders, skin disorders, liver and kidney disorders, and/or lung and respiratory disorders. (vi) Whether the pesticide has been found to be a potential cancer-causing agent by a government agency or recognized medical organization. The

sources that must be considered include

the latest editions of the National Toxicology Program Annual Report on Carcinogens (NTP), the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs (IARC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and EPA. (vii) Medical conditions that may be aggravated by exposure to the product. (viii) Emergency and first aid procedures for each applicable route of exposure, i.e., oral, dermal, inhalation, and eye. (ix) Information for physicians on the antidote, if any, and other applicable

information for medical treatment. (x) The types of exposure limits that have been established for the pesticide. The exposure limits that must be investigated include the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) and the EPA restricted-entry interval (REI). Any other known and applicable exposure limit used or recommended by the manufacturer, formulator, importer or a governmental agency must also be

noted. All listed limits must be accompanied by a reference source to permit more detailed information to be

obtained. (4) Information on any speciai protection needed in handling the product such as use of personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and workplace practices for the pesticide: (i) Situations where personal protective equipment or engineering

controls should be used. (ii) Body protection, including the type of elothing to be worn during exposures, sueh as mixing/loading, cleaning of equipment, and other handling

situations. (iii) Hand and foot protection needed, including specific material, if known,

that is chemical-resistant to the pesticide or typical carrier solvent. (iv) Eye protection. (v) Respiratory protection, including, if known, the specific respirator type (dust/mist filtering, vapor/gas-removing, or air-supplied) and the Mine Safety and

Health Administration/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (MSHA/NIOSH) approval number prefix assigned to equipment that is protective for the pesticide for exposures outdoors and in enclosed

areas. (vi) Recommendations for ventilating enclosed areas, if appropriate. (vii) Any other personal protective equipment that would be appropriate for specific exposure situations. (viii) Recommended engineering controls, such as closed systems, enclosed cockpits, or enclosed cabs. (ix) Other special protection information or special worlcplace practices. (5) Information on spill or leak cleanup procedures and disposal

methods for excess chemical and for

containers. (6) The date the fact sheet was prepared or revised to its present form. (7) The telephone number of the

National Pesticide Telecommunications Network and the name, address, and telephone number of the manufacturer, formulator, importer, or responsible party, if known, who could provide

additional information about the formulated product or the active/inert ingredient and about appropriate emergency procedures. (8) If relevant information for any given category on the fact sheet is not obtainable, the category shall be marked

to so indicate. (d) Accuracy of information on the fact sheet and updates. (1) The entity preparing the fact sheet shall ensure that the information recorded accurately

reflects the scientific evidence used in making the hazard determination or

shall ensure that the information recorded accurately reflects the information published on the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet or the pesticide registrant's product labeling.

(2) If the entity preparing the fact sheet becomes aware of any significant information regarding its hazards or

those of its formulations or the inert ingredients, one of the following actions is required: (i) The new information shall be

added to the fact sheet within 3 months. (ii) If the pesticide is not being produced or imported currently, the information shall be added to the fact sheet before the formulated product is

introduced or reintroduced into the workplace.
(e) Obtaining information. If a fact sheet or Material Safety Data Sheet forthe formulated product or for each labellisted active and inert ingredient in the formulated product is not available at the time the product is purchased, the agricultural employer shall take appropriate and timely steps to obtain the Material Safety Data Sheet or fact sheet from the distributor, the manufacturer, a State or Federal agency,

or another distribution source. (f) Maintaining information. The agricultural employer shall maintain the information specified in paragraph (a) of this section at an appropriate central location, accessible to workers during working hours and readily obtainable in

an emergency. (g) Providing information. The agricultural employer shall provide a written copy of the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section, within a reasonable amount of time, 

### on the request of the worker, a representative of the worker, or medical personnel treating the worker.

4. By adding new § 170.233 to subpart
C, to read as follows:

§ 170.233 Hazard information.
(a) Requirement. The handler employer shall provide hazard information concerning a pesticide, in accordance with this section, to any handler of a pesticide that is being

handled or that has been handled within' the past 30 days or to any handler who may be exposed to the pesticide during

its normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency.

, (b) Format of information. Hazard

information shall be in either one of the following forms:
(1) A Material Safety Data Sheet for the product, or for each active and inert ingredient listed on the label of the product.
(2) A fact sheet that has been prepared or approved by a State or Federal agency for the pesticide. If the chemical ingredients of two or more pesticides are substantially similar, but the specific composition varies and the products present similar hazards, one fact sheet may suffice for these similar products. (c) Content of fact sheets. Each fact sheet shall contain information, expressed in nontechnical terms, except for items specifically targeted towards medical personnel, such as antidotes or emergency treatment. The information

shall include:

### 38174 Federa l Register / Vol. 

### 57, No. 163 / Frid ay, August 21, 1992 / Proposed Rules

(1) Typical brand name(s) of the pesticide, and the chemical name and common name of the pesticide. (2) Information on the physical characteristics of the pesticide, such as: (i) Color, state (solid, liquid, or gas), odor, and comparative volatility. (ii) Comparative flammability and explosivity. (iii) Comparative shelf-life stability, comparative or actual compatibility or incompatibility to possible tank-mix products, and comparative likelihood of decomposing into hazardous

components. (3) Information on the comparative toxicity of the pesticide: (i) The comparative acute toxicity for the pesticide when swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin, expressed in terms of the relative category (highly toxic, moderately toxic, slightly toxic, or relatively nontoxic) and corresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on the criteria of § 156.10(h) of this chapter. (ii) The comparative skin irritation potential and eye irritation potential for the pesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (severely, moderately, or slight[y irritating or relatively nonirritating to skin and/or eyes) and corresponding signal word, basing the category and signal word on the criteria of § 156.10(h) of this chapter. (iii) The comparative sensitization category for the pesticide expressed in terms of the relative category (highly, moderately, or slightly likely or relatively unlikely to cause allergic or sensitivity reactions in some individuals). (iv) Symptoms of overexposure. (v) Any chronic or delayed health effects, including tumors, malignancy, or cancer, changes in the genes or chromosomes, birth defects, il[ness or death (miscarriage or stillbirth) to a fetus, infertility or sterility in men or women, blood disorders, nerve or brain disorders, skin disorders, liver and kidney disorders, and/or lung and 

### respiratory disorders. (vi) Whether the pesticide has been found to be a potential cancer causing agent by a government agency or recognized medical organization. The

-sources that must be considered include

the latest editions of the National Toxicology Program Annual Report on Carcinogens (NTP), the International Agency for Research on Cancer , Monographs (IARC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and EPA. (vii) Medical conditions that may be aggravated by exposure to the product. (viii) Emergency and first aid procedures for each applicable route of exposure, i.e., oral, dermal, inhalation, and eye. ,(ix) Information for physicians on the antidote, if any, and other applicable

i.nformation for medical treatment. (x) The types of exposure limits that laave been established for the pesticide. 'The exposure limits that must be iinvestigated include the OSHA ;Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) and •the EPA restricted-entry interval (REI). .Any other known and applicable iexposure limit used or recommended by the manufacturer, formulator, importer Or a governmental agency must also be

noted. All listed limits must be accompanied by a reference source to permit more detailed information to be

obtained. (4) Information on any special protection needed in handling the product such as use of personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and workplace practices for the pesticide:

~ , (i) Situations where personal protective equipment or engineering

controls should be used. I(ii) Body protection, including the type of clothing to be worn during exposures, such as mixing/loading, cleaning of equipment, and other handling

situations. .(iii) Hand and foot protection needed, including specific material, if known,

that is chemical-resistant to the pesticide or typical carrier solvent. (iv) Eye protection. ; (v) Respiratory protection, including, if known, the specific respirator type (dust/mist filtering, vapor/gas-removing, or air-supplied) and the Mine Safety and

'Health Administration/National institiite for Occupational Safety and Health (MSHA/NIOSH) approval number prefix assigned to equipment that is protective for the pesticide for exposures outdoors and in enclosed

areas. (vi) Recommendations for ventilating enclosed areas, if appropriate. (vii) Any other personal protective equipment that would be appropriate for specific exposure situations. (viii) Recommended engineering controls, such as closed systems, enclosed cockpits, or enclosed cabs. (ix) Other special protection information or special workplace , practices. (5) Information on spill or leak cleanup procedures and disposal

methods for excess chemical and for

containers. (6) The date the fact sheet was prepared or revised to its present form. 1(7) The telephone number of the

National Pesticide Telecommunications Network and the name, address, and

: telephone number of the manufacturer, formulator, importer, or responsible party, if known, who could provide

additional information about the formulated product or the active/inert ingredient and about appropriate emergency procedures.
(8) If relevant information for any given category on the fact sheet is not obtainable, the category shall be marked

to so indicate.

(d) Accuracy of information on the 

### fact sheet and updates. (1) The entity preparing the fact sheet shall ensure that .the information recorded accurately reflects the scientific evidence used in , malcing the hazard determination or

shall ensure that the information recorded accurately reflects the information published on the manufacturer's Material Safety Data Sheet or the pesticide registrant's product labeling.
(2) If the entity preparing the fact sheet becomes aware of any significant information regarding its hazards or

those of its formulations or the inert ingredients, one of the following actions is required:

(i) The new information shall be

added to the fact sheet within 3 months.

(ii) If the pesticide is not being produced or imported currently, the

information shall be added to the fact sheet before the formulated product is

introduced or reintroduced into the workplace.
(e) Obtaining information. If a fact sheet or Material Safety Data Sheet forthe formulated product or for each labellisted active and inert ingredient in the formulated product is not available at the time the product is purchased, the handler employer shall take appropriate and timely steps to obtain the Material Safety Data Sheet or fact sheet from the distributor, the manufacturer, a State or Federal agency, or another distribution

source. (f) Maintaining information. The handler employer shall maintain the information specified in paragraph (a) of this section at an appropriate central location, accessible to handlers during working hours and readily obtainabie in

an emergency: (g) Providing information. The handler employer shall provide a written copy of the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section, within a reasonable amount of time, on the request of the handler, a representative of the handler, or medical personnel treating the

handler.

[FR Doc. 92-20006 Filed 8-19-92; 10:31 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-FFederal Register / Vol. 57, No: 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Proposed Rules 

### 38175

40 CFR Part 170

[OPP-300164E; FRL-4160-71



### Exception to Worker Protection Standard Eariy Entry Prohibition for

Hand Labor Tasks 

### Performed on Cut 

### Flowers and Cut 

### Ferns

AQENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTtON: Proposed exception to rule; request for comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is considering an exception to the Worker Protection Standard, published elsewhere in this

issue 

### of the Federal Register, that would allow, under specified conditions, early entry to perform routine hand labor

tasks on cut flowers and cut ferns.

DATES: Comments, data, or evidence

should be submitted on or before September 21,1992.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in triplicate and addressed to the Document Control Officer (H7506C),

Office 

### of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

All comments should bear the

document control number OPP-300164E and will be available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the OPP Document Control Office, Rm.1132, Crystal Mall #2,1921 Jefferson Davis 1°Iighway, Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James J. Boland, Acting Chief, Occupational Safety Branch (H7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703)

305-7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 170.112(e)(2) of the Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR part 170), which is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, provides a mechanism for considering exceptions to the provision in the Standard prohibiting early entry to perform

routine hand labor tasks. Information that the Agency received from the cut flower and cut fern industry during the comment period for the Notice 

### of Proposed Rulemaking for 40 CFR parts
156 and 170, the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural pesticides, has persuaded EPA that there could be substantial economic repercussions if

routine hand labor tasks were prohibited during the restricted-entry interval. The Agency has reviewed the information received on the subject and is inclined to grant an exception to such a prohibition for this industry, because, in light of the economic benefits and new conditions of entry that would be imposed, the Agency believes it is likely that early entry would not pose

unreasonable risks to workers in this industry.



### II. Evidence

Rose growers (and other cut flower growers) opposed the proposed restricted-entry intervals because of the

economic burden that would result to their industry. Several comments emphasized the need to cut the roses twice a day, 365 days a year. The comments stated that roses are sprayed on a weekly or biweekly basis and that not cutting flowers 26 to 50 days a year would be economically disastrous. One grower estimated that a 1 to 2-day restricted-entry interval would cause at least a 10- to 15-percent crop loss. Roses;'Inc., estimated the crop loss would represent 14 percent of annual sales or, on average, a loss of more than $35,000 per year per acre. Several comments suggested that reentry for tending floral crops be allowed after sprays dry, in normal work attire, for not more than 3 hours per worker per day. Others requested that entry to treated areas be allowed for not more than 1 hour in 24 hours per

worker so that flowers could be tended.

III. Agency's Preliminary Findings

The Agency believes that the cut flower and cut fern industry must have frequent access to harvest and tend to this time-sensitive crop. However, the Agency has no basis for reducing or eliminating restricted-entry intervals on these crops. EPA is not aware of any substitute practice that could be used to

avoid the economic burden to the industry. The Agency believes that the projected economic costs due to a prohibition of early entry to perform hand labor tasks are higher than the costs of sending workers in during the restricted-entry interval and providing them with the required early entry protections, including decontaminationfacilities, specific information, heatstress avoidance, and providing, cleaning, and maintaining the personai protective equipment.

To avoid excessive economic burden to the cut flower industry, the Agency is inclined to allow early entry, under certain conditions, to perform hand labor tasks on cut flowers or cut ferns, such as harvesting, pruning, disbudding, and watering. The Agency believes that, in this situation, the use of personal protective equipment, accompanied by a limitation on worker-exposure time, accessible decontamination facilities, label-specific and general pesticide safety instruction, and, often; shade and mechanical cooling devices, will reduce, the risk of excessive pesticide exposure for these workers. The Agency expects this exception would have no geographic or time limitations, because these crops are throughout the country

and EPA has no basis to believe a time limitation is appropriate. The following

additional factors also influenced the Agency's tentative conclusion: (1) Personal protective equipment would be worn for only limited periods of time because the tasks to be perfoimed are of short duration; (2) the tasks to be performed could be accomplished in a reasonably efficient manner while wearing personal protective equipment, including coveralls, chemical-resistant gloves (possibly underneath leather gloves), chemical-resistant footwear and headgear, and safety glasses; (3) the accessibility, usual in this industry, of running water for decontamination and heat stress alleviation; and (4) the availability, also usual in this industry,
of shade, fans, or other mechanical ventilation to provide some cooling. The Agency is therefore persuaded that early entry with personal protective equipment is feasible and likely to provide adequate reduction of risks to

the workers in the cut flower and cut fern industry.



### IV. Proposed Terms of Exception

Under the exception to § 170.112(a)(1)

of the Worker Protection Standard that the Agency is considering, workers could carry out hand labor tasks

associated with the cultivation and harvesting of cut flowers and cut ferns if the requirements of § 170.112(c)(3) through (c)(9) are met, i.e., (1) No entry takes place for the first 4 hours after the application and, thereafter, until any exposure level listed on the labeling has been reached or any ventilation criteria established by the Worker Protection Standard or in the labeling has been met; (2) the personal protective equipment required for early entry is provided, cleaned, and maintained for the worker; (3) the required decontamination and change areas are provided; (4) the required basic training and label-specific information have been furnished; and (5) measures to prevent heat-related illness are implemented, when appropriate. In addition, for this specific exception for

cut flowers and cut ferns the time in

treated areas for each worker could not exceed 3 hours in any 24-hour period.



### V. Comments Solicited

The Agency is interested in a full range of comments and information on38176 

### Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Proposed Rules

this proposed exception and grants 30 days for interested parties to comment. The Agency particularly welcomes comments supported by information, such as evidence demonstrating whether

the risks to workers would be acceptable, whether the use of personai protective equipment in these circumstances would be feasible, and

whether there are feasible alternative practices that would make routine early E:ntry unnecessary. The Agency also would welcome any additional information concerning the likely e conomic impact on this industry of a prohibition of routine hand labor tasks during the restricted-entry intervals.

Dated: August 13, 1992.

William K. Reilly,

Administrotor.

[FR Doc. 92-20007 Filed 8-19-92; 10:31 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

\

*U.3. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFHICE: 1994 - 515-003/01001