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 Register / 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 have 

substantial 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 addressed 

many 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 area 

before 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 the 

development 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 the 

protections 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 entry 

by 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 available 

to 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 percent 
38106 Federal Register / Vol. 57, lvo. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 

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 of 

additional 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 line 
4 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 Regulations 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 exposure 

hazards 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 Register / Vol. 57, ' No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992f 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 residues 

have 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 selected 

pesticides. 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 equipped 

with 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 ; 

138112 Federal Register / Vol. 57, PJo. 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, not 

ciinly 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 Agency 

considers 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 be 

sufficient 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 ations 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 typical 

conditions 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 Regulations 

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

a

reas" 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 that 

application-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, August21, 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 reasonable 

choice, 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 oral 

notification 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 cleaning 

options. 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 III 

and IV and recommended that earlyentry PPE for these pesticides should be 

normal work attire plus chemicalresistant gloves because many of these 

chemicals are skin irritants. Others 

requested 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 a 

product-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 head 

covering, 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 / Rulesand 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 and 

early-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 require 

chemical-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 that 

multiple-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 suitable 

puncture-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 to 

reconsider 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 be 

contaminated 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 be 

stored 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 to 

clean 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 employers 

could 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 permitted 

to 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 essential 

components 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 handlers 

and 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 
38126 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 little 

to 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 
38128 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 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 that 

the 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 38129 

comprehensive as the program required 

by this regulation. 

After considering these comments, the 

Agency has decided that the most 

relevant trainer qualification is previous 

training in pesticide use and safety. 

Certified applicators, whether private or 

commercial, would have some 

knowledge and experience in pesticide 

handling; with the assistance of written 

and audiovisual materials they should 

be able to respond to most questions on 

this topic. The Agency believes that 

most agricultural establishments either 

employ a certified applicator or contract 

for the services of a certified applicator 

in the course of business. Therefore, the 

Agency does not expect that a large 

number of people will need to obtain 

certification to act as trainers under this 

part. The Agency also does not envision 

or promote the idea that agricultural 

employers will use the certification 

system as an alternative to this handler 

training requirement. 

A person designated as a qualified 

trainer of certified applicators or 

pesticide handlers by a State, Tribal, or 

Federal agency having jurisdiction is 

eligible to be a trainer under part 170. 

EPA is also persuaded by the comments 

that stated that a trainer could be a 

person who has completed a train-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 of Labeling Information 

1. Access to labeling. The Agency 

proposed that any information from the 

labeling of any pesticide that is being 

used be provided upon request to the 

handler. This requirement was intended 

to provide handlers with 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 / Vol. 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. 57,No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 38131 

170. Some suggested that cholinesterase 

monitoring be an option rather than a 

requirement; voluntarily implemented 

programs probably would be more 

successful than imposed programs. 

Most respondents supported the 

Agency's proposed "trigger" of 3 

consecutive days or any 6 days of 

exposure in a 21-day period. Some, 

however, stated that while a day-based 

trigger may be of use in detecting 

adverse health effects over time, it is of 

limited use in addressing accident 

situations or brief overexposure; a 

symptom-based trigger is too ill defined 

for use as a regulatory tool and could be 

confusing to both the employer and the 

supervising physician as to its 

applicability. One comment stated that a 

trigger based on hours (rather than 

days) of exposure would be a more 

rational way of including the highly 

exposed. Some comments suggested 

alternative triggers. A few reviewers 

stated that the Agency had given no 

rationale for the trigger chosen and 

asked how it had been determined. One 

suggested that determining the ideal 

trigger would have to wait until more 

data were available. Some comments 

suggested eliminating a trigger and 

requiring the testing on a preset 

schedule. 

Many comments, both those for and 

those against a cholinesterase 

monitoring requirement, expressed 

concern about the recordkeeping that 

would be necessary to implement a 

monitoring program and to follow 

migratory and seasonal workers. 

Some comments opposed monitoring 

because of the cost. Two comments 

included estimates that monitoring 

would cost $70 per test or $200 to $400 

per employee over the growing season, 

exclusive of the costs of recordkeeping 

and additional physician fees. Others 

noted that lost work time and cost of 

transporting handlers to a physician's 

office where the test could be performed 

would be a burden to employers. In 

some remote rural areas, the testing 

would necessitate long-distance travel 

to the nearest qualified physician. One 

comment warned that the expense of the 

test and the time off work probably 

would result in this regulation being 

ignored. In contrast, another comment 

stated that the reduced medical 

disability costs among handlers would 

easily outweigh the costs of 

implementing a monitoring program. 

Numerous comments expressed 

concerns regarding the validity and the 

reliability of cholinesterase testing 

methods, the availability of qualified 

laboratories to support a cholinesterase 

monitoring program, and the sufficiency 

of most physicians' knowledge about the 

toxicity of pesticides and ability to 

interpret the results of cholinesterase 

tests properly. 

The Agency is concerned about many 

of the problems of cholinesterase 

monitoring, including the difficulty in 

finding knowledgeable physicians to set 

up monitoring programs and qualified 

laboratories to perform the analyses. 

The comments noted that a quality 

control program for laboratories would 

be needed nationwide if a monitoring 

program were to be successful. EPA is 

not prepared to establish such a 

program nationwide at this time. 

The Agency believes that despite the 

practical difficulties associated with a 

nationwide program, the monitoring of 

employee exposure is a prudent 

occupational health practice and 

encourages employers wishing to 

operate such programs. To facilitate 

voluntary programs, the Agency has 

required that pesticides that contain 

cholinesterase-inhibiting compounds be 

identified as such in the labeling of the 

product. The Agency also is interested 

in cooperating in research or 

evaluations that might be done on new 

or existing exposure monitoring 

programs. 

The Agency is concerned, however, 

that even reliable blood-level 

cholinesterase monitoring often would 

not prevent pesticide poisoning 

incidents. Blood samples are taken at 

intervals—weekly, biweekly, or 

monthly—during the exposure season; 

the handler may accumulate enough 

exposure between samples to become 

ill. In addition; the delay between 

sampling and the evaluation of the test 

results is such that most handlers will 

receive more exposure before the test 

results are known. Before such a 

monitoring system can indicate that 

handlers should be removed from 

further exposure to 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, August 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 areas 

prior 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 expressed 

concern 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 / Friday, August 21, 1992/ Rules and Regulations 

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 perform 

hand labor tasks applies to Stateestablished REIs. 

Response: States determine the 

restrictions 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 perform 

hand 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 drinking 

purposes. 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 intended 

as temporary safeguards until productspecific reviews are conducted. At that 

time, the Agency anticipates that longer 

REIs will be established on some of the 

products, 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 Register / Vol. 57,: No. 163 / Friday, August 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 the 

expiration 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 the 

necessary 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 days 

after 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 Register / Vol. 57,No. 163 / Friday, August 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 and 

nurseries 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 signs 

and symbols must use the EPAmandated sign. (2) Mandatory worker 

training programs must explain the 

symbol 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 on 

pesticide 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 how 

soon 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, August 21, 1992/ Rules and Regulations 

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 (40 

CFR 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 determining 

the 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 more 

protective 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 unless 

there 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. In 

addition, 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 Register / 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 registrant 

compliance 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,August 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 that 

allow 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, to 

Chief, 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 dRegulations 38147 

§ 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/m3is 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 Register / Vol. 5:7, No. 163 / Friday, August 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 toxicity 

category 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 signal 

word 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 

Rviite 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 minimum4 

Inhalation Toxicity Respiratory protection Respiratory protection No minimum" No minimum4 

device3 device 3 

Eye Irritalion Potential Protective eyewear Protective eyewear No minimum4 No minimum4 

' 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. 

4 Although no minimum PPE is required by this section for this toxicity category and route of exposure, the Agency may require PPE on a product-specific basis. 

(f) Chemical-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 must 

specify 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 glove 

statement 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, the 

glove 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 indicates 
y 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, and 

there is no requirement for a chemicalresistant protective suit, the following 

statement shall be included: "For 

Cleaning 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 of 

personal 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 Register / 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 to 

pesticide 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 any 

restricted-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, August 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 are 

applied 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 with 

the 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, it 

shall 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, thereafter 

they 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 product 

labeling, 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 Register / Vol. 57, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 1992f Rules and Regulations 

time-sensitive hand labor tasks for the 

period for which the exception is sought. 

(iv) A description of the geographic 

area for which the exception is 

requested. If the exception request is for 

a limited geographic area, the 

explanation must include a description 

as to why the circumstances of exposure 

or economic impact resulting from the 

prohibition of routine hand labor tasks 

during the restricted-entry interval are 

unique to the geographic area named in 

the exception. 

(v) An explanation as to why, for each 

requested crop-task combination, 

alternative practices would not be 

technically or financially viable. Such 

alternative practices might include: 

rescheduling the pesticide application or 

hand labor activity; using a 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 

iconcurrently 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-F 
li 

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 exposure 

period 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 Federal Register / Vol. 57, , No. 163 / Friday, 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 assures 

that 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 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)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 Register / 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, leather 

gloves 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, long 

pants, 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 during 

application, 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, long 

pants, shoes, and socks for labelingspecified personal protective equipment. 

(7) Crop advisors. Crop advisors 

entering 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-removing 

respirators 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 ./ Rules 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 one 

exception. 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 communication 

requirements for the agricultural sector. 

One comment stated that EPA should 

"yield" to the HCS and "fill in 

elsewhere" as necessary, while another 

felt that OSHA should cover all aspects 

of worker safety. Several comments 

proposed a specific division of 

regulatory authority between the 

agencies, under which the EPA would 

cover workers at agricultural pesticide 

use sites, including both handlers and 

workers who are exposed to residues, 

while OSHA would cover 

"downstream" nonagricultural workers, 

those exposures to residues other than 

at agricultural use sites. 

While pesticide users anticipated 

confusion over which rules they should 

follow, some State agencies were 

concerned about the division of 

responsibility for programs and 

enforcement at the State government 

level. The situation would be 

complicated because a given State could 

be participating in an EPA State Plan, an 

OSHA State Plan, both, or neither. One 

State agency asked for either a formal 

jurisdictional division at the Federal 

level which each State would be 

required to implement, or an alternative 

"flexible approach" allowing 

cooperation among pesticide lead 

agencies and occupational safety and 

health agencies in each State. One 

comment stated that regardless of which 

agency issued regulations, enforcement 

would be "complaint-driven" rather 

than based on inspections, and was 

concerned that EPA did not have an 

OSHA-type complainant protection 

system. 

Comments from the Texas 

Department of Agriculture (TDA), the 

lead agency in that State for pesticides, 

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 requirement 

to 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 be 

designed 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 forti 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 protective 

equipment 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 LC50 or 

other quantitative values could also 

appear on the fact sheet, but standard 

descriptive terms would be mandatory. 

The Agency is also inclined to require 

that fact sheets express delayed-onset 

toxicity concerns in a comparative 

manner and to require that the fact sheet 

simply state whether any government 

agency or recognized medical 

organization has listed the pesticide or 

any of its ingredients as a potential 

carcinogen, rather than list each agency 

or organization separately. In any case, 

EPA is inclined to require that fact 

sheets incorporate simplified language 

for these effects, such as: tumor-causing 

in lieu of oncogenic; birth-defect-causing 

in lieu of teratogenic; injury to fetus in 

lieu of embryotoxic or fetotoxic; injury 

to pregnant females in lieu of maternally 

toxic; injury to 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 shirt 

and 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 pesticide 

containers. 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 Federal Register / Vol.57, No. 163 / Friday, 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 to 

the 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 i38173 

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 for 

the 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 Federal Register / Vol.57, No. 163 / Friday, 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 for 

the 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-F 
Federal 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 decontamination 

facilities, 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 on 
38176 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